HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Hagel over someone li...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:26 AM

Why Hagel over someone like General Wes Clark

or another patriotic Democrat who has also served?

Have no lessons been learned ala Petraeus?

44 replies, 2602 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 44 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Hagel over someone like General Wes Clark (Original post)
Horse with no Name Dec 2012 OP
JI7 Dec 2012 #1
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #5
JI7 Dec 2012 #6
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #11
JI7 Dec 2012 #19
bluestate10 Dec 2012 #17
green for victory Dec 2012 #24
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #39
graham4anything Dec 2012 #28
spanone Dec 2012 #2
RobertEarl Dec 2012 #3
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #4
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #7
grantcart Dec 2012 #13
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #41
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #15
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #20
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #21
Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #26
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #40
Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #27
Fumesucker Dec 2012 #30
Victor_c3 Dec 2012 #25
graham4anything Dec 2012 #29
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #35
graham4anything Dec 2012 #38
sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #42
graham4anything Dec 2012 #44
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #8
BlueCaliDem Dec 2012 #9
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #12
ForgoTheConsequence Dec 2012 #18
grantcart Dec 2012 #10
Rowdyboy Dec 2012 #14
Horse with no Name Dec 2012 #16
quakerboy Dec 2012 #22
grantcart Dec 2012 #34
Grey Dec 2012 #23
vi5 Dec 2012 #31
Iggy Dec 2012 #32
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #33
truebrit71 Dec 2012 #36
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #43
mmonk Dec 2012 #37

Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:27 AM

1. because Obama is closer to Hagel than Clark , Clark would be in consideration when Hillary is

President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #1)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:35 AM

5. Hillary would not consider Clark. She is miles apart from him on Foreign Policy. She supported the

Iraq War, Clark did not eg. Hillary is pro-war in the ME and has been for a long time. I would not support her for president because of her position on Bush/Cheney's foreign policies.

Clark is opposed to these unnecessary wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:37 AM

6. Clark supported Hillary for President in the Primary , they are very close

if Hillary had beat Obama we would most likely have defense secretary Wes Clark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:51 AM

11. I doubt it. A lot of people have been loyal to the Clintons and have not always had the favor

returned. I am not surprised he supported her in the election considering the role he played in the Clinton Administration.

But on foreign policy re Iraq and pre-emptive war as policy, the Bush Doctrine, which Hillary supports, they are at opposite ends of the pole.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:05 AM

19. when Hillary becomes President watch Clark end up in the administration

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:56 AM

17. Clark is close to the Clintons. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:25 AM

24. Clark led the first PNAC war

 

The largest event of Clark's tenure as SACEUR was NATO's confrontation with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War.

Clark started the bombings codenamed Operation Allied Force on March 24, 1999 on orders to try and enforce U.N. Resolution 1199 following Yugoslavia's refusal of the Rambouillet Agreement.

The Rambouillet agreement that was modified at the last minute that basically destroyed Soverignty- even Henry Kissinger was bothered--

"The Rambouillet text, which called on Serbia to admit NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation, an excuse to start bombing. Rambouillet is not a document that an angelic Serb could have accepted. It was a terrible diplomatic document that should never have been presented in that form.
—Henry Kissinger, Daily Telegraph, 28 June 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambouillet_Agreement

Proof that the Kosovo bombing was a PNAC project:


http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

Wesley Clark is *NOT* opposed to "these unnecessary wars"- He was instrumental in bringing in the PNAC era. That's the truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #24)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:48 PM

39. Thanks. I think that war flew under the radar of many Democrats, another sign that if it's our team

doing it we trust them. At that time I assumed that we were protecting people who were being ethnically cleansed and admit that because Clinton was president did not question it at all.

I also did not know it was part of the insane PNAC plan and had never heard of them at that time.

Since then many of us have learned a lot about our government functions, especially when it comes to Foreign Policy and are less inclined to give a pass to our own 'team'.

This country needs a sea change in our Foreign Policy but that is not likely unless the people demand it in huge numbers and begin by not falling for the fear tactics. We are a long from that, but a little further along than we were when Clinton was president. Democrats especially are no longer to ignore warmongering on the Left any more than they will on the Right. So it's a start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:19 AM

28. I do care about the continuation of President Obama, and winning in 2016

 

and Hillary45 will 100% be supported and will support Pres. Obama's social agenda of which Hillary45 will be the next President by the vast majority of the landslide voters in America

when the choice will be

Hillary45 vs. Jeb Bush or Rubio or Christie( I predict Jeb).

any vote not for Hillary45 at that time, is a vote for Bush/Rubio/Christie

imho of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:28 AM

2. if. the republicans want hagel, you can bet they'll get him

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:28 AM

3. Why?

Only reason I can think of is that Hagel's friends own the voting machines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:29 AM

4. Why not?

Hagel HATED the Bush administration more than any Democrat. He's conservative, but he's not a hawk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:41 AM

7. Did he support Bush's wars? I don't remember him speaking out against them. We elected Democrats

because we did not want Republicans in power. And here we go again.

