PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Hagel Fact Sheet



Odysseus
12-19-2012, 12:42 PM
Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com (http://www.weeklystandard.com/))


‘Introduction to the Reading of Hagel’William KristolDecember 14, 2012 4:45 PM



THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a fact sheet circulating widely on Capitol Hill. It details the record on a number of issues of former GOP senator Chuck Hagel, a leading candidate to be nominated by President Obama as the next secretary of defense:
Introduction to the Reading of Hagel

Terrorism
1. In November 2001 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/njdc_obama_appointee_has_quest_1.asp), Hagel was one of 11 Senators who refused to sign a letter requesting President Bush not meet with Yassir Arafat until forces linked to Arafat’s Fatah party ceased attacks on Israel.
2. In December 2005 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/njdc_obama_appointee_has_quest_1.asp), Hagel was one of 27 Senators who refused to sign a letter to President Bush requesting the U.S. pressure the Palestinians to ban terrorist groups from participating in legislative elections.
3. In July 2006 (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/hagel.mideast), Hagel called on President Bush to demand an immediate cease-fire when Israel retaliated against Hezbollah after the terrorist group attacked Israel, abducted two IDF soldiers, and fired rockets at Israeli civilians.
4. In August 2006 (http://www.pjvoice.com/v15/15106letter.html), Hagel was only of 12 senators who refused to sign a letter asking the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
5. In 2007 (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/08/25/for-secretary-of-defense/), Hagel voted against designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization.

Israel and “the Jewish Lobby”
1. In October 2000 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/njdc_obama_appointee_has_quest_1.asp), Hagel was one of only four Senators who refused to sign a letter expressing support for Israel during the second Palestinian intifada.
2. In July 2002 (http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2002%20Opinion%20editorials/July%202002/We%20shouldn't%20make%20Arafat%20the%20issue.htm), in a Washington Post op-ed, after several of the most deadly months of Palestinian suicide bombings, Hagel wrote that the U.S. was erroneously “making Yassir Arafat the issue,” that Palestinians could not be expected to make democratic reforms as long as “Israeli military occupation and settlement activity” continue, and that “Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.”
3. In November 2003 (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/hagar-the-horrible/2996/), Hagel failed to vote on the Syria Accountability Act authorizing sanctions on Syria for its support of terrorism and occupation of Lebanon. The Act passed by a vote of 89 to 4.
4. In July 2006 (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/hagel.mideast/), Hagel called on the Bush Administration to take up the Beirut Declaration of 2002, also known as the "Saudi Peace Initiative," saying it was “a starting point” that had been “squandered” by the United States. It calls on Israel to retreat from the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and much of Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City and the Western Wall, as a precondition for peace.
5. In calling upon (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/31/hagel.mideast/) President Bush to demand an immediate ceasefire after Israel responded to a Hezbollah attack in 2006, Hagel said: “This madness must stop," and accused Israel of "the systematic destruction of an American friend -- the country and people of Lebanon."
6. “The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” (Hagel interviewed in Aaron David Miller’s 2008 book The Too Much Promised Land)
7. In 2009 (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/08/25/for-secretary-of-defense/)), Hagel signed onto a letter urging President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization dedicated to the violent destruction of Israel and which has perpetrated dozens of suicide bombings that have killed or injured hundreds of civilians in Israel, including many Americans.
8. The National Jewish Democratic Council (http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2007/03/indecisive_sena.html) says Hagel has “a lot of questions to answer about his commitment to Israel.”
9. When questioned about his pro-Israel record (http://blogs.jta.org/politics/article/2009/10/28/1008809/rjc-attacks-hagel-appointment) during a meeting in New York with supporters of Israel, Hagel is reported to have said, “Let me clear something up here if there’s any doubt in your mind. I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I take an oath of office to the constitution of the United States. Not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel.”

Iran
1. On July 24, 2001 (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/hagar-the-horrible/2996/), Hagel was one of only two U.S. senators who voted against renewing the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.
2. In June 2004 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/10/njdc_obama_appointee_has_quest_1.asp), Hagel refused to sign a letter urging that President Bush highlight Iran’s nuclear program while at the G-8 summit.
3. In a 2007 letter to President Bush (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002471.php), Hagel urged “direct, unconditional” talks with Iran to create a “historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations.”
4. In 2007 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s970), declined to join 72 Senators in supporting a bipartisan sanctions bill called the Iran Counter Proliferation Act.
5. In a 2007 speech (http://middleeastprogress.org/2007/11/using-every-tool-to-build-the-solution/), Hagel claimed that "Continued hostile relations between the United States and Iran will have the effect of isolating the United States."
6. In 2008 (http://dalje.com/en-world/us-senate-panel-approves-new-iran-sanctions/165213), Hagel voted in the Senate Banking Committee against legislation imposing sanctions on countries conducting certain business with Iran.
7. In March 2012 (http://journalstar.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/hagel-urges-quiet-face-saving-opportunity-for-iran/article_439104f1-7933-57cd-add8-6bad30ad5ed0.html), Hagel suggested Iran had “a couple of face-saving ways” out of a new round of economic sanctions over its nuclear program. “You cannot push the Iranians into a corner where they can’t get out,” he said.




Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/introduction-reading-hagel_666565.html

Rockntractor
12-19-2012, 01:07 PM
He would be fully qualified using Obama's criteria, an Israel hater.

Generation Why?
12-19-2012, 01:18 PM
He would be fully qualified using Obama's criteria, an Israel hater.

Sounds to me like he was staying out of the way. I wouldn't consider that an Israel Hater. But I do see the point.

Unreconstructed Reb
12-19-2012, 06:16 PM
"The [Hagel] family has one dog, Figgie, a Portuguese water dog who was trained by Dawn Sylvia-Stasiewicz, the same dog trainer who trained the Obama Family's dog, Bo, as well as Ted Kennedy's dogs."---Wikipedia

Generation Why?
12-20-2012, 12:55 PM
"The [Hagel] family has one dog, Figgie, a Portuguese water dog who was trained by Dawn Sylvia-Stasiewicz, the same dog trainer who trained the Obama Family's dog, Bo, as well as Ted Kennedy's dogs."---Wikipedia

I dont think that's why he got the nom.

Odysseus
12-20-2012, 01:56 PM
"The [Hagel] family has one dog, Figgie, a Portuguese water dog who was trained by Dawn Sylvia-Stasiewicz, the same dog trainer who trained the Obama Family's dog, Bo, as well as Ted Kennedy's dogs."---Wikipedia

Obama has a Portuguese Water Dog that was trained by the same dog trainer who trained Teddy Kennedy's dogs? Insert obligatory Chappaquiddick joke here.


I dont think that's why he got the nom.

Oh, I don't know... Hagel, Obama and Kennedy may share the same fleas.

Unreconstructed Reb
12-20-2012, 02:16 PM
I dont think that's why he got the nom.

But it does show that he has left wing affiliations both publically and personally.

Retread
12-20-2012, 11:05 PM
But it does show that he has left wing affiliations both publically and personally.

His decisions show that without any conflicting info.

Generation Why?
12-21-2012, 12:58 PM
But it does show that he has left wing affiliations both publically and personally.

I work with Democrats in the Army. I sometimes even go to the same restaurants as Democrats and order the same food as Democrats. That doesn't show an affiliation. What this shows is high ranking people in DC talking about dogs.

Odysseus
12-21-2012, 01:23 PM
I work with Democrats in the Army. I sometimes even go to the same restaurants as Democrats and order the same food as Democrats. That doesn't show an affiliation. What this shows is high ranking people in DC talking about dogs.

Yeah, but I couldn't resist the flea joke.

The problem with Hegel isn't his party affiliation or his dog's, it's his outlook on the world. He doesn't see the threat that we are facing from resurgent Islamist jihad, and is openly hostile to one of our allies, which is in the forefront of the fight against it. During the Cold War, Israel was a US ally because of ideological compatibilities, as well as necessity. The Arab monarchies tended towards our side, while the secular dictatorships were allies of the Soviets (due to the influence of Ba'athism, which was a secular, pan-Arab socialist ideology that owed its basic premises to communism and Nazism). Now that the Cold War is over, the major ideology among Arabs is Islam. Partly, this is because the only non-governmental institution that the Ba'athists and monarchs permitted was the mosque, so the religiously based opposition movements were the only ones that had a place to organize and a cover for their activities. Consequently, we have a rising tide of totalitarian Islamic fervor that is overthrowing the post-colonial order and establishing Sharia states that seek to form a new Caliphate. This is the nature of the threat that the west faces. The neo-Caliphate has money (from the Saudis and other OPEC states), bodies (Muslims are among the only peoples in the west whose birth rates are above replacement levels), enthusiasm (Islam provides all of the psychological benefits of secular totalitarian movements, plus a religious fervor and rewards that appeal to young, unmarried men) and history (Islam is the true thousand-year Reich). Ideologically, it is a greater threat than communism, because communism, as a materialist ideology, could not survive its obvious failures. Islam, on the other hand, can survive failure, because failure is the result of the will of Allah, a punishment for impiety or impure application of Islamic law. Islamic jihad is an existential threat to western civilization, and Hegel doesn't get that. There are few Democrats who do, like Joe Lieberman, and you saw how the party treated him. Any Obama appointee is going to be an Islamic apologist, but Hegel's history of anti-semitic statements and alliances is extremely disturbing.

Generation Why?
12-21-2012, 01:25 PM
Yeah, but I couldn't resist the flea joke.

Any Obama appointee is going to be an Islamic apologist, but Hegel's history of anti-semitic statements and alliances is extremely disturbing.

1. Loved the flea joke.

2. Could you point out some anti-semitic statements? Not picking a fight just looking for some insight. A little back and forth.

valiant
12-21-2012, 01:46 PM
I'd call Hagel a 'RINO', but that would elevate him from gutter-snipe.

Odysseus
12-21-2012, 02:35 PM
1. Loved the flea joke.
Thanks.
2. Could you point out some anti-semitic statements? Not picking a fight just looking for some insight. A little back and forth.

The first one is from the list above: "The political reality is that … the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” Belief in the existence of a nefarious Jewish lobby that secretly controls U.S. foreign policy is pretty basic antisemitism.

Another is his comment, "I'm a United States Senator, not an Israeli Senator. I'm a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that." Implying that persons who care about Israel are conflicted by dual loyalty is another common antisemitic meme. A former member here, Gator, used to to it repeatedly. Then, there are his actions. For example the American Jewish Committe, which is usually pretty liberal, came out against him because of his stance on anti-Semitism in Russia:


The first AJC encounter with Sen. Hagel I recall was when we sought his support, in 1999, for a Senate letter to then Russian President Boris Yeltsin urging action against rising anti-Semitism. We were unsuccessful. On June 20, 1999, we published the letter as a full-page ad in The New York Times with 99 Senate signatories. Only Sen. Hagel’s name was absent.

Our concern then has only grown since, as we have witnessed his stance on a range of core U.S. national security priorities.



