The Anti-War/Anti-Semitic Defense Chief


President Obama has nominated former Senator and Vietnam war veteran Chuck Hagel to replace Leon Panetta as Secretary of Defense, and John Brennan to serve as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Although Brennan’s Senate confirmation may meet less resistance, Hagel’s nomination is sure to spark a fierce confirmation battle in the Senate — a battle that would be completely warranted. Hagel, after all, has espoused a deep kinship with the radical anti-war Left, advocated reckless foreign policy positions such as direct talks with terrorists and their leading sponsor, Iran, and demonstrated a nasty hostility to Israel and to Jews in general. To have this kind of individual serving as the head of the U.S. Defense Department is to severely jeopardize the security interests of the U.S., our ally Israel and the rest of the free world.

Hagel has become the darling of the radical anti-war crowd for his virulent attacks on President Bush’s Iraq war policies, his appeasement of Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, and his sharp criticism of enhanced interrogation. Back in 2008, when Hagel’s name was first being floated for a possible cabinet position in the Obama administration, Medea Benjamin, executive director of the far-Left group CodePink, said: “Hagel would be a good choice. I think he’s shown himself to be an outspoken critic of the terrible policies of the Bush administration.”

Just the other day, Michael Moore reflected on Hagel’s stance against the Iraq war and wrote, “thank you, Chuck Hagel.”

How comforting it will be to have the man whom Medea Benjamin and Michael Moore so admire heading the Pentagon.

Hagel is also beloved by Israel-haters and anti-Semites, including the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Iranian regime’s TV network mouthpiece, TVPress, because of the extreme anti-Israel, anti-Jewish views that Hagel has expressed over the years.

Hagel believes that U.S. foreign policy has been skewed too much in Israel’s favor. He ascribed the pro-Israel tilt to the power of what he called the “Jewish lobby,” which he said had the ability to “intimidate” members of Congress. While serving in the Senate, he boasted that he was not sent to Washington to serve as an “Israeli Senator.” This was an obvious swipe at his Senate colleagues who believed in supporting the only true democracy in the Middle East.  Hagel was also using the age-old code words of anti-Semites who accuse Jews of dual loyalties.

Hagel showed his complete indifference to the plight of Jews trapped in the Soviet Union in 1999 when he was the only senator out of 100 who refused to sign the American Jewish Committee’s statement against anti-Semitism in Russia. The petition was set to appear as a full-page newspaper ad during then-president Boris Yeltsin’s visit to the United States. In October 2000, Hagel and only three other senators refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel. In August 2006, Hagel joined only eleven other senators in refusing to write the European Union asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

It’s not as if Hagel doesn’t sign letters dealing with Israel and its enemies when he wants to.  For example, although the terrorist organization Hamas has yet to renounce violence and its covenant to destroy Israel, Hagel signed a letter delivered just days before Obama was to take office for his first term as president urging Obama to talk to leaders of Hamas.

Israel is surrounded by enemies determined to destroy the Jewish state. It is also a strategic partner in our own war against global Islamist jihadists – sharing intelligence, developing state-of-the art body armor used by our troops and anti-missile defense systems that are more sophisticated than our own. Yet we are facing the prospect of a Secretary of Defense who goes out of his way to antagonize our only true ally in the Middle East and who cannot bring himself to treat Hamas and Hezbollah as the terrorist enemies of all freedom-loving countries that they surely are.

Some of Hagel’s defenders are blaming pro-Israel groups for supposedly besmirching his character in order to sabotage the nomination. This accusation is absurd. Hagel’s disturbing past statements about Israel and its enemies speak for themselves.

But even if Hagel had not shown the kind of antipathy towards Israel that has won him praise from the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations and earned him the “anti-Israel” title on Iranian state TV, Hagel would still be a complete disaster as Secretary of Defense.  He is caught in the time warp of the Vietnam syndrome, the national defense paralysis that stemmed from what Ronald Reagan once described as “feelings of guilt as if we were doing something shameful.”

In nominating Hagel, President Obama said that “To this day, Chuck bears the scars and the shrapnel” of his service in Vietnam. While the president no doubt had physical scars in mind, Hagel still carries the mental scars that have instilled in him an instinctive repulsion for doing what will be necessary as Secretary of Defense to defend our country.

“Vietnam was a tough lesson for us to learn,” he told PBS last year. Hagel’s record shows the extent to which the Vietnam syndrome has poisoned his judgment.

For example, Hagel turned on the Iraq war that he originally supported because he could not free himself from the ghosts of the Vietnam war as the battles in Iraq continued. In 2007, when President Bush proposed the troop “surge” in Iraq to turn the tide of war in our favor, Hagel became one of the surge’s most vocal critics. Not surprisingly, Vietnam was not far from his mind. He described the surge as “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it’s carried out.” Hagel also called the surge “a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost.”  He stands by that assessment, despite all of the evidence following the surge of sharply reduced violence and the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Hagel also strongly opposed the enhanced interrogation of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists that took place during the Bush years. These interrogations helped in foiling more terrorist attacks on our homeland, saving countless lives.

For instance, Hagel was asked during a June 2005 CNN interview by John King about a report in Time Magazine regarding the interrogation methods used on Mohammed Al-Qahtani, a detainee who had allegedly tried to enter the United States to take part in the September 11 attacks as the 20th hijacker.  It seems that Al-Qahtani was administered some fluids and then denied permission to relieve himself until he first answered some questions.  “When Al-Qahtani again requested his promised bathroom break, he is told to go in his pants,” Time reported. “Humiliatingly, he does.”

We are not talking about waterboarding here.  Yet Hagel condemned even this relatively mild form of enhanced interrogation.  He said that “it’s not only wrong, but dangerous, and very dumb, and very short-sighted… it needs to stop.”

Referring to additional enhanced interrogation techniques used by Al-Qahtani’s interrogators after Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized  tougher measures to get valuable intelligence information, Roberts asked Hagel whether requiring “a Muslim man to stand nude, bark like a dog, and have pictures of scantily-clad women around his neck” crosses his threshold of outrage.

“Well, of course it does,” Hagel replied. Again, he invoked his memory of the Vietnam war in which he served. “I was in Vietnam in 1968. I carried a rifle,” Hagel said. “I saw a culture develop that was a very bad culture that ended in disaster for this country.”

Without the sort of enhanced interrogation methods Hagel so roundly condemned, the CIA would never have picked up the intelligence that first gave clues to the identity of the courier who led us to Osama bin Laden’s hideout. Current Secretary of Defense and former CIA chief Leon Panetta confirmed this fact during an interview with NBC News very shortly after bin Laden was killed.

Fast forward to 2013.  How would Chuck Hagel’s case of the Vietnam syndrome play out in his dealing as Secretary of Defense with the Iranian nuclear threat?  In one word, appeasement. Like Obama, Hagel has called for “unconditional” talks with Iran. But he goes even further than Obama in his appeasement policy. He has opposed economic sanctions, other than the watered-down version approved by the United Nations Security Council. He was one of two senators to oppose the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 2001.  In 2008, Hagel was reported to have been “solely responsible” for blocking a bill that would have tightened economic sanctions in Iran, according to the Huffington Post.

Hagel appears willing to accept a nuclear-armed Iran as a fact of life that we will just have to learn to live with. He has spoken in favor of “containment not unlike the strategies that the United States pursued during the Cold War against the Soviet Union.” Hagel also thinks that the United States should offer to back off any declaratory support for regime change in Iran. While in the Senate, Hagel even voted against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization.