I said before the election that we should have demanded to know who Obama intended to appoint to various powerful positions something we never thought to do in 2008.

There are over three hundred million people in this country and many of them are brilliant Progressive Democrats. So can anyone explain to me why we cannot ever seem to find a Progressive Democrat to put in this positions?

People are getting so sick of these deceptions. Hagel is a Republican, he is a hawk if he voted for Bush's illegal and unnecessary wars. But that is why he is being considered. If he was not a hawk, he would not be considered at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:52 AM

13. Here you go

http://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-hagel-defense-secretary-bloomberg-report-2012-12


According to the report, President Barack Obama invited Hagel to the White House last week to discuss the position, and that he has passed the "vetting process."

Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran, was a U.S. Senator from 1997-2009, when he decided not to seek re-election. He is the co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. Hagel endorsed Obama in the 2008 election, and he is close with Vice President Joe Biden from their time together in the Senate.

Hagel was a critic of the administration of President George W. Bush during his time in the Senate, especially on the Iraq War. He famously slammed the administration for saying it was "irresponsible" to "send mixed signals" to troops by criticizing the Iraq War.

"To question your government is not unpatriotic -- to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said in a 2005 speech. He also said it was "absolutely a replay" of the Vietnam War.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-hagel-defense-secretary-bloomberg-report-2012-12#ixzz2F0EJ452L

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:28 PM

41. Thank you. I do remember him as one of the few Republicans who spoke out against the Bush

Administration. I wonder if Obama is letting of the Hawks who were so present during the first four years. It's interesting that both Rice, definitely a Hawk, and Petraeus are both gone while he is considering someone like Hagel whose views are far more moderate on our foreign adventures.

Thanks for the link, I'm less concerned having read it and maybe even a little hopeful that maybe the removal of a few of the Hawks wasn't as much of an accident as it has been made to seem. Just wondering and probably wrong but I would like to think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:54 AM

15. Initially he did, like a lot of Democrats.

He learned his lesson. Some good quotes.

"I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president." - 2006

"We are perceived as a nation at war with Muslims. This debilitating and dangerous perception must be reversed."

"We have misunderstood, misread, misplanned and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam."

"This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad, are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel



He's very close with Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:15 AM

20. So basically he supported the illegal invasion, but didn't support the strategy after he saw how it

failed. Did he really believe we had 'good intentions' in Iraq or that there is a good way to invade someone else's country based on lies?

I have zero respect for anyone who bought those lies. People aspiring to positions of power in this country should only be considered if they get decisions as important as this one was right the first time. With so many lives at stake there really is no room to get it wrong. .

I would be looking for someone with better judgement than those who supported Bush's lies which were so blatantly obvious to practically the whole world.

He's a Republican. I thought we elected Democrats. Surely there is a Democrat somewhere who is smart enough for that position.

Thank you for the link. I respected Hagel, as a Republican and wish he was typical of his Party. He is what the Republicans used to be. But it shows how far to the right the Dem Party has gone when he looks like a Democrat, and to be fair, he does at this point. We need a second party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:26 AM

21. Yes he got one of the biggest decisions Politicians had to make at that time, wrong as did all those

Democrats who betrayed their base at the time, and failed to see what ordinary people around the globe saw, that Bush was lying.

I can't think of a more important decision a politician will ever have to make, than to send the troops into harms way and to put the lives of innocent civilians at so much risk.

Getting such an important decision wrong, imo, does not qualify you for the position of SOS. It's no surprise that we now have Libya to deal for the next untold number of decades. Hillary supported that invasion also.

In any other job such a major blunder would destroy a career at the very least.

We expect so little of our elected officials. And we get what we are willing to tolerate.

I thought, after Bush left, and Obama was elected (I supported him because he had not supported the Iraq War and I would never support anyone who did) that we would hold accountable those responsible for that horrible, criminal war that killed so many innocent people.