Not signing an open letter against anti-Semitism is pretty obvious, especially when he was the only holdout in the senate. Even Bernie Sanders signed it. It's pretty much a no-brainer.

Janice
01-08-2013, 11:26 AM
Iran endorses Hagel nomination... (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/08/iran-hopes-hagel-nomination-will-improve-relations-between-us-tehran/)

Well, that clinches it for me. :cold:

Molon Labe
01-08-2013, 12:57 PM
Sounds to me like he was staying out of the way. I wouldn't consider that an Israel Hater. But I do see the point.

He's not. He's a REALIST in International Relations. What Ody's upset about is that he won't kiss William Kristol's ass and that PNAC is losing their hold on American foreign policy for the past 15 years. That's a good thing.

Unbelievable...This is the ONLY smart thing Obama has done for the past 4 years. We might get a good Republican in this office and people want to be critical. :rolleyes:

in other words: He won't get us in another stupid war with some podunk third world country

Molon Labe
01-08-2013, 01:29 PM
Another is his comment, [I]"I'm a United States Senator, not an Israeli Senator. I'm a United States Senator.

Sounds fair to me. It's about time American elected officials started putting America first over ANY foreign nation.

Sometimes putting US interests first may clash with the policies of the Israeli government.

noonwitch
01-08-2013, 02:25 PM
Obama has a Portuguese Water Dog that was trained by the same dog trainer who trained Teddy Kennedy's dogs? Insert obligatory Chappaquiddick joke here.


Okay.


If Teddy had such a well-trained dog, he probably should have let the dog drive.

Odysseus
01-08-2013, 02:30 PM
He's not. He's a REALIST in International Relations. What Ody's upset about is that he won't kiss William Kristol's ass and that PNAC is losing their hold on American foreign policy for the past 15 years. That's a good thing.

Channeling your inner Gator, there? I'm upset about an anti-semite with a long history of foolish and wrongheaded ideas in foreign policy becoming the SECDEF, but since that's not as effective as playing the NeoCon card, you went ad hominem right off the bat. Go figure. And his comment about not being an Israeli senator is meant to imply that anyone who considers backstabbing Israel a policy mistake may not be loyal to the US (another Gatorism, and a standard anti-semitic trope). Even the Washington Post, which is hardly a NeoCon outlet, considered him unacceptable just a month ago:


Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html
By Editorial Board, Published: December 18

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

While both Republicans and Democrats accept that further cuts in defense may be inevitable, few have suggested that a reduction on the scale of the sequester is responsible. In congressional testimony delivered around the same time as Mr. Hagel’s interview, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the sequester would lead to “a severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” “a Marine Corps that’s below the end strength to support even one major contingency” and “an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk” for the Army.

Mr. Hagel was similarly isolated in his views about Iran during his time in the Senate. He repeatedly voted against sanctions, opposing even those aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Mr. Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than sanctions, were the best means to alter Iran’s behavior. The Obama administration offered diplomacy but has turned to tough sanctions as the only way to compel Iran to negotiate seriously.

Mr. Obama has said that his policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that containment is not an option. Mr. Hagel has taken a different view, writing in a 2008 book that “the genie of nuclear weapons is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.” The former senator from Nebraska signed on to an op-edin The Post this September that endorsed “keeping all options on the table” for stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But Mr. Hagel has elsewhere expressed strong skepticism about the use of force.

We share that skepticism — but we also understand that, during the next year or two, Mr. Obama may be forced to contemplate military action if Iran refuses to negotiate or halt its uranium-enrichment program. He will need a defense secretary ready to support and effectively implement such a decision. Perhaps Mr. Hagel would do so; perhaps he would also, if installed at the Pentagon, take a different view of defense spending. (Mr. Hagel declined through a spokesman to speak to us about his views.)

What’s certain is that Mr. Obama has available other possible nominees who are considerably closer to the mainstream and to the president’s first-term policies. Former undersecretary of defense Michèle Flournoy, for example, is a seasoned policymaker who understands how to manage the Pentagon bureaucracy and where responsible cuts can be made. She would bring welcome diversity as the nation’s first female defense secretary.

Mr. Hagel is an honorable man who served the country with distinction as a soldier in Vietnam and who was respected by his fellow senators. But Mr. Obama could make a better choice for defense secretary.




Unbelievable...This is the ONLY smart thing Obama has done for the past 4 years. We might get a good Republican in this office and people want to be critical. :rolleyes:

in other words: He won't get us in another stupid war with some podunk third world country

No, but then the SECDEF doesn't decide who we go to war with, he simply executes policy. This, as the WAPO OP-ED pointed out, means that Obama's SECDEF would be undermining his policies in the event that he decided that we did need to use the military, through draconian cuts and misaligning our focus away from the the threat that we now face. Whether we go to war or not is a legitimate question, but even you can't want a half-hearted prosecution of a war once the decision has been made to engage. That's a recipe for failure and dead Americans, in the short and longterm.


Iran endorses Hagel nomination... (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/08/iran-hopes-hagel-nomination-will-improve-relations-between-us-tehran/)

Well, that clinches it for me. :cold:

It clinches it for most of us. Molon has a blind spot in foreign policy, where he believes that we can disengage from the world without consequences. It's isolationist idiocy, in the Ron Paul mold.

Generation Why?
01-08-2013, 02:36 PM
Sounds fair to me. It's about time American elected officials started putting America first over ANY foreign nation.

Sometimes putting US interests first may clash with the policies of the Israeli government.

Bibi Netanyahu put Israeli interests first when he told us to get out of the way, Israel can handle themselves. I see no problem with Hagel's comments.

Generation Why?
01-08-2013, 02:42 PM
It clinches it for most of us. Molon has a blind spot in foreign policy, where he believes that we can disengage from the world without consequences. It's isolationist idiocy, in the Ron Paul mold.

For the umteenth time, not trying to legislate other countries =/= isolationism. See: Switzerland.

Rockntractor
01-08-2013, 02:52 PM
For the umteenth time, not trying to legislate other countries =/= isolationism. See: Switzerland.

When we no longer have the power to step into conflicts Switzerland will be gone in the first world war that occurs, countries like them have the luxury to exist neutrally because we are here. Had we not stepped into world war II when we did they would have either become part of Germany or owned by Russia.

Molon Labe
01-08-2013, 03:31 PM
Channeling your inner Gator, there? I'm upset about an anti-semite with a long history of foolish and wrongheaded ideas in foreign policy becoming the SECDEF, but since that's not as effective as playing the NeoCon card, you went ad hominem right off the bat. .

Good grief. So everyone that thinks we should be American's first is anti-semite. Gosh!

William Kristol and everyone at PNAC are fools. There are plenty of them who aren't Jewish. I don't give two shits what religion or nationality they are. It's their political failure that is in question.

I'll spell it out for you It's called REALIST International Relations theory It's THE most effective foreign policy school in history. And PNACs school of endless intervention is a fools parade and an abject failure.

Stay on topic and get a clue.

Molon Labe
01-08-2013, 03:34 PM
For the umteenth time, not trying to legislate other countries =/= isolationism. See: Switzerland.

Don't worry, it's just a Strawman. In a moment he'll post a long bullet list of some meaningless and remote history examples to somehow distract from the main thesis.

Odysseus
01-08-2013, 06:37 PM
Bibi Netanyahu put Israeli interests first when he told us to get out of the way, Israel can handle themselves. I see no problem with Hagel's comments.

I expect Netanyahu to put Israeli interest first, just as I expect our president to put America's interest first. What you don't seem to understand is that Israel and America share common interests in the face of a global jihad. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia and Jordan is part of a trend towards a single Islamic caliphate. Islamist governments already control Iran, Sudan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda, which Hagel and Obama don't consider much of a threat, now controls Mali. Just over a decade after 9/11, we're seeing Islamic states growing in number and power, rather than the reverse. Israel has been fighting this war for sixty years, while we're just beginning to realize that we are at war.


For the umteenth time, not trying to legislate other countries =/= isolationism. See: Switzerland.

Okay, first, we aren't "legislating" other countries. Our legislature passes laws that are only binding on us. Second, Switzerland has a unique position in the world, in that they are pretty much self-contained, inaccessable and lack any real threat to their sovereignty. They've given the world chocolate and cuckoo clocks, and that's pretty much it. We can no more look at them as an example of how to conduct ourselves in the world than we can look at Togo, Singapore or Lichtenstein. Get over that.


Good grief. So everyone that thinks we should be American's first is anti-semite. Gosh!

No, but in your case, the references to kissing William Kristol's ass reminded me of Gator's profanity in lieu of rational argument. Doesn't make you an anti-semite, but it doesn't speak well of your capacity to make an argument.

In the case of Hagel, the accusation of antisemitism is valid. In the list of quotes and other actions which make Hagel's position suspect, one particularly piece stands out, his refusal to sign onto a petition against antisemitism in the Soviet Union, the only member of the senate who refused to sign. Can you explain why he refused to sign a petition against anti-semitism? His apologists claim that he refuses to sign any letters to heads of state, but if that were the case, then why did he sign a letter urging Obama to talk to leaders of Hamas? Hamas has never renounced violence and its covenant demands, not only the destruction of Israel, but of all Jews in the world. Would you at least acknowledge that he supports talks with blatant anti-semites? Or is that too far a logical leap for you?

Finally, he doesn't put America first. If he did, he'd have signed off on the letter to the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group (or don't you think that a group that has murdered hundreds of Americans through car bombings, assassinations and executions qualifies?). He is an isolationist, in the same stamp as the members of the 1930s America First Committee, which turned out to be a front for Nazis who were trying to keep America out of WWII, and like them, he's wrong on the issues.



William Kristol and everyone at PNAC are fools. There are plenty of them who aren't Jewish. I don't give two shits what religion or nationality they are. It's their political failure that is in question.

The Project for the New American Century was pretty much shut down in the mid-2000s, so you're railing at phantoms.


I'll spell it out for you It's called REALIST International Relations theory It's THE most effective foreign policy school in history. And PNACs school of endless intervention is a fools parade and an abject failure.

Stay on topic and get a clue.

REALIST International Relations theory? Oh, okay, since it's in bold, you must know what you're talking about. No, wait, it just means that you've figured out the bold text button. Realist International Relations Theory is based on several premises, none of which are espoused by Hagel, or you. Realists believe that mankind is inherently competitive and that this is reflected in the conduct of nations. Conflict is therefore inevitable, especially between states which are culturally and politically disparate (for example, Islamist theocracies and western democracies), and that survival requires the unflinching application of force when it is necessary. Does that sound like Hagel's position on Iran and its terror proxies? Of course not. You don't know what you are talking about when you cite realism in international relations. Read Machiavelli if you want to understand it, but stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.


Don't worry, it's just a Strawman. In a moment he'll post a long bullet list of some meaningless and remote history examples to somehow distract from the main thesis.

