PDA

View Full Version : Hagel's Senate confirmation hearing shocks supporters



Odysseus
02-01-2013, 12:32 PM
Can't wait to hear how the "realists" spin this one:


February 1, 2013 Hagel's Senate confirmation hearing shocks supporters

Thomas Lifson

The big question about former Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination as Secretary of Defense used to be the content of views. Now, it is his competence. He embarrassed himself and those who have publicly backed his nomination, in particular Senators Chuck Schumer and Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin.

There were more cringe-inducing moments than can be related here. For instance, his questioning by Lindsey Graham, as summarized by Paul Mirengoff of Powerline (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/01/the-hagel-hearing-part-five-sen-graham-takes-hagel-to-the-woodshed.php):


Are will still at war, Graham wants to know. After some stammering, Hagel says "Yes."

Graham's next question is "name one person in Congress who has been intimidated by the Jewish lobby." Hagel can't do it (or won't).

Now Graham wants Hagel to name one dumb thing Congress has done in response to pressure from the Israeli lobby. Hagel can't do it (or, actually, won't).

Graham wants to know why Hagel was one of 12 Senators who didn't sign a letter affirming Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. Hagel says that Senators shouldn't sign these kinds of letters - it infringes on the president's prerogative. But then, why did Hagel sign a letter denouncing the treatment of Jews by the Russians? Hagel can't answer, at least not coherently.

Graham asks if Hagel would vote today against designating the IRG a terrorist organiztion. Hagel hems and haws. Then he says he would, at least, reconsider the matter, since "times change."

Now Graham is asking about a letter Hagel refused to sign denouncing the intifada. He wants to know if Graham will admit that not signing this letter was a mistake. Hagel says he will look at the letter and answer later.

It be a letter that Hagel clearly should have signed because liberal Sen. Blumenthal, who follows Graham in the questioning, tells Hagel he hopes Hagel will now say he should have signed it.


It got worse. Michael Hirsh of National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/is-chuck-hagel-failing-20130131):


Perhaps one of the worst moments in a fairly bad day for Hagel came when even one of his apparent supporters, committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., was forced to restate his position for him after Hagel twice misspoke about a critical issue: whether the Obama administration would accept mere "containment" of Iran's nuclear program, rather than prevention of it. Hagel, handed a piece of paper, said, "I misspoke and said I supported the president's position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don't have a position on containment," Hagel said. That's when Levin interjected: "We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment."


Hagel's failure to demonstrate a grasp of the fundamentals of the policies he will be implementing if confirmed is triply shocking. First, he is a veteran Senator, well known for asking tough questions in hearings. So he has no excuse for not preparing better. Second, he has let it be known that he had done three mock hearings in preparation for his big days yesterday. If so, he failed to learn anything from the experience. Third, the controversial statements he was grilled about have been drawing criticism for a very long time. He has had more than enough time to devise answers that would be at least slightly artful dodges.

The result is that at least some Democratic senators must be having qualms about voting to confirm a man who is visibly incompetent. CNN's Dana Bash reported (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democratic-gop-senators-disbelief-hagels-poor-hearing-performance_699098.html?nopager=1) on the buzz on the Senate floor about many being "shocked at how ill-prepared" Hagel was:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nFgurW4jsAc

With 55 Democrats, even as dismal a performance as Hagel's is likely to be confirmed, unless Republicans decide to filibuster. That can't be ruled out, nor can a surge of conscience, however unlikely, among Democrats who understand that the world is too dangerous to allowthis man to be in charge of the United States military.

Perhaps the best indicator of Hagel's dismal performance is the comment offered by one of his Israel-hating supporters, M.J. Rosenberg, formerly of Media Matters. He tweeted (http://twitchy.com/2013/01/31/anti-semite-mj-rosenberg-tweets-talked-about-israel-with-hagel-happily-hes-lying-today/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter):


I spent a couple of hours with Hagel a few years ago. Talked with him about Israel. Happily, he is lying today & knows it. He'll be a good SeDef.


Jonathan Tobin of Commentary (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/01/31/chuck-hagel-credibility-left-in-shreds-hearing/) summed it up:


Chuck Hagel demonstrated today that he isn't fit for such a senior post. His incompetent testimony should have embarrassed the president and backers like Chuck Schumer, who gambled his own reputation on a man who has little credibility. That may not be enough to derail a nomination that is being rammed through on a partisan basis by the Senate's majority caucus. But today's disappointing show by Hagel shamed not just Democrats but a nation whose defense is being entrusted to an incompetent liar.


The seven Democrat senators up for re-election in red states in 2014 need to think long and hard about voting to confirm Hagel. If they do so after this performance, the steady stream of gaffes and probable disasters coming from his tenure in office can be hung around their necks.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/02/hagels_senate_confirmation_hearing_shocks_supporte rs.html at February 01, 2013 - 09:20:55 AM CST


Pat Buchanan is going to be really pissed off.

LukeEDay
02-01-2013, 12:58 PM
He will get confirmed, and we will be siding with iran and attacking Israel by years end.

Molon Labe
02-01-2013, 02:57 PM
He will get confirmed, and we will be siding with iran and attacking Israel by years end.

Here's an Axiom:

If Lindsey Graham is against something. That something is most often a good thing.

noonwitch
02-01-2013, 03:55 PM
He will get confirmed, and we will be siding with iran and attacking Israel by years end.


I doubt that we will be doing either.

txradioguy
02-01-2013, 04:23 PM
He will get confirmed, and we will be siding with iran and attacking Israel by years end.

If he does I'll be surprised. There are even Dems saying they won't vote for him.

LukeEDay
02-01-2013, 04:59 PM
With how things have been for the past couple of years. It will not surprise me if he gets confirmed. Some of the dems may say they won't vote for him, but when it comes time to pull the lever, they will do so in his favor.

Odysseus
02-01-2013, 05:15 PM
Here's an Axiom:

If Lindsey Graham is against something. That something is most often a good thing.

Sometimes, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Or, to put it another way, your "realist" couldn't deal with questions from Lindsey Graham. Just how smart, tough and capable does that make him?

And, since you've weighed in again on the subject, I'm going to bring up my previous post from the other Hagel thread so that you can finally respond to what I asked you there:


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.

AmPat
02-01-2013, 05:19 PM
With how things have been for the past couple of years. It will not surprise me if he gets confirmed. Some of the dems may say they won't vote for him, but when it comes time to pull the lever, they will do so in his favor.
Me neither. Just look at how stupid the president sounded, destroying the myth that he is profound and brilliant, yet he is the Imbecile-In-Chief.

txradioguy
02-01-2013, 06:23 PM
Sometimes, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Or, to put it another way, your "realist" couldn't deal with questions from Lindsey Graham. Just how smart, tough and capable does that make him?

And, since you've weighed in again on the subject, I'm going to bring up my previous post from the other Hagel thread so that you can finally respond to what I asked you there:



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.



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?



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.



