HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Max Cleland: Next Week ‘T...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:29 AM

Max Cleland: Next Week ‘The Bullshit’ Stops On Hagel Nomination

Source: TPM

EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO JANUARY 6, 2013, 9:18 AM
With President Obama reportedly set to nominate former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) as the next secretary of defense next week, one of the Democratic Party’s most prominent combat veterans dismissed the political battle over Hagel and said his strength as a nominee will carry him into the Pentagon.

“All this other stuff has been bullshit up ‘til now,” former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) told TPM Saturday. “When the real decision is made, when the president makes the decision … the Senate plays its role.”

Cleland said that when Hagel is actually before senators for confirmation, there’s little chance the bluster surrounding his name since he was first mentioned as a possible successor to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will actually result in Hagel’s nomination failing.
“I don’t see the United States Senate rejecting Chuck Hagel. Under any circumstance that we can foresee at this point,” he said. When the chips are really down, Cleland says it’s virtually impossible to imagine his Senate vote failing.

-snip-

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/max-cleland-chuck-hagel-bullshit.php?ref=fpblg

84 replies, 10867 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 84 replies Author Time Post
Reply Max Cleland: Next Week ‘The Bullshit’ Stops On Hagel Nomination (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #1
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #10
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #13
elleng Jan 2013 #16
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #19
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #25
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #27
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #37
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #43
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #48
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #49
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #51
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #52
Jennicut Jan 2013 #80
donquijoterocket Jan 2013 #28
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #46
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #50
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #53
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #59
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #60
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #62
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #64
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #81
Honeycombe8 Jan 2013 #84
leftynyc Jan 2013 #78
Historic NY Jan 2013 #17
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #20
cpwm17 Jan 2013 #26
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #29
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #36
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #39
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #42
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #57
vlyons Jan 2013 #32
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #35
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #40
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #45
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #47
dsc Jan 2013 #54
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #58
MessiahRp Jan 2013 #77
Siwsan Jan 2013 #2
CurtEastPoint Jan 2013 #3
Siwsan Jan 2013 #5
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #8
Siwsan Jan 2013 #11
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #18
Siwsan Jan 2013 #24
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #33
Jackpine Radical Jan 2013 #23
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #31
cpwm17 Jan 2013 #55
loudsue Jan 2013 #9
freshwest Jan 2013 #12
MBS Jan 2013 #15
MBS Jan 2013 #6
Pachamama Jan 2013 #34
Little Star Jan 2013 #4
tavalon Jan 2013 #7
tabasco Jan 2013 #14
TroglodyteScholar Jan 2013 #21
rurallib Jan 2013 #22
Dems to Win Jan 2013 #56
plethoro Jan 2013 #30
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #41
plethoro Jan 2013 #44
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #61
plethoro Jan 2013 #66
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #71
plethoro Jan 2013 #79
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #63
plethoro Jan 2013 #65
Skittles Jan 2013 #67
plethoro Jan 2013 #68
Skittles Jan 2013 #69
plethoro Jan 2013 #70
Skittles Jan 2013 #72
plethoro Jan 2013 #75
Skittles Jan 2013 #76
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #82
plethoro Jan 2013 #83
humbled_opinion Jan 2013 #73
Joe Bacon Jan 2013 #38
Adenoid_Hynkel Jan 2013 #74

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:44 AM

1. Hagel had Cleland's back a decade ago, when the Repub party

linked Cleland and Saddam Hussein together in a TV ad for Saxby Chambliss. Yep, a guy with one limb left, left all the others in Vietnam, was a Saddam sympathizer. Hagel called his party leaders and Chambliss and threatened to run ads against his own party in support of Cleland. Very nice to see Cleland returning the favor. Especially like this paragraph:

“Look Chuck Hagel in the eye and vote up or down. Against a combat-wounded veteran, against a former member of the United States Senate, against a foreign relations committee member, against a sitting member of the military intelligence advisory committee to the Department of Defense,” he said. “Look him in the eye and vote against him for Secretary of Defense. Are you kidding me?”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:28 AM

10. Lucky for Cleland he was not gay! If he had been, Hagle would have said he was unfit to serve.

Which is what he said about Hormel and all gay Americans. Hormel was a bad choice, Chuck said because not only was he teh gay, he was open about it and did not have the decency to remain in the closet.
So Chuck protected Max from the people in the Republican Party who were doing to Max what Chuck the Republican did to Hormel. Impressive if only for the sheer hypocrisy and selective outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:40 AM

