Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Is Chuck Hagel a Republican?

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 12:06:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://www.cnn.com...

Chuck Hagel is about to go in front of confirmation hearings to become Obama's Secretary of Defense.

He's a Republican, one that openly mocked Bush's policy in Iraq. (notice trend here, Shinseki, Biden, now Hagel, in Obama's cabinet).

Apparently this has become a partisan issue:

"The CNN poll indicated a partisan divide, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats saying Hagel should be confirmed. That number drops to 44% among independents and 32% among Republicans."

Thoughts and opinions on Hagel?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 1:28:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Robert McNamara was a pretty staunch Republican when Kennedy appointed him as Secretary of Defense.

On second thought, that didn't work out so well. Never mind.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:52:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"According to an account that Hagel later gave, and is reported here for the first time, he told Obama: "We are at a time where there is a new world order."

"We don"t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they" - the military and diplomats - "tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for."

In response, Hagel is said to have noted "The president has not had commander-in-chief control of the Pentagon since Bush senior was president."

"If Hagel is confirmed, as appears likely, he and the president will have a large task in navigating this new world order."

http://www.washingtonpost.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 2:58:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:52:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"According to an account that Hagel later gave, and is reported here for the first time, he told Obama: "We are at a time where there is a new world order."

"We don"t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they" - the military and diplomats - "tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for."

In response, Hagel is said to have noted "The president has not had commander-in-chief control of the Pentagon since Bush senior was president."

"If Hagel is confirmed, as appears likely, he and the president will have a large task in navigating this new world order."

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Why am I not surprised? Of COURSE he's NWO! Who isn't these days?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:58:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:52:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"According to an account that Hagel later gave, and is reported here for the first time, he told Obama: "We are at a time where there is a new world order."

"We don"t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they" - the military and diplomats - "tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for."

In response, Hagel is said to have noted "The president has not had commander-in-chief control of the Pentagon since Bush senior was president."

"If Hagel is confirmed, as appears likely, he and the president will have a large task in navigating this new world order."

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Why am I not surprised? Of COURSE he's NWO! Who isn't these days?

Looks like you failed to read anything. Hagel was speaking against the NWO.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:03:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:58:52 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 1/31/2013 2:52:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"According to an account that Hagel later gave, and is reported here for the first time, he told Obama: "We are at a time where there is a new world order."

"We don"t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they" - the military and diplomats - "tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for."

In response, Hagel is said to have noted "The president has not had commander-in-chief control of the Pentagon since Bush senior was president."

"If Hagel is confirmed, as appears likely, he and the president will have a large task in navigating this new world order."

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Why am I not surprised? Of COURSE he's NWO! Who isn't these days?

I may be wrong, but I don't think that was what Geo was saying.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:05:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't really know anything about the guy, but if those quotes are true, perhaps we might be looking at more self-concious military policy in the future, instead of the blatant evil perpetuated now.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:09:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*ehem*

Apologizes. I read it like him and Obama would be navigating, as in controlling it.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:14:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:09:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
*ehem*

Apologizes. I read it like him and Obama would be navigating, as in controlling it.

To be fair to you, some of it was confusingly worded.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:19:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Are the GOP not angry at Obama?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:21:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:19:21 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Are the GOP not angry at Obama?

Not so much at foreign policy. Did you see the Romney Obama debate? They agreed on everything except that Romney wanted an even bigger military.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:23:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Please explain why, whilst not making yourself look like an idiot.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:24:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:21:50 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:19:21 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Are the GOP not angry at Obama?

Not so much at foreign policy. Did you see the Romney Obama debate? They agreed on everything except that Romney wanted an even bigger military.

Valid point.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 3:44:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:23:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Please explain why, whilst not making yourself look like an idiot.

I've been a strong advocate of the Republican party these past 6 months, but all this Muslim bashing and warmongering reminded me why I disliked the Republicans in the first place.

Why should we be borrowing and printing billions, spending billions, to give weapons to Al Queda in Syria, give 20 F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood, send troops and drones to terrorize people in 7 countries across the Middle East?!

McCain wants to be at war for 100 years! How is that rational?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 4:15:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:44:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:23:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Please explain why, whilst not making yourself look like an idiot.