The trouble with trying to contain a nuclear-armed Iran through mutual deterrence, as we did with the leaders of the Soviet Union, is that the fanatical Islamists running Iran do not care how many lives of their own people are sacrificed during the chaos they believe is necessary to hasten the return of Islam’s savior, the 12th Imam.

Furthermore, Hagel’s views on a quick exit from Afghanistan and steep cuts in the defense budget reinforce President Obama’s own inclinations. As Max Boot, a leading military historian and foreign-policy analyst, wrote in Commentary Magazine concerning Afghanistan:

With his own record of service as an non-commissioned officer in Vietnam (it may be relevant to note that many NCOs have a low opinion of commissioned officers, especially those with lots of stars on their shoulders), Hagel might very well discount the advice of the officers who know Afghanistan best and instead opt for the position that the White House favors. That could very well be the reason why Hagel is being picked in the first place.

Before President Obama officially announced his nomination of Chuck Hagel for the position of Secretary of Defense and John Brennan for director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Obama said that protecting the security of the American people was his number one priority. In selecting Chuck Hagel to lead the Defense Department, he has clearly — and ominously — failed that test.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    There was never any doubt that Barack HUSSEIN Obama would OPENLY bare his fangs towards Israel in a second term. He has. Evidenced herein – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/11/06/obamas-second

    At the same time, an anti-American POTUS ( http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/09/08/clash-of-civi… )does what he does best , he nominates those who align with despots, mirroring his nomination of Hagel and Brennan too. Both heart with Iran (by protecting them from US hyper power) and Hizballah & Hamas etc.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel – http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

    • JacksonPearson

      What we're seeing from Obama, are the preview of coming attractions. IMO, the next four years are going to be the worst ever on this planet, because Baracky is a complicit feeder for all sorts of mischief in the Middle East. The people that join or support him are no better.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    Why paleo-con "republican" Hagel?

    Republican John McCain would be a better choice.

    I'm guessing that lame duck Obama chose Hagel because Moron Paul wasn't available to bash Israel and defend the Islamofascist Regime of Iran.

    • Ben Cohen

      Hagel's no isolationist paleocon, he's a meddling wilsonian interventionist with a soft spot for terrorist scumbags. Unlike me he supported the Iraq war, AND the Kosovo war, he also supports the patriot act.

      A man after Obama's own heart in other words.

  • harrylies

    Chuck Hagel served. He knows war is not "Hogans' Heros". George Will, David Horowitz, Ben Shapiro, Chistopher Hithens, etc., did not serve. War is not done for the good of the soldiers. Hagel knows that.

    • WildJew

      Lot's of evil men served. What's your point?

      • Asher

        Serving in the military doesn't always mean you fight for others freedom, but for dictators…Jihadists serve in their military with goals totally opposite of protecting citizens.

    • W. C. Taqiyya

      Hey, don't knock "Hogan's Heroes", that was a great documentary. But I do agree that, in general, folks who have experienced war first hand tend to consider getting into one more carefully than dilettantes like Billy Krystal, Paul Wolfowitz, Obama and Cheney, etc.

      The salient point about Hagel in this regard is even simpler though. He will do as he is told, so his opinion mostly doesn't matter. If Obama wants war and we have seen that his appetite for war is growing, he will have war. Hagel is a minor player, a bit player. This president wants control and no dissent. He is unlike Reagan and Bush42 who both tended to leave even major policy matters to underlings.

    • ennis85

      So did Donald Rumsfeld, John McCain, Henry Kissinger, LBJ, Richard Nixon and Ollie North. But that didn't really mean jack sh!t to you people, did it?

    • Ben Cohen

      You sir are an idiot. Hagel is not anti-war he supported the Kosovo War and the Iraq war…….Yeah he's a real non-interventionist. Me on the other hand, I opposed both. He's all for war if it's on behalf of Islamic terrorist KLA thugs.

  • Stephan

    One should not overdo the propaganda.

    • Drakken

      One should not believe what the libs say but watch what they do.

    • Margarita

      there is a difference between propaganda and knowing the facts. this article is pointing out facts so we know the truth

  • lone ranger

    well what did you expect from obam??………….wait till he gets going in his second term……if hitler were alive, he would make him ambassader to israel

    • WildJew

      Like Hagel, Hitler served and by all accounts, honorably. He earned an iron cross.

      • EarlyBird

        "Like Hagel, Hitler served and by all accounts, honorably. He earned an iron cross."

        Exactly! And both Hagel and Hitler start with an "H." Coincidence? I don't think so!

        • Choi

          According to a search, Hagel's father was GERMAN and his mother was POLISH & IRISH.
          Anybody think he was raised to like & accept Jews?

          • EarlyBird

            You're right, Choi! I bet he burns a Star of David in his fireplace every night before he goes to bed!

  • pierce

    Only Obama knows what he is doing. It's gotten to the point where I don't give a hoot, because it is too late.
    He has done the best job of trying to ruin this country, and after all, the American people reelected him, so they must approve of what he is doing. Ignorance goes a long way.

    • directedby1

      Although Obozo usually lies, when he says something negative he very well may not be. As when he promised after the election — "you ain't seen nothing yet." I'd say he relishes the prospect of screwing America for 4 more years. There's plenty more destruction he wants to get through. He likely will. With so many Americans supporting him, I'm beginning to think America just flatout has a death wish. How else can you account for such ignorance of the Democratic Party's real past ideology? Historically, the Dems were the party of slavery, then segregation, then opposition to the civil rights movement, which is why virtually all black civil rights advocates before 1970 were Republicans. Nothing much changed in either party, except for how the Dems spun their image. The Dems are now the Official party of anti-Semitism in the USA. So it truly seems like America has a deathwish.

    • directedby1

      Plus, it's like the US media gets thrills & chills out of one nonstop crisis after another. It's amazing how Obozo gets away with everything and anything: spending & taxation through the roof, last year's debt ceiling bait&switch fiasco, Fast&Furious, SEALTeam 6 betrayed, his negative campaign & campaign lies, Benghazi, more lies on fiscal cliff spending cuts, and now the putsch on gun confiscation … ad nauseam. Yet no Democrat breaks ranks to vilify this active destruction. Really, America must want destruction, to tolerate & re-elect such a sneering hater of everything America stands for.

    • Ghostwriter

      Or,directedby1,President Obama is a pretty good actor. He's hidden his true beliefs under trying to help the little guy. He also attacked Mitt Rommey as a greedy rich guy with no common touch. He also got a lot of help from the media,who've worshiped him from day one. There are those of us who didn't fall under Obama's spell. It seems there weren't enough of us who weren't.

  • Arlie

    Are Hagel, Kerry & Brennan all the same person – just wearing different hypocrite masks? 0 has a knack for attracting ALL radicals, both foreign & domestic.

    • Cassandra

      Yes they are and they are all friends of Obama Soetero Hussein. big tyrant in chief. So no you can imagine what they will, do to this country a nd the world.

    • EarlyBird

      Let me get this straight: THEY are the radicals because they are inclined to try to avoid war?

      • Mary Sue

        No, they're the radicals because they are letting the bad guys win.

        • EarlyBird

          But starting another (unnecessary) war in the Middle East will only bankrupt the United States and open the door to more ceaseless war. The way great nations become small ones is fighting every single fight everywhere, and not paying for their expenses as they go, as we did Bush's Iraq War.

          Many retired IDF generals themselves have stated that to get the Iranian nuclear program would require a full scale invasion, not merely some air strikes. It would also make the Iranians rally around their mostly hated government. We're better off containing them and letting them implode.

