Your Opinion Of Chuck Hagel, Defense Secretary Nominee?

View attachment 1380 ​

 

I wish Obama luck. He is going to need it for all of our sakes.

 

View attachment 1447

http://freebeacon.com/gibbs-hagel-unimpressive-and-unprepared/

 

More crickets from the left?

 

Come on, liberals.. Let's discuss...

 

Despite some misgivings about whether or not anything I write here will do any good, I'll throw OKC a bone. I'm ignoring the people who have commented above, but I've decided to (temporarily) take a look at what was written so far, expecting something worth replying to.

There isn't, at least IMO, and that is disappointing somewhat, but not totally unexpected. Nevertheless, I will give my opinion on Chuck's future reign as Defense Secretary (DS), since it is worthy of being discussed, and Joe didn't post a separate thread that I could do that in lol

In one word? Weak.

I wouldn't want him as DS under most circumstances, but I believe the timing is good for such a person. Hagel is anti-war, and is a good person to have as DS during a time of troop withdrawal and the minimal downsizing the military is going to be forced to undertake in the next few years, due to budget constraints.

While I have some doubts, some concerns about whether or not he is the best choice for the job, I can see why he was picked.

IMO, it's his Vietnam experience that is the biggest reason. It helps that he is a republican (shivers). Politically, the Obama administration is using those two characteristics well. By picking him, they have forced the republicans to attack one of their own.

They (the republicans) do it with gusto, since Hagel has criticized republican policies in the past, particularly the manufactured reasons behind the Iraq invasion. To republicans, he's something of a traitor, and in that respect, I like him. The republicans have been moving to the extreme for some time now, and when someone from their party has the gonads to stand-up and criticize their own party, I respect them a bit more.

I'm not a party-line person myself, and appreciate it when someone from the other side of my political beliefs can do that, as it can't be easy for them. They attack him just like a pack of demented dogs would, and deserve the political beating they're taking over the filibuster of his appointment, the first in history of a DS pick, btw (from what I've heard), which is very telling on just how much the republican party hates him.

I prefer politicians who are straight-talkers, not lapdogs like Mitch, Lindsey, and McCain (yes, he's relatively straight-talking, and occasionally goes against the party-line, but he's also their bitch... when push comes to shove, he folds under the pressure... and it doesn't help that he's a warmonger, the polar-opposite of Hagel).

Overall, I don't think he's the perfect guy for the job, but timing-wise...and politics-wise ...it's a solid hit, IMO.

Comparing him to Rumsfeld, I'd prefer Hagel. Rumsfeld had some idiotic ideas on the capabilities of our military, much like the illusions most republicans in politics have on the potential success of their policies.

The Romney-vision is a good example of that. The republicans allowed themselves to be fooled by their own ill-conceived propaganda, and Rumsfeld did that as DS as well. His version of how the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were going to play-out were ill-conceived and poorly executed. It didn't help that he agreed to invade Iraq under false pretenses either. Hagel wouldn't have made that mistake, and I doubt he'd be interested in manipulating the public as Rumsfeld did, due to his nature against war in general.

Comparing Hagel to departing DS Panetta is not favorable, as I have had high respect for Panetta's DS service, which I view as a significant improvement over Gates term (I do not care for Gates, for a number of reasons). I truly wish Panetta could stay on as DS, but it is what it is, and so we have Hagel lol

There you have it, my opinion. Whoop the !@#$ ie lol

 

Here is the typical sourcing question you are seeing from the Right-wing these days. Apparently, a rumor is all that is necessary for Republican Senators to hold up confirmations and go on Sunday morning talk shows and treat the rumors as if they had actually been sourced.
Breitbart, a blog with a rather infamous checkered past posts a story, an exclusive story mind you, so no one else is reporting this, that Hagel has "foreign funding" from some group called Friends of Hamas. No proof is offered in the entire blog but somehow this story shows up coming out of the mouths of Republican Senators like Lindsey Graham on the Sunday morning talk shows as facts. Here is Breitbart's story. Please point to the source for me.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/07/Hagel-Friends-of-Hamas-WH

This is how elected Republican senators are getting their information these days. Whether you believe Breitbart or not, they have produced no, zero, zip, nothing as a source for their claim but it is taken as fact anyway. This is how that Right is operating these days. Unreal!

