Apparently, President Obama has decided this term that he will allow individuals’ names to be floated for cabinet positions; then, when opposition to their candidacy arises, the potential nominee will be able to slink away without Obama facing the ignominy of having a nominee rejected. That was his modus operandi for Susan Rice. Now, the same dance is playing out for former Senator Chuck Hagel.
Hagel was a Republican Senator from Nebraska from 1996-2008. During the Vietnam War, he was in the Army, volunteered to serve as a sergeant in Vietnam, and earned two Purple Hearts, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry. He later was a Deputy Administrator with the VA, but resigned when his boss referred to veterans as ‘greedy’ and claimed that Agent Orange wasn’t much more than teenage acne. Hagel then started a number of companies and was eventually elected to the Senate.
Hagel’s problems with being confirmed, or even nominated, as Defense Secretary occurred while in the Senate, as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Here are some of the statements that he made that have drawn the ire of AIPAC:
• “The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop.”
• “Our relationship with Israel is special and historic,… But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships.”
• “There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq,”
• “[t]he Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people [on] Capitol Hill.”
We often hear talk about which interest groups are the most powerful in Washington. People on the left argue that some conservative groups have the most influence. Those on the right claim that liberal pressure groups exert the most clout. But, virtually all political scientists know that AIPAC owns DC. Politicians from both parties are only too eager to pay homage to Israel. It matters little to them that the rest of the world regards Israel as a renegade outlaw nation. It matters little to them that obeisance to this tiny country has led us into a series of wars, none of which ended well for America. Their kids don’t have to fight in the wars.
So, it seems as if we’ll let another country decide who gets to serve as Defense Secretary. I assume that the eventual nominee will have to urge us to get involved in war with the dozens of nations that AIPAC longs for. We saw in the Presidential election that we just held that both Obama and Romney made sure that they appeased Israel, regardless of what the voters wanted. The electorate doesn’t matter much when it comes to foreign policy. All that matters is the money that lobbyists provide.
December 23rd, 2012 at 11:39 am
“We saw in the Presidential election that we just held that both Obama and Romney made sure that they appeased Israel”
As I recall, Obama has been resoundingly slammed by the right for his “coolness” towards Israel and Netanyahu in particular. Or for refusing to be a lap-dog on Bibi’s “red-line” in particular in regards to Iran.
As if Israel’s our 51st state and the US should determine “when” hostilities (with our involvement) should begin.
His posture hasn’t been to “bend over” for Israel, bravo for Obama. Recall how the right whined about his not meeting ONLY with Bibi during the last UN conference a few months ago?
So I’m not quite sure what you mean.
December 23rd, 2012 at 11:59 am
Obama position on Israel
• Barack Obama states that the only way for Israel to achieve peace with their neighbors is to “begin with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel”.
• Obama criticized those who denied the Holocaust, yet he supports talks with the Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who also denies the holocaust and eventually promises that a new one would come.
• Obama has praised past Israeli leaders for their kind gestures of peace towards Palestinians but refused to recognize their earlier attempts that led to violence and death of Israelis.
• Barack Obama mentions that he is in support of resumption of the aid to the Palestinian government with a condition that the government ‘renounces terrorism’.
• Obama opines thus, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” He has declared recently in his speech ?our enemies are not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas, and it?s also cynicism.”
• Obama contends that there is a need to preserve Israel as a Jewish state though it has its politicians and its security as well.
• With regard to the security of Israel Barack Obama stated, “you will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel?s security.”
• Obama stood strong with regard to Israel’s right to defend itself from the rocket attacks and raids of Hezbollah.
• He hates characterization and rejects the term apartheid in any discussion with regard to Israel’s progress.
from: http://2012.presidential-candidates.org/Obama/Israel.php
December 23rd, 2012 at 12:30 pm
“So I’m not quite sure what you mean.”
Remember the DNC platform language not including the recognizing God, or Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel ?
They wised up and reinstated it.
Thats called appeasing, caving, sucking up.
It was obvious from the start of the convention where the left stood on God and Israel.
This was made clear by the boo’s and protests in the crowd as the revised edition was read off
December 23rd, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Arriba – Seriously. DO you think Obama’s positions have, long and short term, helped, or hurt stabilizing the Middle East? I believe it’s called “diplomacy”.
“Thats called appeasing, caving, sucking up.”
That’s called “A campaign year convention platform”.
So don’t even get me started on Romney and his sponsor Adelson’s remarks during their Israel trip during the campaign……
December 23rd, 2012 at 1:07 pm
ronm,
Oh, I thought that you wanted me to clarify what I wrote, so i did. I’m not placing either candidate on any kind of Likert Scale.
December 23rd, 2012 at 1:36 pm
““Thats called appeasing, caving, sucking up.”