Only because Hagel has never hidden his anti-semitism.



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.



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?


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.


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.



Again, prove that anyone at PNAC believed this.



Do you have proof of any of these bizarre allegations?


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



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.

I see Lube's John Birch society underpinnings are beginning to show. Looks like his views on Israel and Morsi's in Egypt are one and the same.

Wonder how he feels about the attack on the USS Liberty?

JB
02-01-2013, 07:45 PM
I watched some of the hearing. zOMG, a bunch of old white dudes were being exceptionally hard on this guy. They were asking him tough questions and for clarification on positions he'd taken and statements he made in the past.

However, when I looked in the paper today, I didn't see any crocodile tears about how they were picking on him because of his race and gender.

How come no one defended Hagel today and was insanely outraged that this poor man was only being attacked because of his race and gender and that those Senators attacking him better knock if off because they look like bullies and they shouldn't be attacking Hagel in that manner.

Oh wait, Hagel does not fall into one of the several thousand protected classes we have these days so, carry on. Quick, someone create an "R that turned to liberal D" protected class so we can protect Hagel from these mean old white guys. Ugh.

Molon Labe
02-02-2013, 10:16 PM
I see Lube's John Birch society underpinnings are beginning to show. Looks like his views on Israel and Morsi's in Egypt are one and the same.

Wonder how he feels about the attack on the USS Liberty?

strawman, red herring. You gonna go down the anti'-semite road too? Haven't seen this much Political correct BS since I was in the DUmmie threads... LOL.



Graham is a POS. Hagel's not perfect but he's better than anyone else in that position over the last 18 years. I'll take a Pat Buchanan and ANY prior George Bush Chicken Hawk conservative who never served.

AKA Graham, or Boehner, or Kristol

Boy you guys sure are getting your panties in a wad cause you think the jig is up and the parties over for your buddies at TWS. Too bad...so sad...you had 10 years to get it right.

Obama's probably gonna drop Hagel anyways in the next weeks cause the fire is too hot from both sides so chillax.

Odysseus
02-03-2013, 02:01 PM
strawman, red herring. You gonna go down the anti'-semite road too? Haven't seen this much Political correct BS since I was in the DUmmie threads... LOL.

Oh? Objecting to a blatant anti-semite and enabler of terrorists being put in charge of the DOD is now Politically Correct?


Graham is a POS. Hagel's not perfect but he's better than anyone else in that position over the last 18 years. I'll take a Pat Buchanan and ANY prior George Bush Chicken Hawk conservative who never served.

AKA Graham, or Boehner, or Kristol

So, that means that John Kerry is okay with you, too? After all, he served. And Buchanan's military record is rather skimpy, as in nonexistent:


As a student at Georgetown University, Buchanan was in ROTC but did not complete the program. He received his draft notice after he graduated in 1960. However, the District of Columbia draft board exempted Buchanan from military service because of reactive arthritis, classifying him as 4-F.

I guess that makes him a chicken-dove.

Meanwhile, you had nothing good to say about John McCain, or any of the other vets who object to Hagel on the merits, or lack of same. Hagel has been on the wrong side of every national security issue for the last decade. He opposes designations of terrorist groups as terrorist groups, seeks to appease enemy states and undermine allies


Boy you guys sure are getting your panties in a wad cause you think the jig is up and the parties over for your buddies at TWS. Too bad...so sad...you had 10 years to get it right.

This has nothing to do with TWS, and everything to do with national security. Buchanan and his fellow doves are so animated by anti-Israel bias that they cannot see the common threat that we face from the resurgent jihad. Even Peter Lawler, who you claimed as an intellectual guide, specifically refutes you arguments, calling them "stupid and slanderous." He understands that we cannot deal with Iran the way that we dealt with the Soviets, because, as he put it so eloquently, "They think and act as deranged tyrants."


Obama's probably gonna drop Hagel anyways in the next weeks cause the fire is too hot from both sides so chillax.

Oh, right, because Obama, after having been thwarted in putting up one anti-Semitic failure, is going to suddenly go back to a Reaganesque foreign policy, maintain defense capabilities and become a staunch defender of American interests. Do you realize how silly you sound when you turn this into an attack on a defunct think tank and an editor who has never had the influence that you claim? Or when you defend Pat Buchanan's crazy anti-Semitic, racist rants? And we're still waiting to hear you explain how PNAC advocated Trotskyism, or whether you agree with Buchanan's rants about Jews exercising too much influence. And you made the outrageous argument that we were tarring Buchanan unfairly by not examining the veracity of his statements. Okay, fine, here's your chance to defend him. Which of these statements do you consider factual, and why?



“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-...rael-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

In these statements, Buchanan accuses Jews of disloyalty to the US, sabotage of US foreign policy and manipulation of our government. He also claims that segregation was no big deal, that white supremecism is an acceptable belief and that the Nazis didn't murder Jews in vans. I, and everyone else here, wants to know if you believe these statements, or if you need to go the way of Gator and the Stormfronters who periodically show up here.

NJCardFan
02-03-2013, 03:15 PM
Labe is what liberals believe what conservatism is. In fact, he's a caricature of a conservative. Not to mention that he and his fellow Paulbots are responsible for Obama getting elected to a 2nd term.

SaintLouieWoman
02-03-2013, 04:24 PM
Labe is what liberals believe what conservatism is. In fact, he's a caricature of a conservative. Not to mention that he and his fellow Paulbots are responsible for Obama getting elected to a 2nd term.

Add to that he shares the same list of hatreds and prejudices of Gator. I've been waiting for him to post on national watermelon day. That would be the icing on the proverbial cake in the list of shared somewhat peculiar beliefs.

Odysseus
02-04-2013, 10:31 AM
Labe is what liberals believe what conservatism is. In fact, he's a caricature of a conservative. Not to mention that he and his fellow Paulbots are responsible for Obama getting elected to a 2nd term.

The Paulbots didn't make up enough votes to cost the election, but it would have been nice if they'd turned out and at least demonstrated that they weren't idiots.


Add to that he shares the same list of hatreds and prejudices of Gator. I've been waiting for him to post on national watermelon day. That would be the icing on the proverbial cake in the list of shared somewhat peculiar beliefs.

I won't say that he shares the full list of prejudices, but he's getting awfully close with his defense of Buchanan. I really want to see what he has to say about those statements, beyond the wild charge that we aren't reading them for their inherent "truth".

Odysseus
02-06-2013, 11:14 AM
And still no response from Molon. What a surprise.

Molon Labe
02-06-2013, 01:33 PM
And still no response from Molon. What a surprise.

lol.......Some of us actually have to work.

Here's some links about the little Trotsky Marxists. You'll believe what you wish to believe.