13. Christ...it was 15 years ago. He apologized and pledged to support and serve

the LGBT military community. Hagel is probably less of a homophobe than any Republican Senator who will be questioning him at the confirmation--unless they apologized for all of their discrimination too, I must have missed that. The anti-gay angle is a neocon ploy to give cover to AIPAC-member Senate Democrats to vote against Hagel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:50 AM

16. Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #16)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:57 AM

19. You're welcome--his apology has been also accepted by

the leading advocacy group of LGBT service members:

"OutServe-SLDN executive director Allyson Robinson, in a statement provided to BuzzFeed Friday afternoon, said:


Senator Hagel clearly has the military credentials and experience to do the job of running our nation’s Defense Department — at OutServe-SLDN, we have no doubt about that — and we appreciate his apology for the anti-gay remarks he made in 1998 and the commitment he expressed to LGBT service members and their families. It will now be incumbent upon him during the nomination and confirmation process to lay out demonstrable actions he will take to support that commitment."


http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/lgbt-military-group-calls-for-demonstrable-action

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:12 PM

25. What are the metrics for expiration of such things?

Interesting that you compare Chuckie only with other Republicans, as if our only choice for DOD was among Republicans. Chuck has a long record of anti gay votes, he has his attacks on Hormel, far worse than what McCain did to Rice. His own history shows clearly that he is anti gay.
I oppose all Republicans, and all politicians with anti gay history that has not been redeemed via action and freely offered words. An Oregon Democrat who voted for DOMA, for example, long ago wrote a clear and open apology for doing so. His actions have redeemed him. Chuckie has done no such mitigating actions, not come out for marriage equality and was not there for DADT repeal either.
You support some Republicans in high office. I don't. You are fine with extreme bigotry if the worst of it is years in the past. I'm not. Deal with it.
And 'probably less of a homophobe than other Republicans' is not what I call a ringing endorsement. 'Probably less racist than David Duke, so he's fine!'
Whatever. Bigoted Republicans will never get my support. Clearly they have plenty from the 'moderates' in the straight community.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:25 PM

27. Hagel wasn't even one of the 32 Repub Senators to sponsor or vote for

a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in 2006. The sad fact of the matter is, aside from the Hormel-bashing in 1998 (most likely done to please Nebraskans, as it was in a Nebraska newspaper--and extremely disappointing), Hagel has been "just not that into you" on LGBT issues at all. He was never much of a "family-values" Repub, and not a fundie at all, although Catholic. And he's certainly not the LGBT's worst enemy either, as he's being portrayed now by the powers opposed to him--you HAVE to compare him to his own party, because he is the one Obama is nominating, not a Democrat. The fact that Democratic apologies can be accepted for past LGBT discrimination, but Republican apologies are suddenly a fraud and will not be accepted, is bullshit. Here is what Glenn Greenwald has to say on the matter (an important read, BTW):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/hagel-liberals-gays-israel-democrats

"Given how progressives assess other politicians, why should Hagel not be forgiven or at least be given the benefit of the doubt? Look at what Democrats are willing to forgive and forget. They swoon for Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, who in 2002 voted to authorize George Bush's attack on Iraq, surely a far worse offense than Hagel's ugly comments about Hormel. They overlook Biden's obnoxious 2006 comments about Indian-Americans and Obama's patronizing and sexist use of "sweetie" to dismiss a female reporter in 2008. They adore the top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, who opposes a woman's right to choose. They even forgave long-time Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd for his past membership in the Ku Klux Klan. Where does Hagel's 1998 comment rank with those bad acts?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:49 PM

37. Here's what Barney Frank has to say about Hagel, Hagel's history, and this nomination. I happen

to agree with Barney 100%:

"Then-Senator Hagel’s aggressively bigoted opposition to President Clinton’s naming the first openly gay Ambassador in U.S. history was not, as Sen. Hagel now claims, an aberration.He voted consistently against fairness for LGBT people and there does not seem to be any evidence prior to his effort to become Secretary of Defense of any apology or retraction of his attack on James Hormel. And to those of us who admire and respect Mr. Hormel, Sen. Hagel’s description of him as aggressive can only mean that the Senator strongly objected to Hormel’s reasoned, civil advocacy for LGBT people.
I cannot think of any other minority group in the U.S. today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major Presidential appointment.”
http://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2013/01/01/barney-frank-strongly-opposes-chuck-hagel-defense-secretary

Hagel's Senate record was abysmal, he had a 0 rating from HRC. I guess if you compare him to other Republicans, you might find one who was worse, but what the fuck kind of standard is that?
He has long been one of the Republicans I most wanted to see voted out. I'm not going to fall in love with a Republican with a long established record of anti gay votes and word and actions because some moderates want to play bipartisan footsie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #37)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:04 PM

43. Barney's opposition to Hagel is AIPAC-sponsored. See below.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #43)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:26 PM