It's only meaningless and remote if your understanding of history starts on your birthday and never goes back any further. You look at a snapshot of the Middle East and pretend that the 2,000 years of history that preceded it is "meaningless and remote", when what you mean to say is that it doesn't conform to your naive and simplistic worldview.

I'd tell you to get a clue, but we both know that you wouldn't be able to find one if it came up and bit you.

Molon Labe
01-10-2013, 01:51 PM
I expect Netanyahu to put Israeli interest first, just as I expect our president to put America's interest first. What you don't seem to understand is that Israel and America share common interests in the face of a global jihad. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia and Jordan is part of a trend towards a single Islamic caliphate. Islamist governments already control Iran, Sudan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda, which Hagel and Obama don't consider much of a threat, now controls Mali. Just over a decade after 9/11, we're seeing Islamic states growing in number and power, rather than the reverse. Israel has been fighting this war for sixty years, while we're just beginning to realize that we are at war.


You describe a culture war, not a shooting war. You cannot defeat a culture war by military means. See war on drugs, war on poverty, war on homeless, and any other liberal ignoramous endeavor out there. ( I wonder why conservatives use this for what suites them, when it is clearly a fallacy of the left)


There is NO middle eastern nation that rises to the level of a world military power threat of the level of the USSR, Nazi Germany or the modern states of China, or Germany. You have made that argument for years and it still rings hollow. Your fear of bugaboos is tiring.

There are few respected people in International Relations that actually beleive the military threat is on that level, save for the idiots at PNAC. Problem is that no one in charge of US foreign policy actually listens to any of the best and brightest in this subject area.

And NO, not every American believes that Israel and the US completely "share" a common interest. Actually, most scholars of US securtity (ones who are ignored by the stupid Federal Government) actually believe that our security interests are hampered and made worse by this. So it is not as true as you make it.



No, but in your case, the references to kissing William Kristol's ass reminded me of Gator's profanity in lieu of rational argument. Doesn't make you an anti-semite, but it doesn't speak well of your capacity to make an argument.

I can't help you with your gator issue. You're tendancy to bent out of shape over what he did to you creeps into alot of conversations when someone speaks of policy disagreements regarding this subject, and it tends to cloud your view.

I stated that Hagel won't cow (kiss ass) to a bunch of third rate Foreign policy morons PNAC. You brought "The JOOOS" into it.

I'm afraid that anyone who agrees with a Senator who says he disagrees with the poltics of Kristol doesn't make them "anti-semite", anymore than disagreeing with Obama makes them racist of blacks or disagreement with US FP regarding Korea, makes one racist of Asians.

Isreali government itself has stated the US should get out of the way and let them handle thier own problems. Sounds like good advice. Hagel has suggested nothing any different.



In the case of Hagel, the accusation of antisemitism is valid. In the list of quotes and other actions which make Hagel's position suspect, one particularly piece stands out, his refusal to sign onto a petition against antisemitism in the Soviet Union, the only member of the senate who refused to sign. Can you explain why he refused to sign a petition against anti-semitism? His apologists claim that he refuses to sign any letters to heads of state, but if that were the case, then why did he sign a letter urging Obama to talk to leaders of Hamas? Hamas has never renounced violence and its covenant demands, not only the destruction of Israel, but of all Jews in the world. Would you at least acknowledge that he supports talks with blatant anti-semites? Or is that too far a logical leap for you?

Probably because taking the time to sign "symbolic" pieces of legislation is a waste of time, stupid, and pointless? That's what Libtards do. Sitting around writing up symbolic condemnations of this or that as if they are doing something. I really could care less about a 13 year old symbolic bill.....but it's a great Red herring if you want to get wrapped around the axel.

I am worried with how he will handle AMERICAN foreign policy, not his views on another nations internal politics.


There's no logic in the belief that he harbors ill will to Jews at all. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/07/chuck-hagel-defends-his-record-on-israel-iran/


“Israel is in a very, very difficult position,” he told the paper. “No border that touches Israel is always secure. We need to work to help protect Israel so it doesn’t get isolated.”



Finally, he doesn't put America first. If he did, he'd have signed off on the letter to the European Union to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist group (or don't you think that a group that has murdered hundreds of Americans through car bombings, assassinations and executions qualifies?). He is an isolationist, in the same stamp as the members of the 1930s America First Committee, which turned out to be a front for Nazis who were trying to keep America out of WWII, and like them, he's wrong on the issues.

More propaganda Ody? By definition Realist poltics does not = isolationism.

I would say wrong on the issues would be men like Kristol who should be dressed in clown suits and run out on a rail for their failures over the last 15 years.



The Project for the New American Century was pretty much shut down in the mid-2000s, so your railing at phantoms.

Nope it's alive and well. Sure wish it was defunct after the complete and utter failures of it's FP predictions and solutions, but it is not. Those idiots still have influence on American FP and Kristol and his cronies have several other endeavors that get lots of traction. I'll post some if you'd like?



[
B]REALIST International Relations theory[/B]? Oh, okay, since it's in bold, you must know what you're talking about. No, wait, it just means that you've figured out the bold text button. Realist International Relations Theory is based on several premises, none of which are espoused by Hagel, or you. Realists believe that mankind is inherently competitive and that this is reflected in the conduct of nations. Conflict is therefore inevitable, especially between states which are culturally and politically disparate (for example, Islamist theocracies and western democracies), and that survival requires the unflinching application of force when it is necessary. Does that sound like Hagel's position on Iran and its terror proxies? Of course not. You don't know what you are talking about when you cite realism in international relations. Read Machiavelli if you want to understand it, but stop pretending that you know what you're talking about.

Lol. So let me see if I get this argument straight? You believe Machiavelian politics is the method best used in modern IR? The man who wrote The Prince, which is the foundation of every modern dictator in the last 200 years is the basis for which I should understand the modern nation state relationship? Ha... Ha... Ha....

Bullshit.

I studied International relations in college exclusively. I'm not calling myself an expert, but I'm supremely confidant I can hold my own in discussing the frameworks of international politics and what has been effective and what has not. You're going to have to do better than what is essentially the "nuh uh" argument.

The reason the US is in decline is because US policy wonks got influenced in this school in the early 90's and made headroads into US policy positions with clout. Alot of people gott buggered, including me, as I used to believe this garbage, when they read F. Fukuyama's thesis on "The End of History" and it's fouled up the last 20 years with alot of backwards thinking. You get back to me when you've read it, because based on your writings over the years, what you support is not Machiaveli at all in any grand scheme...... It's Fukuyama and his grand theory.

Know thyself Ody. I highly recommend it.

Lol. You know, I've never in my life heard someone condemn the most prominant school of IR in the 20th century that was responsible for bringing down the USSR. Kinda funny actually.



It's only meaningless and remote if your understanding of history starts on your birthday and never goes back any further. You look at a snapshot of the Middle East and pretend that the 2,000 years of history that preceded it is "meaningless and remote", when what you mean to say is that it doesn't conform to your naive and simplistic worldview.

You don't espouse the "Rational Actor" theory in IR. As a matter of fact you have rejected one of the axioms of international politics, so therefore you cannot begin to understand what is effective. Your world view on how to handle the ME is based on some wacky version of believing you are Indiana Jones and that the Iranian caliphate is the Thuggees wating for the God Cali to return to take over the World. Once again, what you speak of is the religious culture of the region, not the actual costs and consequences State actors weigh when making decisions.

You would fight an invasion of Culture with bombs and bullets. This is ignorance.

If the West....Americans, and Europeans are too stupid to fight for thier own ideals and laws of western culture, then they have lost already. I don't believe that and I don't believe that Islam is superior to Western culture.

And no gun, or Army can change that.

I'm not a Hagel fanboy, nor do I know if he won't simply turn out to be as bad as the rest of them who've been SOD for the last 15 years. But I do know that his nomination and school of thought is a radical departure from the failures. It can't be any worse than the Panetta's, Rumsfeld,s Gates, and Cohen's of late.

And to end: I don't wish to have any other discussion about this subject based on the subject of this thread, which was basically ad hominem allegations of Anti-Semitism or Godwin's law. If you have a disagreement of the central point that he is not going to be a descent SOD, then speak it. If you cannot come up with a rational arguement based on the central policy disagreements then please don't bother responding to this.

Rockntractor
01-10-2013, 01:59 PM
There is NO middle eastern nation that rises to the level of a world military power threat of the level of the USSR, Nazi Germany or the modern states of China, or Germany.

You must own your own CIA, I bet its get expensive to maintain on your income.

Molon Labe
01-10-2013, 02:15 PM
You must own your own CIA, I bet its get expensive to maintain on your income.

You make it too complicated.

Please site one ME nation that could invade and occupy a world power and have air, sea and land power of capabilities of fair or equal capacity.

Rockntractor
01-10-2013, 02:17 PM
You make it too complicated.

Please site one ME nation that could invade and occupy a world power and have air, sea and land power of capabilities of fair or equal capacity.

Nazi Germany could not do it in 1935 either.

Molon Labe
01-10-2013, 02:31 PM
Nazi Germany could not do it in 1935 either.

Yes. And there is no nation in the ME who could do that to one another either. When Iraq did so in 90', it miscalculated based on it's communication with the West and the perception of the actions that would be taken.

They are all rational actor states.
Goal setting.....Weight of options......Weight of consequences.......Maximizing profit or position of stability.

There's a wiki article if actually studying the issue in depth is too time consuming. I understand it will be for many.

Rockntractor
01-10-2013, 02:38 PM
Yes. And there is no nation in the ME who could do that to one another either. When Iraq did so in 90', it miscalculated based on it's communication with the West and the perception of the actions that would be taken.

They are all rational actor states.
Goal setting.....Weight of options......Weight of consequences.......Maximizing profit or position of stability.

There's a wiki article if actually studying the issue in depth is too time consuming. I understand it will be for many.

This is worthy of a facepalm by a fictional character.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/Ernie_facepalm_by_ridinrail.jpg

Honestly this was an argument that became irrelevant 4 years ago, the enemy controls our government now.

Molon Labe
01-10-2013, 03:05 PM
Honestly this was an argument that became irrelevant 4 years ago, the enemy controls our government now.

4? I'd argue it's been about 20 years. I've always viewed the Obama presidency as one step furthering the failures of Bushy's Pseudo conservatism. However, The first idiot to start jettisoning descent FP wonks in favor of some "grand" design on the third world was Clinton. Then Bushy. Obama's just followed in thier footsteps. It was inevitable that when you give the guy you like a pass for 8 years the next guys gonna think he can too.

Odysseus
01-14-2013, 12:29 AM
You describe a culture war, not a shooting war. You cannot defeat a culture war by military means. See war on drugs, war on poverty, war on homeless, and any other liberal ignoramous endeavor out there. ( I wonder why conservatives use this for what suites them, when it is clearly a fallacy of the left)

No, I'm describing an ideological war, like the Cold War, but unlike communism, Islamist imperialism has been around since the seventh century. Hitler's thousand year Reich barely made it into adolescence, and the workers' paradise lasted about as long as my grandparents, but Islam has been inspiring conquests for 1400 years, and the latest wave is picking up steam at a faster rate than any of the previous ones.