Bill Kristol on gun control


Bill Kristol said this morning that he is OK with more gun control as long as it doesn’t cross over into handguns and hunting rifles because he believes people don’t have a right to ‘semi-automatic rifles that can shoot 100 bullets at a time

http://www.therightscoop.com/bill-kristol-i-dont-think-people-have-a-right-to-semi-automatic-rifles-that-can-shoot-100-bullets-at-a-time/

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/07/23/not-just-un-and-dems-calling-for-gun-control-bill-kristol-people-dont-have-a-right-to-assault-rifles/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/bill-kristol-gun-control-aurora-shooting_n_1694537.html

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=William+kristol+on+gun+control


Trotsky their hero


“I regard myself to have been a young Trotskyite and I have not a single bitter memory - Irving Kristol
http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol_2.html

The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-purest-neocon/


Preemptive war beliefs and influence

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=CNyZILpcSgkC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=neoconservatism+preemptive+war&source=bl&ots=PJOZkbtal-&sig=HcPWpIaiqWN0W8LNQS1MsmRyud4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=voQSUYXFA8vwqQG3rICgBw&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=neoconservatism%20preemptive%20war&f=false



announcement of a broad preemptive doctrine
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5239049


SPREADING DEMOCRACY IS NOT THE ANTIDOTE TO JIHADIST TERRORISM; THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS "TO THE END OF HISTORY."
http://www.digitalnpq.org/articles/global/58/02-24-2006/francis_fukuyama





Rejects limited government in favor of Central planning


Irving Kristol once boasted that neoconservatism is the first variant of twentieth-century conservatism that is “in the ‘American grain.’” The implication of this extraordinary claim is that Goldwater conservatism—with its proclaimed attachment to individual rights, limited government, and laissez-faire capitalism, and its rejection of the modern welfare-regulatory state—is somehow outside the American grain. The neoconservatives are and always have been, by contrast, defenders of the post–New Deal welfare state. Not surprisingly, the neocons support, in the words of Ben Wattenberg, a “muscular role for the state,” one that taxes, regulates, and redistributes—and, as we shall see, one that fights. This, apparently, is what it means to be in the American grain.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/

http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/19/neocons-guided-petraeus-on-afghan-war/

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=neoconservatives


The little Marxists are Fine with Raising Taxes

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/here-we-go-chief-neocon-calls-for.html





At home in the Democratic party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

http://www.correntewire.com/thoughts_on_neoconservatism_and_neoliberalism


The fact is that the neocon passion for Hillary may not be as outlandish as it seems at first glance. For one thing, Hillary was instrumental in getting Madeleine Albright appointed secretary of state in 1997, and they remain close friends. Albright is a liberal interventionist of the first order. Her father, Josef Korbel, a former Czech diplomat, was a cold warrior. Albright herself ardently pushed for intervention in the Balkans, first as Clinton’s United Nations ambassador, then, more effectively, as secretary of state. Albright will have the opportunity to weigh in on hot-button foreign-policy issues such as relations with Russia.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/where-have-all-the-neocons-gone/

txradioguy
02-06-2013, 02:18 PM
And still no response from Molon. What a surprise.

I'm not. Like the DUmmies when you stump them with facts...and they have to run back to their hive to get more talking points...Lube is doing that with his fellow Paulbots.

And Ody...I've always said that the Paulbots and the Libtards have more in common with each other than they have differences.

This is proving my point.

Hagel is too stupid for words and couldn't put two coherent sentences together...99.9% chance is he does stumble into the office at the Pentagon he'll do more harm than good...but hey people like Lube and Obama are gonna support him cause he hates Israel suffers from BDS and gets an endorsement from the Islamofascists in Tehran.

Molon Labe
02-07-2013, 12:29 PM
LIke I've said before. I don't support Hagel.

I am just tickled to watch the former Clowns in Fukuyama land going apeshit that they are losing their grip on foreign policy in favor of what preceded them.

But I do have one question.

Why is that so many are supporting the guys beating Hagel up? You know......people like McCain, Graham, Kristol supposed "Conservatives" who are apologists for arming and empowering terrorist organizations that are targeting the US?


Support of Libyan rebels
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/qaddafi-must-go_554818.html
http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/foreign-policy-experts-urge-president-take-action-halt-violence-libya-1

Libyan Rebel commander admits al qaeda links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

US arming of rebels falls into Jihadist hands
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all


Support of Syrian intervention and supporting rebels
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/syria-follow-mccain_633413.html

US arming Syrian rebels
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303624/us-intelligence-aiding-arming-syrian-rebels-patrick-brennan

"With his Senate colleagues Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, McCain released a statement calling for “relief from Assad’s tank and artillery sieges. .  .  . Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army "
http://m.weeklystandard.com/articles/syria-follow-mccain_633413.html


Syrian rebels ties to Al Qaeda
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/09/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-tied-to-al-qaeda-play-key-role-in-war.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Syrians Rebels torture Christians
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/syrian-rebels-beheaded-christian-and-fed-him-to-dogs/story-fnb64oi6-1226545322022


Syrian Rebels praise Bin Laden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vsq5ZRir-0k

Bill Kristol praises Obama for his foreign policy. :biggrin-new:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/you-ve-come-long-way-baby_555622.html

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/30/bill-kristol-declares-obama-a-born-again-neo-con-days-after-consulting-with-him-on-libya-policy/

Odysseus
02-07-2013, 03:29 PM
lol.......Some of us actually have to work.

Somehow, you found time for other posts. However, you continue to evade the central question, which is whether or not you agree with Buchanan's bigoted comments. Meanwhile, let's address the questions that you didn't duck:


Here's some links about the little Trotsky Marxists. You'll believe what you wish to believe.

While you will do the same. The difference is that I will read your links, and will actually know what is contained in my replies.


Bill Kristol on gun control

http://www.therightscoop.com/bill-kristol-i-dont-think-people-have-a-right-to-semi-automatic-rifles-that-can-shoot-100-bullets-at-a-time/

http://deadlinelive.info/2012/07/23/not-just-un-and-dems-calling-for-gun-control-bill-kristol-people-dont-have-a-right-to-assault-rifles/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/bill-kristol-gun-control-aurora-shooting_n_1694537.html

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=William+kristol+on+gun+control

Let's look at the full text of his comments:

WALLACE: Bill, let’s look at this from the Republican point of view. Will Republicans -- should Republicans change or modify their strong opposition to gun control, especially -- not the right to bear arms but, especially on the question of these weapons of mass destruction? You know, as I say, the handgun that could fire five bullets in a second, the magazines 100 rounds. Should Republicans consider giving on that issue?


KRISTOL: I think Republicans and everyone else should take a serious look at what might work. And I think the speaker could well ask the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee to hold hearings, but hold serious hearings, about what would work. Don’t do something symbolic like the assault weapons ban, which did no good and made everyone feel good and ended up evaporating and couldn’t be sustained even in a Democratic -- wasn’t restored when the Democrats controlled everything in 2009, 2010.

So I’m totally open to having serious -- and there’s a lot of social science research on gun control. I don’t think it’s very favorable to most efforts of gun control, and I think -- but everything has to be on the table, too. Is it sensible to have gun- free zones? Maybe elementary -- maybe the money would be better spent having security guards than having, you know, new background checks in a case where this -- the purchase of the guns in this case passed background checks.

