HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » GOP Farce at Hagel Hearin...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:12 PM

GOP Farce at Hagel Hearings

"Tell me I was right on Iraq!"

Essentially, that's what Sen. McCain said during most of his time in today's confirmation hearing for Chuck Hagel. And that sums up why the die had been cast on the Hagel nomination, before we even got to these hearings today, which I am currently at. This vote, I believed (and now believe more than ever) is a referendum on neocon policy, not on Chuck Hagel.

Chuck Hagel, one of the first Republicans to stand up to President Bush on Iraq. Chuck Hagel who opposed the surge in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, and is against preemptive wars as a first option. Chuck Hagel being confirmed would put a nail in the coffin of neocon military policy. And that drives senators on the right insane.

That's why instead of looking ahead to issues we urgently face, in terms of a readied military that can meet commitments, McCain tried to bully Senator Hagel into saying McCain was right on the war in Iraq, and on the surge there. Of course, McCain wasn't right on the war, and wasn't right on the surge. Iraq stabilized not because of our increased military presence, but because of the Sunni awakening. In short, Iraq stabilized when Iraqis finally wanted that. But that wasn't going to keep McCain from blowing up at Chuck Hagel for daring to challenge him and other neocons.

The end of neocon rule is why Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma spent his question time presenting a blog from ultra-conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin, a favorite of the neocon cabal.

MORE...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/gop-farce-at-hagel-hearin_b_2591483.html

27 replies, 2631 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 27 replies Author Time Post
Reply GOP Farce at Hagel Hearings (Original post)
Purveyor Jan 2013 OP
silverweb Jan 2013 #1
politicaljunkie41910 Jan 2013 #2
patrice Jan 2013 #3
Cha Jan 2013 #4
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #9
patrice Jan 2013 #11
former9thward Jan 2013 #5
locks Jan 2013 #6
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #8
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #7
leftynyc Feb 2013 #17
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #18
leftynyc Feb 2013 #21
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #22
leftynyc Feb 2013 #23
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #24
leftynyc Feb 2013 #25
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #26
leftynyc Feb 2013 #27
DCBob Jan 2013 #10
golfguru Jan 2013 #13
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #14
golfguru Feb 2013 #16
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #19
golfguru Feb 2013 #20
patrice Jan 2013 #12
madinmaryland Jan 2013 #15

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:21 PM

1. The bottom line:

"This vote, I believed (and now believe more than ever) is a referendum on neocon policy, not on Chuck Hagel."

Truth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:31 PM

2. Are there any two more vile members of congress than McCain and Graham at this point in time?

If there are, I can't think of them. John McCain is so petty and bitter that I hope he chokes on his own hatred and hypocrisy. His utter contempt for the more Mavericky Chuck Hagel just leaves me speechless. I know it took everything he had inside to contain himself as those two a-holes just went on and on with their false piety.

Hagel is more of a man than John McCain will ever be, and more man than Lindsey Graham will ever have. The funny think is, Hagel is actually a wealthy man, and self made. He didn't have to marry a cheerleader half his age with a rich daddy to gain a senate seat and self respect.

I just hope he hangs in there and don't let these a-holes force him to back down. Our men and women in uniform are depending on you Chuck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 06:39 PM

3. & I, for one, and maybe the only one, can also hear McCain snarling & gnashing his teeth in the dark

over Secretary Kerry's appointment too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:01 PM

4. Oh, I know, patrice,

that mccain did not like Kerry's App, either.

McCain is a petty jealous man who doesn't mind showing the world his raging temper tantrums that exemplifiy. In John Kerry's case he used his effusive cover up act.


Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Chuck Hagel, Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

http://theobamadiary.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:49 PM

9. Jeez, both men have aged a lot in five years. Yikes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 08:56 PM

11. There was an interestingly high rate of newbie posts consisting of the VERY limited, practically

monosyllabic, same few lines each, "suppporting" a certain not-really-nominated other person for SoS, here. Whatever other people's authentic, and relatively valid, interest in that person might have been, I had to wonder what kind of swiftboating friends McCain may have cultivated all of these years in order to protect American Exceptionalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:35 PM

5. What?

McCain was pushing Kerry even while Rice was being considered. Was calling him "Secretary Kerry". And do you remember when Kerry was considering putting McCain in for VP in 2004? --Which Biden said he would support?

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4542516/ns/msnbc-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/sen-joe-biden-says-he-would-support-kerry-mccain-ticket/#.UQsNf_J0kmU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:42 PM

6. Sickening

I wanted to cheer him when those idiots finally let Hagel answer after their rude and uncivil treatment of him. And Cruz wouldn't stop even when it was clear what he was saying was false. And then the media immediately saying he was unprepared and did a bad job! We can only hope that his stands against the terrible wars, America's sad military history, and for fair treatment of the Palestinians are what he believes and that he will give good counsel to the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to locks (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:46 PM

8. The media wanted fireworks and drama and soundbites. That would all have worked against Hagel's

(and Obama's) ultimate goal, which is confirmation. He played it right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 07:43 PM

7. Hagel did exactly what he had to do. I saw where Peter Beinart is all pissy on Tweety

because Hagel "went in with a squirt gun" and didn't spend all day forcefully making a case for all of his foreign policy beliefs over the last 20 years, refuting the neocons for our satisfaction. Hagel knew he had to do certain things: Walk around the traps and landmines, because he knew they were gunning for him, rather than right into them. Not make headlines or damaging soundbites, headlines are not good in this case--what Hagel says today for confirmation is important, not defending past statements. Not have any emotional outbursts--he was stoic, and reasoned, and conciliatory when necessary (proper temperament for the job) and didn't get provoked or take bait. He walked back whatever wording would cause headlines, rather than re-affirm it and cause NEW problems. He upheld Obama's policies and beliefs. And he demonstrated a knowledge of what he will be facing on the job, and what his guiding principles will be.

The news media wanted another Hillary-banging-on-the-table moment, and instead they got a pretty rational guy responding to absolute crazies and McCarthyites in a rational way. Obama should be proud of him, he went about it the exactly right way, and that frustrated the FUCK out of the Repubs (and the media).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:42 AM

17. I consider Lindsay Graham nothing more

than colonic slime and McCain is bitter that he's not going to be able to retire as Sec of Defense in a Romney administration. That said, Hagel was being asked to answer for remarks he has made and that is asked of every person being confirmed by the senate. He was unprepared on several questions. If you're going to bitch about the Jewish lobby, you better be ready to name names. If you're going to claim the Jewish lobby has led us to do stupid things, you better be able to list them. If he was against the Iraq war and the surge, why couldn't he just say it was the wrong thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:01 AM

18. He was not unprepared for that. He doesn't have to name names--the Israel lobby

(Linsey AIPAC Graham and most of the other Senators) was sitting right in front of him, doing stupid things. We all saw it. Naming names and reciting where he was pressured would have been extremely impolitic and would have created a furor and bad headlines. He knew that, and avoided that trap. He also was not going to give McLame the headlines or confirmation he wanted that teh surge was awesome and Iraq was awesome--he addressed that in detail later. The jury is still out on what the surge accomplished, and it was a tactic in a mistaken war. He said that. I guess I'm the only one who actually watched the hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:21 PM

21. He looked like he avoided both questions

because he was too much of a coward to answer them. No courage of his convictions. He's a loser.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:59 PM

22. He answered McCain, just not with a simple yes or no. McCain wanted him

to say the SURRRGE was a success (and by implication, the Iraq war was not all that bad) in exchange for McCain's vote on committee. Hagel knew that McCain would never give him his vote, and he wouldn't say something he didn't believe in exchange for it--and he was completely calm and eventually made his point. He won. The Jewish lobby comment was a loser for him and he knew it--better to punt and let them have a non-response other than "I was wrong", because trying to defend himself will just invite further questioning. Hagel knows when to hold 'em and fold 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:21 PM