48. Yeah. You have no response to what he said, so you start flinging poo at Democrats to protect

a Republican. Great. Also below, I quote both Hagel and Frank and ask you to very specifically respond to the words. Please do so. The fact that you are not aware that LGBT and other Democrats have loathed Chuck Hagel for his entire career for things he said, did, for the votes he cast for 12 years is no surprise to me. He voted for the Iraq War Resolution. At that time I thought, well of course that right wing bigot voted for Bush's War.
I'm not going to become a Hagel fan for anyone. He's a Republican who has voted for war and has slandered my community. Why is this difficult to understand? The 'he's a Republican' part should suffice on a site with the name this one hangs on the door.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #48)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:28 PM

49. I was a Nebraska resident during Hagel's tenure. Democrats in Nebraska

(of which I was one) liked Hagel--more than Republicans did, ultimately. This "loathing" is in your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #49)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:05 PM

51. Democrats in my community loathed him for his votes, his verbal assaults on gay people and of

course, just for being a Republican. This is not Nebraska. This adoration of Hagel might not be in your head, but among Democrats it must have been tightly confined there in Nebraska.
You claim Democrats liked Hagel, but many Democrats refused to forgive even Democrats who voted for the Iraq War. Hagel voted for the war. Hard to believe all those Democrats who opposed Clinton for her War vote liked Hagel. Really hard to believe. Maybe in Lincoln and North Platte, but not in the rest of the nation.
Or was his war vote and his many votes against my own rights 'in my head'? Was his entire Senate record in my head?
Good lord. I don't like Republicans, sorry. Hagel is one of my least favorite due to his record in the Senate at such a key time in history.
If I supported a Republican for anything, I think the ghosts of my father and uncles would haunt me without quarter. I'm from a Democratic family that is also opposed to the Republican Party in a very serious and cross generational way. So I will never be supporting Hagel. Not going to happen. I'm a Democrat, not just partially nor recently or at times. Also this fucker attacked my community for two terms as Senator from your State. Not going to be flipping for Chuckie. Hope your heart can stand it.
I'm sure he will be approved, but that fact reminds me how far we have to go to get to equality for all people. I've been really sad that so many don't give a fuck about what he said, but if he'd said it about other groups they'd be outraged. Says much more about those folks than it does about Hagel. Situational ethics and self interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:23 PM

52. You have the right to dislike anyone you choose. I can't tell you how to feel--

(but I will dispute what I think are inaccurate statements). But the same applies to me. I watched Hagel take on his whole party and President Cheney on Iraq and other foreign-policy issues, right to his own political doom. I watched how Nebraska Republicans seethed with disgust. And then their heads exploded when he traveled with, and stood with, then-Senator Obama in 2008 on a trip to the Middle East. AND Hagel wrote and sponsored legislation to benefit veterans and active duty troops, and was always an advocate--as the wife of one of those troops, that was and is important to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:09 PM

80. Frank changed his mind. He hopes he gets confirmed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/barney-frank-chuck-hagel_n_2424747.html

Not that it makes what he said 15 years ago okay. It does not. I am willing to hear him out on however. Lots of politicians have changed their minds on gay rights in those years, including our President and Vice President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:27 PM

28. the military

Up to, and including the Pentagon and the SEC-DEF's office has a way of enforcing its own culture which is now officially preference-neutral, and if there's one thing the military is good at it's following orders.Hagel is a good pick and will be confirmed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:16 PM

46. What history? Let's see a list of anti-gay and anti-Jewish history.

You DO care about his supposed anti-Jewish stance, right? It's not just about one group of people, right? It's about all minorities....right?

Note: To be really relevant, such statements and votes should have been made at least within the last decade, unless he actively belonged to the KKK or some anti-minority group, or something extreme like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #46)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:47 PM

50. My words are here to read. Your inference is as well.

In my view, a person who is a bigot toward one group is just a bigot. I also don't think vicious hate mongering has a shelf life, a date after which it becomes irrelevant. Hagel is a Republican, that Party during his tenure was an anti minority group, many would say they still are and they'd be right. So your claim that the GOP is not anti minority is not something I can agree with at all. History says otherwise.
Hagel's anti gay votes were in the US Senate for 12 years. Look them up if you are interested, I was around then and I disliked Hagel then so I don't need a list. I have no idea what he's said about Jewish people, so I could not provide that history either. Of course, I also never mentioned it because I don't know anything about it. You brought it up all on your own, for some reason. I have no idea why you'd ask me about that, I've not mentioned it. I don't know anything about it.