I've been a strong advocate of the Republican party these past 6 months, but all this Muslim bashing and warmongering reminded me why I disliked the Republicans in the first place.

I haven't noticed a lot of warmongering among the gop. Moat foreign policy positions are aimed at preventing war, not causing it.
Why should we be borrowing and printing billions, spending billions, to give weapons to Al Queda in Syria, give 20 F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood, send troops and drones to terrorize people in 7 countries across the Middle East?!

We're giving weapons to Syria now? If so, I doubt thats endorsed by the GOP. Yea, the F-16s are probably a bad idea, but giving aid to Egypt ensures we have diplomatic leverage against them in the future, should they pursue interests contrary to our own.

Drone use has been effective at destroying terrorist threats in other countries without requiring a massive troop deployment. Its a smart tactic.
McCain wants to be at war for 100 years! How is that rational?
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:22:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:44:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:23:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Please explain why, whilst not making yourself look like an idiot.

I've been a strong advocate of the Republican party these past 6 months, but all this Muslim bashing and warmongering reminded me why I disliked the Republicans in the first place.

Why should we be borrowing and printing billions, spending billions, to give weapons to Al Queda in Syria, give 20 F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood, send troops and drones to terrorize people in 7 countries across the Middle East?!

McCain wants to be at war for 100 years! How is that rational?

Well McCain was born during the Bronze Age so 100 years to him is like 3 years to humans.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:37:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 2:52:01 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
"According to an account that Hagel later gave, and is reported here for the first time, he told Obama: "We are at a time where there is a new world order."

"We don"t control it. You must question everything, every assumption, everything they" - the military and diplomats - "tell you. Any assumption 10 years old is out of date. You need to question our role. You need to question the military. You need to question what are we using the military for."

In response, Hagel is said to have noted "The president has not had commander-in-chief control of the Pentagon since Bush senior was president."

"If Hagel is confirmed, as appears likely, he and the president will have a large task in navigating this new world order."

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Nice article Geo, thanks.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:40:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When I interviewed President Obama in the summer of 2010 for my book "Obama"s Wars," his deeply rooted aversion to war was evident. As I reported in the book, I handed Obama a copy of a quotation from Rick Atkinson"s World War II history, "The Day of Battle," and asked him to read it. Obama stood and read:

"And then there was the saddest lesson, to be learned again and again . . . that war is corrupting, that it corrodes the soul and tarnishes the spirit, that even the excellent and the superior can be defiled, and that no heart would remain unstained."

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Excellent words.

Again, thanks Geo for the article.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 5:48:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 4:15:01 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:44:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:23:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Please explain why, whilst not making yourself look like an idiot.

I've been a strong advocate of the Republican party these past 6 months, but all this Muslim bashing and warmongering reminded me why I disliked the Republicans in the first place.

I haven't noticed a lot of warmongering among the gop. Moat foreign policy positions are aimed at preventing war, not causing it.
Why should we be borrowing and printing billions, spending billions, to give weapons to Al Queda in Syria, give 20 F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood, send troops and drones to terrorize people in 7 countries across the Middle East?!

We're giving weapons to Syria now? If so, I doubt thats endorsed by the GOP. Yea, the F-16s are probably a bad idea, but giving aid to Egypt ensures we have diplomatic leverage against them in the future, should they pursue interests contrary to our own.

Drone use has been effective at destroying terrorist threats in other countries without requiring a massive troop deployment. Its a smart tactic.
McCain wants to be at war for 100 years! How is that rational?

I think what Geo is referring to is the knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and the penchant for the far right to advocate holy war.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 7:40:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 12:06:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Chuck Hagel is about to go in front of confirmation hearings to become Obama's Secretary of Defense.

He's a Republican, one that openly mocked Bush's policy in Iraq. (notice trend here, Shinseki, Biden, now Hagel, in Obama's cabinet).

Apparently this has become a partisan issue:

"The CNN poll indicated a partisan divide, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats saying Hagel should be confirmed. That number drops to 44% among independents and 32% among Republicans."

Thoughts and opinions on Hagel?