 

Same source as;
Republicans will push granny over the cliff.
Republicans are blocking all the bills in the house.
Romney is too rich to be president.
Romney killed Joe Soptic's wife.
Obama said it was terrorists in the Rose Garden.
etc.

 

Daily News' Dan Friedman Claims He Inadvertently Started Chuck Hagel 'Friends Of Hamas' Rumor

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-friends-of-hamas-dan-friedman_n_2723951.html

This is what the Right-wing bubble uses as source information. They are the joke.

 

This case says so much about the Right-wing bubble the cons on this site exist in... Why would we on the Left listen to anything they have to say when they are simply parroting rumors, unsourced stories, and articles that make the Onion seem like a credible source? I think the real obvious joke here, is you guys.

"Friends Of Hamas" And Why The GOP Can't Win The Internet

If you want to appreciate how vast the digital divide is that historically separates conservative failures and liberal accomplishments online, and if you want to add some context to the recent New York Times Magazine feature article on how Republicans' chronic online shortcomings dim the party's electoral chances, just look at how the two camps were marking their time in recent days.

Working with Republicans on Capitol Hill trying to block Chuck Hagel's nomination to become Secretary of Defense, Breitbart's Ben Shapiro recently posted a report suggesting Hagel had allegedly received "foreign funding" over the years from a terrorist-friendly group called Friends of Hamas, but that the payments were being kept secret. The allegation served as part of the right wing's relentless campaign to smear Hagel as being anti-Israel.



Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy, and AM talker Hugh Hewitt all hyped Breitbart's conspiratorial narrative about Hagel's nefarious connections with Friends of Hamas.

Slight problem. Last week, Slate's David Weigel detailed how Friends of Hamas doesn't actually exist. And as New York Daily News reporter Dan Friedman explained, he unwittingly started the Friends of Hamas rumor when he posed the Hagel question to a GOP aide in the form of "an obvious joke." According to Friedman, he asked about both Friends of Hamas and the "Junior League of Hezbollah," and thought that the "names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically."

The GOP aide then apparently shared the Friends of Hamas inquiry with other partisans and Friedman posits that from there it found its way to Breitbart, which published it in the form of "news" under Shapiro's byline. Tellingly, the fact that the scary sounding group doesn't exist didn't stop a right-wing site from pushing the tall tale; a tale that quickly ricocheted across the conservative media landscape and was touted as a Deeply Troubling Development.

It was against that backdrop of routine right-wing dysfunction that the Times published its lengthy article. Author Robert Draper argued -- and many Republican operatives agreed -- that the GOP's perennial online failures have made it almost impossible for the party to communicate effectively with younger voters; voters who have developed a deeply hostile perception of the GOP brand. (i.e. "Polarizing," "narrow-minded.") Draper didn't make reference to the Friends of Hamas debacle, but it could have served as a useful example of how routinely unserious online pursuits have become among Republican boosters.

By comparison, note Monday's news that left-leaning Mother Jones won a prestigious Polk Award for the big campaign scoop David Corn posted online last September about how Mitt Romney, while addressing wealthy donors, disparaged "47 percent" of Americans who "believe they are victims." The blockbuster report, complete with an undercover video, was the fruit of a month's worth of digging by Corn.

The Friends of Hamas farce, coupled with the Polk Award, represent useful bookends when measuring the widening gulf that separates liberals and conservatives online, and how one side has completely lapped the other. (Seven years after its launch, players are still trying to create the "conservative Huffington Post.")

I realize the Times piece focused on "the Republican Party's technological deficiencies," the lopsided battle for a social media edge, revolutionary campaign software, and how senior Republicans are still reluctant to even engage via Twitter. The piece cast a spotlight on how information, and better information, is shared faster and more widely among liberals than it is among conservatives.

But you can't really take what the right-wing media, and specifically bloggers, are doing online and separate that from the GOP's chronic, failed attempts to use the Internet to win elections and bolster its brand. The two are permanently attached.

The truth is, liberals for years bemoaned the fact that conservatives dominated talk radio and there seemed to be something in the DNA of liberal listeners that prevented them from tuning in to like-minded radio hosts endlessly, week after week and year after year. With the Internet, the tables have been turned. Conservatives scratch their heads trying to understand the chasm and why there seems to be a natural disposition on the left to embrace the nonhierarchical style of the Web and turn it into an oversize organizing tool, while so many Republicans simply demurred.