23. Totally agree on the surge question

although it would have been nice to hear the Iraq war was a mistake from start to finish and I (Hagel) was a fool to believe the word of the Bush administration (I know, I'm dreaming). On the Jewish lobby question, he came off as nothing more than a coward. I know many people here (for the record, I was not among these people, I oppose Hagel on the grounds that I don't want any republicans in the cabinet) agreed with his Jewish lobby statement (again for the record, I don't agree with it) and as an opponent of that charge, I would have been more satisfied if he had the courage of his convictions and named names or policies he felt he was "forced" into by that lobby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:26 PM

24. You understand that there was no way to do that without blowing up

his nomination, and hurting Obama, right? They had been screaming at him for being anti-Semite and anti-Israel for weeks--they wanted him to blunder into a very dangerous maze, all because he once made a poor choice of words in an interview about Israel. He was very wise to take the punch and leave it where it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:38 PM

25. I guess I'm coming from a different

place in that I don't think he was a good choice. There are Democrats that would have been very good choices. Frankly, I'm more concerned that he finds the Iranian regime legally elected and legitimate. They're not and anyone who watched it knows it. Would it really hurt Pres Obama if a republican was denied the Sec of Defense position? I'm not so sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:51 PM

26. You bring up all the neocon talking points against him.

However legitimate Iran's elections and government are, he said they are RECOGNIZED as a nation and government and said that would probably be a better choice of words--and said that he doubted their elections are "fair and free". They couldn't get him to look weak on Iran, much as they tried, for hours. He maintained Obama's current position on it, and reiterated that all options are ALWAYS on the table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:05 PM

27. I don't like being called a neo-con

so I would appreciate you not doing that. I'm probably more hawkish than most on this site and I was all for going after al queda after 9/11 (perhaps watching it outside my office window had something to do with that) but I have no desire to go into Iran...or Syria. That doesn't mean I can't call the Iranian elections the farce they were and call the Syrian regime the repugnant animals they are. I can do that without wanting the American military to get involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 08:35 PM

10. Its all for show.. Hagel will be confirmed.

GOPers know they will look absurd filibustering him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DCBob (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:17 PM

13. Even our enemies like Hagel...so he will indeed be confirmed

Iran's foreign minister just praised Hagel's nomination. Who else could have
got that endorsement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to golfguru (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:31 PM

14. I don't think Iranian propaganda messages are something to be believed.

Hagel is realistic toward Iran. Not a dove, not a hawk. So I'm not sure why you're taking the GOP side. You think Hagel is some sort of peace-department hippie? The guy who almost certainly has killed people in the jungle?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #14)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:43 AM

16. Official US policy may be anti-Iran,

But I have no problem with Iran developing nukes. If Pakistan which is much more unstable than Iran can have 100+ nukes which could actually fall in the hands of terrorists, then why a sovereign country of Iran can't have them?

I think you took my post the wrong way. I have no problem Iran endorsing Hagel. I am not anti-Hagel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to golfguru (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:04 AM

19. I don't think allowing Iran to have nukes is a good idea, I wouldn't trust them

with it. Sorry I read your post the wrong way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:07 PM

20. Mark my words..

When a dirty bomb explodes in a US city, it's origins will be traced to Pakistan, not Iran.
80% of Pakistani's favor AQ and Taliban was conceived, nurtured and supported from Pakistan.
Our soldiers in Afghanistan are killed by insurgents given sanctuary in Pakistan.

Pakistan has 100+ nukes already. Iran is trying to build their first couple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 09:06 PM

12. McCain should just have sung, "Bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb, bomb Iran!" for the hearing. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Thu Jan 31, 2013, 10:35 PM

15. Was anyone even paying attention??

Not really much coverage of the hearings, other than a few soundbites on the national nooze.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread