Does Military Ran IAW "Smart Power" Need a Smart SECDEF?

[sappstuf]

If so, I'm not sure Hagel qualifies. He looked as dumb as a box of Nebraska corn.

[diverdog]

If so, I'm not sure Hagel qualifies. He looked as dumb as a box of Nebraska corn.

He should have told McCain to kiss his ***.

[sappstuf]

He should have told McCain to kiss his ***.

That would have required a coherent response. I'm not sure Hagel could manage that.

It wasn't just McCain by the way.. He got hammered all day.

Hagel looks like a brainless, thoughtless "yes man"... Probably just what Obama wanted.

[diverdog]

That would have required a coherent response. I'm not sure Hagel could manage that.

It wasn't just McCain by the way.. He got hammered all day.

Hagel looks like a brainless, thoughtless "yes man"... Probably just what Obama wanted.

I just think it is pathetic that people who choose to serve this country get treated like chit for political theater. And I do not excuse either side.

[sappstuf]

I just think it is pathetic that people who choose to serve this country get treated like chit for political theater. And I do not excuse either side.

I think when you have made many 'conspiracy theory' type statements you should be questioned hard about them before you assume the duties of a job as important as the SECDEF.

I don't remember Leon Panetta getting treated like chit(Or Kerry this week for that matter)... Probably because he did such a good job at the CIA. What actual experience does Hagel have? Professional politician?

[XingTheRubicon]

McCain - Yes or no?

Hagel - duhhhh, errrrrrr...duuhhhhhhh

[sappstuf]

McCain - Yes or no?

Hagel - duhhhh, errrrrrr...duuhhhhhhh

I think the Obama administration just needs someone to counterbalance Biden for the weekly Trivial Pursuit games...

[SoonerProphet]

Because yes or no lines of questioning require such critical thinking. I am certainly glad some of the senators, especially Cruz and Cornyn, took the time to ask about the F35, sequestration, the pivot to Asia, or any other substantial question regarding the DoD. Instead they cut him off, bloviated, and generally showed themselves to be the the growing insignificant hacks they are.

[sappstuf]

Because yes or no lines of questioning require such critical thinking. I am certainly glad some of the senators, especially Cruz and Cornyn, took the time to ask about the F35, sequestration, the pivot to Asia, or any other substantial question regarding the DoD. Instead they cut him off, bloviated, and generally showed themselves to be the the growing insignificant hacks they are.

He admitted he didn't know anything about that stuff...

Y6-EKoUIfyQ&

[SoonerProphet]

Yep, 52 second sound bites is about the breadth and depth of thinking on these issues. Surprised some could focus that long.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Because yes or no lines of questioning require such critical thinking. I am certainly glad some of the senators, especially Cruz and Cornyn, took the time to ask about the F35, sequestration, the pivot to Asia, or any other substantial question regarding the DoD. Instead they cut him off, bloviated, and generally showed themselves to be the the growing insignificant hacks they are.

You calling somebody a hack, is rich.

[SoonerProphet]

You calling somebody a hack, is rich.

whatever gets you into high gear good buddy

[Turd_Ferguson]

whatever gets you into high gear good buddy

10-4 Snowman...

[sappstuf]

Yep, 52 second sound bites is about the breadth and depth of thinking on these issues. Surprised some could focus that long.

Hagel clearly couldnt'...

[FaninAma]

Chuck's performance yesterday was an embarrasment. He would have been much better off standing on his record instead of trying to run and hide from it. Once that happened the sharks started circling. If he would have simply said something to the effect that he has reservations about the interventionist polocies of this country for the past 5 decades he would be in a better position today.

[SoonerProphet]

Chuck's performance yesterday was an embarrasment. He would have been much better off standing on his record instead of trying to run and hide from it. Once that happened the sharks started circling. If he would have simply said something to the effect that he has reservations about the interventionist polocies of this country for the past 5 decades he would be in a better position today.

If he stands on his record and pushes back it just feeds the media's obsession for toxicity and destructive dialogue. When you are confronted with stupid and insulting questions, sometimes it is better to just say nothing. What does Hagel care about his vapid responses, it wasn't going to change the outcome. We all knew the puffery was coming, now they can go to the big donors and boast of how they showed him.

[SCOUT]

If he stands on his record and pushes back it just feeds the media's obsession for toxicity and destructive dialogue. When you are confronted with stupid and insulting questions, sometimes it is better to just say nothing. What does Hagel care about his vapid responses, it wasn't going to change the outcome. We all knew the puffery was coming, now they can go to the big donors and boast of how they showed him.
The current state of appointments is terribly sad.

Answering questions about situations and then trying to see how they would be handled was too reasonable. The above quote is a better method.

[sappstuf]

If he stands on his record and pushes back it just feeds the media's obsession for toxicity and destructive dialogue. When you are confronted with stupid and insulting questions, sometimes it is better to just say nothing. What does Hagel care about his vapid responses, it wasn't going to change the outcome. We all knew the puffery was coming, now they can go to the big donors and boast of how they showed him.

He was asked about Iran. He said he supports the president's policy of a "strong position on containment".