There is NO middle eastern nation that rises to the level of a world military power threat of the level of the USSR, Nazi Germany or the modern states of China, or Germany. You have made that argument for years and it still rings hollow. Your fear of bugaboos is tiring.

In 1932, there were several European countries that were capable of projecting power around the world, but Germany wasn't one of them. In fact, it was a ruined, impoverished state, demilitarized and utterly incapable of challenging the French and British empires. In 1941, Germany controlled all of Europe and threatened England. Your refusal to look at history is infuriating.


There are few respected people in International Relations that actually beleive the military threat is on that level, save for the idiots at PNAC. Problem is that no one in charge of US foreign policy actually listens to any of the best and brightest in this subject area.

And NO, not every American believes that Israel and the US completely "share" a common interest. Actually, most scholars of US securtity (ones who are ignored by the stupid Federal Government) actually believe that our security interests are hampered and made worse by this. So it is not as true as you make it.

In the 1930s, Churchill was an object of ridicule and derision, officially censored and written out of polite society because of his views of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. He also happened to be right.


I can't help you with your gator issue. You're tendancy to bent out of shape over what he did to you creeps into alot of conversations when someone speaks of policy disagreements regarding this subject, and it tends to cloud your view.

Gator routinely resorted to personal attacks and profanity when he didn't have rational arguments. Your constant refrain about kissing the asses of William Kristol and PNAC sound just like his diatribes about "filthy Israelis". If you don't like the comparison, don't adopt the behavior.


I stated that Hagel won't cow (kiss ass) to a bunch of third rate Foreign policy morons PNAC. You brought "The JOOOS" into it.

No, Hagel did, when he talked about a fictitious "Jewish lobby" that intimidates congress into adopting policies that they would otherwise not support. You keep avoiding addressing that point.


I'm afraid that anyone who agrees with a Senator who says he disagrees with the poltics of Kristol doesn't make them "anti-semite", anymore than disagreeing with Obama makes them racist of blacks or disagreement with US FP regarding Korea, makes one racist of Asians.

Hagel didn't say anything about Kristol, that's your obsession, but he has said a lot about Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and other enemies of the US, all of it wrong.


Isreali government itself has stated the US should get out of the way and let them handle thier own problems. Sounds like good advice. Hagel has suggested nothing any different.

No, but he's also sided with Israel's (and our) enemies at every opportunity. Even you must find Hamas and Hezbollah to be less than savory.


Probably because taking the time to sign "symbolic" pieces of legislation is a waste of time, stupid, and pointless? That's what Libtards do. Sitting around writing up symbolic condemnations of this or that as if they are doing something. I really could care less about a 13 year old symbolic bill.....but it's a great Red herring if you want to get wrapped around the axel.


And yet, he found time to draft and sign a letter to Obama in 2009, demanding that he engage in direct talks with Hamas, whose charter demands the death of all Jews in the world, not just Israel. He can't be bothered to sign a symbolic letter against anti-Semitism, but he can write a letter on behalf of anti-Semites.


There's no logic in the belief that he harbors ill will to Jews at all. http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/07/chuck-hagel-defends-his-record-on-israel-iran/

Backpedaling denials don't impress me. The rest of his record speaks for itself.


More propaganda Ody? By definition Realist poltics does not = isolationism.

You're the only one that is claiming that Hagel is a realist, but since you are making the claim, I'd like you to present a definition of Realism as you see it, since I don't think that you have a clue what realpolitik is.


I would say wrong on the issues would be men like Kristol who should be dressed in clown suits and run out on a rail for their failures over the last 15 years.

Have you ever actually read any of the position papers from PNAC or is this rage the result of a screwed up Weekly Standard subscription? Seriously, you keep invoking him as the bogeyman, but you don't ever cite any specifics. You sound like a DUmmie going off on Cheney and Halliburton.


Nope it's alive and well. Sure wish it was defunct after the complete and utter failures of it's FP predictions and solutions, but it is not. Those idiots still have influence on American FP and Kristol and his cronies have several other endeavors that get lots of traction. I'll post some if you'd like?

Then, perhaps you can check their website for any content added after 2007? Because that's the last time anyone wrote anything under their auspices. Maybe they've gone underground, and are secretly running the government like the Illuminati, the Freemasons or the guys who burn crop circles in Area 51.


Lol. So let me see if I get this argument straight? You believe Machiavelian politics is the method best used in modern IR? The man who wrote The Prince, which is the foundation of every modern dictator in the last 200 years is the basis for which I should understand the modern nation state relationship? Ha... Ha... Ha....

Bullshit.

Written like someone who's never actually read Machiavelli. He was a supporter of republican governments, and served as the head of the city defenses for the Florentine Republic. His main point in the Prince is that a leader must be able to act decisively and not be constrained by abstractions when survival is on the line. This is not a call to abandon any moral compass, but rather an explanation of the proper place for subterfuge and force in government. He despised the courtiers who sought to substitute words for actions when actions were required, and who believed that diplomacy alone could prevent war. If you want a more explicit example of his democratic leanings, read his Discourses on Livy, but read something that he actually wrote before you dismiss him.


I studied International relations in college exclusively. I'm not calling myself an expert, but I'm supremely confidant I can hold my own in discussing the frameworks of international politics and what has been effective and what has not. You're going to have to do better than what is essentially the "nuh uh" argument.

Seriously? Did you sleep through your classes or something? You really come off as staggeringly ignorant on the history of international relations.


The reason the US is in decline is because US policy wonks got influenced in this school in the early 90's and made headroads into US policy positions with clout. Alot of people gott buggered, including me, as I used to believe this garbage, when they read F. Fukuyama's thesis on "The End of History" and it's fouled up the last 20 years with alot of backwards thinking. You get back to me when you've read it, because based on your writings over the years, what you support is not Machiaveli at all in any grand scheme...... It's Fukuyama and his grand theory.

Know thyself Ody. I highly recommend it.

You think that the US is in decline because of PNAC? I'd expect that from an Obama supporter, but only because they'd argue that the lower taxes and strong defense advocated by PNAC meant that the 99% were getting fewer benefits. America is in decline because we are spending borrowed money on social programs that are unsustainable, and because we will end up having to gut our defense capabilities in order to keep up the interest payments. We're in hock, not because of wars, but because of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, Stimulus 1 and 2 and the rest of the out of control spending that the so-called "best and brightest" have imposed on us.


Lol. You know, I've never in my life heard someone condemn the most prominant school of IR in the 20th century that was responsible for bringing down the USSR. Kinda funny actually.

You don't espouse the "Rational Actor" theory in IR. As a matter of fact you have rejected one of the axioms of international politics, so therefore you cannot begin to understand what is effective. Your world view on how to handle the ME is based on some wacky version of believing you are Indiana Jones and that the Iranian caliphate is the Thuggees wating for the God Cali to return to take over the World. Once again, what you speak of is the religious culture of the region, not the actual costs and consequences State actors weigh when making decisions.

No, my world view on the Middle East is based on having studied the history of the conflict and done tours there. The religious culture of the region is also the political culture, because Islam, unlike the Thuggee cult, demands the conquest of the entire world. It is a totalitarian political, economic and religious doctrine that goes far beyond the prescriptions of any other religion in the world. The most widely respected guide to Sharia, the Reliance of the Traveler, dictates the conduct of Muslims in literally everything that they do, from personal hygiene to interactions with non-believers.

Odysseus
01-14-2013, 12:29 AM
You would fight an invasion of Culture with bombs and bullets. This is ignorance.

No, I would fight it with all of the tools at our disposal, but the first tool is our will to preserve our culture. The second is to make people like you understand that we are in a war, not just of culture, but of bombs and bullets (Iran's nuclear program isn't an abstract expression of faith). The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran are, in one critical way, very much like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, in that they believes that they have a mission to spread their ideology all over the world and destroy anyone who opposes them. John Cornyn summed them up brilliantly in his OP-ED piece in opposition to Hagel, saying, "This is not a government that calculates self-interest the way America does. It is a messianic theocracy intent on exporting its violent Islamist revolution. And if Tehran gets the bomb, we might soon have a nuclear arms race in one of the world's most volatile regions." Remember that phrase, "messianic theocracy." In its own way, that describes the communist and Nazi regimes as well, except that their religions were more secular.


If the West....Americans, and Europeans are too stupid to fight for thier own ideals and laws of western culture, then they have lost already. I don't believe that and I don't believe that Islam is superior to Western culture.

And no gun, or Army can change that.

[QUOTE=Molon Labe;546524]I'm not a Hagel fanboy, nor do I know if he won't simply turn out to be as bad as the rest of them who've been SOD for the last 15 years. But I do know that his nomination and school of thought is a radical departure from the failures. It can't be any worse than the Panetta's, Rumsfeld,s Gates, and Cohen's of late.

No, he's going to be worse, because none of the other SECDEF's saw their mission as the gutting of the DOD and the appeasement of our enemies.


And to end: I don't wish to have any other discussion about this subject based on the subject of this thread, which was basically ad hominem allegations of Anti-Semitism or Godwin's law. If you have a disagreement of the central point that he is not going to be a descent SOD, then speak it. If you cannot come up with a rational arguement based on the central policy disagreements then please don't bother responding to this.

I've come up with rational arguments, but your response was to accuse me of kissing Bill Kristol's ass, and you've got the nerve to accuse me of ad hominem attacks?


You make it too complicated.

Please site one ME nation that could invade and occupy a world power and have air, sea and land power of capabilities of fair or equal capacity.

Today, none. In a few years, however, that is going to change, just as it changed in Europe prior to WWII.


Yes. And there is no nation in the ME who could do that to one another either. When Iraq did so in 90', it miscalculated based on it's communication with the West and the perception of the actions that would be taken.

They are all rational actor states.
Goal setting.....Weight of options......Weight of consequences.......Maximizing profit or position of stability.

There's a wiki article if actually studying the issue in depth is too time consuming. I understand it will be for many.

Except that they are not rational actors, or rather, they are not rational in terms that you understand. Their assumptions are radically different, and their rational weighing of options and consequences is based on their messianic fervor. Iran declared war on us in 1979, and they have never retracted that declaration. They are on the way to developing nuclear weapons with the stated goal of expanding Islam. They see Israel as a proxy of the forces that seek to oppose the spread of the one true faith through Dar al Harb, the house of war. Those forces are the US, otherwise known in Iran as the Great Satan, and our allies, of which Israel is the closest. This is why they are developing missiles that can range the capital cities of Europe, and why they are doing joint naval exercises with Venezuela. They are seeking to initiate the final days, as predicted in the Quran, and Hagel's response is to permit them to develop nuclear arms, make nice with their terrorist proxies (which have murdered hundreds of Americans) and disarm us. That may make sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to anyone else this side of DU.