It seems that Senator Hagel has a very distinctive view of how the U.S. should behave oversea. He is in favor of engaging in talks with Iran & North Korean. He also believes that nuclear armed Iran is acceptable. He wants to establish communications with Hezbollah in Gaza strip as well. Despite his remarks on Gay and Israel, Hagel's confirmation would amount to a foreign policy disaster, I think.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 9:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Any foreign policy guy that angers whoever is in power is probably good for the country.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2013 10:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 9:04:21 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/31/2013 3:18:20 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Any foreign policy guy that angers Republicans is probably good for the country.

Any foreign policy guy that angers whoever is in power is probably good for the country.
So Rumsfeld then.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 9:47:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/31/2013 7:40:53 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:06:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Chuck Hagel is about to go in front of confirmation hearings to become Obama's Secretary of Defense.

He's a Republican, one that openly mocked Bush's policy in Iraq. (notice trend here, Shinseki, Biden, now Hagel, in Obama's cabinet).

Apparently this has become a partisan issue:

"The CNN poll indicated a partisan divide, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats saying Hagel should be confirmed. That number drops to 44% among independents and 32% among Republicans."

Thoughts and opinions on Hagel?

It seems that Senator Hagel has a very distinctive view of how the U.S. should behave oversea. He is in favor of engaging in talks with Iran & North Korean. He also believes that nuclear armed Iran is acceptable. He wants to establish communications with Hezbollah in Gaza strip as well. Despite his remarks on Gay and Israel, Hagel's confirmation would amount to a foreign policy disaster, I think.

What makes his confirmation amount to a foreign policy disaster?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 10:10:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 9:47:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 7:40:53 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:06:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Chuck Hagel is about to go in front of confirmation hearings to become Obama's Secretary of Defense.

He's a Republican, one that openly mocked Bush's policy in Iraq. (notice trend here, Shinseki, Biden, now Hagel, in Obama's cabinet).

Apparently this has become a partisan issue:

"The CNN poll indicated a partisan divide, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats saying Hagel should be confirmed. That number drops to 44% among independents and 32% among Republicans."

Thoughts and opinions on Hagel?

It seems that Senator Hagel has a very distinctive view of how the U.S. should behave oversea. He is in favor of engaging in talks with Iran & North Korean. He also believes that nuclear armed Iran is acceptable. He wants to establish communications with Hezbollah in Gaza strip as well. Despite his remarks on Gay and Israel, Hagel's confirmation would amount to a foreign policy disaster, I think.

What makes his confirmation amount to a foreign policy disaster?
His view on American leadership and the role of military that would play in the international affair:
The most immediate threat facing the Defense Department is sequestration, which, if allowed to occur, will result in drastic across-the-board cuts to most major budget accounts. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has stated that these cuts would have a "catastrophic" and "devastating" effect on the military. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that we are "on the brink of creating a hollow force." I couldn"t agree more.

Chuck Hagel, however, does not seem to share this view. In stark contrast, the Financial Times reported in December that he said, "There"s a tremendous amount of bloat in the Pentagon, and that has to be scaled back." I strongly disagree and believe that averting the outcomes of defense sequestration must be the government"s top priority.

And on many of the security challenges facing U.S. interests around the world, Hagel"s record is deeply troubling. Too often, it seems, he is willing to subscribe to a worldview that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends.
In 2000, when nearly every senator joined a letter to President Bill Clinton affirming U.S. solidarity with Israel in the face of Palestinian aggression, Hagel was one of just four who refused to sign. In 2001, he was one of just two senators who voted against a bill extending harsh sanctions against Iran.

A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iran"s membership in the World Trade Organization. On multiple occasions, including in his 2008 book, he has advocated direct negotiations with Iran, a country using multiple means to foment regional instability and threaten the security of Israel.
Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement, which seeks a world free of nuclear weapons. At a time when North Korea"s belligerent actions threaten our allies and Iran"s pursuit of a nuclear-weapons capability risks the stability of the Middle East, the security of our nation and that of our allies require the United States to be vigilant with our nuclear weapons and defense systems.