  • SHmuelHaLevi

    Well, lets face it. Hagel will prove to be far morw damaging to the US than to Israel.
    The terms and conditions for both the US and Israel are shifting rapidly. The US under re elected Mr. Soetoro Obama will now have to engage with a post Benghazi load still hanging there and with a brand new setting in Israel. It so appears.
    I am also proud of having served as a Senior-Fellow Engineer US Department of Defense Military Avionics Programs ranked during the Gulf War. My Commander in Chief then had served, so did Mr.Powel. Also been decorated as a soldier fiighting against Islamics in Lebanon.
    Ah… Question for the person that commented on Hagel having served. The question is.
    Has Mr. Soetoro Obama served?

    • WildJew

      Let us hope Israelis have the good sense to elect parties to the right of Likud.

      • SHmuelHaLevi

         <DIV>It looks like that is the trend, strong trend but too much foreign money, mainly from the EU and USA coming in via NGO's could harm the corrective action plan working right now.</DIV> <DIV>US “election experts” sent by the Democrat side are also sabotaging the CA plan.</DIV> <DIV>Still, it looks as if theshift to the correct sideis solid.</DIV> <DIV style=”FONT: 10pt arial”>

  • ze-ev ben jehuda

    This president has a warm feeling for muslims,specially those of the Morsi types.
    The warm feelings turn to ice when it concernes the Jewish people and Israel.
    It is a gutshpe that Barack Hussein Obama has been reelected.
    Why is it that the left never mention his midle name.
    Well Mr Barack Hussein Obama I dont like you and trust you.Please leave the oval office
    trough the back door!!!!

  • WildJew

    I agree with everything you've written, except I do give a hoot. Life would be a lot easier if I didn't give a hoot.

    • pierce

      I really do give a hoot, but with so many jackasses supporting Obama does it make a difference. One more comment. Some people refer to Obama as O, but is it possible it is zero. After all O and 0 almost look the same. Humor, ha ha.

      • WildJew

        It does seem insurmountable at times, you are right. I put a lot of the blame on Republican leaders (Speaker Boehner for example) who naively think Obama is another leftist ideologue who basically wants what is good for his country. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama is much worse than a leftist ideologue and he seems determined to break the nation. You cannot negotiate with this. There is no placating, reasoning with or appeasing Obama. He is on a mission. Churchill would have recognized Obama in an instant. There is no discernment in the Republican leadership.

  • WildJew

    “Vietnam was a tough lesson for us to learn,” he told PBS last year. Hagel’s record shows the extent to which the Vietnam syndrome has poisoned his judgment…

    I can't say I buy into the Vietnam syndrome as a justification for Hagel's behavior. Does Dr. Paul also suffer from Vietnam syndrome? Does Vietnam syndrome make a man sympathetic to murderous terror regimes and organizations? Does Vietnam syndrome make a man into a Jew-hater?

    • jacob

      Certainly, Vietnam was a tough lesson for us to learn because when you PLAY at fighting a war,
      even at the expense of 50,000 American dead, what in hell else is there to expect , Mr. HAGEL ??
      However, would it have been fought with the same spirit and determination WWII was, it wouldn't
      have been the shameful defeat USA suffered…..just because of the fear of CHINA, there and at
      the Korean war as well but which hasn't been a deterrent to OUR having built Communist China
      to the extent it is now, that I fear American babies won't come any longer form Paris as we were
      told they did when we were children but from BEIJING….
      And there, Mr. HAGEL and Mr. OBAMA, is where the dog is buried……
      LOOK NO FURTHER…!!!!!

      • Mary Sue

        Yeah, particularly when I was told from an early age that "they" didn't LET USA win Vietnam.

        • EarlyBird

          Mary Sue, you’re an adult now, and you’re supposed to think for yourself, not just swallow whole anything that “They” told you (who, the John Birch Society?) when you were a kid. The entire American effort there was an atrocity on a massive scale, and extremely counter-productive for American and world security. It is not unpatriotic to acknowledge that’s one country can make mistakes; its mature and important for the well-being of our country.

          We couldn’t kill enough of the North Vietnamese and VC, who were far more interested in unifying and freeing their country than communism. There were some insane people in the US Air Force who suggested that we use nuclear weapons to “win” since it was obvious we were not going to win it conventionally. That was to save Vietnam from itself.

    • EarlyBird

      Oh grow up. How does a Sec Def who wants to make sensible cost-benefit analyses of military actions, who actually considers possible outcomes set in motion by those actions, make one a "Jew-hater"?

      Oh, because he once used the term "Jewish lobby" Because he thinks it might make more sense to contain Iran and let the regime implode on its own rather than attacking it and reigniting support for it? Because he thinks the mullahs may not be insane enough to attack Israel, given that Israel has its own nuclear arsenal?

      And why does going back to the pre-neocon tradition of speaking to our enemies an indication of sympathy for Islamist terrorists?

      • Mary Sue

        Sensible cost benefit analysis? Really? Throwing Israel under the bus is sensible in what alternate reality?

        The Mullahs don't really care if Israel nukes them because they are psychologically immune to Mutually Assured Destruction.

        Talking to our enemies is one thing, kowtowing and capitulating to them is something else entirely.

        • EarlyBird

          Mary Sue, the government of Iran, however awful, isn't suicidal. You'll notice that even the most foaming at the mouth Wahabbists send others to die, but the "top Al Queda leadership" never blows themselves up. They are looking for conventional power in the region, and yes if they get a lot of said power, it will be awful but not Apocalyptic.

          This means the mullahs actually will respond to the threat of MAD. They want a nuclear bomb first and foremost to protect themselves from invasion or other military action, pride, and the ability to commit more mayhem in the region while hiding behind a nuclear umbrella. And what they absolutely want you to believe is that they are absolutely suicidally insane. But they are not.

          • Joseph Klein

            Your confidence is as naive as that of many Europeans and Americans about Hitler in the 1930s. From the mullahs' perspective, martydom is not the same as suicide and chaos is a necessary step to accelerating the return of the 12th imam. They are not shy about their beliefs, which to them makes perfect sense. The problem is that the destruction of the Little Satan and Big Satan – Israel and the U.S. – are part of that belief system and the chaos they need to bring about their vision. You need to try to understand their world view from their own words, not as seen through Western eyes.

          • Drakken

            You really don't know and understand the muslim enemy we face do you? But hey you keep up that wishful thinking there Sparky.

          • EarlyBird

            Whoa there, Rambo.

            I know the enemy quite well, and realize therefore they are about achieving actual power in the world, not merely blowing it up. They are not apocalyptic madmen, though they want us to believe they are. Why? To first terrify us (like you and other hysterics on this site) and then to draw us into unnecessary conflicts to bleed us to death bit by bit.

            They would LOVE us to get into another war in the Middle East that simply further degrades our military and bankrupts our nation, all while showing "proof" to the world's Muslims that we are at war with the entire 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. They want a worldwide conflict between the West and Islam. Let's not give it to them.

          • Drakken

            Be terrified of the muslim scourge? I don't bloody well think so Sparky, to fight these savages we have to bring back that nice time honored concept called total war and quit with the nation building insanity. Hysterics? Wrong again. Please do spend time in the ME and the rest of the muslim world and then come come back to reality instead of the ackademic exercise of all religions and cultures are equal when they are clearly not.

          • EarlyBird

            Nobody said all cultures are equal, Rambo. I just don't think we need to play their game, or engage in "total war." Go play army outdoors and get some fresh air, tough guy.

          • Drakken

            Well when you put on a uniform for a number of years then come talk to me Sparky, otherwise sit on the porch with the rest of the pups, boy. You talk of war when you have never served, so don't bloody well lecture me about warfare shortbus.

          • EarlyBird

            I served in the US Air Force, Rambo, not as some security guard in a suburban shopping mall.