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 01:05 AM
4? I'd argue it's been about 20 years. I've always viewed the Obama presidency as one step furthering the failures of Bushy's Pseudo conservatism. However, The first idiot to start jettisoning descent FP wonks in favor of some "grand" design on the third world was Clinton. Then Bushy. Obama's just followed in thier footsteps. It was inevitable that when you give the guy you like a pass for 8 years the next guys gonna think he can too.

The country that you imagine has never existed anywhere at anytime, I swear some of you Libertarians live in a damn fantasy world, there has never nor will there ever be a perfect period of United states government nor will there ever be a perfect candidate or one even close to your fantasy for that matter.

Molon Labe
01-14-2013, 10:33 AM
The country that you imagine has never existed anywhere at anytime, I swear some of you Libertarians live in a damn fantasy world, there has never nor will there ever be a perfect period of United states government nor will there ever be a perfect candidate or one even close to your fantasy for that matter.

Sure it has. You tell me who resembles the Washington's, Jefferson's, Paine's, and Adams of our day.

Romney?, McCain?, Rubio?, Ryan?, Palin? Ho ho...


Maybe it's you that has settled for low standards in your politicians because you think you have too. But don't make it someone else's problem because you keep eating your "shit sandwhich" and became complacent along the way.
Hayek said that the largest group of people in society are the ones with low standards. He's right. :apologetic:

In NO WAY do the people we have running our government represent the BEST this country has to offer.

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 11:01 AM
Sure it has. You tell me who resembles the Washington's, Jefferson's, Paine's, and Adams of our day.



Had you been born back then you would most likely have opposed them, you are a purist of sorts, unfortunately you have never been able to put your finger on exactly what that purity is, you just know that it somehow emanates from yourself.

Molon Labe
01-14-2013, 11:32 AM
Had you been born back then you would most likely have opposed them, you are a purist of sorts, unfortunately you have never been able to put your finger on exactly what that purity is, you just know that it somehow emanates from yourself.

I'm supremely confidant I know what "purity" is. How about following the damn constitution and actually voting for smaller government for once?

Basically you wish me to follow this playbook:

1. Settle for Imbeciles

2. Blame those with standards that it's all their fault rather than the "Imbeciles" (See #1)

3. Enjoy "Nothing ever Changes" coupled with "Things getting Worse". (MMM! Yummy shit sandwhich)

Odysseus
01-14-2013, 12:36 PM
I'm supremely confidant I know what "purity" is. How about following the damn constitution and actually voting for smaller government for once?

Basically you wish me to follow this playbook:

1. Settle for Imbeciles

2. Blame those with standards that it's all their fault rather than the "Imbeciles" (See #1)

3. Enjoy "Nothing ever Changes" coupled with "Things getting Worse". (MMM! Yummy shit sandwhich)

The problem is that you assume that anyone who doesn't share every one of your positions is an imbecile. Romney isn't stupid, he simply has a different take on some issues. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was certainly better than the only viable alternative. I wonder if even Reagan would make your cut today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Molon Labe
01-14-2013, 12:44 PM
The problem is that you assume that anyone who doesn't share every one of your positions is an imbecile. Romney isn't stupid, he simply has a different take on some issues. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was certainly better than the only viable alternative. I wonder if even Reagan would make your cut today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


He sure as hell would make my cut.

Good grief.. You people who would compare Romney to Reagan are delusional.

The guy who implemented a gun ban
The guy who wrote the Blueprint to Obama care.
The guy who ran to the LEFT of Ted Kennedy.

Yes...Romney's stupid.

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 12:48 PM
The problem is that you assume that anyone who doesn't share every one of your positions is an imbecile. Romney isn't stupid, he simply has a different take on some issues. He wasn't a perfect candidate, but he was certainly better than the only viable alternative. I wonder if even Reagan would make your cut today.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Reagan is a good parallel, he had both houses of congress against him and got stopped on much that he wanted to do and had to compromise often, yet Romney in the same situation as governor was given no passes whatsoever, he was supposed to somehow overpower them all and be the super conservative. Without both houses being Democrat there would never have been the so called "Romney care" it was Massachusetts, wake up and smell the fucking coffee Paulbots.

Molon Labe
01-14-2013, 12:55 PM
Your refusal to look at history is infuriating.

I am looking at it. My interpretation of it differs from yours.

And based on the last 15 years of utter failure, I'd say the policy wonks are the same beliefs as yours, so maybe we should take a look at some different "experts". Churchill said that No matter how beautiful the strategy you have to look at results.

So step aside and let's get some people who can give us results.


Gator routinely resorted to personal attacks and profanity when he didn't have rational arguments. Your constant refrain about kissing the asses of William Kristol and PNAC sound just like his diatribes about "filthy Israelis". If you don't like the comparison, don't adopt the behavior.

It's your problem. I'm not the one posting articles from a failed policy wonk like Kristol about the subject as relevant.



No, Hagel did, when he talked about a fictitious "Jewish lobby" that intimidates congress into adopting policies that they would otherwise not support. You keep avoiding addressing that point.

Who Cares. It isn't anti-semitical, or a fantasy to believe that other nations have a poltical self interest in seeking security leverage. And groups such as The Arab lobby, the Israel lobby and about two dozen others are all recognized throughout the international relations community as groups who routinely seek aid and security leverage from the US largesse. EVERYBODY tries to push US policy in it's direction.


Backpedaling denials don't impress me. The rest of his record speaks for itself.

Hmm. I assume you didn't vote for Romney then? Weren't you just complaining about my standards of purity?


You're the only one that is claiming that Hagel is a realist, but since you are making the claim, I'd like you to present a definition of Realism as you see it, since I don't think that you have a clue what realpolitik is.

Hardline Realism of the Realpolitik was not effective. As the 60's and 70's showed. I almost wish for the days of the thought process compared to what we have now.


Have you ever actually read any of the position papers from PNAC or is this rage the result of a screwed up Weekly Standard subscription? Seriously, you keep invoking him as the bogeyman, but you don't ever cite any specifics.


Yes. Once again Professor Fukuyama and his treatise is their foundation. I've read it...have you. They Suck ass and have failed.

What specifics would you like? Believing everyone wants to be a Democracy? Or that we have the responsibility to save the world from itself through military intervention?

So, knowing what Kristol believes, why the hell would I listen to him on his opinion of ANY public servant? They are the true Isolationists.

Once again YOU cited this article by Kristol as meaningful to understanding Hagel. I suggest it is not and I will discredit him based on his failed philosophy and wrongheaded belief system and useless propaganda.


Then, perhaps you can check their website for any content added after 2007? Because that's the last time anyone wrote anything under their auspices. Maybe they've gone underground, and are secretly running the government like the Illuminati, the Freemasons or the guys who burn crop circles in Area 51.

So Fukuama and the Kristol family are all just little Ghosties who do not exist like Freemasons?

Little tip Ody: It's not a conspiracy if it's written down.

Conspiracy theory Strawman fail. No thanks.



Written like someone who's never actually read Machiavelli. He was a supporter of republican governments, and served as the head of the city defenses for the Florentine Republic. His main point in the Prince is that a leader must be able to act decisively and not be constrained by abstractions when survival is on the line. This is not a call to abandon any moral compass, but rather an explanation of the proper place for subterfuge and force in government. He despised the courtiers who sought to substitute words for actions when actions were required, and who believed that diplomacy alone could prevent war. If you want a more explicit example of his democratic leanings, read his Discourses on Livy, but read something that he actually wrote before you dismiss him.

Because it is the blueprint for every Dictator in the 20th century. Is Machiavelli the beginning of the study of IR and early hardline Realism. Yes. But a stringent interpretation does reject all moral compass in favor of the ends. This is why men like Robert McNamara reversed his belief system before he died and admitted his mistakes and failures. Traditional Realism does not even resemble our foreign policy today. Hardline Realism neglects other factors of intrastate institutions and their influence. Machiavelli has been bastardized to mean The ends justify the means. What Kristols ilk follows isnt Realism but more closely resembles Wilsonian Internationalism.



Seriously? Did you sleep through your classes or something? You really come off as staggeringly ignorant on the history of international relations.

I'm not the one who believes that invading and handing Iraq over to Iranian influence and dominance in the region was all Bomb diddilly great.

That turning Afghanistan into a political ideology battleground for India, and Pakistan = International Relations Hall of Fame.

Kristols ilk does, and apparently you. It's their philosophy. They can own it.


You think that the US is in decline because of PNAC?

The poltical philosophy they espouse has damaged our International poltical order. During the last 15 years they have had the policy influence ....... So, for the sake of brevity....uh..yes.


No, I would fight it with all of the tools at our disposal, but the first tool is our will to preserve our culture. The second is to make people like you understand that we are in a war, not just of culture, but of bombs and bullets (Iran's nuclear program isn't an abstract expression of faith). The Muslim Brotherhood and Iran are, in one critical way, very much like the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, in that they believes that they have a mission to spread their ideology all over the world and destroy anyone who opposes them. John Cornyn summed them up brilliantly in his OP-ED piece in opposition to Hagel, saying, "This is not a government that calculates self-interest the way America does. It is a messianic theocracy intent on exporting its violent Islamist revolution. And if Tehran gets the bomb, we might soon have a nuclear arms race in one of the world's most volatile regions." Remember that phrase, "messianic theocracy." In its own way, that describes the communist and Nazi regimes as well, except that their religions were more secular.


I've come up with rational arguments, but your response was to accuse me of kissing Bill Kristol's ass, and you've got the nerve to accuse me of ad hominem attacks?

I guess we are both guilty. But you sure do like to play the anti-semite card, while defending this Irving Kristol, William Kristols ideas nonsense. I could give two shits that they are Jewish. There are plenty at PNAC who are not, and Prof Fukuyama is most certainly not.


Except that they are not rational actors, or rather, they are not rational in terms that you understand. Their assumptions are radically different, and their rational weighing of options and consequences is based on their messianic fervor. Iran declared war on us in 1979, and they have never retracted that declaration. They are on the way to developing nuclear weapons with the stated goal of expanding Islam. They see Israel as a proxy of the forces that seek to oppose the spread of the one true faith through Dar al Harb, the house of war. Those forces are the US, otherwise known in Iran as the Great Satan, and our allies, of which Israel is the closest. This is why they are developing missiles that can range the capital cities of Europe, and why they are doing joint naval exercises with Venezuela. They are seeking to initiate the final days, as predicted in the Quran, and Hagel's response is to permit them to develop nuclear arms, make nice with their terrorist proxies (which have murdered hundreds of Americans) and disarm us.

Two axioms in International politics and that is all.

1. There is no modern nation state that has not followed the Rational actor model.
2. No nation with Nuclear weapons has ever been invaded.

Even General Dempsey subscribes to this, however our stupid politicians do not. Unfortunately the Military does not make foreign policy....it is the Imbeciles that do.

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 01:36 PM
Melon Lube, encased in an impenetrable bunker composed of thick headed stupid.

Molon Labe
01-14-2013, 01:53 PM
Melon Lube, encased in an impenetrable bunker composed of thick headed stupid.