I'm not going to support a Republican who has long opposed and attacked my community. That's just not going to happen. The very last time Hagel had any political power, he used it at every turn to vote against and speak against not only gay rights, but against gay people participating in our own damn government. That's not a big deal to you, because he was not attacking your right to participate in government. I got that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:42 PM

53. Okay, I don't see any anti-gay votes there, so I guess there's not much there.

You make a reference to it, but you don't state any anti-gay votes that were brought up to vote on.

So it's possibly it's a viewpoint whether a bill is anti-gay or not. And a vote is anti-gay or not (there are reasons to vote or not vote on bills...bills rarely have just one provision, altho that does happen).

I have not read anything stated by Hagel that I would call bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #53)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:41 PM

59. For you, just for you. First Hagel Mad Libs! Take an anti gay quote from Hagel and replace the

word 'gay' with other words for other minorities!
Hagel:“They are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay, like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job."

Replace the word gay with the word 'Muslim' and tell me you'd support the man. Try 'feminist' or 'Jewish' since you have them on your mind so much. Try replacing the word 'gay' with the word 'liberal'.

Now on to Chuckies voting record on a few different issues, LGBT among them:

Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)

Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

Women's issues:
oted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

snip

Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

snip

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance. (Dec 2006)

Some good stuff there!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #59)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:52 PM

60. The only thing...

I'd regard as anti-gay was the vote "no" on the adding of sexual orientation to hate crimes. He voted no on that twice.

As for his statement (14 years ago), I know what he meant. It was the norm of thought for the time, and he was referring to how others would respond or react to him. It didn't matter what HAGEL thought of him being "openly, aggressively" gay, but he thought it would impede his effectiveness in his job because of how others in other countries would respond to it. A valid point, for the times. A discussion worth having. Many would have thought it but not said it. Hagel seems to lay his thoughts out there to be seen. Not his finest hour, but taken in context of the times, understandable and forgiveable.

The same discussion was had when Condi Rice and Colin Powell were made Secretaries of State. How would other countries, more backward than our own, react to a black and a female Sec of State? Esp Condi Rice? We all know how the Middle East regards women.

If you're anything but a heterosexual white male, this is a thought or discussion that will be had...or would've been, back in the day.

Times have changed quickly. Is Hagel the sort of person who changes with the times? I think he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:36 PM

62. What a load of horse puckey. Among other things you miss the actual point that Hagel was not

simply opining, he was actively discriminating and that was his stated reason for doing so, that being gay is an 'inhibiting factor' to representing American values.
He did not, as you try to claim, say that other less tolerant nations might have qualms, no. He said "And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay, like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job." An inhibiting factor to be gay. He does not mention others, he says gay people can not represent America. Calls being gay an inhibiting factor to doing an effective job. And you think that's just fine. But you refused to answer if you'd think it was fine if said about Muslims or Jews or women or blacks. You simply pretended that question was not very specifically asked of you. But you are not alone, all of the pro Hagel folks, when asked, refuse to answer that question.
Chuck's bigotry was carried out in his vote against Mr Hormel. It was not just some hot air, it was Chuck discriminating against Hormel because of the reasons he states, being gay inhibits a person from doing a good job.
Show me any Democrat saying 'the same' about Powell or Condi Rice. I dare you to. It did not happen. No one said being black was 'an inhibiting factor to doing an effective job' and you know that if they had, they'd have been rightly shunned by society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #62)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 07:32 PM

64. I just disagree. That's my opinion. Not his finest hour...but 14 years ago...

to voice something that was widely thought by MOST people at the time, is forgiveable, since he has apologized and said he'd changed his views since then.

I just think he's one who has progressed with teh times, which is what activism is all about. Bringing about change.

As for Rice...I don't know of a Democrat saying that about Rice. Political party doesn't matter in this context. But I do recall the discussions about it...not by Congress, as a means of preventing her from becoming NSA and then Sec of State. But general discussions. Wondering if it would affect her effectiveness.

When discussing positions to deal with other countries, it is not only the opinion of those in our country that matter, but it is a legitimate focus to consider whether something would prevent that person from being our connection, or negotiating with, another country. For instance, you wouldn't want someone who has been recently opposed to a Palestinian state conduct the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. That person's recent statements would probably affect that person's effectiveness at the job.