The Senate ratified the New START treaty in 2010 only on the condition that President Obama would carry out a nuclear modernization program. Yet Hagel was a commissioner on a May 2012 Global Zero report on modernizing U.S. nuclear strategy, force structure and posture. Not only does that report not fully support the president"s commitment to nuclear modernization but it also advocates the assumption of extreme risk to our national security, including possible unilateral nuclear disarmament. Given the premises and conclusions of the Global Zero report, how can we in Congress be confident that he will carry out the modernization efforts required to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent?
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2013 11:46:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 10:10:22 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/1/2013 9:47:07 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/31/2013 7:40:53 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 1/31/2013 12:06:10 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.cnn.com...

Chuck Hagel is about to go in front of confirmation hearings to become Obama's Secretary of Defense.

He's a Republican, one that openly mocked Bush's policy in Iraq. (notice trend here, Shinseki, Biden, now Hagel, in Obama's cabinet).

Apparently this has become a partisan issue:

"The CNN poll indicated a partisan divide, with nearly two-thirds of Democrats saying Hagel should be confirmed. That number drops to 44% among independents and 32% among Republicans."

Thoughts and opinions on Hagel?

It seems that Senator Hagel has a very distinctive view of how the U.S. should behave oversea. He is in favor of engaging in talks with Iran & North Korean. He also believes that nuclear armed Iran is acceptable. He wants to establish communications with Hezbollah in Gaza strip as well. Despite his remarks on Gay and Israel, Hagel's confirmation would amount to a foreign policy disaster, I think.

What makes his confirmation amount to a foreign policy disaster?

His view on American leadership and the role of military that would play in the international affair:
The most immediate threat facing the Defense Department is sequestration, which, if allowed to occur, will result in drastic across-the-board cuts to most major budget accounts. Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has stated that these cuts would have a "catastrophic" and "devastating" effect on the military. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has stated that we are "on the brink of creating a hollow force." I couldn"t agree more.

Chuck Hagel, however, does not seem to share this view. In stark contrast, the Financial Times reported in December that he said, "There"s a tremendous amount of bloat in the Pentagon, and that has to be scaled back." I strongly disagree and believe that averting the outcomes of defense sequestration must be the government"s top priority.

And on many of the security challenges facing U.S. interests around the world, Hagel"s record is deeply troubling. Too often, it seems, he is willing to subscribe to a worldview that is predicated on appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends.
In 2000, when nearly every senator joined a letter to President Bill Clinton affirming U.S. solidarity with Israel in the face of Palestinian aggression, Hagel was one of just four who refused to sign. In 2001, he was one of just two senators who voted against a bill extending harsh sanctions against Iran.

A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iran"s membership in the World Trade Organization. On multiple occasions, including in his 2008 book, he has advocated direct negotiations with Iran, a country using multiple means to foment regional instability and threaten the security of Israel.
Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero Movement, which seeks a world free of nuclear weapons. At a time when North Korea"s belligerent actions threaten our allies and Iran"s pursuit of a nuclear-weapons capability risks the stability of the Middle East, the security of our nation and that of our allies require the United States to be vigilant with our nuclear weapons and defense systems.

The Senate ratified the New START treaty in 2010 only on the condition that President Obama would carry out a nuclear modernization program. Yet Hagel was a commissioner on a May 2012 Global Zero report on modernizing U.S. nuclear strategy, force structure and posture. Not only does that report not fully support the president"s commitment to nuclear modernization but it also advocates the assumption of extreme risk to our national security, including possible unilateral nuclear disarmament. Given the premises and conclusions of the Global Zero report, how can we in Congress be confident that he will carry out the modernization efforts required to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent?
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Interesting, thanks for the article.

1) It's an op-ed written by the Republican heading the opposition to Hagel's appointment. I'm not going to say he is flat out wrong, but there is evident bias and easily the possibility that he is advancing a political agenda as opposed to actually advancing Hagel's foreign policy credentials.

2) About "unilateral" nuclear disarmament, this got me interested enough to look at what Hagel actually said about this in the report. There are no quotes at all from Hagel, and on page one in the report:

"President barack Obama, President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister David Cameron, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and UN Secretary- General ban ki-moon have endorsed Global Zero, with Obama declaring, "Global Zero will always have a partner in me and my administration.""
(it won't allow me to link the pdf, it should be in the article you cited, the "May 2012 report")

Therefore, I have to conclude that Hagel's appointment is not a change in the Obama administration's stance on nuclear proliferation.