Now you know damn well I didn't vote for Romney. :biggrin-new:

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 02:02 PM
Now you know damn well I didn't vote for Romney. :biggrin-new:

Seriously, if we could just keep you away from politics and have you stay in cooking and other less controversial subjects you aren't a bad guy. I'm thinking staying at home for you is the best thing, it keeps you from the temptation that most highly confused libertarians have and that is to vote for liberals.

Generation Why?
01-14-2013, 02:17 PM
Seriously, if we could just keep you away from politics and have you stay in cooking and other less controversial subjects you aren't a bad guy. I'm thinking staying at home for you is the best thing, it keeps you from the temptation that most highly confused libertarians have and that is to vote for liberals.

Gary Johnson is a liberal? Or is this another example of: "If you didn't vote for Romney, you voted for Obama"?

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 02:37 PM
Gary Johnson is a liberal? Or is this another example of: "If you didn't vote for Romney, you voted for Obama"?

Your right smart, it is starting to soak in a little.

We need to dump some more in while it is open.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/0.jpg

Molon Labe
01-14-2013, 03:23 PM
Seriously, if we could just keep you away from politics and have you stay in cooking and other less controversial subjects you aren't a bad guy. I'm thinking staying at home for you is the best thing, it keeps you from the temptation that most highly confused libertarians have and that is to vote for liberals.

Nicest thing you've ever said to me...I think... So Props! :friendly_wink:

I'm very involved. Just not in always voting. And I've never voted for a liberal which is why I abstained from the Major choices this go around. I believe the needed Actions for change take place long before any elections take place.

Molon Labe
01-14-2013, 03:30 PM
Gary Johnson is a liberal? Or is this another example of: "If you didn't vote for Romney, you voted for Obama"?

Gary Johnson isn't a liberal. He's 10 times more economically and fiscally conservative than Romney was. Conservatives just don't like his drug stance and the fact that he waffles on FP.

Where most Social conservatives can't handle is his belief that the the 10th Amendment actually apply to things like drugs, and social issues. But what they forget is it wasn't like that in the 60's and 70's when Conservatism came of age under Goldwater. Goldwater, Robert Taft, and Russell Kirk are the true standard bearers. Not the William Kristol Chickenhawks.

DumbAss Tanker
01-14-2013, 04:01 PM
Back to the subject of Hagel, regardless of particular issues, he strikes me as someone who hasn't really ever run a large enterprise beyond his own campaigns (To the extent candidates are actually allowed to 'Run' them anyway), which would not be a deal-killer itself, except that it seems to be coupled with a propensity to be the loosest loose cannon on deck. THAT bothers me.

Odysseus
01-14-2013, 05:22 PM
I am looking at it. My interpretation of it differs from yours.

Your interpretation is based on an utter lack of knowledge of the history of the Middle East, the Islamic conquests of the Levant, Northern Africa, Spain, the Balkans and Constantinople, and the warfighting doctrines of Islam. It's wishful thinking, masquerading as analysis.


And based on the last 15 years of utter failure, I'd say the policy wonks are the same beliefs as yours, so maybe we should take a look at some different "experts". Churchill said that No matter how beautiful the strategy you have to look at results.

So step aside and let's get some people who can give us results.

Like Hagel and his appeasement team? Say what you will about PNAC, but the reason that they came into being was the utter incompetence of the Clinton team, which was filled with Carter retreads (Warren Christopher, for example), and whose worst offenders are now back in the Obama administration. PNAC believed in American leadership, while Obama and Hagel do not. The seek to pare us back to irrelevance, but what they don't understand is that without American leadership, some other nation will fill the void, and right now, the most likely candidate for that is China. Is that the world that you want to live in?

And, let's remember that Bush and his team got results. The Taliban was routed, Saddam Hussein was defeated and ousted and the surge in Iraq stabilized the country. It was Obama who decided to throw that away by cutting and running. You may have reservations about how these wars were fought (as do I, but mine are based on having been there), but to argue that our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan were the fault of Bill Kristol is delusional.


It's your problem. I'm not the one posting articles from a failed policy wonk like Kristol about the subject as relevant.
Kristol didn't write the article. Did you happen to read the first line of the post?


THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained a fact sheet circulating widely on Capitol Hill. It details the record on a number of issues of former GOP senator Chuck Hagel, a leading candidate to be nominated by President Obama as the next secretary of defense:
Introduction to the Reading of Hagel

Kristol didn't write it, he simply reported that it existed and published it. It was available at a number of other sites, but the Weekly Standard had it in the most usable format. Had I known that Kristol was your bete noire, I'd have found another source, but since he didn't originate the document, would you be so kind as to read the content and comment on that, rather than simply accusing me of being a shill for PNAC?


Who Cares. It isn't anti-semitical, or a fantasy to believe that other nations have a poltical self interest in seeking security leverage. And groups such as The Arab lobby, the Israel lobby and about two dozen others are all recognized throughout the international relations community as groups who routinely seek aid and security leverage from the US largesse. EVERYBODY tries to push US policy in it's direction.

Hagel didn't say that Israel was acting in its self interest, he said that a "Jewish lobby" was dictating policy. Accusing American Jews of undermining American policy is blatantly anti-Semitic.


Hmm. I assume you didn't vote for Romney then? Weren't you just complaining about my standards of purity?

This is what is called a "non sequitur."


Hardline Realism of the Realpolitik was not effective. As the 60's and 70's showed. I almost wish for the days of the thought process compared to what we have now.

Then what Realist school are you talking about? Cite some articles. Name some names. Do you mean George Kennan? Ron Paul? You throw the word "Realist" out there and claim that Hagel belongs to their school of thought, but when presented with results of those who called themselves realists, you backpedal.


Yes. Once again Professor Fukuyama and his treatise is their foundation. I've read it...have you. They Suck ass and have failed.

Yes, I read it when it came out, and again when I was in ILE. I don't recall much anal suction, though, so I must not have read the explicit edition that you ordered in the plain brown wrapper. Now, do you have a real comment, or shall we continue plumbing the depths of your scatological vocabulary?


What specifics would you like? Believing everyone wants to be a Democracy? Or that we have the responsibility to save the world from itself through military intervention?

I'd settle for any specific arguments, examples or quotes, such as a citation that Kristol argued that we have the responsibility to save the world from itself. Kristol's argument wasn't that we had to act out of altruism, but that we had specific, legitimate interests that we should not hesitate to advance. One of those interests was to encourage states that shared our values and beliefs, and to confront those whose values and beliefs were incompatible with ours and whose actions conflicted with our interests. Like it or not, we are dependent on the Middle East for oil, and even if we weren't, enough parts of the world are for us to have to maintain involvement there, because the sheer volume of commerce there provides bad actors with the funds that they need to foment all manner of mischief. Osama Bin Laden, for example, was a wealthy man because of his family's connections with the Saudis, and that wealth was what facilitated 9/11. The more western income that goes into the coffers of the various petro-theocracies, the more leverage they have over us.


So, knowing what Kristol believes, why the hell would I listen to him on his opinion of ANY public servant? They are the true Isolationists.

So far, you've said nothing about what Kristol believes, but you've managed to present a caricature of him that doesn't actually address any of his arguments.


Once again YOU cited this article by Kristol as meaningful to understanding Hagel. I suggest it is not and I will discredit him based on his failed philosophy and wrongheaded belief system and useless propaganda.

Once again, it wasn't by Kristol. And the data contained in the article is easily verified. If you can disprove any of it, feel free to do so. In fact, I implore you to do so, since that would require you to actually do some presentation of facts.


So Fukuama and the Kristol family are all just little Ghosties who do not exist like Freemasons?

Little tip Ody: It's not a conspiracy if it's written down.

Conspiracy theory Strawman fail. No thanks.

Like the Freemasons, PNAC is no longer a player in international affairs. Your obsession with it is laughable, and utterly irrelevent to Hagel's qualifications.


Because it is the blueprint for every Dictator in the 20th century. Is Machiavelli the beginning of the study of IR and early hardline Realism. Yes. But a stringent interpretation does reject all moral compass in favor of the ends. This is why men like Robert McNamara reversed his belief system before he died and admitted his mistakes and failures. Traditional Realism does not even resemble our foreign policy today. Hardline Realism neglects other factors of intrastate institutions and their influence. Machiavelli has been bastardized to mean The ends justify the means. What Kristols ilk follows isnt Realism but more closely resembles Wilsonian Internationalism.

Machiavelli was not the blueprint for 20th century dictatorships, Marx, Lenin and the French Jacobins were. As you stated, Machiavelli has been bastardized, but his actual premises are valid and warrant study. As for what you call Realism, I'm still waiting for you to cite some exemples.


I'm not the one who believes that invading and handing Iraq over to Iranian influence and dominance in the region was all Bomb diddilly great.

In that, we agree, but unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to understand that, and neither does Hagel, who is perfectly comfortable with a nuclear-armed Iran.


That turning Afghanistan into a political ideology battleground for India, and Pakistan = International Relations Hall of Fame.

When has Afghanistan not been a political battleground for Pakistan? The Pakistanis see it as strategic depth against India, which couldn't care less about it.


Kristols ilk does, and apparently you. It's their philosophy. They can own it.

Then provide a quote, or cite a source that demonstrates that it's their philosophy, because as it stands, you're ranting about every failure in Iraq and Afghanistan and laying it at the head of Kristol, but Kristol didn't execute the policies, and many of the policies executed ran exactly counter to the stated policies that Kristol did put forward. For example, he steadfastly opposed the withdrawal from Iraq, and his position on Afghanistan


The poltical philosophy they espouse has damaged our International poltical order. During the last 15 years they have had the policy influence ....... So, for the sake of brevity....uh..yes.

Wow. That's just absurd. One think tank, which was in opposition during the Clinton years and disbanded under Bush, is responsible for the decline of the United States as a global power? They're responsible for downgrading our credit, expanding our debt, retreating from the Middle East, gutting our defense capabilities and expanding entitlements to unsustainable levels? Seriously?


I guess we are both guilty. But you sure do like to play the anti-semite card, while defending this Irving Kristol, William Kristols ideas nonsense. I could give two shits that they are Jewish. There are plenty at PNAC who are not, and Prof Fukuyama is most certainly not.

I didn't "play the anti-Semite card". Hagel's statements are blatantly anti-Semitic. I didn't accuse you of being an anti-Semite. I did point out that you were foaming at the mouth, the way that Gator used to (and no doubt still does, just not here). You chose to interpret my comments in the broadest possible context in order to invoke Godwin's law, but I wasn't talking about you when I said that Hagel has a problem with Jews.


Two axioms in International politics and that is all.

1. There is no modern nation state that has not followed the Rational actor model.

This is true, as far as it goes, but it requires some further explantion. According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state. This process includes:

Goal setting and ranking.
Consideration of options.
Assessment of consequences.
Profit-maximization.