Connecticut’s a pretty liberal state. I believe the Democratic Party controls all the branches of government in Connecticut. They chose not to ban the things we’re talking about, I guess, right? They could have, couldn’t they?


EASTON: State laws are useless. I mean, you can order things online now. I mean, it’s, sort of...

(CROSSTALK)

WALLACE: He did buy them in the state...


KRISTOL: I’m just saying, let’s have an honest debate. Let’s have a debate about privacy laws and mental health. But I do think the Republican Party shouldn’t be in the position of saying you can’t even discuss this, and I think the speaker could easily ask, since they control one house of Congress -- Senator Reid could do this on the other side, and so they’d have serious hearings about the legal issues and the public policy issues.


Now, does calling for an honest debate equal advocacy of a gun ban? Does looking at mental health issues (as the NRA and other pro-gun groups have proposed) constitute advocacy of a gun ban? Yes, he is further to the left on this issue than you and I, and he admits it. I will concede this, especially since you made the case without going to Pat Buchanan's loons, but he's not exactly in the same league as the Democrats who are genuinely seeking to ban guns.


Trotsky their hero

http://www.pbs.org/arguing/nyintellectuals_krystol_2.html

The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-purest-neocon/

It's quite a stretch to say that Bill Kristol is a Trotskyite because his father was one in college. From the PBS article:


Is it then perhaps my radical past, now so firmly disowned, that bothers me and makes CCNY unhallowed ground? I think not. I have no regret about that episode in my life. Joining a radical movement when one is young is very much like falling in love when one is young. The girl may turn out to be rotten, but the experience of love is so valuable it can never be entirely undone by the ultimate disenchantment.


That doesn't sound like he's still a radical, only that he doesn't entirely regret having been one in college. Lots of conservatives started out liberal and grew out of it (Ronald Reagan, Winston Churchill, etc.). My parents were Democrats (my mom's death ended her party activities, although I'm sure that she still votes for them), but that doesn't make me one. Since then, Irving Kristol has renounced his leftist roots, and not just recently. Claiming that Bill Kristol is a Trotskyite now because his father was one when he was a teenager amounts to slander.


Preemptive war beliefs and influence

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

http://books.google.com/books?id=CNyZILpcSgkC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=neoconservatism+preemptive+war&source=bl&ots=PJOZkbtal-&sig=HcPWpIaiqWN0W8LNQS1MsmRyud4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=voQSUYXFA8vwqQG3rICgBw&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=neoconservatism%20preemptive%20war&f=false

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5239049

http://www.digitalnpq.org/articles/global/58/02-24-2006/francis_fukuyama

With the exception of Fukuyama, you are quoting persons who have an ax to grind against what they define as neo-cons. The Wikipedia article is riven with assumptions and editorial comments masquerading as facts, but the Fukuyama excerpt contains his actual words, and must be addressed. Here is his mission statement regarding his approach to foreign policy:


This approach begins from certain neoconservative premises: first, that U.S. policy and the international community more broadly need to concern themselves with what goes on inside other countries, not just their external behavior, as realists would have it; and second, that power — specifically American power — is often necessary to bring about moral purposes. It also draws on a neoconservative principle that neoconservatives seemed to have forgotten in the lead-up to the Iraq war: namely, that ambitious social engineering is very difficult and ought always to be approached with care and humility. What we need, in other words, is a more realistic Wilsonianism that better matches means to ends in dealing with other societies.


Realistic Wilsonianism differs from classical realism by taking seriously as an object of U.S. foreign policy what goes on inside states. To say that nation-building or democracy promotion is hard is not to say that it is impossible or that is should be scrupulously avoided. Indeed, weak or failed states are one of the biggest sources of global disorder today, and it is simply impossible, for reasons relating both to security and to morality, for the world's sole superpower to walk away from them. Neither realists nor neoconservatives have paid sufficient attention to the problem of development over the years, nor have they focused on parts of the world like Africa or Latin America where development is most problematic (except, of course, when countries in these regions become security threats).


Realistic Wilsonianism differs from neoconservatism (and Jacksonian nationalism) insofar as it takes international institutions seriously. We do not want to replace national sovereignty with unaccountable international organizations; the United Nations is not now nor will it ever become an effective, legitimate seat of global governance. On the other hand, we do not now have an adequate set of horizontal mechanisms of accountability between the vertical stovepipes we label states—adequate, that is, to match the intense economic and social interpenetration that we characterize today as globalization….


Now, I happen to disagree with a number of his premises, but nowhere does he say that we should casually overturn regimes because they might someday be a threat. That is a self-serving misinterpretation of his position, as demonstrated by Peter Lawler, whose article (which you cited) directly contradicted your summaries of his arguments and as well. Preemption is necessary when another nation is an imminent threat. Lawler correctly identifies the Iranian leadership as "deranged tyrants", and rejects treating them as rational actors. He also refers to your arguments regarding Straussian plots as a slander. I don't find your reasoning compelling on this, and your links either undermine your case or are not credible.

Odysseus
02-07-2013, 03:42 PM
Rejects limited government in favor of Central planning

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/

http://www.amazon.com/Neo-conservatism-Autobiography-Idea-Irving-Kristol/dp/1566632285

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/12/19/neocons-guided-petraeus-on-afghan-war/

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=neoconservatives

Again, lots of smoke, but no fire. The article that the Cato piece refers to was called A Return To National Greatness; A Manifesto for a Lost Creed (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/008/333pjkmj.asp), which explicitly rejects central planning and big government. It begins with a description of the Library of Congress building, and links it to the attitudes that produced it:

The Elevation of America

The designers of the Library of Congress had a view of history that is now deeply unfashionable. They saw civilization as a chain of achievement in which each generation is the grateful inheritor of a precious legacy and is called upon as a matter of highest duty to add to and continue the great transmission. Around the Jefferson Building's central dome is a mural that epitomizes this idea. It features 12 seated, monumental figures representing the nations or epochs that, in the words of the building's original catalogue, "have contributed most to the development of present-day civilization in this country."

Under each figure is a plaque naming that culture's great achievement. Egypt is first, given credit for "Written Records." Then come Judea (religion) , Greece (philosophy), Rome (administration), Islam (physics), the Middle Ages (modern languages), Italy (the fine arts), Germany (printing), Spain (discovery), England (literature), and France (emancipation). The list ends with America, which is credited with "science." The American figure in the mural, based on the young Abraham Lincoln, is dressed as an engineer, sitting in a machine shop, contemplating an electric dynamo.