Somebody tried to help him out and slipped him a note telling him he was completely wrong. So then, in full sock puppet mode, he says "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." Which wasn't accurate either!

Then Senator Levin had to bail him out again saying, "We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment, I just wanted to clarify the clarify".

Good god.. The guy can't even be a proper sock puppet. The "Jewish Lobby" he talks about so much must have been using a secret laser to turn his brain into oatmeal..

But in your eyes, it is all the Repubs fault....

[diverdog]

He was asked about Iran. He said he supports the president's policy of a "strong position on containment".

Somebody tried to help him out and slipped him a note telling him he was completely wrong. So then, in full sock puppet mode, he says "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." Which wasn't accurate either!

Then Senator Levin had to bail him out again saying, "We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment, I just wanted to clarify the clarify".

Good god.. The guy can't even be a proper sock puppet. The "Jewish Lobby" he talks about so much must have been using a secret laser to turn his brain into oatmeal..

But in your eyes, it is all the Repubs fault....

He is right about the Jewish lobby. He should have the balls to say so. The biggest area they have acted against our interest is their repeated promise to stop West Bank settlements and failure to do so.

[sappstuf]

He is right about the Jewish lobby. He should have the balls to say so. The biggest area they have acted against our interest is their repeated promise to stop West Bank settlements and failure to do so.

But he doesn't have the balls to say so and that says something doesn't it? Panetta was certainly a stand-up guy. He proved it by standing up to Nancy when he was with the CIA.

Can you give repeated examples of them promising they would stop West Bank settlements? I don't think ol' Benjamin has made any such promise.

[SoonerProphet]

He was asked about Iran. He said he supports the president's policy of a "strong position on containment".

Somebody tried to help him out and slipped him a note telling him he was completely wrong. So then, in full sock puppet mode, he says "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." Which wasn't accurate either!

Then Senator Levin had to bail him out again saying, "We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment, I just wanted to clarify the clarify".

Good god.. The guy can't even be a proper sock puppet. The "Jewish Lobby" he talks about so much must have been using a secret laser to turn his brain into oatmeal..

But in your eyes, it is all the Repubs fault....

I get viewing things in context is not a strong point of some. The 52 second soundbites do offer up entertaining moments for the Hannity's of the world and allow for grand moments of character assassination and general thuggery, but often ignore the big picture. The particualar thought crime that Senator Ayotte was trying to achieve her gotcha moment with was a Hagel speech back in 2007 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in which he referenced Kennan's Long Telegram and our strategy with dealing with Iran. As Obama was not the president in 2007 and Hagel was a senator, he was free to ruminate on the options available to diplomats and national security strategists.

I get how this made for great kabuki and has hence showed up in numerous articles, news snippets, and message boards.

[sappstuf]

I get viewing things in context is not a strong point of some. The 52 second soundbites do offer up entertaining moments for the Hannity's of the world and allow for grand moments of character assassination and general thuggery, but often ignore the big picture. The particualar thought crime that Senator Ayotte was trying to achieve her gotcha moment with was a Hagel speech back in 2007 to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in which he referenced Kennan's Long Telegram and our strategy with dealing with Iran. As Obama was not the president in 2007 and Hagel was a senator, he was free to ruminate on the options available to diplomats and national security strategists.

I get how this made for great kabuki and has hence showed up in numerous articles, news snippets, and message boards.

Some people should read the transcript... If they can read and comprehend it. For others, I will paste the full question from Senator Chambliss.. Some people have mentioned Senator Ayotte. I don't know what they are talking about and I'm pretty sure some people don't either. So here we go..


SENATOR SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA): Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Chuck, again, congratulations on your nomination. As we talked the other day, you and I have been good friends since I came to the Senate 2002 and sat next to each other for six years on the Intel Committee. And during that process you cast some votes that I questioned, but we were always able to dialogue. It never impacted our friendship, and I'm very appreciative of that.

You were also introduced by two of my dearest friends, Senator Nunn and Senator Warner, which certainly is a credit to you.

I want to drill down, Chuck, on the issue that I think is going to be very much at the forefront, probably THE number one issue you're going to have to deal with, assuming that you're confirmed, and that's the issue of our relationship with Iran and where we go in the future, short term as well as long term.

Now you wrote in your book -- and I quote -- "We blundered into Iraq because of flawed intelligence, flawed assumptions, flawed judgments and ideologically driven motives. We must not repeat these errors with Iran, and the best way to avoid them is to maintain an effective dialogue."

You then go on to advocate again, and I quote, for "a direct and strategic diplomatic initiative."

Now, I heard you, in your opening comments, say that your position on Iran is prevention, not containment, when it comes to their nuclear weaponization. Now, I want you to expand on that.

And I want to go back to Senator Inhofe and Senator Reed's question or comment relative to why you did not vote to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Iran is the number one terror- sponsoring state in the world. I don't think there's any disagreement about that. I want you to expand on your position on a nuclear- weaponized Iran and talk about red lines. If your position is truly prevention and not containment, Chuck, what is the red line? What is the point? We know there are some things happening over there right now that are very serious. So how far do we go?

Do you still advocate direct negotiations with Iran, as you said? And you made clear that all options were on the table, and you've stated again that military options is one of those. If you will, talk about direct -- we've never negotiated with a terrorist state. Why do you feel like that we ought to dialogue with them, even on this issue today?

And lastly, what alterations, if any, do you think are necessary to our military force posture in the Gulf region to deter Iranian regional ambitions and support international diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability? It's a broad statement on my part, broad question, but this is the issue, from a national security standpoint, Chuck. And I'd like you to be pretty specific.

Mr. HAGEL: Mm hmm. Well, let's start with a specific question on a vote, regarding designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

You recall, because you were there, there were 22 senators who voted against that. The effort against it -- the main point made on the floor of the Senate came from Senator Jim Webb. And his point was we have never, ever designated a part of a legitimate government, a state -- and when I say "legitimate," that doesn't mean we agree with Iran, but it is a member of the United Nations. Almost all of our allies have embassies in Iran. So that's why I note -- an elected, legitimate government, whether we agree or not. But we have never made any part of a legitimate, independent government, designated them or made part -- made them part of a terrorist organization. We've just -- we've never done that.

And so you say, well, so what? What's the big problem? The problem was that, at least 22 of us believed -- and there were both Republicans and Democrats, by the way, in that vote, but it was Jim Webb who was on the floor most of the time on it -- said that if you do that, that's tantamount to giving the president of the United States authority to use military force against Iran without having to come back to get a resolution from or partner with or cooperate with the Congress of the United States, and essentially, if we vote for this, we're giving that -- we're giving a president, in a sense, that authority.

Now, you can agree or disagree with that, but I listened to that debate, and there was some pretty thoughtful debate, and that's -- that debate, I thought, was pretty powerful with me. We were already in two wars at the time, and I thought that this made sense, and so I voted against it. That's why I voted against that. You might also remember that Secretary-designate -- almost Secretary of State Kerry voted against it. Then-President Obama -- or Senator Obama -- he gave speeches against it. He didn't vote that day. Vice President Biden voted against it. Dick Lugar voted against it. Other -- there were some other Republicans.

As to the Iranians -- red line, Persian Gulf, some of the Iranian questions you ask, I support the president's strong position on containment, as I've said. And I'll speak more specifically to a couple of the examples you use from my book. But his position, I think, is right. And when you ask the question about red line, well, red line, I think the president has gone as far as he should go publicly on that. And he said clearly that in his words, he has Israel's back. He said that his policy is not to allow the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon. What constitutes when action would be taken, I think that's always something that should not be discussed publicly or debated publicly or out in the public domain.

Some people claim there were thought crimes going on or gotcha moments... I don't see any here. Does anyone else? Senator Chambliss asked a question and you can tell by the response that Hagel was allowed to answer at length.

It was the very next question from Senator Chambliss that the note appears.


Sen. CHAMBLISS: Well, I'm understanding to say that you're not ready to discuss red lines in a specific way. Am I hearing that right?

Mr. HAGEL: Well, I don't think that's my role now to start with. I am not the secretary of defense. But I think the president is wise in his course of action in not discussing that publicly. I think it's a far smarter way to handle it, and I think he has said what he needs to say. I think it's been understood in Iran. I think the world understands his position.

By the way, I've just been handed a note that misspoke and said I supported the president's position on containment. If I said that, it -- meant to say that I obviously -- his position on containment -- we don't have a position on containment

I could go on, but I think it is clear who is being truthful in this debate and that some people are just blowing smoke.

[diverdog]

But he doesn't have the balls to say so and that says something doesn't it? Panetta was certainly a stand-up guy. He proved it by standing up to Nancy when he was with the CIA.

Can you give repeated examples of them promising they would stop West Bank settlements? I don't think ol' Benjamin has made any such promise.

Don't get me wrong I am not for or against Hagle. If I had my choice I would have picked the Senator from Virginia, Robb. Heck I would even take Warner. Both have solid backgrounds.


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-subsidizes-west-bank-housing-breaking-promise-to-u-s-1.406609

[Breadburner]

Watching the apologist and spooners getting ripped and owned in this thread is very entertaining......

[SoonerProphet]

Some people should read the transcript... If they can read and comprehend it. For others, I will paste the full question from Senator Chambliss.. Some people have mentioned Senator Ayotte. I don't know what they are talking about and I'm pretty sure some people don't either. So here we go..



Some people claim there were thought crimes going on or gotcha moments... I don't see any here. Does anyone else? Senator Chambliss asked a question and you can tell by the response that Hagel was allowed to answer at length.

It was the very next question from Senator Chambliss that the note appears.



I could go on, but I think it is clear who is being truthful in this debate and that some people are just blowing smoke.

My mistake, it was Chambliss and not Ayotte. To be fair, Ayotte too referenced the speech and had a line of questioning regarding contianment. It was six hours worth of testimony. I stand by my assertion that you can't get a read on the man's views by watching headline news. Regardless, he will likely be confirmed and think that is a good thing.