Now, it's true that all modern nation states set goals and rank them, but unless you understand the goals set by those states, i.e., the underlying ideological and philosophical rationales by which they arrive at their goals and priorities, you end up projecting your biases and ideas on them instead of understanding them. For example, Germany sought hegemony over Europe and dominance of a world order that it planned to impose. That order was predicated upon Hitler's racial theories and his occult beliefs (the Nazis were obsessed with blood, both as a racial tie and a mystical one), and ultimately led to decisions which were not rational, such as abandoning the plans to invade Britain, which was vulnerable, in order to attack the USSR, which entailed far more resources and commitment. At the end of the war, with materiale and manpower at a premium, the Nazis diverted critical resources to keeping the concentration camps full. Trains that could have been used for transporting troops or equipment were prioritized as transports of Jews and others to the camps. This made perfect sense to the Nazis, but not to anyone else. Iran and Egypt (which are now collaborating, BTW), are rational actors, but only in the context of global jihad against infidels. Without that context, their actions are incomprehensible to us. This is Obama's and Hagel's failure, that they do not understand the threat that we face.


2. No nation with Nuclear weapons has ever been invaded.

This is true, but irrelevant, because it will not remain true. Nuclear weapons will protect Iran from invasion, but they will not protect Israel, because Iran does not want Israeli territory, nor does Hamas or Hezbollah, and neither does the Muslim Brotherhood. Their motivation is found in the Hadiths, which are the sayings of Mohammed, and his statements about Jews are, like the rest of the Qur'an and the Hadiths, to be taken literally:


Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (Mohammed) as saying:

“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews. The Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: ‘Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him;’ but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”


(Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Fitan wa Ashrat as-Sa'ah, Book 41, 6985)


Thus, they expect to destroy Israel, not because of settlements, Palestinian complaints or disputes over borders, but because until the Muslims fight the Jews, the final judgment of Allah will not come. This is what is meant by messianic theocracy. Iran's mullahs are Shiites, who believe that the 12th Imam will not return until the final judgment occurs, and that they have a duty to precipitate it. They believe that it is their mission to destroy the west, to subjugate the infidel and to impose Islam on the world, just as the Nazis believed that it was their mission to render the world Judenrein. That is the context that you have to use in order to understand what we are fighting, and we are fighting it, whether you want to admit it or not. There is nothing that we can say, no phrase, no promise, no enticement, that will dissuade Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood from their stated goals. That is why Hagel is wrong.


Even General Dempsey subscribes to this, however our stupid politicians do not. Unfortunately the Military does not make foreign policy....it is the Imbeciles that do.

See above.

Generation Why?
01-14-2013, 07:14 PM
Your right smart, it is starting to soak in a little.

We need to dump some more in while it is open.


1. You're*

2. I am always open to new political insight in the attempt to better my country. I just haven't really found anything you say to be of any credible or rational substance.

3. Are you still upset that my vote for Gary Johnson, in a state that Romney won, cost ol' Mittens the election?

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 07:35 PM
1. You're*

2. I am always open to new political insight in the attempt to better my country. I just haven't really found anything you say to be of any credible or rational substance.

3. Are you still upset that my vote for Gary Johnson, in a state that Romney won, cost ol' Mittens the election?

Would you have voted different had you been in Florida , Linda.

Generation Why?
01-14-2013, 07:41 PM
Would you have voted different had you been in Florida , Linda.

No. But I don't live in Florida. And who is Linda?

Rockntractor
01-14-2013, 07:48 PM
No. But I don't live in Florida. And who is Linda?

Than you had no point to make in your post.

Linda is a sexy librarian.

Generation Why?
01-14-2013, 08:28 PM
Than you had no point to make in your post.

Linda is a sexy librarian.

1. Then*

2. And it did have a point. I will vote for a true conservative before I vote for a liberal. That is why I voted for Gary Johnson.

Molon Labe
01-15-2013, 04:29 PM
Again, I'll state, I am no Hagel fan, but what I can't stand is people who cannot attack the guy on differences in policy and went right to the adhoms like TWS always does. If you're going to criticize the guy, explain with your higher level thinking skills how the guys philosophy is wrong, instead of calling out the JOOOOS.

The point of my argument is this:

1. One can do better criticizing Hagel than citing the faux-Conservatives at TWS who are "joke" when consulting about how to conduct international affairs or anything labeled "Conservative" for that matter.

2. There are roughly only a few schools with much influence in the US in IR in the last 25 years. Realism, Liberalism, and Neoconservatism. Hagel isn't a subsciber of the later 2.

I don't have time to get into a complete philosophic debate about the 3. If you want to discuss it further start a new thread.........so to keep it simple. Most everyone in the IR community believes Hagel has realist philosophical roots,

Well....that is almost everyone, except Odysseus and TWS.

It's funny how were arguing over how he is "not". But the Trotsky disciples are getting all puffed up and out of sorts over the whole thing, while a bunch of Realists are writing about getting one of their own back in.


Can Realism Be a Comprehensive Theory of American Foreign Policy?

Has the GOP shed it's last Realist? (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/hagel-and-realists-in-the-republican-party/)

Chuck Hagel: Revenge of the “Paleocons”? Lefties Rallying in Support of an “Old-School Conservative Republican” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/chuck-hagel-revenge-of-the-paleocons-lefties-rallying-in-support-of-an-old-school-conservative-republican/5318602)

Why the War Party (TWS) Fears Hagel (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-the-war-party-fears-chuck-hagel/)

Is Hagel out of the Mainstream? (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hagels-critics-are-out-of-the-mainstream/)


Lol! In the last article: When Lindsey Graham says something is wrong......You can damn well be sure that 100% of the time that something is right. :biggrin-new:

Odysseus
01-15-2013, 06:19 PM
Again, I'll state, I am no Hagel fan, but what I can't stand is people who cannot attack the guy on differences in policy and went right to the adhoms like TWS always does. If you're going to criticize the guy, explain with your higher level thinking skills how the guys philosophy is wrong, instead of calling out the JOOOOS.

I've repeatedly explained why he's wrong on policy, but you keep ignoring it. He is an appeaser of terrorist groups and their sponsors. His opposition to designating Hezbollah as a terror state, his desire for engagement with Hamas and his advocacy of normalization of relations with Iran show that he is on the wrong side of the issues. He either doesn't understand that the single greatest threat to the United States and western civilization is Islamic jihad, or he doesn't care. His well-documented antisemitism is simply the icing on the cake.


The point of my argument is this:

1. One can do better criticizing Hagel than citing the faux-Conservatives at TWS who are "joke" when consulting about how to conduct international affairs or anything labeled "Conservative" for that matter.

I've cited a number of sources, including John Cornyn, but you keep obsessing on TWS and Kristol, even though Kristol was only reporting the existence of a document that was making the rounds of the senate, one that contained numerous factual citations regarding Hagel's support for Iran and Iranian-sponsored terrorist groups. You have used this to avoid addressing the content of the paper.


2. There are roughly only a few schools with much influence in the US in IR in the last 25 years. Realism, Liberalism, and Neoconservatism. Hagel isn't a subsciber of the later 2.

And yet, when I ask you to tell me who you consider the realists to be, you punt.


I don't have time to get into a complete philosophic debate about the 3. If you want to discuss it further start a new thread.........so to keep it simple. Most everyone in the IR community believes Hagel has realist philosophical roots,

And the people in the IR community who believe this are...?


Well....that is almost everyone, except Odysseus and TWS.

It's funny how were arguing over how he is "not". But the Trotsky disciples are getting all puffed up and out of sorts over the whole thing, while a bunch of Realists are writing about getting one of their own back in.

Trotsky disciples? Yeah, it's a good thing that you object to ad hominem attacks there, bunky. And we are not arguing over what he is "not", you are. I've presented evidence of his positions, while you've presented... well, nothing. But you don't seem to see that you are guilty of everything that you are accusing me of. Project much?


Can Realism Be a Comprehensive Theory of American Foreign Policy?

Has the GOP shed it's last Realist? (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/hagel-and-realists-in-the-republican-party/)

Chuck Hagel: Revenge of the “Paleocons”? Lefties Rallying in Support of an “Old-School Conservative Republican” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/chuck-hagel-revenge-of-the-paleocons-lefties-rallying-in-support-of-an-old-school-conservative-republican/5318602)

Why the War Party (TWS) Fears Hagel (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-the-war-party-fears-chuck-hagel/)

Is Hagel out of the Mainstream? (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hagels-critics-are-out-of-the-mainstream/)


Lol! In the last article: When Lindsey Graham says something is wrong......You can damn well be sure that 100% of the time that something is right. :biggrin-new:

Okay, let me get this straight: Bill Kristol cites a paper that's going around the senate, and you blow a gasket, but Pat Buchanan's rag declares that Hagel is a "realist" and you accept it at face value? What color is the sky in your world? Seriously, Pat Buchanan? A few examples of why nothing Pat Buchanan says can be taken seriously:


“Iran doesn’t frighten me and I don’t think it should frighten the American people. They don’t have a bomb. They haven’t made a decision to build one…and the Israelis have 300 atomic bombs. Who presents the existential threat to whom?” http://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/291704/pat-buchanan-iran-no-threat-us-and-israel-noah-glyn

“If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where real power is at..” (“The McLaughlin Group,” Feb. 2, 2007)

“Israel and its Fifth Column…seek to stampede us into war with Iran.”
From a July 2008 column

"If U.S. Jewry takes the clucking appeasement of the Catholic cardinalate as indicative of our submission, it is mistaken. When Cardinal O'Connor of New York declares this 'is not a fight between Catholics and Jews,' he speaks for himself. Be not afraid, Your Eminence; just step aside, there are bishops and priests ready to assume the role of defender of the faith.

2010: “If [Elena] Kagan [President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court] is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats. Is this Democrats’ idea of diversity?”
-- Column, “Are Liberals Anti-WASP?” May 14, 2010

“They charge us with anti-Semitism…The truth is, those hurling these charges harbor a 'passionate attachment' to a nation not our own that causes them to subordinate the interests of their own country and to act on an assumption that, somehow, what's good for Israel is good for America.”
-- Neo-Conned! Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq,


"The problem is: Diesel engines do not emit enough carbon monoxide to kill anybody."
- NY Post, March 17, 1990 (from a column about the trial of accused Nazi war criminal John Demjanjuk)

"In the late 1940’s and 1950’s…race was never a preoccupation with us, we rarely thought about it….There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The ‘Negroes’ of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours."
- Right From the Beginning

2006: “Today, we find such world views repellent. But, if racism means a belief in the superiority of the white race and its inherent right to rule other peoples, American history is full of such men. Indeed, few great men could be found in America or Europe before WWII who did no accept white supremacy as natural.”
-- State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, P. 85


I could go on, but what's the point? In order to "prove" that Hagel isn't an antisemite, you went to a magazine published by a bigoted loon. This would be funny if it wasn't so sad. No, scratch that. It's funny, and sad at the same time.