            Now go back to polishing your gun collection in your mother's basement, as you dream of glory.

      • reader

        "And why does going back to the pre-neocon tradition of speaking to our enemies an indication of sympathy for Islamist terrorists?"

        Did FDR speak to Hirohito and Hitler?

        • Joseph Klein

          An look what happened when Chamberlain did speak to Hitler.

          • EarlyBird

            Look what happenend when Nixon spoke to Mao. Look what happened when Reagan spoke to Gorbachev. Not all engagement of one's enemies, or diplomacy, is capitulation.

          • Joseph Klein

            While Nixon's talks with Mao is a valid example, you can't be serious in comparing engagement with Gorbachev to engagement with Ahamdinijad and Ayatollah Khamani. Also, there have been negotiations and dipomacy going on with Iran, initially led by Europe and then joined by the United States, for several years with no results other than allowing Iran more time to achieve its nuclear arms ambitions. What makes you think more "unconditional" talks will lead to a different result?

          • EarlyBird

            I've never understood how talking is ever a negative. At the very least you get a sense of where one's enemy might be.

            The reality is this and the mullahs know it: the US and Israel either do a full scale invasion to root out the nuclear weapons program, or Iran gets a nuclear weapon (airstrikes alone won't do it). And they know the US will not risk bankruptcy for another Middle East war, and the American military and people are war weary and won't accept another war that isn't for our immediate defense.

            It would be an ugly situation for Iran to go nuclear, but it would not be an existential threat. I don't think it would be for Israel either. And as rotten as that regime is, there's never been any indication that they are sucidal and will exchange nukes with Israel.

        • EarlyBird

          Different situations. We were actively at war with them on the battlefield.

          But actually, towards the end, yes, we did speak to them, to first make clear we would accept nothing but total surrender, and then secondly to let them know how they should expect to be treated after said surrender. By having that face to face interaction, it led the remaining Imperial leadership and Nazi diehards to allow their populaions to actually surrender rather than fight on to the death for another year or more.

          • reader

            "Different situations. We were actively at war with them on the battlefield."

            This is a mindless crap K12 government teaches keep mudding Americans kids with. Hitler's Germany was not at war with the US on the battlefield when FDR sent loads of supplies across the ocean to the allies. On the other hand, Iranians not only killed Americans directly, but supplied everybody who killed American troops with weapons to enable the killing.

          • EarlyBird

            You have a reading comprehension problem. I mentioned talks going on towards the end of the war which ensured it was truly done with by the time a surrender was signed, not prior to our entry into the war during the Lend Lease program (though we in fact kept diplomatic contact with Germany during that time too).

            Now, we all know that Iran has funneled weapons and non-Iranian fighters into Iraq and Afghanistan, but they've "supplied everybody who killed American troops with weapons to enable the killing." Really? You might want to let the CIA in on that, patriot.

            Actually, the bulk of weapons in Iraq were already there, and the bulk of the Taliban's weapons were already there, and if you want to find the main supplier of weapons in Afghanistan, look to Pakistan.

          • reader

            "You have a reading comprehension problem. I mentioned talks going on towards the end of the war which ensured it was truly done with by the time a surrender was signed, not prior to our entry into the war during the Lend Lease program (though we in fact kept diplomatic contact with Germany during that time too)."

            Apart from utter incoherence, what does it have to do with the subject at hand? It's very easy to "talk" to the enemy having reduced it to rubble. "Now, we all know that," don't we? Aren't you proving the point you're supposedly arguing against, dufus?

          • EarlyBird

            If you find my post incoherent, then you have a reading problem. I don't have time to engage in remedial reading lessons with a bloodthirsty, paranoid, arm chair Rambo.

          • reader

            And yet, you seem to be incapable of answering fairly straight forward questions. Go figure.

    • Ghostwriter

      EarlyBird,you're an idiot. The Mad Mullahs of Iran don't care about their own people. They just want to kill everyone who isn't Muslim. They want to nuke Israel and kill Jews. It doesn't matter to them that they start a war. Nothing matters to them but killing Jews and Americans.

  • Asher

    Hagel and Brennan will fit right in with Obama's anti-American, anti-Israel agenda, Sent from Hell.

  • jacob

    Like with his future boss, given that the Senate belongs to the DEMOCRAPS by a wide margin, his appointment will most likely be confirmed, we MUST not listen to his words but watch his actions
    instead…
    Only problem will be how to undo such actions afterwards, same as those of our "President" and
    the cans of worms his actions have been opening nationally and internationally, all the way back to
    his speech at the Cairo, Egypt conference

  • Marty

    This appointment concludes the moral bankruptcy of the obama administration. The close and friendly relationship between the American and Israeli militaries will be ended very quickly. The fact that Israel is completely on its own will help to insure the election of a right of center coalition with a heavy majority. Israel will then have to determine what it alone considers to be in its national interest. Hopefully, it's already in the process of forging new and strong alliances with countries such as India and China that, unlike the current American government, fully understand the existential threat of the islamic menace.

    • Jim_C

      "The close and friendly relationship between the American and Israeli militaries will be ended very quickly."

      Wanna bet?

      Seriously, let's come back here in 2-3 years and see if that relationship has deteriorated one iota.

      • Marty

        I will hope that you are right.

      • reader

        These relationships are progressively deteriorating ever since Obama took office. There is absolutely every reason to believe that this trend is going to accelerate, just as he promised to Medvedev in his "i'll have more flexibility" comment.

        • Jim_C

          There may be reason to believe in a change, that is true–but not in a reversal of course. There's no logic to a reversal of course, even if Obama didn't support Israel, which he does. I'm talking political logic (since the ally/national security logic is a no-brainer).

          And yet the level of sharing and assistance between our two countries has been remarked upon by all parties involved. I am assured, here, that this is merely the language of diplomacy. And yet these Israeli officials are under no obligation to be quite so diplomatic toward this administration since they have overwhelming support in Congress.

          • reader

            "There's no logic to a reversal of course, even if Obama didn't support Israel, which he does."

            Obama supports muslim brotherhood. He does not support Israel, because this is obviously a mutually exclusive proposition, and, unless you are delusional or disingenuous, you'd admit that. Take your pick.

          • Jim_C

            Well, there's facts, and there's what you'd like to believe, reader. I've opted for the former, you for the latter.

          • Drakken

            Your trust in this administration is wishful thinking at best or lib devotion at worst?

    • EarlyBird

      This is not the end of the "special relationship," not by a long shot. It's a realignment of American foreign and security policy which goes back to the pre-W Bush neo-con days. It's well overdue. It's one that asks about cost-benefit ratios in regard to military operations, even when it comes to Islamist enemies. It's one that considers the overall threat that the US military budget poses to US solvency.

      Israel survived under HW Bush, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc., etc., and most of these presidents were not nearly as in the tank for Israel as W. and his neo-con advisors were. And the biggest help that Israel gets as America's biggest recipient of aid ($3.1 billion just this past year) will not be changed.

      • reader

        And how sending money to muslim brotherhood and hamas factor into it? What is the cost-benefit analysis of funding your sworn enemies?

        • EarlyBird

          So far we're sending the very same amount of money to the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e., the legimately elected government of Egypt, as we did Mubarak for decades, i.e., the illegitimately installed government of Egypt. The purpose of the money is the same: keep the economy from imploding, and turning a fairly large and stable middle class into an immiserated mass of Third Worlders with nothing to lose by joining terror groups and fighting Israel. Put another way, our money to Egypt is payoff to that country, and further subsidization of Israel's security.

          • reader

            "Put another way, our money to Egypt is payoff to that country, and further subsidization of Israel's security."

