Chuck Hagel Fact Sheet

[Molon Labe]

Your refusal to look at history is infuriating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy theory Strawman fail. No thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two axioms in International politics and that is all.

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

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

[Rockntractor]

Melon Lube, encased in an impenetrable bunker composed of thick headed stupid.

[Molon Labe]

Melon Lube, encased in an impenetrable bunker composed of thick headed stupid.

Now you know damn well I didn't vote for Romney.

[Rockntractor]

Now you know damn well I didn't vote for Romney.

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

[Generation Why?]

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

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

[Rockntractor]

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

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

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

[Molon Labe]

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

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

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

[Molon Labe]

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

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

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

[DumbAss Tanker]

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

[Odysseus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristol didn't write the article. Did you happen to read the first line of the post?

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

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

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

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

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

This is what is called a "non sequitur."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy theory Strawman fail. No thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two axioms in International politics and that is all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See above.