Molon Labe
01-16-2013, 10:10 AM
Trotsky disciples? Yeah, it's a good thing that you object to ad hominem attacks there, bunky. And we are not arguing over what he is "not", you are. I've presented evidence of his positions, while you've presented... well, nothing. But you don't seem to see that you are guilty of everything that you are accusing me of. Project much?



Okay, let me get this straight: Bill Kristol cites a paper that's going around the senate, and you blow a gasket, but Pat Buchanan's rag declares that Hagel is a "realist" and you accept it at face value? What color is the sky in your world? Seriously, Pat Buchanan? A few examples of why nothing Pat Buchanan says can be taken seriously:

Yep. Seriously TWS? We believe what we wish to believe.

Because it's not that what Buchanan Larions, McConnel, AND REALIST SCHOLAR LAWLER says is "untrue". Or that what Hagel said that TWS quotes is untrue.

It's that what the TWS says that is a red herring, basless and insignificant and lacks any policy analysis. Know why? Because they can't stand that someone might get a policy position that won't follow their script. Well...too f'n bad. They had 12 years to get it right and they screwed it up.

The yokels didn't even hide that their intent was use the "anti-semite" angle.
'Send us Hagel (http://www.news-journalonline.com/article/20121221/OPINION/312209953) and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite.'?"

And you know what despite Buchanan's drawbacks, lack of authority anymore, and hatred by TWS.......at least he's is a conservative.


But if you think I should support an organization that:

1. Supports Leon Trotsky, Leo Strauss', Irving Kristol's and Francis Fukuyama's philosophies and ideas about permanent revolution


"perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them."

2. Hold Pre emptive war in high esteem in order to change geo political order of the ME

3. Believes that we should promote "Democracy" in the third world by use of force

4. That the Federal Government should grow larger

5. Advocates Gun control

6. Are equally at home today in both the Democrat and Republican party


.....and if you still think that's conservative, then your off your nut.

But don't believe me. One of the god father's of modern day Conservatism said the same things many times over.
Russell Kirk was completely wrong in predicting the way things would go, but he knew a Rat when he smelled one.


Infatuation with Ideology. An instance of this lack of wisdom is the Neoconservatives' infatuation with ideology. Some of you ladies and gentlemen present here today may have heard some years ago my exchange, on this very platform, with Mr. Irving Kristol, concerning ideology. He and various of his colleagues wish to persuade us to adopt an ideology of our own to set against Marxist and other totalist ideologies. Ideology, I venture to remind you, is political fanaticism: at best it is the substitution of slogans for real political thought. Ideology animates, in George Orwell's phrase, "the streamlined men who think in slogans and talk in bullets."



Have a great day.:cool:

Odysseus
01-16-2013, 06:15 PM
Yep. Seriously TWS? We believe what we wish to believe.

Yes, and I'll take Kristol over Buchanan any day, because at the end of the day, Kristol isn't a delusional, bigoted loon who makes our movement look like what the left claims it is.


Because it's not that what Buchanan Larions, McConnel, AND REALIST SCHOLAR LAWLER says is "untrue". Or that what Hagel said that TWS quotes is untrue.

Wait a minute, are you saying that you agree with Buchanan's statements? That you believe that his statements about Jews having excessive influence in America are true? That we are part of a fifth column that is working towards war on behalf of Israel, that we are disloyal to the United States? Those statements of his are bigoted, ugly attacks on the loyalty of those Americans who see Israel as a strategic ally. The dual-loyalty canard is a hallmark of anti-semitism. No more games about my playing the Jew card, just be up front about whether or not you agree with Buchanan's libels.

Since you seem to be obsessed with Peter Lawler, perhaps you should read the article that you linked to, specifically the following:


Now today’s “realists” sometimes object that it might have made sense to view the Cold War as an ideological or even “existential” conflict. But now that communism—and totalitarian universalism in general–have been consigned to the dustbin of history, it makes sense to think more exclusively in terms of interests again. From a realistic view, neocons exaggerated a lot when they called the war against Jihadism or “Islamic fascism” World War IV (or yet another global, ideological war), just as they exaggerated—at this point beyond belief—the existential significance of 9/11. And they embarked on a bloody mission impossible when they acted on the thought that we could save ourselves from terror by imposing “regime change”—liberal democracy—on the terrorist-supporting nations.

I’m somewhat sympathetic to this kind of criticism of Bush’s policies, but only to a point. For one thing, the critics seem incapable of avoiding exaggeration in the other direction. It’s not true that 9/11 had no significance as a security threat, a threat that really did need to be countered aggressively and globally. And it’s not true that Bush was wrong or even naïve to characterize the motivation of those who threatened us as fundamentally evil—or not mainly our adversaries in some clash of interests. They think and act as deranged tyrants.


Imagine the blowback—in the name of universal human rights—if Israel were actually destroyed because we didn’t do what we could do. And certainly it’s in our interest—in all nations’ interest—that the radical government of Iran—one fundamentally hostile not only to Israel but to us and our understanding of who we are—not go nuclear. The “realist” idea that the self-interested calculus involved in the theory of nuclear deterrence could actually keep the peace in a militantly religious region isn’t so realistic. What we do for Israel and about Iran are matters of prudence, but they aren’t, as Hagel has suggested, matters that can we can view with realistic indifference.


From a genuinely prudent or Reaganite point of view, we have to get beyond criticisms of the Iraq war based on “Bush lied, thousands died” or some neocon/Straussian conspiracy based upon an elitist application of the Platonic “noble lie” to contemporary American circumstances. I can’t emphasize enough how stupid and slanderous those criticisms are; no one could make them who’s actually read Strauss’ interpretation of the The president did not reflect sufficiently on how risky an invasion of that magnitude was, and how little we really knew about the facts on the ground in Iraq. He did remarkably little, in fact, to solidify domestic support for the war, certainly not for the far too unexpected protracted and bloody war. Given how unstable or inevitably transient that consensus was, he should have given more thought to the consequences of its collapse. The result was devastating for America’s ability to project its interests and, yes, in some measure its principles throughout the world. It squandered the confidence in our capacities and our mission that had been restored so effectively by Reagan both at home and throughout the world. It also, of course, eroded our real military power in many ways. Finally and very significantly, the failure of the war to achieve its goals was exploited by the Democrats on the domestic front. People couldn’t help but lose confidence in Republican policies—the Republican version of what prudence is—in general. (This paragraph is indebted to my dialogue with the threader Daniel Fish at the Postmodern Conservative blog (http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/postmodernconservative/).)



The article that you cited repeats my arguments, and blows yours out of the water. Lawler explains, in one sentence, why Hagel is wrong, citing his indifference to the outcome of a Middle Eastern conflict between two nuclear powers. He also refers to your neo-con/Straussian conspiracy crap as "stupid" and "slanderous". You really think that this article helps your position?


It's that what the TWS says that is a red herring, basless and insignificant and lacks any policy analysis. Know why? Because they can't stand that someone might get a policy position that won't follow their script. Well...too f'n bad. They had 12 years to get it right and they screwed it up.

Do you really believe that the staff of TWS is so petty that they would put out false, libelous statements about Hagel in order to keep him from becoming SECDEF? That they would fabricate quotes? Because that is what you are accusing them of, and by extension, me. Hagel's quotes and votes are a matter of public record. He has repeatedly voted against measure to isolate or punish terrorist states and their proxies, even when they have directly targeted Americans. He has made statements which clearly put in the camp of the anti-semites. If you would stop ranting and read the statements that he has made, you would see that he is the wrong man for the job, and the only reason that Obama has chosen him is because he will cheerfully gut the DOD and undermine our capabilities, which is what Obama wants, too.


The yokels didn't even hide that their intent was use the "anti-semite" angle.

Only because Hagel has never hidden his anti-semitism.


And you know what despite Buchanan's drawbacks, lack of authority anymore, and hatred by TWS.......at least he's is a conservative.

Which is why he was brought in by MSNBC, because he's the kind of bat-$#/+ crazy bigot that they can present as a conservative, in order to make the rest of us look like the caricature that they believe in. Buchanan is a conservative the way that the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are Christians. He's somebody that the left can point to in order to "prove" that we are all racists and loons.


But if you think I should support an organization that:

1. Supports Leon Trotsky, Leo Strauss', Irving Kristol's and Francis Fukuyama's philosophies and ideas about permanent revolution

Okay, that's twice that you've brought Trotsky into this. Lawler put the lie to your Straussian drivel, but given how blatantly you've repeated other nonsense in this thread, I'm calling you on this again. I assume that you can prove that PNAC supports Trotskyite ideas, or is this more blather from the "real" conservatives that Buchanan has managed to scrape up?


2. Hold Pre emptive war in high esteem in order to change geo political order of the ME
That is another lie. Pre-emptive war as a means of self-defense is acceptable, but nobody is advocating invading nations that do not threaten us or our interests.


3. Believes that we should promote "Democracy" in the third world by use of force
Nobody is arguing for that. What PNAC argued for was being willing to confront undemocratic regimes when our interests are threatened by them. They were advocates of Reagan's approach, which was to engage authoritarian regimes that were friendly, while using our influence to gain reform (as occurred in Spain, Chile, Portugal and several other regimes which democratized on Reagan's watch). Those states that threaten us must be confronted and defeated, either militarily or diplomatically.


4. That the Federal Government should grow larger

Again, prove that anyone at PNAC believed this.


5. Advocates Gun control

Do you have proof of any of these bizarre allegations?


6. Are equally at home today in both the Democrat and Republican party
This is patently false. Most neocons left the Democratic Party because they could not reconcile the anti-Americanism that had become the standard for Democrats.


....and if you still think that's conservative, then your off your nut.

And if you think that those are Bill Kristol's positions, then you are off yours.


But don't believe me. One of the god father's of modern day Conservatism said the same things many times over.
Russell Kirk was completely wrong in predicting the way things would go, but he knew a Rat when he smelled one.



Infatuation with Ideology. An instance of this lack of wisdom is the Neoconservatives' infatuation with ideology. Some of you ladies and gentlemen present here today may have heard some years ago my exchange, on this very platform, with Mr. Irving Kristol, concerning ideology. He and various of his colleagues wish to persuade us to adopt an ideology of our own to set against Marxist and other totalist ideologies. Ideology, I venture to remind you, is political fanaticism: at best it is the substitution of slogans for real political thought. Ideology animates, in George Orwell's phrase, "the streamlined men who think in slogans and talk in bullets."


Have a great day.:cool:

I used to really admire Russell Kirk, but if his position is that we should have no overarching, guiding principles, then he's wrong. Ideology is a set of principles. You have to believe in something, some principle that makes sense, some conviction that goes beyond just fighting to win for winning's sake. Otherwise, we're no better than the left. The Marxists pretend to have an ideology, but what they really have is a collection of slogans and the lust for power. Conservatives have principles, we define ourselves by them. Kirk's diatribe against having a set of core beliefs makes no sense at all, since without ideology, there's nothing separating us from the Marxists.

You are really flailing in this thread. I don't think that I've ever seen you this desperate and incoherent. In fact, you really remind me of Gator.