The theory of history depicted in this mural balanced change and continuity. It demanded that people march forward by looking backward. It gave America impressive historical roots, a spiritual connection to the centuries at a time when Americans like Henry James felt their civilization was "thin." And it assigned a specific historic role to America as the latest successor to Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. In the procession of civilization, certain nations rise up to make extraordinary contributions. Their golden ages, it was believed, are to be revered and studied. The designers of the Library of Congress, like so many of their countrymen, thought America was on the verge of its own golden age. At the dawn of the 20th century, America was to take its turn at global supremacy. It was America's task to take the grandeur of past civilizations, modernize it, and democratize it. This common destiny would unify diverse Americans and give them a great national purpose.

The designers must have felt in their bones what Tocqueville observed: Democracy has a tendency to slide into nihilistic mediocrity if its citizens are not inspired by some larger national goal. If they think of nothing but their narrow self-interest, of their commercial activities, they lose a sense of grand aspiration and noble purpose. "What frightens me most," Tocqueville writes, "is the danger that, amid all the constant trivial preoccupations of private life, ambition may lose both its force and its greatness, that human passions may grow gentler and at the same time baser, with the result that the progress of the body social may become daily quieter and less aspiring."

He then goes on to describe the current attitude towards American exceptionalism:
Post- Greatness America

Our culture no longer speaks of a unified and coherent order. The post-modernist view emphasizes fragmentation and disorder. Philosophers talk about contingency and irony and the ever-shifting meanings of words. Since Hemingway, our intellectuals have perceived hypocrisy, not transcendence, when words like "honor" and "glory" are used.

Our official culture disdains the idea that history is a story of progress unfolding. We think it naive. Maybe it was World War I that made the idea unpopular, or the Holocaust, or a thousand other events in our pessimism-inducing century. We no longer look at history as a succession of golden ages. Instead, history is something of a chaos; cultures bubble about in a relativistic stew. Historians do not measure cultures by their contribution to one central world civilization.

And, save in the speeches of politicians who usually have no clue what they are talking about, America is assigned no special role as the vanguard of civilization. Nobody talks of America as a New Jerusalem; that would be ethnocentric. Nor do we engage in grandiose hero-worship; indeed, we are more adept at debunking than idolizing. We are suspicious of hierarchies, of the idea that one art form is higher than another, that one way of living is superior to another. On the contrary, as Denis de Rougemont says, "It is whatever is lower that we take to be more real."

America is a more dominant power in the world than Americans a century ago could ever have imagined. Yet we have almost none of the sense of global purpose that Americans had when they only dreamed of enjoying the stature we possess today. Domestically, we have a president and a Congress whose major common purpose is . . . balancing the budget.

Mind you, this was written during the Clinton era. His point is that those Americans who shape opinion no longer believe that we, as Americans, are part of something greater than ourselves, that America is unique and worth protecting and advancing, that America is exceptional. He then goes on to dissect what he saw as the conservative failings in this area:


The fact is, if liberals choke on the "greatness" part of national greatness, conservatives choke on the "national" part. Most conservatives have come to confuse "national" with "federal." When they hear of a national effort, they think "big government program." Conservatives have taken two sensible ideas and ballooned them to the point of elephantiasis. The first is anti-statism. They took a truth -- that government often causes suffering when it interferes in the free market -- and stretched it into a blanket hostility to government. Instead of arguing that government should be limited but energetic, slender but strong, they have often argued that government is itself evil.

In so doing, conservatives have introduced their own version of the liberal sin by allowing the private to eclipse the public. Many conservatives argue simply that the private realm is good and the public realm is bad, that private endeavor is moral and public endeavor is corrupt. They saw that many of the public policies that emerged during the 60 years of liberal dominance had nightmarish consequences. Now many can't conceive of a public realm that would affirm any of the virtues they hold dear. Instead, they have concluded that the public policy issuing from the public realm is the problem. They want to free the private sector from big government, which is a worthy goal, but you can't lead a great nation if you don't have an affirmative view of the public realm.

What he is saying is not that America needs central planning (in fact, he explicitly rejects that), but that we need to have a strong but limited government, which is pretty much why we have a Constitution in the first place, and that this government must identify with the basic purpose of America. Ronald Reagan understood that when he referred to America as the "shining city on the hill", a phrase that evoked Athens and Rome and put America in the context of a continuum of great civilizations that led by example as well as through power.

Finally, Brooks proposes, in broad terms, what he sees as the need for the government to restore its vision:
Restoring American Greatness

Can we create a 21st-century version of the national-greatness ideal and so recapture the confidence manifest in the Library of Congress? What is needed is a process of pruning -- cutting government's forays into private life while strengthening its public role. This is not the anti-statism of recent conservative vintage, nor is it a proposal to reinvent government along neoliberal lines. It's a more fundamental change that requires a transformation in the way we think about the federal government's role.

Currently, American political philosophy has divided itself into the opposing principles of "order" and "freedom." Now, when liberals stand for one, conservatives stand for the other. Liberals want economic order; conservatives want economic freedom. Conservatives want social order; liberals want social freedom.

This has forced the national government to engage in a pervasive balancing act. It is forever invading the private sphere in an effort to strengthen community here, or strengthen individual freedoms there. Washington becomes the battleground on which the fine distinctions between individual rights and community prerogatives are fought out. The national-greatness ideal assigns the federal government another role: It should accomplish national missions. And in so doing, it will set the national tone.

The national mission can be carried out only by individuals and families -- not by collectives, as in socialism and communism. Instead, individual ambition and willpower are channeled into the cause of national greatness. And by making the nation great, individuals are able to join their narrow concerns to a larger national project.

Historically, national missions have included settling the West, building the highway system, creating the post-war science faculties, exploring space, waging the Cold War, and disseminating American culture throughout the world.

The most successful missions have set physical goals, rather than abstract ones: America in 1897 constructed the world's finest library. The library has had an important impact on culture, but its impact is the byproduct of a physical project. Sometimes the federal government has funded these efforts. Sometimes it has merely identified the new national cause. Sometimes it has eliminated barriers to ambition.

It almost doesn't matter what great task government sets for itself, as long as it does some tangible thing with energy and effectiveness. The first task of government is to convey a spirit of confidence and vigor that can then spill across the life of the nation. Stagnant government drains national morale. A government that fails to offer any vision merely feeds public cynicism and disenchantment.

But energetic government is good for its own sake. It raises the sights of the individual. It strengthens common bonds. It boosts national pride. It continues the great national project. It allows each generation to join the work of their parents. The quest for national greatness defines the word " American" and makes it new for every generation.

The bolded text shows that this is not a call to centralized planning, any more than the expansion of the nation westward, or the moon landings were a call to central planning. Rather, it is a call for the government to establish its mission within the boundaries set by the Constitution, beyond simply going through the motions of budgets and administration, which eventually becomes a game of fleecing the people. America, unlike France or England, is not a tribal nation whose borders happened to coincide with the fringes of the tribe. America is first and foremost, an idea, that people can govern themselves, and in doing so, accomplish great things. It doesn't presume that the average person is a sheep to be guided, but a citizen, to be inspired. Brooks isn't calling for central planning, but a reengagement of the national mission, to protect our liberty and defeat those that would destroy it. Since our founding, Americans have done more to advance global science, art, culture and civics than the European states that preceded us had in the previous two millennia. Within two centuries after the Declaration of Independence, Americans walked on the moon, split the atom, shortened the physical distance between east and west (the Panama Canal), liberated hundreds of millions of people and inspired billions more. That is our legacy, and if the best that we can hope for from the Hagels and Obamas of the world is a retreat from it, then we are betraying that legacy.