Or worse, they have helped turn the Web into the conservative house of mirrors, as represented by the comically awful and dishonest Friends of Hamas failure.

And talk about déjà vu.

Describing how badly Democrats are outclassing them online, a Republican operative told the Times, "They were playing chess while we were playing checkers."

Sound familiar? It should. "For the most part Republicans are stuck in Internet circa 2000." That's how a GOP aide turned blogger described the party's dire problem to the Washington Post in 2007. That same year, a Weekly Standard writer bemoaned, "We're losing the Web right now."

Not much has changed since then. In fact, according to the Times piece things may have gotten worse for Republicans over the last four years, as Mitt Romney's social media thumping proved. (i.e. 12 million Facebook friends registered for Romney vs. 33 million for Obama.) And specifically, the GOP now faces a grave danger in term of reaching and persuading young voters, who electorally appear to be verging on a generational lost cause for Republicans.

Frustrated GOP activists told the Times that the party's corporate rigidity was to blame for the lack of online innovation and success, and that conservative techies are too focused on making money and not devoted enough to helping grow the cause.

After reading the Times article, Salon's Andrew Leonard noted a different reason for endless GOP stumbles in the face of Democratic successes [emphasis added]:

What's really happening is that Democrats have grasped a fundamental attribute of the digital age -- information is easy to share -- and have understood that the best way to take advantage of this special quality is set up a structure in which "smart people" are allowed to operate freely in an environment where information flows fluidly.

Note the significance of "smart people." And just as importantly, I'd suggest, are serious people. Today online, conservatives often lack both.

Just ask Friends of Hamas.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/20/friends-of-hamas-and-why-the-gop-cant-win-the-i/192730

 

Bettin' the Righties here wish that they had never brought up Hagel.

 

I have no idea what "Friends Of Hamas" have to do with this. Look at these clips and you tell me you think the bumbling idiot trying to unsay what he had said earlier is really the person you think would serve your country well as Secretary of Defense.

 

IN 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS' STORY, MEDIA FAIL TO PURSUE FULL DISCLOSURE FROM HAGEL


There were not one, but two Breitbart News stories about the allegation that "Friends of Hamas" had donated to organizations connected to former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). Both ran Feb. 7, and alongside one another, atop the site. The fact that the media have focused on the first, and ignored the second, is a testament to their refusal to hold Hagel to reasonable standards of disclosure, or to address the substantive issues releated to his associations.

The first story reported that Senate sources believed Hagel was refusing to comply fully with financial disclosure requests because “one of the [donor] names listed is a group purportedly called ‘Friends of Hamas.’” The second story explored a possible factual basis for the rumor: that “friends of Hamas” (lower case), such as the family of former Lebanese prime minister Saad Hariri in particular, had donated to the Atlantic Council.

Both stories indicated clearly that Breitbart News had not yet managed to corroborate the sources’ story about “Friends of Hamas” (upper case), but both noted the underlying problem was Hagel’s refusal to comply with requests for disclosure. The media showed no interest in exploring Hagel’s funders--not even Buzzfeed, which originally named the Hariri family as a key concern for the Senate (without bothering to explain why).

The media’s lack of interest in vetting Hagel has contributed--inadvertently, of course--to his present troubles. Each new revelation, each new speech, each new strange position in Hagel’s record has undermined the narrative the media have tried to assert--that he has satisfied all doubts and that his critics are making unprecedented requests. What is unprecedented, it turns out, is Hagel’s far-left worldview, which he now disavows.

Concerns about Hagel’s financial backers have faded not because he has satisfied the concerns of the Senate--indeed, his Friday evening document dump on Feb. 8 ought to have prompted new questions--but because his financial evasions have been eclipsed by new concerns about his failure to disclose recent speeches, and about the content of those speeches, which were provably weak on Iran and allegedly hostile towards Israel.

The fiction that Hagel’s defenders are trying to weave is that the first “Friends of Hamas” story was primarily or largely responsible for encouraging Republicans to delay Hagel’s confirmation as Secretary of Defense. In fact, the letter from 25 Republican Senators to Hagel, demanding further information about possible foreign funding, both direct and indirect, was sent on Feb. 6, the day before the “Friends of Hamas” story ran.