I will say that there is a tradeoff. The nuclear material in nuclear weapons can be used for civilian purposes. There can be a substantial tradeoff in that non-proliferation can lead to a lot more nuclear material for power generation. And, like nearly everything now, China is ahead of the curve here.

3) On Iran, I see two paths - peace or war. We are going on the path to war, without necessarily questioning whether or not there is a valid path to peace. This is a result of Bush's "axis of evil" comments, and I think this is something that merits a second look, especially given how Iraq has played out. I will side with Hagel on this (although I am not clear what his exact position is on it).
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 2:57:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/1/2013 11:46:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting, thanks for the article.

1) It's an op-ed written by the Republican heading the opposition to Hagel's appointment. I'm not going to say he is flat out wrong, but there is evident bias and easily the possibility that he is advancing a political agenda as opposed to actually advancing Hagel's foreign policy credentials.

2) About "unilateral" nuclear disarmament, this got me interested enough to look at what Hagel actually said about this in the report. There are no quotes at all from Hagel, and on page one in the report:

"President barack Obama, President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister David Cameron, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and UN Secretary- General ban ki-moon have endorsed Global Zero, with Obama declaring, "Global Zero will always have a partner in me and my administration.""
(it won't allow me to link the pdf, it should be in the article you cited, the "May 2012 report")

Therefore, I have to conclude that Hagel's appointment is not a change in the Obama administration's stance on nuclear proliferation.

I will say that there is a tradeoff. The nuclear material in nuclear weapons can be used for civilian purposes. There can be a substantial tradeoff in that non-proliferation can lead to a lot more nuclear material for power generation. And, like nearly everything now, China is ahead of the curve here.

3) On Iran, I see two paths - peace or war. We are going on the path to war, without necessarily questioning whether or not there is a valid path to peace. This is a result of Bush's "axis of evil" comments, and I think this is something that merits a second look, especially given how Iraq has played out. I will side with Hagel on this (although I am not clear what his exact position is on it).

The pleasure is mine.
Indeed, the op-ed was written by a Republican heading the opposition to Hagel"s appointment. As a matter of fact, Senator Jim Inhofe was one of the three Republicans who voted against Kerry"s nomination. But even if Senator Inhofe"s judgements were partially clouded by his ideological commitments. he may yet speak the truth. What is particularly troublesome about Senator Hagel is that he does not seem to grasp the nature of the conflict. His confirmation hearing shed more light on the man:

"Hagel is also on the wrong side of the history when it comes to Iran. He remains committed to unconditional engagement with a regime that has contemptuously spurned the efforts of Obama Administration to engage it in negotiations over the last four years...
Hagel also stumbled in replying to a question on Iran by Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): "I support the President"s strong position on containment, as I have said." Later, though, he was passed a note from an aide and offered a correction: "I misspoke and said I supported the President"s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don"t have a position containment."
http://blog.heritage.org...

Although one may argue that Senator Hagel is simply not good at being questioned. But as a two-term senator, it is quite unbelievable that he would "misspoke" during a confirmation hearing that he would be very familiar with already. I tend to believe that his initial response on Iran nuclear crisis was true to his heart.

AEI also lists several controversial positions that Senator Hagel endorsed over the years:
1. He thinks Palestinians are kept "caged like animals" by Israel
2. He is not "an Israeli Senator"
3. He is backed by a nexus of groups that support rapprochement with Iran
4. He supports better relations with Hamas and Hezbollah
5. He thinks that the prospect of the sequester will address the problem of a "bloated" Pentagon
6. He has called for an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. Nuclear arsenal.
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

Unlike his positions on Israel, Senator Hagel"s positions on Iran and other terrorist organizations are irrevocable and unambiguous: Senator Hagel prefers containment to military confrontation. It is a troublesome position to take because Iran is not a country that could be persuaded unless military acton is on the table. Besides, containment is a risky and costly policy that may not work as intended. But Senator Hagel seems to believe otherwise.

P.S. As the matter is not bad enough, Iran has announced its intention to expand its ability to enrich uranium rapidly by installing advanced centrifuges at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant...The same conversion using 3,000 of the advanced IR-2m centrifuges would take just 5-8 days to convert near-20% enriched uranium into one weapons"s worth of highly-enriched uranium. Time is running out.
http://www.irantracker.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2013 5:48:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/5/2013 2:57:46 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/1/2013 11:46:09 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Interesting, thanks for the article.

The pleasure is mine.

"Hagel is also on the wrong side of the history when it comes to Iran. He remains committed to unconditional engagement with a regime that has contemptuously spurned the efforts of Obama Administration to engage it in negotiations over the last four years...

You cited a blog here, so there are no rules against utilizing rhetoric, unlike an actual news source.

LOL at the bolded. This is doublespeak. It can mean we will keep an open channel to communication no matter the circumstances (which is how I interpret his meaning). It can also mean total war, which is just another form of engagement.

"Virtually all conversations with Obama administration foreign-policy officials, no matter where they begin, come to rest at "engagement" -- that vexing, mutable, all-purpose word."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com...

Hagel also stumbled in replying to a question on Iran by Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA): "I support the President"s strong position on containment, as I have said." Later, though, he was passed a note from an aide and offered a correction: "I misspoke and said I supported the President"s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don"t have a position containment."
http://blog.heritage.org...

Although one may argue that Senator Hagel is simply not good at being questioned. But as a two-term senator, it is quite unbelievable that he would "misspoke" during a confirmation hearing that he would be very familiar with already. I tend to believe that his initial response on Iran nuclear crisis was true to his heart.

Admittedly I am not well-versed on our position regarding Iran. If I understand the politics surrounding "containment", it assumes a nuclear Iran. I think both sides of the aisle are in agreement that preventing a nuclear Iran through whatever means necessary is a paramount national security issue.

AEI also lists several controversial positions that Senator Hagel endorsed over the years:
1. He thinks Palestinians are kept "caged like animals" by Israel
2. He is not "an Israeli Senator"
3. He is backed by a nexus of groups that support rapprochement with Iran
4. He supports better relations with Hamas and Hezbollah
5. He thinks that the prospect of the sequester will address the problem of a "bloated" Pentagon
6. He has called for an 80 percent reduction in the U.S. Nuclear arsenal.
http://www.aei-ideas.org...

I don't see any links that substantiate Hagel calling for an 80% reduction in the nuclear arsenal. This could be "guilt by association" where perhaps Global Zero (an organization I've already cited as a key Obama position, regardless of Hagel's appointment) advocates an 80% reduction, if not more than that (right? Zero?)

Regarding Palestine/Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc., if they were able to co-exist peacefully within a secular Muslim region, I'd be for this. I'm not for a theocratic government, either in Iran or in Washington.

The Pentagon can use some trimming for the sake of efficiency, IMHO. The key is to ensure that such trimming does not inhibit combat efficiency. For example, like any government agency, the military is famous for its own bloated bureaucracy... this fat can lead to readiness issues. Also, note that he doesn't support the sequester per se, but only the threat of sequester to get the Pentagon to behave.

Unlike his positions on Israel, Senator Hagel"s positions on Iran and other terrorist organizations are irrevocable and unambiguous: Senator Hagel prefers containment to military confrontation. It is a troublesome position to take because Iran is not a country that could be persuaded unless military acton is on the table. Besides, containment is a risky and costly policy that may not work as intended. But Senator Hagel seems to believe otherwise.

I think military action is always on the table, against any country, anywhere, so IMHO your "fears" are unfounded. Regardless, I am not comfortable with our position on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea because it stems from a religious argument, the "Axis of Evil". I think some reasonable negotiation is warranted after the Bush years.

Also, over-focusing on countries like this shifts focus away from the real threats to American national security, a resurgent Russia/China. Iran for its own sake is simply not worth it if it makes us ignore the greater strategic picture.

P.S. As the matter is not bad enough, Iran has announced its intention to expand its ability to enrich uranium rapidly by installing advanced centrifuges at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant...The same conversion using 3,000 of the advanced IR-2m centrifuges would take just 5-8 days to convert near-20% enriched uranium into one weapons"s worth of highly-enriched uranium. Time is running out.
http://www.irantracker.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?