The little Marxists are Fine with Raising Taxes

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/here-we-go-chief-neocon-calls-for.html
Oh, now that's just BS. Taxes were going to go up no matter what congressional Republicans did, because the Bush rates were temporary, and due to expire. Obama could sit on his hands, and get the tax hikes that he wanted while blaming Republicans for intransigence. That's the context. Kristol didn't propose tax hikes, he proposed protecting the tax rates for as many Americans as possible, by calling Obama's bluff, which is what Boehner eventually tried to do, and which ended up demonstrating that Obama was lying about not wanting to raise taxes on the middle class:


Kristol continued, saying he doesn't understand why Republicans don't just take President Obama's offer to go ahead and extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone making under $250,000 per year while a larger deal is reached. "I don't really understand why Republicans don't take Obama's offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000, make it $500,000, make it $1 million,"

This is how you distort a position to make it appear that Kristol is a Marxist, but it is a lie.


At home in the Democratic party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Jackson

http://www.correntewire.com/thoughts_on_neoconservatism_and_neoliberalism

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/where-have-all-the-neocons-gone/

ROFLOL!!!!! Henry Jackson was a conservative Democrat at a time when such a thing existed. Had he lived, he'd also have found his way to the Republican Party, just as Ronald Reagan did two decades earlier, and his key staffers did after the fact. Jackson and the neocons were at home in a Democratic Party that was willing to fight communism, cut taxes (remember JFK?) and inspire Americans to take bold actions when necessary. Would any of them be at home in that party today? Of course not. But then, neither would JFK.

You made one (partially) valid point in your entire tirade, Molon, and it's all a distraction, since you still haven't answered the most important question. I will break this post here so that you can respond to it without confusion.

To be continued

Odysseus
02-07-2013, 03:49 PM
Now, here is what you didn't answer, and which you really need to:


http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/misc/quote_icon.png

Originally Posted by Molon Labe http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?p=547405#post547405)
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.


Once again, here are the quotes that you are claiming are true:


“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-...rael-noah-glyn (http://www.nationalreview.com/media-...rael-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. 85And once again, I want to know if you are arguing that Buchanan is correct, that American Jews form a "fifth column" in the US, that we have too much power and that this power undermines the United States, that Diesel engines don't emit enough exhaust to kill (an argument of Holocaust deniers) and that white supremacy is "natural". We all want to know this.

Molon Labe
02-07-2013, 04:30 PM
Now, here is what you didn't answer, and which you really need to:




I have neve once claimed anything anti-semitical You brought the Joooos into this, and as I suspected you wish to play that game. I'm not playing it. You and i've had too many conversations over the years that prove otherwise and you know it. My belief that Buchanan still stands for some some level of rationality in Foreign policy does not equate a black and white agreement with every view he holds. He may take it an offensive level for many, I agree. But attacking, questioning or the foreign policy of Israel, does not make one an anti-semite, anymore than it makes them a Anti-Muslim for criticizing Iran and the Mujahadeen in Afganistan, or to criticize American foreign policy makes one Ant-American..

You can't seem to seperate a conceptual belief from a slander. As I said before, You either engage in refuting the central point or you can talk to air. You know how to do it....you've done it before. But you're either getting lazy or just tired of losing the argument.

You think Hagel is terrible and Kristol, and McCain, and little tinkerbell Lindsey Graham are all much more grand, and I do not. The point: So sad the Neocons are on their way into the ash heap of history. Good riddince to them. Too bad it was an ass hat like Obama who did it and not a Republican. Another reason why the party lost the last two elections. They were clueless.

txradioguy
02-07-2013, 04:54 PM
Lube is proving what happens when you use only Paulbot approved sources and cherry picked pieces from other places to try and back up your argument.

http://epicfail.xepher.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/epicfail1.jpg

Molon Labe
02-07-2013, 05:18 PM
Lube is proving what happens when you use only Paulbot approved sources and cherry picked pieces from other places to try and back up your argument.



Ya....I used The Weekly Standard and their own works and words in much of it. Nevermind what they actually say though.

LukeEDay
02-07-2013, 05:33 PM
I will say it again. This schmuck will be confirmed.. All this over the coals crap is nothing more than a side show to appease people.

Odysseus
02-09-2013, 05:52 PM
Ya....I used The Weekly Standard and their own works and words in much of it. Nevermind what they actually say though.

Except that you didn't cite them. You cited articles about them, but not by them. In fact, the one article from the Weekly Standard quoted extensively specifically blew most of your claims about it (and the author) out of the water.


I have neve once claimed anything anti-semitical You brought the Joooos into this, and as I suspected you wish to play that game. I'm not playing it.

No, Hagel brought the Joooooos into this by claiming that we had a lobby that undermined American policy through intimidation, then you brought Pat Buchanan into this to defend him, which opened up Buchanan's antisemitism and bigotry. You keep defending an anti-Semite by citing other anti-Semites, and then object that I've begun to wonder whether you share some of those ideas, especially since you refuse to give a straight answer when asked.


You and i've had too many conversations over the years that prove otherwise and you know it. My belief that Buchanan still stands for some some level of rationality in Foreign policy does not equate a black and white agreement with every view he holds. He may take it an offensive level for many, I agree.
And for the others, there's Stormfront. Buchanan doesn't simply say things that some "may" find offensive, he says things that are patently false, offensive and bigoted. Soft pedaling that so that you don't have to answer for him when you have previously stated that his comments should be taken for their accuracy is not going to fly this time. You demanded that I look at the factual basis of his statements, and I have. Now you do it.


But attacking, questioning or the foreign policy of Israel, does not make one an anti-semite, anymore than it makes them a Anti-Muslim for criticizing Iran and the Mujahadeen in Afganistan, or to criticize American foreign policy makes one Ant-American..

You're equating Iran and the Taliban with Israel and the United States? Seriously? In order for that to be valid, Israel would have to be a totalitarian theocratic state that exports terrorists in order to impose Judaism on the rest of the world. Judaism would have to be a totalitarian ideology that commands subjugation of non-believers. America would be a genocidal imperialist state that seeks global conquest in the name of God. Not even the most demented DUmmy believes that, but if you are going to make that parallel, then perhaps you are posting in the wrong place.


You can't seem to seperate a conceptual belief from a slander. As I said before, You either engage in refuting the central point or you can talk to air. You know how to do it....you've done it before. But you're either getting lazy or just tired of losing the argument.

On the contrary, it is you who keeps evading the central point, which is that Hagel is not qualified for the job, due to a worldview which he cannot defend when called on it, but which you keep claiming is "realist". You won't discuss Hagel's positions, his history of anti-Semitic statements, his failure to recognize terrorism when it stares him in the face, his naive view of Iran or his undermining of US interests. And every time we get back to that central point, you either lapse into incoherent, deranged denunciations of neocons, slanderous accusations of Trotskyite and Marxist attitudes and personal attacks about kissing the asses of Bill Kristol and PNAC, or you disappear until you think that we've forgotten your . You've done everything that you can to avoid the central point, and then you have the nerve to accuse me of what you've been doing? This is why I compared you to Gator, because you won't argue, but you will heap insults



You think Hagel is terrible and Kristol, and McCain, and little tinkerbell Lindsey Graham are all much more grand, and I do not. The point: So sad the Neocons are on their way into the ash heap of history. Good riddince to them. Too bad it was an ass hat like Obama who did it and not a Republican. Another reason why the party lost the last two elections. They were clueless.

Little tinkerbell? What is wrong with you? All things being equal, I will take Kristol and McCain over Hagel, because they understand the nature of the threat that we face, while Hagel does not. You keep personalizing this because of your increasingly unhinged hatred of anyone in the conservative movement who isn't a Paulista or a Buchananite. It's guys like you, who demand ideological purity without any depth of understanding, who make it possible for the left to win elections. Graham's a tool, but he was right about Hagel, and in the war that America is fighting against totalitarian Islamists, I'll take my allies where I can get them. You, OTOH, don't need allies so much as help. You really do seem to be channeling Gator whenever Israel comes up, and more than a couple of people have commented on the similarities between you. Get help. Seriously.

SaintLouieWoman
02-09-2013, 07:01 PM
This is why I compared you to Gator, because you won't argue, but you will heap insults


You really do seem to be channeling Gator whenever Israel comes up, and more than a couple of people have commented on the similarities between you. Get help. Seriously.

When he starts his national watermelon day, we'll know it's Gator. Another similarityto Gator is never answeromg a direct question. You can press and press for a reply, but he usually just ignores. That's classic Gator style.

Plus he uses the key words like neocon and does the anti-Israeli song and dance.

Rockntractor
02-09-2013, 07:03 PM
When he starts his national watermelon day, we'll know it's Gator. Another similarityto Gator is never answeromg a direct question. You can press and press for a reply, but he usually just ignores. That's classic Gator style.

Plus he uses the key words like neocon and does the anti-Israeli song and dance.

Just like peter does, never answers a question he just moves to the next talking point.

txradioguy
02-09-2013, 07:07 PM
I will say it again. This schmuck will be confirmed.. All this over the coals crap is nothing more than a side show to appease people.

Looking more doubtful now as each day passes. The vote's been delayed...it's turning out he's been getting speaking $$$ from organizations with names like "Friends of Hamas"...and from Turkey. And he's refusing to give full disclosure on all the money he's taken and from whom.

Not even the White House is trying to defend him and they picked him.


IMO right now it's 60/40 against him making it.

NJCardFan
02-09-2013, 08:57 PM
Looking more doubtful now as each day passes. The vote's been delayed...it's turning out he's been getting speaking $$$ from organizations with names like "Friends of Hamas"...and from Turkey. And he's refusing to give full disclosure on all the money he's taken and from whom.

Not even the White House is trying to defend him and they picked him.


IMO right now it's 60/40 against him making it.

However, if he is confirmed, the left won't say a word even though Hagel is a fake Republican because if he was chosen by the chosen one then he has to be good, right? No matter what. The left always looks past ant transgression as long at the person in question agrees with their world view.

LukeEDay
02-09-2013, 09:08 PM
Looking more doubtful now as each day passes. The vote's been delayed...it's turning out he's been getting speaking $$$ from organizations with names like "Friends of Hamas"...and from Turkey. And he's refusing to give full disclosure on all the money he's taken and from whom.

Not even the White House is trying to defend him and they picked him.


IMO right now it's 60/40 against him making it.

I did not see that. I think he will still get confirmed, though.



However, if he is confirmed, the left won't say a word even though Hagel is a fake Republican because if he was chosen by the chosen one then he has to be good, right? No matter what. The left always looks past ant transgression as long at the person in question agrees with their world view.

Yeah, as long as you agree with their ideology, you can get away with anything.

Odysseus
02-10-2013, 03:21 AM
When he starts his national watermelon day, we'll know it's Gator. Another similarityto Gator is never answeromg a direct question. You can press and press for a reply, but he usually just ignores. That's classic Gator style.

Plus he uses the key words like neocon and does the anti-Israeli song and dance.

I think that he and Gator read a lot of the same sources and hold many of the same opinions, but Gator was a genuine anti-Semite, while Molon is (I hope) simply an extreme Libertarian in the Ron Paul mode, who seeks to minimize parts of the government that must not be weakened to the point where they can no longer function, specifically the DOD. He also has an irrational hatred of Bill Kristol and PNAC, and projects that on anyone who cites anything that they have written or presented. Ron Paul's inability to understand the dynamics of the Middle East and America's position in the world made him unsuitable for the presidency. It's unfortunate, because in those areas where he is right about the Constitution, he is absolutely on the side of the angels.

txradioguy
02-10-2013, 02:19 PM
I did a fair share of ceremonies for seemingly innocuous civilian positions within the DoD and the Army after 2009. All of them had ties to the Clinton Administration or some Liberal think tank.

The potential replacement for Hagel...Michelle Flournoy was one of them.

She'll do just as much if not more damage to the DoD than Hagel.

I don't think Hagel's gonna make it...but the down side is that his potential replacement is worse.

Odysseus
02-11-2013, 11:33 AM
I did a fair share of ceremonies for seemingly innocuous civilian positions within the DoD and the Army after 2009. All of them had ties to the Clinton Administration or some Liberal think tank.

The potential replacement for Hagel...Michelle Flournoy was one of them.

She'll do just as much if not more damage to the DoD than Hagel.

I don't think Hagel's gonna make it...but the down side is that his potential replacement is worse.

Any Obama appointee will do as much damage as they can, but Hagel's performance in the hearings, his refusal to disclose his speaking engagements and affiliations and his history of supporting America's enemies make him an appalling choice. If he is confirmed after the way that he punted the hearings, then there is no point to holding hearings.

LukeEDay
02-12-2013, 07:26 PM
I said it would happen and it did. The Senate Panel approved Hagel as Defense Secretary. The dog and pony show was nothing more than a circus act brought on by the biggest clowns in this country .

Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/senate-panel-approves-hagel-for-defense-secretary-2013-02-12-179154?link=MW_story_latest_news

Odysseus
02-12-2013, 09:30 PM
I said it would happen and it did. The Senate Panel approved Hagel as Defense Secretary. The dog and pony show was nothing more than a circus act brought on by the biggest clowns in this country .

Read more: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/senate-panel-approves-hagel-for-defense-secretary-2013-02-12-179154?link=MW_story_latest_news

Why even bother having confirmation hearings if you can tank it that badly and still be confirmed?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Rockntractor
02-12-2013, 09:46 PM
Why even bother having confirmation hearings if you can tank it that badly and still be confirmed?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

How bout that, these Republicans have nerves of steel!

Odysseus
02-13-2013, 01:58 PM
I would like to take this moment to welcome my new boss, and express my regret for anything negative that may be construed about our carnivorous overlords. :friendly_wink:

Rockntractor
02-13-2013, 02:03 PM
I would like to take this moment to welcome my new boss, and express my regret for anything negative that may be construed about our carnivorous overlords. :friendly_wink:

This is how we conservatives may soon view the world.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/forums/2524587-6b_Looking_out_from_Catacom_zps497960a7.jpg

LukeEDay
02-15-2013, 09:04 AM
It was being reported today that the Republicans have blocked Hagels appointment. I am shocked! He lost it by 2 votes. Reid is disappointed, as he feels Hagel is a true American patriot. We all know that Reid is an idiot. Reid also said that he will muster up another vote on Monday when they reconvene ... Look for some back room deals and bribes to happen here.

Molon Labe
02-15-2013, 11:14 AM
I would like to take this moment to welcome my new boss, and express my regret for anything negative that may be construed about our carnivorous overlords. :friendly_wink:

I don't think you have to worry about it. It looks like it's going to get shot down anyway.

not that you're really worried anyhow. :friendly_wink:

Odysseus
02-16-2013, 02:00 AM
I don't think you have to worry about it. It looks like it's going to get shot down anyway.

not that you're really worried anyhow. :friendly_wink:

Oh, I'm quite worried. The idea of a SECDEF who takes money from groups with names like Friends of Hamas scares me as much as a SECDEF who was a CPUSA member would have in 1970. I'm also worried about the future of my family if a rabid anti-Semite gets into a position of power. And while we're on the subject of rabid anti-Semites, here are Buchanan's quotes, which you claimed we need to examine for their "truth". Once again, I want to know which of these you consider to be true, and which you don't. If you don't have the guts to answer, then by all means continue to evade the questions, as you aren't fooling anyone. Here they are again:


“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-...rael-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

So, will you answer, or run and hide?

Molon Labe
02-16-2013, 02:36 PM
Oh, I'm quite worried. The idea of a SECDEF who takes money from groups with names like Friends of Hamas scares me as much as a SECDEF who was a CPUSA member would have in 1970. I'm also worried about the future of my family if a rabid anti-Semite gets into a position of power. And while we're on the subject of rabid anti-Semites, here are Buchanan's quotes, which you claimed we need to examine for their "truth". Once again, I want to know which of these you consider to be true, and which you don't. If you don't have the guts to answer, then by all means continue to evade the questions, as you aren't fooling anyone. Here they are again:


“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-...rael-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

So, will you answer, or run and hide?

Yes...since you are obsessed with believing that Hagel is a closet Nazi I will try. I'm not sure what I'm trying to "fool".



No Iran doesn't frighten me.

No I don't think Israel is a 5th column

No I don't think Jews control the congress. I think the US government is a feeding trough for every special interest in the world that can get a handout. That would pertain to any domestic organization that thinks it can get money from US taxpayers. Every country on earth tries to lobby the US government. I don't think their is any conspiracy to do so by Jews over anyone else. The Islamic nations that lobby our government actually have a great amount of influence in this country. Do you believe I am racist for claiming that?

One of my favorite films for it's raw emotion and documentation of WW2 is a 10 hour documentary called "Shoah" by Claude Lanzaman. I make a point to watch it ever so often. So I don't believe in holocaust denial nor that Treblinka never happened. I've watched too many eyewitness accounts. It is one of the most important subjects to stay abreast of.

Neocon is a term devised by themselves. If they don't like it then Irving Kristol should have never attached it to his philosophy. Critical evaluation of a philosophy does not equate anti Semitism. Just as my hatred of Communism devised by Marx does not equal such.

I don't subscribe to any racism. You can't find a post in my history that is racist. Listening to what someone says on it's face value is not a blanket pass on all of their beliefs. Even Marx said things that were true.

The last two I have no opinion on. They seem to be an observation that racism isn't something unique to the US. I've never read the books so I don't know the context and I don't have any opinion on it either way. You believe Buchanan is a closet Nazi. I don't.



Hope this all helps you figure some things out. Haven't been in a strange alternate universe of Godwin's Law for some time. It's been entertaining though.

Odysseus
02-16-2013, 04:32 PM
Yes...since you are obsessed with believing that Hagel is a closet Nazi I will try. I'm not sure what I'm trying to "fool".

No Iran doesn't frighten me.
That's only half the answer. Buchanan claimed that Iran hasn't made a decision to build a bomb. He is clearly deluded, as they have repeatedly stated their intention to build one. Do you share his delusion?


No I don't think Israel is a 5th column
Again, half the statement. Do you believe, as Buchanan states, that Israel is attempting to lure the United States into war?


No I don't think Jews control the congress. I think the US government is a feeding trough for every special interest in the world that can get a handout. That would pertain to any domestic organization that thinks it can get money from US taxpayers. Every country on earth tries to lobby the US government. I don't think their is any conspiracy to do so by Jews over anyone else. The Islamic nations that lobby our government actually have a great amount of influence in this country. Do you believe I am racist for claiming that?

Not at all.


One of my favorite films for it's raw emotion and documentation of WW2 is a 10 hour documentary called "Shoah" by Claude Lanzaman. I make a point to watch it ever so often. So I don't believe in holocaust denial nor that Treblinka never happened. I've watched too many eyewitness accounts. It is one of the most important subjects to stay abreast of.

So, when Buchanan claims that carbon monoxide couldn't have been used by the Nazis, what is your take on his statement?


Neocon is a term devised by themselves. If they don't like it then Irving Kristol should have never attached it to his philosophy. Critical evaluation of a philosophy does not equate anti Semitism. Just as my hatred of Communism devised by Marx does not equal such.

I don't subscribe to any racism. You can't find a post in my history that is racist. Listening to what someone says on it's face value is not a blanket pass on all of their beliefs. Even Marx said things that were true.

The last two I have no opinion on. They seem to be an observation that racism isn't something unique to the US. I've never read the books so I don't know the context and I don't have any opinion on it either way. You believe Buchanan is a closet Nazi. I don't.

Hardly. The first statement is Buchanan saying that segregation wasn't that bad, and the second is that white supremacy was one of the doctrines that made America great. I consider him a not so closeted bigot, and the evidence is there.


Hope this all helps you figure some things out. Haven't been in a strange alternate universe of Godwin's Law for some time. It's been entertaining though.

So, you disagree with most of what Buchanan said, but when I posted them the first time, that wasn't what you said:


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.

So, if you don't believe that what Buchanan and Hagel said about Jews is true, then why did you say what you did?