Sensitivity is justified about some things. I just don't think these things about Hagel warrant it. That's my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #64)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:34 PM

81. Wow. 'MOST of the world' but not most of America. Hagel said that stuff not in 1956 but 1998

Which was a year after Ellen came out on her show and in life and went on to become an even bigger star. It was long, long after anyone but bigots had dropped such openly hateful speech about any minority.
I note you can not prove your assertions that such things were said about Rice. You made that claim out of the blue, but you can not prove your fantasy because it is not true at all. You made that up. Dishonest in the extreme.
Also out of the blue is your harping at me about Israel and Jews. I had not mentioned either when you came demanding that I explain things about Hagel and Jews. You implied that's what I was 'really' talking about. I had not mentioned either. You, on the other hand, can not manage even this exchange without returning to Israel and Palestine. I find that to confusing.
Hagel is an anti gay Republican who is opposed to choice and who voted for the Iraq War Resolution just like the rest of his Party. He said 'yes, let's bomb the Muslims for no reason'. You support that, I don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #81)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:30 PM

84. Why are you so angry, dude? Someone disagrees with you. Barney Frank, for one. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:30 AM

78. 100% agreement

I wouldn't give the republicans a fucking thing. Like an apology makes up for all his disgusting votes. Fucking outrageous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:56 AM

17. Hormels statement on the matter.........

Senator Hagel’s apology is significant–I can’t remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything. While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal–they are a clear apology. Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted–perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too. His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families. If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, I would support his nomination.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2012/12/21/james-hormel-i-question-the-sincerity-of-chuck-hagels-apology/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:04 PM

20. And because he's gay I'm supposed to agree with him?

Sorry, the insult was to all gay Americans. What I posted I stand by. Those who promote Hagel in spite of his history of hate speech while moaning that McCain and Company were unfair to Susan Rice are hypocrites.
Hagel is a Republican. I oppose the empowerment of Republicans. Add the ugly nature of Chuckies hate speech, proudly spoken to the press in an official interview, add the history of Chuck's votes against equality, and he's among the Republicans I like the least.
I don't think hate speech and bigotry out of Republicans should lead to rewards for them. But clearly, there are some in the OFA who are not happy starting a new term without at least one major bigot around to telegraph their opinions about gay people. Hagel is this year's Rick Warren, a middle finger to gay people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:21 PM

26. Most of this gay talk comes from the Israel lobby

Last edited Sun Jan 6, 2013, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Which doesn't like the fact that Hagel isn't aggressive enough against Iran. They want more war.

It appears that the Israel lobby paid for the Log Cabin Republican's a full-page ad in the NYT condemning Hagel.

http://www.queerty.com/why-did-the-log-cabin-republicans-go-after-chuck-hagel-and-what-was-the-fallout-20130102/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #26)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:27 PM

29. Hagel was in the Senate for 12 years. He was one of the most anti gay Republicans, he got a

zero rating from Human Rights Campaign. Your comment is fucking insulting, I along with millions of LGBT Democrats and our allies have opposed Hagel's presence in government for his entire career. Where the rest of you were is a mystery to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #29)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:43 PM

36. Hagel was dead wrong for his past views. But to say that he

was "one of the most anti-gay Republicans" is a ridiculous statement. It's just not true. Hagel's colleagues at the time were comparing homosexuality with kleptomania and alcoholism. And if you use HRC's ratings, then you have to acknowledge the fact that they have forgiven Hagel and support his nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #36)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:54 PM

39. In the Senate he was in fact often as venomous as he was in the press toward Hormel.

And he equated Hormel's sexuality to an impairment to public service. Is that seen as ok as long as the next guy says they are all alcoholics? Is it relative?
And we can say fuck HRC's rating and just look at his voting record in 12 years in the Senate. As Barney Frank says:
“He voted consistently against fairness for LGBT people and there does not seem to be any evidence prior to his effort to become Secretary of Defense of any apology or retraction of his attack on James Hormel."

But that's ok too? Barney says:
“I cannot think of any other minority group in the U.S. today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major Presidential appointment.”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #39)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:00 PM

42. Please list ALL THE OTHER venomous statements by Hagel toward the LGBT community.

I know of two: Hormel in 1998, and opposing DADT repeal in 2001. You say he was constantly full of venom, prove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:22 PM

57. First, I did not say constantly, you did. I said often. You, who do not pay attention to the issue

can cite two venomous statements. This should indicate that such statements were made often enough to talk about. But you don't want to talk about them. You rewrite my often to 'constantly' as if English words do not have actual meanings, as if you have a right to speak for me.
And you don't answer any question I asked you. Still. Again.
He's a Republican who attacked my community for his entire time in the Senate. You support him I don't.
And since you don't answer questions and our views on equality and humanity are diametrically opposed why keep discussing this? I'm not a Republican, I oppose all of them, and I'd never endorse a person who said what Chuck said as your Senator about anyone, not in a million years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #10)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:35 PM

32. Hey Blue, get over it

Are you going to hold a grudge forever? Will you not allow someone to evolve to a more enlightened attitude about LGBT equality rights? Don't you want a DOD Sec who can call out the war mongers? Hagel will be good for this country. He understands the mistakes of Vietnam. Let's give peace a chance