Moreover, in explaining why they chose to vote against cloture on the Senate floor on Feb. 14, Republicans explicitly identified other factors. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the Ranking Member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said that Hagel’s financial disclosure problems were “minor” compared to Hagel’s “anti-Israel history.” Likewise, others cited Hagel’s speeches, not his finances, as the reason they needed more time.

There was a Breitbart News story that was critical in informing that decision, but it was not either of the “Friends of Hamas” articles. Rather, it was a Feb. 11 story that ran both at Breitbart News and Fox News about two speeches Hagel had failed to provide to the committee. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Inhofe’s predecessor as Ranking Member, told the committee on Feb. 12 that the two speeches had motivated his vote against Hagel.

It is now apparent that Hagel misled the Senate during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 31 when he suggested that the controversy over his record was about “one individual” quote or vote, or statement, and when he said that he had made available “every copy of every speech that I have that's out there, every video that I have that's out there.” Even if Hagel did not intend to mislead, his testimony undermines trust in his leadership.

Moreover, Hagel has failed to convince the Senate or the public that he has changed his controversial views on Iran, Israel, and nuclear disarmament, among other issues. The fact that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) felt the need to tell a melodramatic tale about Hagel weeping when he was informed why the term “Jewish lobby” is offensive shows just how hard Democrats are trying to make what amounts to an impossible case.

They know it is impossible, because Democrats themselves first raised the alarm about Hagel’s views. In 2007, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) published a blog entitled: “Indecisive Senator Hagel Has Questionable Israel Record.” In 2009, the NJDC published an op-ed by activist Steve Sheffey in which he attacked Hagel as a member of the “anti-Israel right,” lumping him with Pat Buchanan and James Baker.

Now, the NJDC and the rest of the Democratic Party have flip-flopped on Hagel solely to protect President Barack Obama, who has expended enormous political capital to push the Hagel confirmation through the Senate. Schumer’s sob story has made clear that there is almost no new fact about Hagel’s record that could dislodge their support. They are willing to put party above principle, to risk national security for political interest.

Further disclosure is certainly warranted, but is not actually necessary for the Senate to make the right decision and reject Hagel. His views are radical, and incompatible with President Obama’s own national security strategy. He has weak credentials on defense policy, and his experience and interests are more focused on international diplomacy. His shaky, incoherent performance at his confirmation hearing is disqualifying in itself.

The most important reason to pursue further disclosure is not to convince the Senate one way or the other, but to reassure the public that national security will be in capable and trustworthy hands at a time of growing threats and shrinking budgets. It is Hagel’s duty to make that case by providing the Senate with the financial records and speeches he has withheld. These may be unusual requests, but Hagel is an unusual nominee.

The media could play an important role in pursuing Hagel’s funders. Instead, they have show more interest in outing a fellow journalist’s source. Some of the same outlets were quick to defend, or slow to condemn, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he made the wild accusation that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had failed to pay his taxes for ten years--based on a single unnamed source who only spoke to Reid.

The media clamored, in fact, for Romney to release his tax returns, though there was no reason to suspect he had done anything illegal. The reasons for Hagel to disclose more information are far stronger--namely, that he has apparently misled the Senate about what he has already disclosed, and that there are witnesses to radical statements he says he did not make. But for the media, Hagel’s critics remain a more convenient target.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journa...as-Story-Media-Fail-to-Pursue-Full-Disclosure

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.... Oh Breitbart! You do entertain. No wonder you Righties are always on the wrong side of every issue. Too funny!

**Wipes tear from nonstop laughter**

 

Attacking the messenger does absolutely nothing to bolster your defense. Feel free to dispute anything in the article.

 

And I notice that he absolutely ignores the questions about Israel and the surge. Sounds like he and Hagel ought to go well together.

 

Well, of course. He's like a rat scurrying back into the darkness the moment light hits him.

That's not very nice. I think you owe Hagel an apology.

 

After what I have seen of Hagel, I am not so sure about that.

 

View attachment 1537

 

You gotta love how they adhere to absolute nonsense. I guess your response is about as much as they really deserve. Just no bottom to their stupidity that I can see.