That’s called “A campaign year convention platform”.”
Yeah, sure Ron.
There was one “campaign year convention platform”, and then all of a sudden another. That is not “”A”" platform. That is “”TWO”" campaign platforms.
The pressure to change platforms sure as hell didnt come from Bibi.
Maybe you can tell me where the pressure came from to change it back to their previous stance at the last minute.
“Democrats’ Efforts To Reinsert ‘God’ And ‘Jerusalem’ Into Platform Met With Loud Opposition (VIDEO)”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/dnc-god-jerusalem-platform_n_1859200.html
So, if there was only “A” Democrat(singular) platform why all the protesting from Democrats ?
“So don’t even get me started on Romney and his sponsor Adelson’s remarks during their Israel trip during the campaign……”
You can start on Romney all you want. I already told you weeks ago I thought he was an a-hole.
Neither I or Arriba are making comparisons to Romney.
Obama, on his own, regardless of who the rep candidate was, has a history of dissing Israel.
A partys platform/manifesto is very often drawn up in accordance to the candidates or incumbents position on issues.
Its no secret that theres a majority within the left that feels much like Hamas in that Jersalem is not the capitol of Israel
December 23rd, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong….sure you will…But hasn’t the US refused to formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel for about 30+ years now?
We have a few consulate buildings there, but our embassy is notably in Tel Aviv.
And anyway, how can we diplomatically press for a two state solution while calling Jerusalem Israel’s capital? It’s just not practical.
And we both know convention platforms are nothing but election year B.S….
December 23rd, 2012 at 5:54 pm
“Correct me if I’m wrong….sure you will…But hasn’t the US refused to formally recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel for about 30+ years now?”
Even if that were true were not talking about the country as a whole when we talk about the DNC or GOP platforms.
“We have a few consulate buildings there, but our embassy is notably in Tel Aviv.”
That means nothing.
“And anyway, how can we diplomatically press for a two state solution while calling Jerusalem Israel’s capital? It’s just not practical.”
I dont support a two state solution. Only an idiot thinks that would work. And that in itself is always a long dragged our debate
“And we both know convention platforms are nothing but election year B.S….”
The guys in the video sure didnt feel that way.
Outside of the platform I’ll finish by referring you to Helen Thomas as the poster child for liberals sentiments on Israel and Jews
December 23rd, 2012 at 6:28 pm
“Outside of the platform I’ll finish by referring you to Helen Thomas as the poster child for liberals sentiments on Israel and Jews”
I wasn’t aware Helen Thomas held a senior level policy position in any Democratic administration.
Can I find some crazy conservative from somewhere to cite also? Get real.
December 23rd, 2012 at 6:32 pm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/FRUS2_7_63.html
This policy is unchanged.
December 23rd, 2012 at 7:38 pm
“This policy is unchanged.”
Thats beside the point.
(Do you suffer from ADD ?)
The point is that your party removed previous language from its platform.
Used to be both partys language was almost identical
and aligned with the nations policy as a whole.In 2008, the Dem platform declared that “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel It added, “The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations.”
The platforms of both parties have consistently included similar language.
The DNC would more than likely not make this change without the democratic candidates approval.
I believe Obama would be in a “senior level policy position in any Democratic administration”.
Obviously the left decided in 2012 to distance itself from Israel.
Thus confirming Obamas statement to put distance between the US and Israel and explaining the difference in Barrys red line and Bibis
“After the second presidential debate, the New York Times put several assertions by the candidates under its “fact-checking” microscope, including a Mitt Romney statement that President Obama favored putting “daylight between us and Israel.”
However, in parsing Romney’s remark, the Times’ Richard A. Oppel, Jr., does some fact-stretching and fact-mangling of his own.
Oppel starts by acknowledging that, according to a Washington Post article, Obama did in fact tell Jewish leaders in 2009 that “when there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.”
You’d think this would be sufficient evidence to validate Romney’s remark about Obama’s inclination to put distance between Jerusalem and Washington.
But Oppel is just getting started, with an obvious attempt to protect Obama from charges that, under this president, the U.S.-Israeli alliance is often considerably frayed.
First, Oppel argues that Obama didn’t explicitly state that “his goal” was to put distance between the United States and Israel. A distinction without a difference.
Second, Oppel then opines that Obama’s statement could be construed as seeking to have “his administration to be seen as less of a rubber stamp for Israel than the Bush administration was.”
Still not satisfied with leaving Obama exposed, Oppel then simply concludes that “Obama administration officials have said that there is no daylight between the United States and Israel on the issue of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”
Thus, after exhausting his bag of semantic tricks, Oppel assures Times readers that there is no daylight between Washington and Jerusalem on the most salient and sensitive foreign policy issue for both sides – Iran’s nuclear drive.