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vlyons (Reply #32)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:41 PM

35. Wow, now we cheer Republicans as Great Peacemakers? That's hilarious material you are working.

Here's Barney Frank on Hagel and his appointment. I agree with every word he says. Feel free to tell me where you disagree, specifically:
"Then-Senator Hagel’s aggressively bigoted opposition to President Clinton’s naming the first openly gay Ambassador in U.S. history was not, as Sen. Hagel now claims, an aberration.He voted consistently against fairness for LGBT people and there does not seem to be any evidence prior to his effort to become Secretary of Defense of any apology or retraction of his attack on James Hormel. And to those of us who admire and respect Mr. Hormel, Sen. Hagel’s description of him as aggressive can only mean that the Senator strongly objected to Hormel’s reasoned, civil advocacy for LGBT people.
I cannot think of any other minority group in the U.S. today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major Presidential appointment.”

http://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2013/01/01/barney-frank-strongly-opposes-chuck-hagel-defense-secretary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #35)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:54 PM

40. Barney Frank was, very oddly, interviewed by a reporter who worked for

the American Enterprise Institute two weeks ago, reported in Politico. And he specifically asked Frank what he thought of Hagel's "Jewish Lobby" comment--why? Hagel and Frank have never even served in the same chamber. The article didn't even say they KNEW each other. Why did a neocon reporter working for Bill Kristol/AEI seek out, of all people, BARNEY FRANK? Why ask HIM about Hagel? Because, the reporter said, Frank was Jewish. As if there aren't plenty of Jewish Senators who have served with Hagel, Jewish people who knew him well on Capitol Hill that this reporter could have interviewed. Nope, of all people, Barney Frank. And yet, Frank said Hagel would make a good SecDef and the Jewish Lobby thing didn't bother him at all.

A few days later, Barney Frank is, like the sudden turnaround of Log Cabin Republicans, INCENSED over 15 year old comments, that Hagel made publicly while Barney was in Congress? Please. Frank's been in politics for 30-40 years, he knows what Republicans are all about. Frank's last act in office was to OPPOSE Hagel's nomination--odd, considering he wasn't in the Senate and has no connection to Hagel or the SecDef appointment. AND now he suddenly reversed himself (again) and wants into the Senate in the worst way. If you don't think this smells to high heaven, you are not thinking critically about the strategy being employed here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #40)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:15 PM

45. I note the lack of requested specific disagreement.

Let me try again. Tell me how Frank is wrong when he says this:
"I cannot think of any other minority group in the U.S. today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major Presidential appointment.”

And a refresher on the Hagel statement on Hormel:

“They are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay, like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job."

Replace the word gay with the word 'Muslim' and tell me you'd support the man. Try 'feminist' or 'Jewish' since you have them on your mind so much. Try replacing the word 'gay' with the word 'liberal'.

“They are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be Christian — openly, aggressively Christian, like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job."
How's that one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #45)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:20 PM

47. It WOULD be an obstacle if Hagel did not repent and apologize.

Which he did. AND he pledged to do better by the LGBT community. He's probably the SAFEST choice for SecDef in terms of advancing LGBT policy, at this point, since he will be closely watched. You have no idea how other candidates will move forward on those issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:11 PM

54. repent would mean he acted in a way to mitigate what he did

I see nothing that suggests he did anything of the kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:29 PM

58. He did decline to sponsor or vote on a constitutional ban on gay marriage

that nearly every other Repub senator supported. That doesn't sound like hatred--maybe more of a "meh". He is probably evolving. If LGBT servicemembers can forgive him and challenge him on future policy, I would think that would be the true test of his committment to do better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:23 AM

77. Or if he were gay and wanted to marry, Obama would have said up until last year that he can't

As it turns out people change, believe it or not and if you want to put Hagel into permanent bigot status, then you have to put Obama there too... even if it's no longer the case in either situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:49 AM

2. I have immense respect for Max Cleland, and his opinion holds great sway, with me

I was fortunate enough to meet him, during the Kerry campaign, and I have to say that, while listening to him speak, I was in awe. When I finally got the chance to speak with him, I also found him to be a most warm and friendly man who gave everyone as much time as they wanted, with him. His hug is one I will always treasure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:51 AM

3. As a Georgian, Cleland is a gem. All the more reason to hold Saxby in contempt.

Chambliss is despicable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CurtEastPoint (Reply #3)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:59 AM

5. I am in 100% agreement

What they did to Max was beyond contemptable. A slap in the face to every wounded veteran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:21 AM

