Chuck Hagel Fact Sheet

[Generation Why?]

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

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

1. You're*

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

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

[Rockntractor]

1. You're*

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

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

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

[Generation Why?]

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

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

[Rockntractor]

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

Than you had no point to make in your post.

Linda is a sexy librarian.

[Generation Why?]

Than you had no point to make in your post.

Linda is a sexy librarian.

1. Then*

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

[Molon Labe]

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

The point of my argument is this:

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

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

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

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

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


Can Realism be a comprehensive Theory of American Foreign Policy?

Has the GOP shed it's last Realist?

Chuck Hagel: Revenge of the “Paleocons”? Lefties Rallying in Support of an “Old-School Conservative Republican”

Why the War Party (TWS) Fears Hagel

Is Hagel out of the Mainstream?


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

[Odysseus]

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

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

The point of my argument is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Realism be a comprehensive Theory of American Foreign Policy?

Has the GOP shed it's last Realist?

Chuck Hagel: Revenge of the “Paleocons”? Lefties Rallying in Support of an “Old-School Conservative Republican”

Why the War Party (TWS) Fears Hagel

Is Hagel out of the Mainstream?


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

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

“Iran doesn’t frighten me and I don’t think it should frighten the American people. They don’t have a bomb. They haven’t made a decision to build one…and the Israelis have 300 atomic bombs. Who presents the existential threat to whom?” http://www.nationalreview.com/media-...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

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

[Molon Labe]

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



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

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

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

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

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

'Send us Hagel and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite.'?"

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


But if you think I should support an organization that:

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

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

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

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

4. That the Federal Government should grow larger

5. Advocates Gun control

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


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

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

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

Have a great day.

[Odysseus]

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.)

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.

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.