            Really? Put another way – in your head – removing someone committed to uphold the peace accord with Israel in favor of someone committed to break it – in his own words – is further subsidization of Israel's security? Do you really believe in what you write or you just think you're too smart to even try making sense?

          • EarlyBird

            What?!

            The US "removed" Mubarak?! The US put Morsi in?! You can't possibly believe that.

            In fact, a massive and broadly popular revolt among Egyptians – most of whom were not hardcore Muslims – pushed Mubarak out, and Morsi was elected by an honest popular election. Should the US have sent American weapons to help Mubarak crush the masses of people in Tahrir Square? Should we have tried to stop the election or put another brutal pro-US puppet in power? Should we have immediately, the moment of Morsi's election, announced that Egypt is our enemy and destroy all relations with the country?

          • reader

            "Morsi was elected by an honest popular election"

            Yeah, yeah, Jimmy Carter's rule: every genocidal maniac of the world is elected by an honest popular election. There's no need to continue with a drone who does not have it in him or her to admit that Obama has promoted muslim brotherhood and undermined friendly regimes from day one of his "apology tour."

          • EarlyBird

            And you can't even engage my arguments at all. Are they also "incoherent?"

          • reader

            Yes – I've said it already – in addition to being fallacious and irrelevant.

          • EarlyBird

            I will ask you again: should the US have sent American weapons to Mubarak to help him crush that masses of people in Tahrir Square? Yes, or no? What, if anything, should the US have done in regard to the mass popular uprising against a tyrannical US puppet? What would the result of the US openly helping to destroy a popular revolution in the Arab world have been?

            These are not trick questions. Think them through and get back to me. And "Obama is a Marxist" or any variation thereof, is not an answer. THINK, silly boy. The US government operates in the real world, not a right wing fantasy site.

          • Drakken

            Mubarak kept the islamist brotherhood at bay, and we properly backed him, what we are doing with the MB is paying tribute, I really wish you folks of the education system we now suffer would understand that all cutures and religions are all not equal.

          • EarlyBird

            Drakken and Reader, I answered the question clearly and objectively: we are continuing to financially support the government of Egypt as we have for the past 30+ years, to keep our commitments.

            We may find that Morsi is truly as sinister as we are all starting to fear, and should Egyptian policy return to that of attempting to destroy Israel or generally stir up trouble in the region, we can be sure that support will go away.

  • Jim_C

    I love how the appointment of a Republican defense hawk is now an example of "extreme leftism." War is peace, day is night, etc.

    Have any of you ever read a book on Pres. Eisenhower? I can't imagine anyone here reading about Eisenhower without thinking he is essentially Obama on steroids.

    They say you know you're really an idolator when God hates everything you hate. When every single act of Obama is one that will "destroy the country," maybe it's time to rethink your political philosophy.

    Here, I'll save you some time:
    ("Jim C, you'll be sorry when your IDOL Hussein Soetero Obama destroys this country…")

    • EarlyBird

      Welcome to lah lah land, Jim!

      • Drakken

        Your wishful thinking and not understanding the islamic mindset is what gets people killed.

        • EarlyBird

          Give it to this Polly Anna straight. Tell me some of the combat you experienced as a hard bitten security guard in the Middle East.

    • Ghostwriter

      Both you and EarlyBird seem to have taken up residences there,Jim_C. I don't see ANYWHERE where Chuck Hagel wants to defend Israel or America. He's willing to let thousands die so Iran can get a nuclear weapon.

  • dave Schwep

    It is logical and to be expected that disastrous officials will be the offspring of a disastrous man-in-the- Whitehouse. We will continue to see more each and every moment Barak Obama sits in the seat of power.

  • Jim_C

    We haven't had a war that's made the USA any safer since WW II. Instead, we've had wars that were foreign policy tools. Iraq was about oil–people are finally admitting that, even though it was plain as day as a matter of record for Cheney's agenda under Bush. 9/11 provided the justification.

    Now, oil is a very important resource, worth fighting for to some extent. And 9/11 certainly brought question to the future stability of the oil market. But do you think the war would have been fought if Mr. Cheney had been explicit?

    Those are bitter pills to swallow, and the people who think American lives are justified in that pursuit will come up with all sorts of rationalizations as counter-accusations, "sympathy for murderous regimes" being chief.

    Hagel said one or two things Israeli hard-liners don't like? Heck, Bibi Netanyahu has said more than that. No, it's not about Hagel's alleged "anti-Semitism." This is about the Iraq War and the unconscionable cheerleading and deep shame its proponents are feeling, particularly in the face of "one of their own" whose credentials and actions contrast integrity with their own moral bankruptcy.

    • Joseph Klein

      Opposed any economic sanctions against the Iranian regime, except those approved by the ineffectual UN Security Council. Opposed even declaring the desirability of regime change in Iran. Supports "containment" of the Iranian regime, which means letting the meglomaniacs running Iran to get the bomb. Urged direct unconditional talks with the current Iranian regime and terrorist groups like Hamas. Failure to acknowledge that he was wrong about the surge in Iraq which turned the war around in our favor.

      Those are reasons enough to oppose Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

      • Jim_C

        This, as opposed to those people who see nothing wrong with committing our troops to regime change in Iran? The same people who advocated for "nation-building" in Iraq (while our own falls apart), the same who thought that operation would be over in a matter of months?

        Yes, the surge worked. Injecting tens of thousands of troops tends to have a beneficial effect–however belated, after 3-4 years of plodding by the same people who planned the damn thing. The architect and overseer of that surge, by the way–both brought on after Mr. Bush saw the light and marginalized the fools of his first term, both kept on as Obama appointees (for which he of course receives no credit).

        It is long past time the divisive and destructive foreign policy philosophy of Bush's tenure is put to rest once and for all. Obama saved face for Mr. Bush during his first term; now it is time to change course according to the will of the people who re-elected him.

      • EarlyBird

        What's so bad with talking to our enemies? That doesn't mean capitulation; it's a way to know what's going on in their heads. Diplomacy was the standard US policy prior to W. Bush's purest, bizzare neo-con madness. We did that throughout the Cold War.

        Whether or not it is the right thing to strike militarily against Iran's nuclear program, there are cost-benefit analyses which need to go into that decision, not this reflexive rush to war in the name of fighting any Islamist government we don't like, i.e., the neo-con Zionist mindset.

        There are plenty of very smart, experienced and patriotic American experts who think we would do better containing Iran (as we did the USSR and China) and let the regime implode, rather than opening up a massive and uncontainable regional war.

        • reader

          "cost-benefit analyses which need to go into that decision, not this reflexive rush to war in the name of fighting any Islamist government we don't like, i.e., the neo-con Zionist mindset"

          Could you possibly be more incoherent and conspicuous in your dislike of the Jews?

        • Joseph Klein

          Containing Hitler did not work. Many millions died until he and his regime "imploded." Read the pathological statements and writings of Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamani. They think they are the representatives on earth of the 12th imam with a duty to destroy the Little Satan (israel) and the Big Satan(that would be us) in order to accelerate the imam's return. People didn't take Hitler's Mein Kampf seriously enough when there was time to stop him. Only a fool would allow this sorry history to repeat itself.

          • EarlyBird

            Joseph,

            In '39 Germany was one of the world's top three economies with perhaps the biggest industrial base, had the world's largest and most powerful military by far, was led by a wildly popular Nazi government, and had all sorts of respect and treaties throughout Europe.