8. So please explain to me how the libel of Max differes from the libel of Hormel by Hagle?

Be specific. Hagel said Hormel's being gay hindered his ability to represent the US culture and he further claimed that Hormel was a bad choice because he was not just gay, but OPENLY gay. Openly, aggressively gay he said. Said openly gay people could not serve the United States in diplomatic or other posts because of being gay.
Why don't you think that was also beyond contemptible? It was a slap in the face to every LGBT American, including many who are also wounded from their valiant service in our military.
Do you have a list of which Americans should be protected from such attacks and which minority groups it is ok to slander in the press? Or is that all decided on a case by case basis?
What they did to Max, you are helping happen to others in the future as you support the appointment of a man who did to Hormel what those you castigate did to Max. Either it is wrong or it is not wrong. One either stands with those who attack others unjustly, or one stands against them. This 'cake and eat it too' routine is tired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:31 AM

11. Thank you for that information.

You do make a lot of really good points. I was just referring to my admiration for Max Cleland, but what you've written does give me a lot of good food for thought about Chuck Hagel.

I served in the military at a time BEFORE DADT, and I served with many LGBT service members. I never understood the reason for any restrictions.

But, while I fully understand your outrage, I do not appreciate being attacked for simply expressing my admiration for Max Cleland. There are non-aggressive ways to illicit opinions that will lead to much more meaningful dialog.

None the less, I really will digest the information you provided. Again, thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:56 AM

18. I'm very tired of the double standard, it is a definition of the minds of those who impose one set

of rules for one group and another for minorities they dislike. Hagel defended his friend Max, how sweet. He also attacked a good Democratic nominee for being gay, and by the way he also said 'aggressively gay'. We are supposed to approach the Straights with bated breath when we call out their hypocrisy I guess.
I was not really attempting to provide you with information, I assumed you had that. I was asking how your thinking allows the double standard. Many on DU have that double standard. It was terrible to criticize Susan Rice when McCain did that, but understandable that Hagel launched worse attacks on Hormel.
Republicans attacked Max and Republicans attacked Hormel. I'm against all those Republicans and all of their attacks on good people. Others are clearly opposed to only some attacks on some people. And clearly they support some Republicans which in my view is the worst thing a person can do, support Republicans in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #18)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:12 PM

24. We can't all take on every issue, as much as we might like to

As a woman and a veteran who works in healthcare, I tend to focus more on issues affecting healthcare, women and veterans. So, you did give me information on something with which I am not well versed. And, I appreciate it.

There are things on which we agree, and things on which, respectfully, we might not, but that's what makes DU, and life, an interesting place to be.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #24)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:38 PM

33. Some of my favorite people are veterans who are women who work in healthcare, and I kid you

not.Some of them are gay, some are straight. All of them are sweethearts of the first order.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:09 PM

23. Well, yes--I fondly recall Chambliss' heartfelt apology to Max. Those tears were

especially touching when he bent down to Max's wheelchair for one of those famous one-armed hugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #23)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:30 PM

31. Here is what Barney Frank has to say about Hagel's nomination. He's spot on:

"Then-Senator Hagel’s aggressively bigoted opposition to President Clinton’s naming the first openly gay Ambassador in U.S. history was not, as Sen. Hagel now claims, an aberration.He voted consistently against fairness for LGBT people and there does not seem to be any evidence prior to his effort to become Secretary of Defense of any apology or retraction of his attack on James Hormel. And to those of us who admire and respect Mr. Hormel, Sen. Hagel’s description of him as aggressive can only mean that the Senator strongly objected to Hormel’s reasoned, civil advocacy for LGBT people.

I cannot think of any other minority group in the U.S. today where such a negative statement and action made in 1998 would not be an obstacle to a major Presidential appointment.”
http://www.advocate.com/politics/politicians/2013/01/01/barney-frank-strongly-opposes-chuck-hagel-defense-secretary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #31)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:15 PM

55. When it come to Israel Barney Frank is a far right-winger

I wouldn't take Frank's criticism of Hagel too seriously. Barney Frank's support for human rights starts at his sexuality and ends at his religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #5)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:24 AM

9. Truly incomprehensible what they did to Max. The media showed themselves

as the most rightwing extremists they are during the bush years, and they should NEVER be forgiven for what they did to Max Cleland and John Kerry during the bush years. THIS is what happens when republicans rule government and media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:32 AM

12. +1,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loudsue (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:46 AM

15. + 10,000

Truly unforgivable. And we've paid a heavy price.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:07 AM

6. Yes, Cleland is a real treasure.

I met him during the Kerry campaign, too, and was equally in awe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Siwsan (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:40 PM

34. Same here!

I met Max Cleland & also got a nice hug and smile from him! It was genuine, I have so much respect for him....It was also back in 2004 during Kerry campaign....miss seeing him around out there and in the Senate....he was one of the best....