But this is plain wrong. There is, in fact, plenty of daylight between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Obama when it comes to dealing with Iran’s nuclear threat.
Here’s the overriding “fact” missing from Oppel’s “fact checking”: In his address to the UN General Assembly, Netanyahu – waving a sketch of a bomb for emphasis – declared that his “red line” to halt Tehran’s nuclear drive is when Iran reaches a capacity to develop nuclear weapons, when Iran’s enrichment of uranium reaches weapons-grade levels. Because at that point, it’s a short and easy jump to assemble and weaponize a bomb. In sharp contrast. Obama’s “red line” defers a decision on resort to military force to a later point when Iran is on the threshold of actually having a bomb. Obama vows to prevent Iran from having a bomb. Netanyahu wants to deny Iran a “capacity” to assemble a nuclear bomb.
In plain English: A pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities might come sooner under Bibi than under Obama.
Such starkly different “red lines” provide ample evidence that, in fact, there is “daylight” between Israel and the United States – notwithstanding Oppel’s convoluted attempts to wish it away, to find fault with Romney where non exists, and to make Jewish voters less nervous about Obama.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/ny_times_fact_checker_needs_his_facts_checked.html#ixzz2Fw6zMgBr
Have a seat
December 23rd, 2012 at 7:44 pm
“I wasn’t aware Helen Thomas held a senior level policy position in any Democratic administration.”
Did I claim her to be anything more than a poster child for ?
I clearly said “outside the platform”
Sheesh , WHATS YOUR PROBLEM MAN ?!!!
December 24th, 2012 at 5:01 am
Chuckle-head Hagel also has made derogatory comments about gays, which has many Dems upset. I suspect that Hagel is an Obama canard, much like Rice. Obama will most likely formally announce somebody else to be SecDef.
December 24th, 2012 at 8:58 am
Andy Z – Rice was always headed for National Security Adviser.
Benghazi/Rice was nothing more than a shinny object for the GOP. Kerry was always in.
Hagel likewise a shinny object for the GOP.
Obama has learned how to deal with the GOP obstructionists…..Throw them a bone, then carry on as they bone mash like a dog on the sidewalk and gnarl away. Slobbering (tea party)…..etc.
Obama will get the GOP to reject Hagel, then get who he really wants…….Rope-A-Doping the GOP is a game for him.
December 24th, 2012 at 9:36 am
“Benghazi/Rice was nothing more than a shinny object for the GOP. Kerry was always in.”
It was just a little more than that dude.
The whole Rice thing was not just some distraction you think took advantage of some right wing mental incapacity.
It was a glaring confirmation of the most nontransparent administration ever in direct contrast to Barrys promise to be the most transparent admin. ever.
Rice saying “what they knew at that point” was a lie as its been discovered already that they knew much more before she went on every Sunday political talk show.
You really need to get caught up bro
“Obama will get the GOP to reject Hagel, then get who he really wants…”
Who he really wants ?
Yeah, lets have faith in a guy who picked Biden for VP.
You’re a riot dude. Keep em comin.
December 24th, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Anyway, to who evers reading.
I want to wish you all a most excellent Christmas and a New Year full of health,happiness,prosperity and peace.
M
December 24th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Micky, Benghazi is just another example of Obama’s bloody hands. Liberals don’t care because to them, insulating Obama from responsibility is more important than dead people.
Merry Christmas. May God be with you all, and remember to feed a liberal this holiday season.
December 24th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Obama runs circles around the GOP. I think Karl Rove and Romney would agree.
This latest “fiscal cliff” situation is a prime example.
Boehner is toast. The Republican party too fractured to function.
Not bad for a Kenyan……..:-)
December 24th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
“Obama runs circles around the GOP. I think Karl Rove and Romney would agree.
This latest “fiscal cliff” situation is a prime example.”
So, Ron, you think running circles around something thats fractured is a sign of strength ?
My grandma could run circles around you.
And shes been dead for 8 years.
Carl Rove is a campaign strategy consultant. Romneys down the road and never signed on to anything in the Bush tax expiration’s and cuts.
What the hell do they have to do with the cliff ?
“Not bad for a Kenyan”
OH HOLY SHT ! THE RACE BAITERS UNION ALL BE CRAPPIN DEMSELVES AS WE SPEAK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually Kenya has produced some of the worlds finest most enduring runners ever.
Bamas actually a Zebra.
Both can be found in Kenya, but one strikes me as more human.
December 24th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
“Feed a liberal” ?
Yeah, to a frickin wood chipper.
Merry Christmas Patrick.
Thank you for everything and wishing all your closest many more to come.