We seem, on the Left, to have become immune to these outrages and are more than willing to forget the principles we were able to uphold throughout the Bush years. And I wonder now if it ever was about principles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:53 AM

26. I blame a lot of it on the general misconception that a lot of Americans have about war

Most people aren't aware of or don't care about what really goes on in the wars in the Middle East. Mass media repeats over and over again terms like "surgical strike" and they glaze over civilian casualties. The government doesn't keep track of or report the full extent of civilian casualties and Americans go on believing that those deaths are minimal to nonexistent. Terms like "collateral damage" are used when discussing dead boys, girls, women, and men who are killed during an errant drone strike and it further sterilizes our actions and makes them palatable to Americans.

Much of America grows up playing war related video games and watching movies that doesn't capture the full nastiness of war which further makes war a more palatable action. You shoot and kill someone on the game, the pile of pixels falls off the screen, and you don't see the end result and you grow numb to the experience.

The flag waiving veterans that you do see are mostly veterans who haven't actually participated first hand in combat. Those veterans seem to preach or suggest that there is glory to be had in war and that combat is a patriotic function. Meanwhile, combat veterans who are broken by the war and their experiences remain quiet, battling their demons in silence. Americans who don't know better mistaken this silence for a withheld story of valor or heroism an believe, wrongly, that this silent veteran is just humble and modest. At least in my case, much of my actions in the war left me with feelings of shame and guilt.

In a semi-anonymous forum like this I let a lot of my thoughts and emotions run freely, but aside from the Doctor's at the VA, nobody I actually talk to know much about what I did when I was in Iraq. Nobody that I interact with regularly has any idea of the full nastiness of war and ugly it can be or what I did. And I do realize that my silence is feeding the American misconception on war. I've posted one of my combat award certificates on this forum before, but I've never shown anyone that I really know some of those details about myself.

I do realize that much of my opinions on war are contradictory. I'm not proud of what I did, yet I make sure everyone knows that I'm a veteran. I sport an avatar on this forum for a Bronze Star Medal and I proclaim that I served as an Infantry Platoon Leader in my signature yet I'm ashamed of what that actually entailed.

I kind of lost the point that I wanted to make with this post, but I spent too much time writing it to just trash it. The two things that I wanted to try to work into this was:

1) In the 20th century, for every 1 Soldier killed in war approximately 10 civilians were killed. This number was compiled by the red cross.

2) It is estimated that between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the war. The number is so vague because the DOD doesn't bother to keep track of this number itself. How many people are aware of that?

War is a criminal action. The politicians who wage it need to be held accountable for it. However, as a society, we all need to take responsibility for it as well. The American people step back and allow our politicians to wage these wars. How many protest have you seen demanding a stop to the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan? I do realize that I'm just as much of the problem as anyone else is (if not more so because of my silence regarding what I saw and did in war myself). I need to get more active and I need to demand accountability for our politicians actions in starting these wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #26)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:21 PM

40. I am very glad you did not thrash this excellent post.

You are right that the American people do not pay much attention to wars. The language you mentioned 'collateral damage' and 'surgical strikes' etc are deliberately misleading. Imo, if we are going to continue to have these wars, then they should be filmed and shown without editing every single day on TV. Including coverage of the civilians who are most affected.

Children do grow up being desensitized to war and violence even more so now than ever before. I remember seeing a military analyst a few years ago explaining why violent video games should not, in his opinion, be available to children at such a young age. He said, to make his point, that the military uses video games to desensitize soldiers so to deny that they have any effect on children, was just wrong in his opinion.

I agree with you absolutely that we are all responsible. We the people should not permit our government to send soldiers into harm's way for purely profitable and/or political reasons. The people have let down the troops and while they are all 'rah' 'rah' in the beginning, the yellow ribbons and flags quickly disappear and they move on to other interests. When the soldiers return, most Americans look the other way. So they are left to try to deal with the trauma and injuries and all the other after effects of their experiences alone. Maybe seeing the reality spoils the fairy tale they chose to believe, or maybe they are just too busy. I don't know, but if they support these wars they are imo, obligated to be involved in every aspect of them for the rest of their lives.

If I had my way, the men and women who push for war, would have to be there themselves along with their own children. I have a feeling, no I am certain, that if that were the case, Dick Cheney eg, who got five deferments from Vietnam himself, would be a lot less enthusiastic about war.

There is so much in your post I can't possibly address in this one comment, but it has made me think a lot. Eg, your point about soldiers remaining silent leading to people misinterpreting that silence is a very good one. But I understand. One Vietnam veteran I spoke to and became a good friend of our family, never spoke about his experiences except once. No one asked him any questions. But the little he revealed that one time helped me understand the difficulties he had throughout his life and I was in awe that he was able to adjust at all when he returned.

Anyhow, thank you for this amazing post. You are not obligated to do anything you find difficult to do. The responsibility for all of this is on the American people and the Politicians who made the decision, and who profited from these wars. But it is first on the people, because as we know, politicians will never take responsibility unless the people force them to.

Thanks again for your post. I cannot disagree with anything you said. Including how anti-war posts seem to not be as popular here as they used to when Bush was president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #21)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:01 AM

27. Even on this forum anti-war talk seems to get lost in the general discussion

I would think that among like-minded people on a forum like this that this would be a major point of contention. I will pour my heart and my mind into writing what I think is a thoughtful post and I'll at most get a single response.

I guess I either need to get over myself or speak out louder about war. Anyways, thanks to anyone who took the time to read what I wrote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #27)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:35 AM

30. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts

Being anti war on DU is difficult now that we have a Democratic POTUS, it is seen as being disloyal by many here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 04:12 AM

25. I never knew too much of this guy

The way a lot of his quotes read made me think that he must have served in a direct combat function when he was in Vietnam. Yup, I was right. I just read his bio on wikipedia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:34 AM

29. please do NOT use we. and I am not part of the WE here. Hillary45 to continue Obama's policies

 

It also keeps Hagel away from running for President and Hagel is well respected.
(and a very good friend of John Kerry btw)...I am sure, as John Kerry has the ear of the president, that he must want Hagel in, otherwise it would not happen.

and the public wants bipartisianship

Look how much the public loved Obama/Chris Christie union during Sandy.
That is what our country wants and is how Lincoln and the legendary(and my personal super fave) LBJ got all his SOCIAL issues passed

with help from the other side.

And if Hagel owns those voting booths, I sure want him on my side, not the repubs side



and I don't want to have massive change in 2016.
In fact, all I want is a continuation of President Obama 2008-2017 to happen 2017-2025 with Hillary45.
Forward but only the same forward motion.

no sharp right or sharp left turns thanks so much. That is what WE want of those who agree with me WE group.

(as opposed to the WE group that is NOT ME or those that agree with me.

We all have angles, we are all on one team or another.

And if its good enough for President Obama, it's good enough for ME & my WE's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #29)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:25 PM

35. Don't include me on any team that thinks we need to go around the world killing people. We need a

huge change in our foreign policy and I hope now that Liberals are finally organizing and have already begun to work on that change, that it will begin in 2014 and continue until we are no longer under the control of the MIC.

We have some great Progressive Democrats who I hope will be elected to Congress and the WH now that the Left is finally getting its act together rather than allowing these decisions to be made by morons like the Third Way who never saw a war they didn't like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:42 PM

38. Eliz. Warren herself said nothing off the table in Iran, so not quite sure what you are getting at

 

Real people died 9-11
it wasn't fake people
it was real people

1st responsiblity of any president is to protect the homeland from terrorists and invasions

any way possible.

because it is real.
not fake.



http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2012_MA_Senate_War_+_Peace.htm
Warren said she also supports Israel and is opposed to allowing Iran to gain nuclear arms. She also praised Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama, saying he's "done a first-rate job. He's taking nothing off the table."

Source: North Adams Transcript on 2012 Mass. Senate debate Sep 21, 2012

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #38)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 02:36 PM

42. Did Iraqis kill those people on 9/11 or Afghans, most of whom had never heard of 9/11 according to

journalists and veterans and had no idea why there was a foreign army in their country.

Please don't try to sell Bush's deceptions here. No DUer ever bought the Bush/Cheney lies. They were NOT 'protecting the Homeland' (what a horrible word that is btw) they were following an agenda laid out by people who had no interest in what was good for this country and unless you were asleep during that time, you would know that.

Iraq and Afghanistan were based on lies, from the excuses made to go to war, to the outrageous lies about how long they would take and how much they would cost. Not a single word of truth was told to the American people about those wars. And if the whole world and at least half the American people were able to figure that out even with all the propaganda we were subjected to, I have zero respect for any politician who still tries to convince that it was Bush's fault because they didn't know he was lying. WE KNEW and they should have known and I believe most of them did, but they didn't have the guts to say 'no' and/or they thought it would benefit their careers, and worst reason, they supported Bush's policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #42)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:52 PM

44. Afghanastan was unanymous. Only CTers don't believe 9-11 happened. But

 

I live in plain sight of the WTC

guess what, it's not standing. It fell on 9-11 and 3000 people died

even the flake Ron Paul voted for Afghanastan

and who is talking about Iraq?

and as Liz Warren said nothing off the table in Iran, she would have voted for Afghanastan too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:42 AM

8. Mrs. Hagel also supported President Obama's re-election.

I'm pretty sure Chuck did, too. He supported Bob Kerrey's run for the senate seat, too.

He's considered a "Rino" among the Teabaggers and rightwingers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:43 AM

9. I love your sig-pic. That looks like my cream Chow when she was pup!

That's all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:51 AM

12. Did I miss Hagel calling for Bush's impeachment?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #12)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:56 AM

18. He did say this about Bush.

the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus—almost every area of any presidency in the last forty years.

"I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I've ever seen or ever read about."

“The president says, ‘I don’t care.’ He’s not accountable anymore,” Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. “He’s not accountable anymore, which isn’t totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don’t know. It depends how this goes.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:48 AM

10. The next Secretary of Defense has only one function


To navigate the greatest possible cuts in the Defense Budget possible through the Defense bureacracy and through entrenched interests in Congress.

I would take Liz Cheney if it would mean the greatest cuts.

Wesley Clark will not be as effective as Chuck Hagel who will be more effective in taking on the entrenched interests in Congress.

Another time other priorities.

This is a golden time to take out 20-30% of the defense/intelligence budget and anyone who thinks it can be done with ease doesn't understand the tide of interests that will have to be fought. We will need Republican deficit hawks to help, and that is the reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:52 AM

14. An interesting take that I had not considered....Makes me feel a bit better about the possibility of

a Hagel nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rowdyboy (Reply #14)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:54 AM

16. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:05 AM

22. Interesting take on things

I don't really know much about Hagel. But in modern history, having an R after your name does not seem to indicate a willingness to do anything re military matters other than insist on increased spending (unless it comes to vets, of course).
What about Hagels prior actions leads you to believe he will be the one willing to spearhead making these cuts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #22)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:20 AM

34. Potential Obama nominee favors massive defense reductions




http://freebeacon.com/the-secretary-of-defense-cuts/

Potential secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel has expressed support for massive budget cuts that could cripple the Pentagon’s ability to ensure America’s national security, sparking concern among proponents of a robust national defense.

. . . .

Hagel has also been knocked by the pro-Israel community for his sharp criticism of Israel as well as for advocating direct unconditional talks with Iran.


. . .


Hagel also has taken a tough stance against job creation at the Pentagon.

“Our Defense Department budget, it is not a jobs program,” he stated last year. “It’s not an economic development program for my state or any district.”

Congressional leaders have balked at further defense cuts, claiming they would imperil the nation’s ability to defend itself and its allies in an increasingly dangerous world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 03:07 AM

23. I say Clark for any position he is willing to except. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 05:50 AM

31. This is a wise move on Obama's part!

Because by appointing a Republican to such a powerful position that's definitely going to make Republicans like and respect him. And this time it' REALLY going to work and they'll all melt under the awesome glow of his bipartisanship and they'll just work with him like CRAAAAZY.

It's going to be awesome. I really do pity the poor souls who can't see this brilliant move for what it is and just sit back and respect the awe inspiring bipartisan vision of our great president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:42 AM

32. Huh? it has NOTHING to do with Patriotism

 

why not General Clark: easy answer; the guy is too honest. honesty is a liability with this job.

Hagel-- perfect bureaucrat for the part, articulate, speaks with authority and will stay on script. No way you can keep Clark on script.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 06:48 AM

33. What's the deal with this repetitive pushing of Clark?

I mean...I like Clark. I considered voting for him, until he proved he wasn't a good politician (political skills are very different from military skills).

But...what exactly is in his background that qualifies him for running the Defense Dept? He ran one big military campaign. And then what? Has he done anything lately? Like within the last 10 or 15 years? Maybe there's something there...but what?

Just askin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:28 PM

36. Umm...his entire mililtary career perhaps?

He hasn't been able to do anything in govt for the last ten years because of restrictions, but he has been a passionate Dem supporter on many important issues...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #36)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 08:36 PM

43. Hmmm. Not much of a record to recommend him for a cabinet post. Colin Powell is retired.

He can't do anything in government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Horse with no Name (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 12:30 PM

37. There is nothing wrong with Hagel in this position.

On defense and war matters, I would even trust him more than some Democrats. The reason is he would never be for preemptive war as a strategy or doctrine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread