Footwedge;1377122 wrote:And today Lindsey Graham calls Hillbob a murderer. LOL. Oh....and his titties are all wringed up over Hagel today as well. Lindsey Graham...one of the most 2 faced, hypocritical bastards to ever roam the planet.

I can't disagree with your assessment of Graham. The dude is a certified douche nozzle. As for hypocrisy their is plenty of that going around in DC. Your buddy Hagel is no stranger to it as well. As I have previously pointed out in this thread Hagel voted yes on weaker resolutions of force permitting the president to execute a wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and yet did not demand stronger terms to commit the nation to war, such as a formal declaration of a state of war.

Hagel joined right in with the weaker "resolution" wording that landed him in an open ended war in the jungles of Southeast Asia then when things got shitty in Iraq/Afghanistan he runs to the podium claiming Vietnam reincarnate. Hagel is no leader. He is greatly influenced by politics at times. Trust me he is not your savior.

The brilliance of Chuck Hagel once again. Bad news for the mic though. Look for some serious slash/ cutting in the nuclear arenal that has been so over bloated it defies description.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/here-list-radicals-who-agree-chuck-hagel-ending-nukes

Footwedge;1378016 wrote:The brilliance of Chuck Hagel once again. Bad news for the mic though. Look for some serious slash/ cutting in the nuclear arenal that has been so over bloated it defies description.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/here-list-radicals-who-agree-chuck-hagel-ending-nukes

As much I agree with cutting the nukes, we aren't going below 1,000 total (from 5,500 today) in the near future.
Plus, the SECDEF has only once voice in that matter. The President, Joint Chiefs, STRATCOM, and oh yeah, Congress, has a say.

The Global Zero movement is 50-100 years, and gradual moves toward that direction now that does not upset strategic stability.

ptown_trojans_1;1378044 wrote:As much I agree with cutting the nukes, we aren't going below 1,000 total (from 5,500 today) in the near future.
Plus, the SECDEF has only once voice in that matter. The President, Joint Chiefs, STRATCOM, and oh yeah, Congress, has a say.

The Global Zero movement is 50-100 years, and gradual moves toward that direction now that does not upset strategic stability.

I agree with all of what you say. But it's the mindset that is (A) very important and (B) it coincides with what my thread is all about. Change....away from the thinking that expansive, wasteful military expenditures is a-OK. Because it isn't.

Even Hagel admitted in his confirmation hearings this week that this will be a long long process.

Chuck isn't exactly hitting a home run in front of the ASC.

fish82;1378561 wrote:Chuck isn't exactly hitting a home run in front of the ASC.

And John McCain made a complete ass of himself today. Mr. McCain forgets that the totality of the generals at that time overwhelmingly voted against a surge in Iraq....but Bush the 43rd over rode the sentinment of these generals. Mr. Hagel was far too generous to McCain, and should have absolutely torn him a new one on that subject.

Yep...Looks like Chuckles will fit into the Obama team quite nicely :rolleyes::

http://freebeacon.com/hagels-7-worst-moments-in-round-one/

believer;1378797 wrote:Yep...Looks like Chuckles will fit into the Obama team quite nicely :rolleyes::

http://freebeacon.com/hagels-7-worst-moments-in-round-one/

Care to clarify? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What Hagel has said in the past that he was strongly criticized by the same band of neocrazies today was point spot on the money, McCain, Graham and the Lobby ass kissers be damned. Hagel needed to stand up to these assholes and laid a little truth to the realities.

For example, how about referencing the opinions of the Iraqi people on whether the "surge worked". About 12 to 1 said... America, GTFO of our country....even after the so called surge "had worked". In addition, a wide majority of citizens along side of the generals said no to the surge. Hey McCain, how many more dead American soldiers were buried after Pinnochio's surge? Try over 1000.

What Hagel is guilty of today....not his politics of that time frame, but his appeassement to the biggest coddlers to the Israeli Lobby and their continual influence in promoting global hegemony through the force of a gun.

The filthy, disgusting McCain, Graham and others need to listen to the families of our fallen troops...over that time period. Let them tell the neoslobs whether or not the surge worked.

^^^Graduated magna cum laude from Ahmadinejad University.

When McCain demanded a yes or no answer from Hagel regarding the surge...his response should have been along these lines.

"With all due respects little man McCain, let me remind you that at that point in time, a full 68% of Americans viewed the Iraq war as a mistake, most of whom agreed with me that that war was the biggest military blunder since Vietnam. Were those 68% of the American people wrong? Were the majority of the generals who disagreed with this nionsense that you proposed also wrong, Mr. McCain? What I'm looking for a a yes or no answer.

Secondly, if you are somehow inferring that your precious surge was so successful, then how do you explain an initial increase of sectarian violence over the first 2 months in Iraq...after the president sent yet another 21,000 troops into harm's way? Mr. McCain, does it ever bother you that American soldiers died fighting in that country...a country that today have about a 95% unilateral agreement that Iraq was absolutely no threat to our security? I am looking for a yes or no answer, little man.

And thirdly, the eventual reduction of violence that you are so up with beating your chest about is pretty well understood to be the direct cause and effect of Maqtadi El Sadre's ordered cease fire in order for the American's to keep to their promise in leaving their fucking country once and for all".

Next question, Mr. Mcain.

Yet Hagel said no such thing..... Wonder why?

majorspark;1378816 wrote:Yet Hagel said no such thing..... Wonder why?

Hmmmm....good question.

majorspark;1378816 wrote:Yet Hagel said no such thing..... Wonder why?

Hmmmm....good question. I'm guessing Chuckles knows the political realities.

By the way, when is Barry going to shut down GITMO again? Oh that's right, he's not. Damned war monger.

majorspark;1378816 wrote:Yet Hagel said no such thing..... Wonder why?

I explained why in post 81 up above.....Just to make it easy for you...let me repeat the reason.....


"What Hagel is guilty of today....not his politics of that time frame, but his appeassement to the biggest coddlers to the Israeli Lobby and their continual influence in promoting global hegemony through the force of a gun".

Next question?

"What Hagel is guilty of today....not his politics of that time frame, but his appeassement to the biggest coddlers to the Israeli Lobby and their continual influence in promoting global hegemony through the force of a gun". - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

So when the war drums were beating your buddy Hagel voted yes on weaker resolutions of force permitting the president to execute a wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and yet did not demand stronger terms to commit the nation to war, such as a formal declaration of a state of war. The same weak "resolution" wording that landed him in an open ended war in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Or why did he not just vote no? Then when things got shitty in Iraq and public opinion began to shift suddenly he sees parallels to Vietnam. How many times does this have to be repeated.

Footwedge;1378826 wrote:Next question?

Does this sound like leader that stands on his principles or a man that blows with the political winds?

majorspark;1378835 wrote:So when the war drums were beating your buddy Hagel voted yes on weaker resolutions of force permitting the president to execute a wars in Iraq/Afghanistan and yet did not demand stronger terms to commit the nation to war, such as a formal declaration of a state of war.

Yawn. Yeah the man was lied to by the Office of Special Plans...led by Scooter Libby, Dickless Cheney, Douglas Feith, Wermser, and a few others that are guilty of manipulating intelligence...as confirmed by Lt. Lawrence Wilkerson and countless others. That is the reason the entire congress was all goo goo eyed in allowing Pinnochio to be Pinnochio in invading Iraq...a country that was drawn up to be synonymous with al Quada. Among many other whoppers. You might want to google Goebbels and the effectiveness of propaganda.

The same weak "resolution" wording that landed him in an open ended war in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Or why did he not just vote no?

See above why he didn't vote no. He, like the other 75% of Americans came to learn the truth after report after report after report concluded the unthinkable.

Then when things got shitty in Iraq and public opinion began to shift suddenly he sees parallels to Vietnam.

Amazing how the parallels to Vietnam and Iraq became oh so salient...and treacherously sad. are you suggesting that SHH at the utter disaster is a character of waffling? Or was he to blindly endorse a criminal enterprise otherwise know as the Bush cartel?

How many times does this have to be repeated

Not nearly enough....obviously. Maybe...just maybe we will not repeat the absolute debacles of VN and Iraq.

Does this sound like leader that stands on his principles or a man that blows with the political winds?

It shows a man that is very mindful of the brutal power both overtly and covertly that the Lobby has over the electorate....and appointed. That's what it shows.

But...what I find fascinating...on your posts here this afternoon. Wasn't this whole S o D nomination/role supposed to be "much adieu about nothing"? Afterall, the way you figgered it, Hagel's opinion matters nothing, right?

Well...apparently there is some adieu about a few things here Spark. At least McCain and the gang think so.

Footwedge;1378765 wrote:And John McCain made a complete ass of himself today.

I agree. Nearly all Congressman are when on their perch in these types of public hearings.

Footwedge;1378765 wrote:Mr. Hagel was far too generous to McCain, and should have absolutely torn him a new one on that subject.

Hagel did admit during the exchange that the "Surge assisted in the objective". When McCain questioned him saying the "Surge" being the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, Hagel stumbled around about it being about the Iraq war in general not just the "Surge". What struck me was two things he said concerning this blunder. One was it was a "war of choice going into Iraq" and the other it "took the focus off Afghanistan". Yet he himself voted for the choice and knowing it would take the focus off Afghanistan. How can he with a straight face say these things when he himself voted yes to both? And this is a man of principle?

That "most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam" statement by Hagel was during a hearing with then Secretary of State Condi Rice (when Hagel was on the perch I might add). Hagel's statement was in direct reference to Bush's speech announcing the "Surge". Truth be told Hagel can't tear anyone a new one.

believer;1378797 wrote:Yep...Looks like Chuckles will fit into the Obama team quite nicely :rolleyes::

http://freebeacon.com/hagels-7-worst-moments-in-round-one/

Yeah, it was painful at times.
But ,the questions were bad too.
Who cares about the 2007 surge? It is irrelevant now.
And did it work, it depends on your POV. The influx of troops was nice, but it was also the Sunni tribes, the breakup of the militias and many other factors in which the surge helped.

The Iran thing is typical Iran BS. Hagel has made his position known. SECDEF on Iran is just one voice, and really won't change the strategy of the U.S. towards Iran, which will continue to be more and more sanctions.

Another funny note was the Global Zero questions and the apparently lack of memory by the R's when mentioning unilateral nuclear withdraw. They said it was a bad thing, I agree somewhat, but then they apparently forgot to mention when HW Bush and W. Bush both drastically unilaterally cut the arsenal.

The whole thing made we realize how much I cannot stand hearings like that.

It was another episode of political theater, to be sure. Republicans must not have long memories as evidenced by their "questioning" today. There may come a time when a Republican President nominates potential cabinet members. The way they're going about Presidential elections leads me to believe that it is only a slight possibility, but if it does come to pass they may regret their foolishness of today.

Footwedge;1378873 wrote:Yawn. Yeah the man was lied to by the Office of Special Plans...led by Scooter Libby, Dickless Cheney, Douglas Feith, Wermser, and a few others that are guilty of manipulating intelligence...as confirmed by Lt. Lawrence Wilkerson and countless others. That is the reason the entire congress was all goo goo eyed in allowing Pinnochio to be Pinnochio in invading Iraq...a country that was drawn up to be synonymous with al Quada. Among many other whoppers. You might want to google Goebbels and the effectiveness of propaganda.

The same man who was a pawn during Vietnam and experienced first hand on the ground the devastating results of lies, propaganda, and war mismanagement. Voted yes as a senator to give president Bush an open ended authorization to use force. Just as the Congress in 1964 gave LBJ the same authority that eventually landed him in the jungles of Southeast Asia. I just can't rectify this action with what he has said with a man that stands on principle. You act like he was a fool. That had no concept of the past. I might actually get behind a guy who I may not always agree with, but sticks to his principles no matter what and can truthfully defend them. That is a leader.

Footwedge;1378873 wrote:It shows a man that is very mindful of the brutal power both overtly and covertly that the Lobby has over the electorate....and appointed. That's what it shows.

Or a man that is subject to it himself. Who knows where he is coming from. One has to wonder when a man wavers on his principles.

Footwedge;1378873 wrote:But...what I find fascinating...on your posts here this afternoon. Wasn't this whole S o D nomination/role supposed to be "much adieu about nothing"? Afterall, the way you figgered it, Hagel's opinion matters nothing, right?

Most of my comments have been directed towards you thinking he is this great savior. So far his testimony has only solidified my beliefs in that regard. He is not going to be a strong adviser to Obama.

Footwedge;1378873 wrote:Well...apparently there is some adieu about a few things here Spark. At least McCain and the gang think so.

Do they have legitimate concerns (some), are they engaging in a little political grandstanding (mostly), or maybe its all just because AIPAC has their balls firmly in their grasp.

stlouiedipalma;1378999 wrote:It was another episode of political theater, to be sure. Republicans must not have long memories as evidenced by their "questioning" today. There may come a time when a Republican President nominates potential cabinet members. The way they're going about Presidential elections leads me to believe that it is only a slight possibility, but if it does come to pass they may regret their foolishness of today.

Give me a break. Democrats perfected the questioning circuses we see today. BOTH parties are guilty of it.

And while I agree that the Repubs have been farking stooopid in their approach to POTUS candidates of late, don't get too excited. May I remind you that a Repub has occupied the White House 62% of the time the past 44 years?

Footwedge;1378765 wrote:And John McCain made a complete ass of himself today. Mr. McCain forgets that the totality of the generals at that time overwhelmingly voted against a surge in Iraq....but Bush the 43rd over rode the sentinment of these generals. Mr. Hagel was far too generous to McCain, and should have absolutely torn him a new one on that subject.

1. McCain isn't trying to get confirmed for anything, nor is he the first senator to go full doosh at a hearing.

B. Nothing Johnny Mac did was in any way an excuse for Hagel's performance. He sucked the monkey...plain and simple.

fish82;1379125 wrote:B. Nothing Johnny Mac did was in any way an excuse for Hagel's performance. He sucked the monkey...plain and simple.

Even Hagel's colleagues in the Senate including Democrats realize this.

http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/31/cnn_senators_shocked_about_how_ill-prepared_hagel_was.html

fish82;1379125 wrote:1. McCain isn't trying to get confirmed for anything, nor is he the first senator to go full doosh at a hearing.

B. Nothing Johnny Mac did was in any way an excuse for Hagel's performance. He sucked the monkey...plain and simple.

Spot on....

Footie's just pissed that his anti-neo con hero looked and sounded inept. Like I said, he'll be an excellent fit for Barry's Team of Ineptitudes.