            In 2013, Iran's economy is on its knees, having to import oil, subsidize the most basic needs of Iranians, and with the merchant class up in arms against the regime. It has a weak and feckless military that is absolutely dwarfed by the power of Israel, let alone the US. Iran's government is hated by at least half of its people and has an active dissident campaign. Its only real ally is the government of Syria, which is dying. Iran is hated and reviled across the Middle East and is being squeezed mercilessly by a sanctions regime led by Obama.

            You do the math.

          • reader

            Rubbish. Germany had virtually no domestic sources for strategic supplies, such as oil and weapon grade metals, which would ultimately spell Hitler's demise.

          • EarlyBird

            Oh, I see someone's been watching the History Channel!

            Let's see: because Germany ultimately lost the war (among other things), due to lack of fuel oil, my ENTIRE comparison about the relative strengths of Germany in '39 and Iran in 2013 is now "rubbish."

            Dude, don't let the drool fry out your keyboard.

          • reader

            Let's see if you know the first thing about Wehrmacht. Do you have any idea what was the rate of munition available to munition requested by Wehrmacht field generals prior to the invasion of Poland?

          • EarlyBird

            Stop with the non-sequitors. I don't give a damn about munitions available to the Wehrmact. You are intentionally talking past my point because I'm right and you can't admit it: Germany was very, very strong at the outset of WWII, and Iran is very, very weak in 2013.

            You're dishonest.

          • reader

            Here's the difference between you and I, pal. I watch History Channel for laughs, because I read serious documents to educate myself. You are spoon fed marxist propaganda, and you lack critical thinking ability to work your way through it. Of course, you have no idea about the strength of Germany on the outset of WWII. But Hitler's Minister of Armaments and Munitions Fritz Todt did – you would hopefully agree with that. So,as ssosn as in the Fall of 1941, Herr Todt told Hitler that the war was already lost in military and economic terms.

          • EarlyBird

            Dodging my point again, dude. You lose.

          • reader

            Oh, I suppose, Hitler should have had you as his minister of Armaments and Munitions – perhaps he would have done better? I think not, though. Go back to watching Matt Damon movies -those are as challenging for your brain as it gets.

          • Jim_C

            How old are you, reader?

          • EarlyBird

            I almost hate to engage him anymore, Jim, since I feel like I'm beating up on a slow child.

    • Drakken

      I hate to rail on your lib parade there Sparky but we don't get our oil from Iraq and no American Company pumps, drills or transports oil out of there, so you might want to rethink your lib talking points.

  • alpha_1

    You make cuts to the defence budget at our peril. I just finished reading about the Korean War and what shape the U.S. was in between WWII and Korea…………a disgrace.

    I'm now reading a book about the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Is this guy brain-dead? He really needs to read a little history…….oh, did I mention 'get his head read'?

    • EarlyBird

      "You make cuts to the defence budget at our peril. I just finished reading about the Korean War and what shape the U.S. was in between WWII and Korea…………a disgrace."

      But we HAD to make those cuts. The defense budget of WWII was enormous. Of course we could not sustain a permanent WWII footing. But you know what? We in essence did get on that war footing, permanently throughout the Cold War. The threat was real.

      But now we have a military budget which is equal to that of the next 10 military budgets in the world, and many of those countries are our allies. It is one of the biggest drivers of our debt, a debt which even the Pentagon has stated is now the biggest threat to the US.

      • reader

        "But now we have a military budget which is equal to that of the next 10 military budgets in the world"

        Another talking crap point from leftist blogs. For example, China's military budget is about two thirds of that of the Pentagon. However, Chinese have the draft, meaning that they don't pay salary and/or benefits to the draftees – the vast majority of their uniformed personnel. So, this is like comparing apples to oranges, because a very sizable part of the US military budget is tied up in payments and benefits to personnel.

        • EarlyBird

          Notice how you contradict yourself? How does the fact that so much of our Defense budget goes to paying personnel defeat my point? And no, it's not some left wing conspiracy or talking points, it's fact: The US's budget is in fact equal to the next 10 military budgets combined.

          Oh and the Earth is round, even if you don't want it to be.

          • reader

            " it's fact: The US's budget is in fact equal to the next 10 military budgets combined. "

            Err… no, it's a lie. Didn't you just talk about reading comprehension?

  • Glennd1

    By calling him an anti-Semite because he opposes our political and security alliance with Israel, you are engaging in the same tactics we hate from the left when they accuse those who disagree with them of being racists or bigots. You lose the argument right away. This a common tactic of the feral Zionist, who's only goal is to further the agenda of Zionism at all costs, leaving truth and American interests to more secondary consideration.

    Let me ask you this. Is it possible for someone to oppose Zionism or disagree with our policy of support for Israel and not be anti-Semitic in your tiny little mind? Fyi, you'd be accusing say, Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt of anti-Semitism if you claim that's so. Or how about the many Israeli Jews who criticize Israel's policy towards the Palestinians. Are they anti-Semitic too? Are you really this much of a political thug?

    • Joseph Klein

      Perhaps it is too much for your mind to handle but "Jewish lobby" and "intimidation" are the codewords of anti-Semites. Negotiating unconditionally with a regime sworn to the Jewish state's destruction and opening direct talks with terrorist organizations like Hamas whose leader just recently called for the establishment of Palestine by force from the river to the sea goes beyond an honest disagreement with Israeli policies.

    • kasandra

      People believe him to be anti-Semitic not just because of his hostility to Israel but because, for example, people who know him best found him hostile to Jews and their issues. According to The Weekly Standard, "[t]he former editor of the Omaha Jewish Press recalled that “Hagel was the only one we have had in Nebraska, who basically showed the Jewish community that he didn’t give a damn about the Jewish community or any of our concerns.”" I suppose that his reaction to the need for funds to keep the very popular USO facility in Haifa open ("Let the Jews pay for it.") could also have something to do with it. Whaddaya think?

      • Jim_C

        Gilla Gerzon, "the mother of the 6th fleet", director of the USO mission in Haifa for 20 years, called Hagel "A gift from God…I admire him. I respect him."

    • Drakken

      Here let me make this so simple that a libdolt like you can understand it, Israel is a western ally with the same western interests as the US, muslim nations are our common enemy and always will be. If you think the Israelis will just lie down and let the muslims slaughter them so you can feel better about yourself, you got another thing coming sonny.

    • reader

      "Is it possible for someone to oppose Zionism or disagree with our policy of support for Israel and not be anti-Semitic in your tiny little mind?"

      Actually, not. To cut through all this, Zionism means supporting the right of the Jews to have one Jewish state, as opposed to the twenty first, or, even twenty second arab – and even higher number for a muslim – state. Looks like Jew hating to me, sport. And be honest, you don't like the Jews. Just say it – get t off your chest.

  • EarlyBird

    Hagel signals a long return to normalcy in American foreign and security policy, i.e., back to the pre-W. Bush neo-con days. a.) He believes in real diplomacy – which doesn't necessarily mean being "nice" but means interacting with and engaging our enemies (Reagan did this regularly). b.) He believes in making real benefit-cost analysis of military actions, such as any strike against Iran's nuclear program (again, Reagan). c.) He believes in cutting Defense smartly, because it is one of the three main drivers of America's extremely dangerous debt (fiscal responsibility).

    The big "smoking gun" on Hagel is that he's an "anti-Semite" because he used the term "Jewish lobby"? AIPAC even described itself as such, going back to the '80s. Or, because he wants to engage even Hezbollah and Iran? See Item A above.

    This is normalcy, folks. A big part of Obama's administration has been about returning to normal, American traditions. It's the neo-cons and chicken hawks who have invaded US foreign policy who are the weirdos.

    • reader

      "A big part of Obama's administration has been about returning to normal, American traditions."

      Righ, I bet that's why the Communist Party USA and muslim brotherhood endorsed Obama.

      • Jim_C

        THE CPUSA? REALLY? All three of their members??!!

        I need to rethink this Obama worship of mine!

        Uh, reader…he's talking about a return to traditional American foreign policy…not the feckless neoconservativism you supported over the last ten years.

    • Drakken

      You are without a doubt a product of our current education system, your understanding of simple facts and history is an abortion.

      • EarlyBird

        How so, Drakken? Care to actually engage my points?

  • LibertarianToo

    Hagel voted FOR the Iraq war.

    He makes anti-gay remarks, and contends that being gay should disqualify a person from being an ambassador.

    He believes in the existence of a Jewish Lobby.

    He is an anti-abortion absolutist who would not allow any exception for rape or incest

    If a Republican pres. nominated an anti-Semitic anti-abortion Iraq war supporter and gay-basher who wants to make kissy-face with Iran to any cabinet position, the Left would have a fit.

    • EarlyBird

      You're right, but what's the point: that we all therefore get to indulge in the most cynical sort of politics so that our side wins? What about what's best for the country?

      • reader

        Oh-oh-oh. And yet, the most cynical sort of politics did not stop you from voting for Obama, for some reason.

        • EarlyBird

          You're an idiot.

          • reader

            Excuse me, I did not vote form Obama. You did.

  • http://www.clarespark.com clarespark

    Look to the most popular television show for a heads up on the formerly "close" relations of the U.S. with Israel. Here is one of my most popular blogs on the subject: http://clarespark.com/2009/10/15/the-christianiza…. "The Christianization of Ziva Daveed." And tonight's episode will possibly advance the narrative of assimilation.

    • Glennd1

      Are you cognitively impaired? Suffering from extreme mental illness? Or are you just stupid? This has to be one of the most paranoid, inane comments and thoughts I've ever seen on this site. Please do the world a favor and don't reproduce or vote ever again.

  • Atlas_Collins

    Wait! What? Using the phrase "Jewish Lobby" now constitutes anti-semitism?

    The more I run into this repugnant ethnocentrism here at Frontpage the more convinced I am that too many of you put the best interests of the United States in the back seat behind the interests of some crappy schithole little foreign country.

    • Joseph Klein

      Would you prefer putting the interests of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in the front seat instead? That "crappy schithole little foreign country" you use as your description of Israel has one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed in the world. It also has one of the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world, which has developed technologies used in the United States and life-saving products such as body armor used by our troops, the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer, and a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure . An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert. And these are just a few examples of how we benefit from the region's only true democracy, which is confronted daily by enemies whose only use of technology is to kill "infidels."

      • Atlas_Collins

        "Would you prefer putting the interests of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in the front seat instead? "

        It's not an either/or proposition for me, Joe. The interests of America and the American people will always come first for me, as it should for all Americans, and to put a litmus test upon an elected or appointed official based upon what their views may be concerning any foreign nation is unAmerican and traitorous, in my opinion.

        I don't support Mr. Obama in general, but he is our President, and this clamor that has arisen over his choice for a cabinet position based upon the wild suppositions of people who clearly place Israeli interests before American interests disgusts me.

        • Joseph Klein

          You are right that it is not an either/or proposition. We certainly do not and should not support every action of the Israeli government where our vital interests collide. But the reality is that on the major threats we face in the world our interests are far more aligned than at odds.

          Strongly opposing the madmen running Iran and preventing them from getting a nuclear weapon is very much in the interests of the United States. Iran is building missile facilities in Venezuela. Hezbollah, which Iran created and funds, has cells all over the world including on our doorsteip in Latin America, if not already in this country. We are the Big Satan the Iranian madmen are intent on destroying after they get through with the Little Satan, Israel. I urge you to read the statements and writings of Ahmadinejad and the Ayatolla Khamenei and take them as seriously as the world should have taken Hitler's Mein Kampf before it was too late.

          • Atlas_Collins

            Thank you for the thoughtful response, Mr. Klein. Your points are well-taken. I agree that Israeli interests and American interests (under present policy) share more commonalities than a paleo-conservative isolationist like myself would care to admit.

          • reader

            Sure, as long as the Jews get it, the "pale-conservative" isolationist is ok with marxist policies. First things first.

    • LibertarianToo

      Yes. Using the phrase “Jewish Lobby” constitutes anti-semitism.
      And also the phrases “world Jewish conspiracy”, “inter-gallactic cabal of Zionists”, and any references to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”
      Next question.

      • Atlas_Collins

        "Yes. Using the phrase "Jewish Lobby" constitutes anti-semitism."

        If Israel is "The Jewish State" and AIPAC is the Israeli lobbying organization, doesn't that make AIPAC the "Jewish Lobby?"

        You should really think these things through before you post and make an ignoramus of yourself.

        But while you're here, I wonder if you think using the phrase "Black caucus" is "racist" then?

        • Mary Sue

          It presupposes that the only inhabitants of Israel are Jews, when that is not the case.

        • LibertarianToo

          If the lobbyists for a Norwegian concern were called "the Lutheran Lobby" American Lutherans would rightly think it an insulting misnomer.

          Nor were the supporters of JFK in the pay of the Vatican.

          American Jews are Americans. Many support Israel, some do not. Many, but not all, Israelis are Jewish. Jewish and Israeli are not synonyms. When Hagel refers to the "Jewish Lobby", I'm not sure who he's referring to, but I know it makes him sound like a member of the National Socialist White People's Party.

          A passing acquaintance with history would tell you why your failure to understand this makes you sound like an ass.

    • Drakken

      And that happy thoughtless process called multi-culturalism is working so well right? That is why the west is no longer a melting pot, but a boiling pot ready to boil over. Get over your kumbaya nonsense and see things for what they are instead of wearing rose colored glasses.

    • Lan Astaslem

      it just eats at a Jew hating slug like you that Israel exits – admit it

    • Ghostwriter

      You're an anti-semitic slug,Atlas_Collins. I haven't seen Israelis scream for American deaths. The Muslim world does THAT all the time.

      • Atlas_Collins

        Hiya Ghostwriter!

        I can always count on you Frontpage Reactionaries to boil and seeth with anger whenever I chum the waters here regarding any issue that pertains to Israel. For every thoughtful and intelligent response, such as Mr. Joseph Klein's, that actually address the points I raise and makes a case, I can guarantee I'll get five or six grunting responses from mouthbreathers such as yourself accusing me of jew hate.

        • reader

          Frontpage Reactionaries? Really? Your lingo is about as "conservative" as that of Obama's red czars, for some reason or another.

  • W. C. Taqiyya

    First, it is natural to suspect that Obama will nominate those who will most agree with his views. And, that is never going to be ideal. However, I mostly agree with both Jim C and Glennnd! in that Chuck Hagel, although a mixed bag for most, is not evil incarnate. In particular, I find it peculiar that anyone on the right would still support the enormous failure that was the Iraq war. On that issue, Hagel was correct. In my view, that war did more harm than help to Israel. It certainly stirred up a hornets nest in that region and we can see some of those results today. It isn't a pretty picture and it is very likely to get worse before it settles down. That is not in Israel's interest because of the enormous risks involved with widespread armed conflict. Although there is some potential for a better geopolitical map in the future. Thank you George Bush and the neo-con warmongers. Although widely viewed and even sometimes promoted as a war to get oil, it did not achieve that aim. Not for us anyway. Most of the gulf and Iraq oil goes to Europe, Japan and China. Did we fight the war for them? If so, nobody is saying. Anyway, it was, if not much else, mainly doing the dirty work of the wealthy fanatically Islamist gulf countries. You know, our ideological enemies in the war, 'on terror'. Specifically, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Is anyone else willing to admit the fact that U.S. policy in the M.E. mostly favors and that most of our money goes to those gulf Arab states? Does that make G. Bush an anti-Semite? By the logic of the Hagel haters, it certainly should. So forget Iraq, Hagel was right, that war was a very bad decision.

    As for enhanced interrogation. First, I will call it what it is. It's torture and contrary to the esteemed author of this article, many reliable sources from inside the intelligence community contradict his conclusion that torture helped to find Osama bin laden or helped anything at all. Plus, it's torture. Is advocating for torture even a left or right issue? It's torture people. Americans, all Americans are supposed to oppose torture. Making up fancy names for it does not make it better, it only makes it worse. Hagel is also correct if he opposes torture.

    This whole torture and Guantanamo Bay thing has had me perplexed for years. It never made any sense to me, as an amateur student of history. We never before had such difficulties dealing with our captured foes. We took them prisoner, locked them up in POW camps and left them there until the war was over. Then, we sent them home. We didn't secretly transport them to former Soviet block countries so other people could torture them for us. We didn't pretend to escape U.S. legal jurisdiction on a not so far away military base. How stupid is it to call a U.S. military base, foreign soil, exempt from American justice? Wow, just let that sink in a minute. The idiocy only starts there. Then, many of those prisoners, who can't even be called prisoners, are released. And guess what? They take up arms and continue the fight, just as any foe would. Some people are upset because they took up arms, I'm upset because they were released. Now, we are stuck in limbo, with an untenable, unworkable, indescribable, unsolvable and completely Kafkaesque situation. Thank you again G. Bush and your idiot neo-con warmongers.

    I can, if I think hard enough, imagine a nice tidy POW camp in, let's say Louisiana. Surrounded by miles of swamp, I see a few hundred prisoners planting and growing and harvesting crops. I see them sleeping in hammocks while the humid breeze wafts through their makeshift huts. I see them learning English in a well stocked library and voting to elect their barracks representative. I see them sending and receiving censured mail, regular red cross visits for tooth paste , dental floss and tea. I see them getting flu shots, regular meals, plenty of exercise and rest and being served ham and eggs once a week. I see them having a movie night and getting an almost daily dose of Leave it to Beaver and the Andy Griffith Show. I see them getting no religious rights as Muslims because Islam is not a religion, it's a murderous political cult. Like Nazism and Communism. And I don''t see them getting anything more, for as many years as it takes. Torture? What kind of idiot needs torture?

    • Drakken

      Perhaps I may help you with this whole "torture" thing, when we were fighting a western foe who for the most part followed western rules in a general sense and we didn't use torture on those who followed those general rules. Now we are fighting an enemy who wears no uniforms nor follows any type of "rules" and wages jihad on us infidels and butchers our people given the opportunity. We are under no obligation as per the "rules" to keep these savages alive beyond their intel use and should be hung given the first opportunity and fed to the sharks. As far as torture is concerned with dealing with these muslim savages, red is positive and black is negative and make sure hadjis nuts are wet, it works everytime, or so I am told. So please spare me the high moral ground, those days have come and gone because hadji has absolutely no problem eliminating you and yours by any and all means neccessary.

  • W. C. Taqiyya

    Well, I did ask the question, what kind of idiot, didn't I? First though, thanks for generating traffic hits for FrontPage. Next, it looks like you didn't read my comment because you seem to assume that I sympathize with jihad warriors. OK, so go back and give it a good read, maybe even twice if you have to. Good, now about those western foes of yours. Were the Japanese westerners and did they not torture American prisoners? Were the Vietnamese westerners and did they not torture American prisoners? You bet they weren't and you betcha they did. Not that any of those particulars are pertinent to the question about torture, except to the minor point that they undermine most of your justification for torture.
    On a happy note, I did assume that the prisoners were seized alive rather than executed on the spot. The biggest clue about that was my use of the term prisoner. It's very true that some wartime protocols allow for summary execution of unlawful combatants. And, an argument could be made that non-uniformed guerrilla style fighters are unlawful combatants. But, that isn't what the U.S. has done, so it's kinda moot to bring it up. Incidentally, the U.S. has a lot of experience fighting non-uniformed guerrilla style fighters and has never yet made it a policy to summarily execute them. Well, not since the American Indians anyway. They were clobbered, but good.

    To your point that morals have no place in warfare. Well, the only thing I can say is that if you have no moral standards, you are no better than the enemy. If what they do makes them evil and it does, doing as they do makes you evil. It's not a lesson you can learn from the comic strips you find in bubble gum packages. It's something you need to learn the old fashioned way. Now, if the powers that be would only admit that what they are sending Americans to die for are wars, and they will not, maybe they would place more of an emphasis on winning. And winning means destroying the enemy and destroying his means to resist. I assume for the sake of brevity that the wars in discussion are justified and that is very debatable. War is not pretty, nor should it be. It is brutal and involves killing and destruction. However, torture has no place in it. Calling it enhanced interrogation is baloney just as calling war whatever they are calling it this week is also nonsense. Is it still 'nation building' or have they switched back to 'counter-terror operation'? I like describing it as 12 monkeys building a snowman on the surface of the sun. On a final note, you better believe the bad guys are coming. The point you seem to be missing is that torture ain't helping keep anyone safe. So, torture is not justified, by any standard. It may even have escaped your attention that the politicians in Washington can't even agree who the enemy is, what to call them or where to find them. And that's a part of, maybe a big part of, why we are losing.

    • Drakken

      I agree with a lot of what you have to say, but! Obviously you don't know history very well, in the late 1890's and early 1900's American Marines and soldiers did execute folks as a matter of course, read up on what we did in Haiti, Philipines,Nicaragua, Honduras. As for what the Oreintals did to our folks? Your darn tootin they tortured the sh+t out of ours. As one who works in the security business in the middle and far east,North Africa I sure as hell know and understand what makes these savages tick and play by their rules, for they only understand and respect one thing, strength and the mailed fist, kindness is looked as weakness to these savages. I got my first taste of islamic thought in Beirut in 83 and have learned since. Before you judge me or my methods, wear a uniform for many years and see some combat and then come talk to me about how mean I am.

      • EarlyBird

        You work in "security" in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa? Plase don't tell me they let you carry a gun while guarding the shopping mall.

  • Adolf Hitler

    The muslim brotherhood uses torture everyday. Barack obama fully supports these new islamahoods. Strange

  • SoCalMike

    Secretary of State Quisling
    Secretary of Defense Benedict Arnold

    Can it get any better?

  • Karl Stein

    Remember during the debates when Barack Obama said he has Israel's back. This is how he holds up his words. Any Jew that voted for him is an idiot and there are many Jewish idiots out there. What is sad is that the Jews of Israel will pay the price for the Jewish stupidity here.

  • jbbj

    Why should the jews complain? 80 percent of them voted for Obama.

    • reader

      It was less than 70 this time, actually. So, what should the other 25% plus do? Do tell.

  • ajshu

    What's next? A Presidential pardon for all the Gitmo detainees?

    The Communist-in-Chief Barak Insane Obamao is completely unhinged. For the first time in American history, the American people have elected an American hating traitor as their leader. Get ready, the next three years will see the complete dismantling and deconstruction of the American enterprise. You can count on the effete Republican eunuchs to look on with complete inaction as this traitor dismantles the country with one executive order after another…__This is how the world ends,_not with a bang but a whimper.

  • JCS

    If Obama could pluck Neville Chamberlain from the grave to be Sec of Defense he would do it.
    Why not make Louis Farrakhan Sec of Defense or Jane Fonda or Angela Davis?