If Max has Hagel's back....so do I...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:52 AM

4. Personally, I like Hagel for this post & I adore Cleland. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:20 AM

7. Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work

But unfortunately, Obama is nominating while black and about 40 of the Senators are determined to make sure he doesn't succeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 11:42 AM

14. Every Max post gets a salute from me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:04 PM

21. K&R for Cleland

When I lived in the south, Cleland was the only elected representative I had who would actually fight for my values. In a just world he'd still be in office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:08 PM

22. Rather see Cleland up for the position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #22)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 03:21 PM

56. +1000

Great minds think alike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:28 PM

30. I am 100 per cent for Chuck Hagel. We need to stop the constant wars. I believe Hagel

 

will do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #30)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:56 PM

41. WHAT?

The Secdef position has nothing to do with starting or ending WAR... get a clue...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #41)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:06 PM

44. Ridiculous....Rumsfeld had more to do with starting

 

the Iraq debacle than Bush or Cheney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:20 PM

61. You need to actually read something once in awhile

Bush went after Iraq because his pappy was threatened nothing more nothing less, I'm sure the other Neocons helped in pursuading Democrats to vote for the stupid debacle but certainly they weren't the cause...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #61)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:24 PM

66. Baloney. That was an ancillary thought. The ostensible reason Bush went to war was because WMD's and

 

al Qaeda working with Saddam Hussein to attack the US--both bullcrap. I read every day. But when I read, I look for efficacy, not simply that which facillitates an agenda to demean a candidate for SOD because he happens to be Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #66)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:18 PM

71. Oh Jeez really....

You just said my point was ancillary and then called your reasoning bullcrap.... What gives with you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to humbled_opinion (Reply #71)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:24 AM

79. What? What was bullcrap was the assertions that the Bush crowd made about

 

WMDs and al Queada. Geesh...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #44)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 05:38 PM

63. Chuck Hagel voted for the Iraq debacle. Making your comments hilariously ironic.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #63)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:18 PM

65. Keep fly-specking. A lot of people, including Democrats voted on the war in Iraq because

 

they told a bunch of crap about weapons of mass destruction and al qaeda around every bush--both lies. When Hagle understood what had happened, he went against the war himself. Nice story you're clinging to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #65)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:26 PM

67. fly-specking?

do you work for Hagel? You sound like a Hagel groupie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #67)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:43 PM

68. I work for 82,000 diabetics and 105 Alzheimer's residents. "Hagle groupie"?

 

Yeah, right... Have a nice day. I'll stick to what Obama does about Hagle. Maybe he's a Hagle groupie too. Fly-specking is what people do, when rather than gathering evidence on conditions, they make wild assertions about minute incidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #68)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:51 PM

69. I hope Hagel goes down

and a DEMOCRAT gets nominated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:59 PM

70. I hope Hagel gets confirmed--and stops the war in

 

Afghanistan--pronto. If Hagel does NOT get confirmed, I hope the RIGHT person gets the job, his political party notwithstanding. I'd like to get a Success in there at that specific job--not some abject failure. I would settle for another Hillary Clinton type. Right now, I see few viable choices on the horizon. So our opinions simply differ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #70)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:18 PM

72. Hagel and Clinton both thought Iraq was a good idea

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)

anyone who bought that bullshit should not be Secretary of Defense. NO EXCUSE FOR THAT BULLSHIT. NONE!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #72)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:28 PM

75. Because of LIES!.............nft

 

dddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:54 PM

76. bullshit

any sane person knew they were lying - they went along for other reasons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to plethoro (Reply #75)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:40 PM

82. Because of an inability to discern lies from truth, buying the lies...

Discernment of facts is a very important job skill for those who would be Sec of Defense. Hagel is a guy who fell for lies that the bulk of the world saw as obvious mendacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #82)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:33 PM

83. Right. Your assertion would carry more weight if you knew what Hagel knew or didn't know,

 

which you don't remotely do. I'm for Hagel because he was in the field once--like me--and knows the agony of war. You're against Hagel because he fell for lies that for some reason he wouldn't have if he had a better skill-set? Let me know when you get your first star.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #69)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:21 PM

73. I totally agree with you....

No Repugs ever..... not woth the risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 12:53 PM

38. I expect the filibuster.

There's no doubt in my mind that the Asshole Republican Party will filibuster him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 10:23 PM

74. Why wasn't Cleland nominated for the job?

Democrats don't need to keep picking Republicans for defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread