Bloodied Hagel Heads to the Pentagon


In a largely party-line vote, would-be Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was narrowly confirmed by the Senate yesterday after Republicans’ months-long opposition to the nominee crumbled.

The mullahs are no doubt resting easy in Tehran.

Hagel, who is uncomfortably cozy with Islamists, replaces Leon Panetta. The new Pentagon chief could be sworn in as soon as today, clearing the way for Hagel to insult America’s allies abroad and bungle what’s left of the Global War on Terror.

Despite losing in the end, Hagel’s opponents believe bloodying the nominee was worthwhile.

“In order to get Hagel barely across the finish line, the president had to burn up a tremendous amount of political capital to keep pro-Israel and vulnerable Democrats in line while Hagel was forced to disavow every position he’s ever held that endeared him to foreign policy leftists,” one senior Republican Senate aide told Tim Mak of Politico.

“Bottom line: a weakened White House gets a marginalized secretary of defense who had to disavow all of his views and supporters in order to win confirmation. I’d call that a win for the opposition.”

Obama now has two-thirds of his Islamist-appeasement dream team in place. The other two jewels in this tripartite crown of shame are CIA director nominee John Brennan, and John Kerry, the new, pathologically anti-American secretary of state. The Senate Intelligence Committee may vote on the nomination of Brennan, a useful idiot for Islamofascism, as soon as Thursday.

Obama chose Hagel as Department of Defense boss because the two are of the same mind on defense matters. Obama knows he can count on Hagel to dramatically scale back the U.S. military. As the Left sees it, cutting defense spending frees up more money for welfare programs.

Hagel’s support for U.S. nuclear disarmament, dramatic defense cuts, and blindness to the threat posed by Iran have long rankled conservatives.

Yesterday’s confirmation came a day after notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan praised Hagel during a speech at the Nation of Islam Annual Saviors’ Day Convention.

“America needs a man in Congress like that, who’s not a rubber stamp for others. You need a man like Senator Hagel as your Secretary of Defense. A man with a mind like that will keep you out of fighting somebody else’s wars. You need a man in government that has another opinion, that is not controlled. If the Senate does not confirm him as Defense Secretary because of his opinion on Israel, that only proves that the Senate and the U. S. Congress is controlled by the Israeli lobby and it all sentences America to war with Iran for the State of Israel.”

Amazingly, Farrakhan’s endorsement of Hagel had no impact on the confirmation process, in part, probably because the mainstream media suppressed the news. Outside of conservative news websites and talk radio Farrakhan’s comments were not reported.

On Tuesday, the Senate first voted 71 to 27 to end the GOP’s historic filibuster, the first ever of a defense secretary nominee, and proceed to a vote on the confirmation.

The Senate then approved the Hagel nomination on a vote of 58 to 41. Four Republicans broke ranks and voted to approve Hagel: Mike Johanns (R-Neb.); Thad Cochran (R-Miss.); Richard Shelby (R-Alabama); and surprisingly, Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

The libertarian-leaning Paul, who recently visited Israel to beef up his foreign policy credentials and assuage conservative fears about his support for America’s key Middle East ally, had opposed Hagel.

Paul said in the end he voted to confirm Hagel because even he though disagrees with the nominee on “many things,” the president “gets to choose political appointees.”

In fact, the Senate is under no such obligation to do the president’s bidding, especially when the nation’s security is at stake. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to confirm or reject presidential nominees for high appointed office for a reason. Every senator has a duty to do what he or she believes is in the best interests of the country. The president’s convenience or ego-gratification is not supposed to be part of the calculus.

Until a few days ago it was not at all clear if Hagel would be confirmed.

There were so many political setbacks in the confirmation process that at one point Hagel’s prospects were so bleak that some Democratic senators reportedly asked Obama to withdraw the nomination.

The ornery Hagel, a Republican who represented Nebraska in the U.S. Senate from 1997 to 2009, reportedly claimed in a speech two years ago that Israel is a treaty-breaking rogue nation that is in the process of becoming an apartheid state.

His confirmation hearing was an unmitigated disaster as Hagel appeared to lack the intellectual capabilities to run the Pentagon. Hagel appeared confused, misstating current U.S. policy.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a rising conservative star, was so effective in questioning Hagel that sputtering leftists experienced a collective meltdown, accusing the freshman senator of “McCarthyism.”

Hagel had great difficulty explaining what he meant when he once claimed “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people” on Capitol Hill, a phrase one might have expected to hear from a professional anti-Semite like President Obama’s preacher from Chicago, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

And yet he survived.

Sadly, Hagel now has four years to help Barack Obama fundamentally transform the United States of America.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • crackerjack

    The Israel Lobby's Waterloo. As if the disaster of the Lobbys intervention against Obamas reelection wasn't proof enough, now the Lobby fails again on its own home ground.

    The Lobby can't sway an election and it can't influence the Senate. Its days are over.

    • Louis

      Well, it proves that the so called Zionist Lobby does not control America, as all the anti-Semites like to howl non-stop.

      • Whaterver-Man

        It proves that the zionist lobby, despite its best efforts, failed. It proves that in front of strong willed men and women, it retreats.
        Only the weak, the greedy and the corrupt fall for it.

        • Mary Sue

          this is just funny, because it shows how delusional you are about the 'zionist lobby'

    • Rocco

      Replaced by CAIR?

      • Whaterver-Man

        I don't see CAIR bought senators blocking presidential appointees…
        I don't see candidates flocking to annual CAIR meeting to kiss ass

        • Mary Sue

          no they just want Wahhabist believing immigrants to go on welfare for Jihad

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "I don't see CAIR bought senators blocking presidential appointees… "

          Because you're clueless. The Saudis role is to buy the politicians directly. What's funny is we can show direct evidence for many if not most politicians who accept Saudi funding.

          Where's your evidence for the "Jewish" or "Israeli" lobby that is foreign funded? Or the presence of Jews, no matter their nationality, in your mind disqualifies them from political activity?

          And then compare the quantity of funds.

          You have no clue about the facts. Not one clue.

          • EarlyBird

            Dork, there is obviously as much of an Israel lobby as there is an Arab, Mexican, oil, banking, auto industry, or environmental lobby.

            There is nothing sinister about this fact. Israel wants enormous influence on American foreign policy. Many Jews and Christians within the US want the same. Now follow closely:

            A "lobby" isn't a cabal. It isn't a secret society, or a gang of Mafiosa twisting arms behind the scenes. Are you going to deny that AIPAC isn't part of said lobby?

          • reader

            So, you have evidence that AIPAC is funded by foreign money, dolt? We have much more evidence that Obama's campaign was funded by foreign money.

          • EarlyBird

            Who said the Israel First lobby has anything to do with foreign money? As I stated, lobbies are not secret cabals.

            But it's clear you agree with me at least that there is an Israel First lobby. Good for you.

          • reader

            Actually, from what I wrote, it's clear that there is a muslim brotherhood first lobby. It's also clear that you're a moron. Bad for you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "But it's clear you agree with me at least that there is an Israel First lobby. Good for you."

            Israel before Islam. Correct.

        • Lan Astaslem

          give them some time hippie

        • Gabrielle

          Oh not out in the open, at least not yet, but everyday in everyway CAIR and Islamic influence is growing in this country. If you claim not to see it I suggest you are not looking hard enough.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Oh not out in the open, at least not yet, but everyday in everyway CAIR and Islamic influence is growing in this country. If you claim not to see it I suggest you are not looking hard enough."

            CAIR has closer ties to the Saudis than people realize. Sure the Islamic supremacists break down in to factions, but the only faction that really keeps them from working together behind the scenes is the Shia Sunni split. There's evidence that the ancestors of the Egyptian MB are Saudi Ikhwan. There's some autonomy for each group, but CAIR has NO NEED to directly corrupt politicians unless they can do it with blackmail or in their role as front organization for bogus "human rights" complaints. CAIR knows what the Saudi's role is and wouldn't waste their time unless they stumbled upon something but otherwise there's no need for them to do it. The Ikhwan has that covered already.

    • EarlyBird

      It's proof that the Republicans in Congress have rejected neoconservatism in their hearts, if not disavowed it publically.

      • Lan Astaslem

        "neocons" – an expression used by Jew haters who don't have the balls to say what they mean

        • EarlyBird

          No, neocon is used by neocons themselves, moron.

          • guest

            you're a Jew and Israel hater – admit it moron

  • harrylies

    Hagel served in Vietnam. He values the lives of soldiers. Chances are soldiers will not be killed in Iran.

    • Rocco

      We will fight. Whether its in Iran, Mali, Egypt, Spain, the Phillipines or in America, we will be forced to fight the Muslim menace or submit to the fascism of Islam. Stick your head in the sand if you wish, but that will not change the facts. They want all infidels dhimmied or dead. I chose freedom!

      • Whaterver-Man

        Define "fight"? Does it mean daily whinning on FPM with likeminded intellectual powerhouses or actually enrolling in the armed forces, risking your life in practicing while you preach?

        • Rocco

          29 years of my life spent with the US Army. As far a daily whining, you, Whatever-Man are incorrect. I do it weekly. But, thank you for your input.

      • Jim_C

        We will fight, I agree. But when we do, I hope it is a clearly defined conflict with a clearly defined enemy and a clearly defined goal–not whack a mole, not some pre-emptive, "nation-building" nonsense.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Hagel served in Vietnam. He values the lives of soldiers. Chances are soldiers will not be killed in Iran."

      They're too busy dealing with 0'Bama's rules of engagement elsewhere. Invading Iran was never on the agenda.

    • pierce

      This man is not to be trusted. He values nothing but his own hide. Almost a carbon copy of John Kerry.

    • mlcblog

      So very idealistic. I was once with you when I was a left-wing radical activist.

    • Patriot

      Hagel is an incompetent Anti Semetic Fool. Now you will see a Fundamental Change in America that President Obama promised, something very different than I would like to see. So no killing in Iran and the trade off is, besides being amoral, the killing of millions of innocent people. Must be a left ideologue?

    • Mary Sue

      why are you so scared of fighting in Iran? Afraid they'd drop a nuke on you while you're in there?

      • EarlyBird

        Mary Sue,

        Try to figure this out: Its not just enough to say, "Iran is our enemy and we don't want them to get the bomb." Duh. The question is, "What price are we willing to pay to prevent them from getting the bomb?" It's not enough just to see the results of an assumed successful pre-emptive war on Iran; we must consider its costs also.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Iran is our enemy and we don't want them to get the bomb."

          And the price continues to go up the longer leftists delay the decision.

          • EarlyBird

            "And the price continues to go up the longer leftists delay the decision."

            Oh, we've gotten our resident professor to at least acknowledge there would be costs. Hurray. Maybe there's hope for him after all.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "at least acknowledge there would be costs"

            Please learn to read with comprehension. Please learn to quote people before puking your fantasies about their supposed positions.

    • atthebeach

      Louis Farrakhan gave a chilling – but typically 'Farrakhan eloquent' – endorsement of Hagel. While there are many who praise – and should be doubted, because of such – Farrakhan's excitement; and that of Ahmadinejad, for that matter; certainly are clear warning to those who otherwise; do not 'get it'. Another thing we know is that "Military Service' – even if a wounded Vet – does not guarantee a Patriot. Sad times; for our Country. Congress; our last line of defense; is itself AWOL.

      A bitter price to pay; when 'evil' not resisted. And hearing Farrakhan – and the voice of Iran – one cannot help but be reminded.

  • Rocco

    BOTOM LINE: Obama won the election. Everyone knew, in advance, his views on Israel. It should have come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that Obama would appoint a cabinet that would be, if not outwardly hostile to Israel, not outwardly Pro-Israel either.

    The Americans know where they stand with Obama. He wants to "Fundamentally Transform" this nation. He made no secret of it, and his successes are noteworthy and horrifying. He has accomplished much in a relatively short time. He is obviously a threat to the freedom of man. Everyone knows it. And yet, Americans re-elected him. It seams that America has lost it's spirit. Our patriots tweet a good line, but a majority are the sunshine kind. As long as they still get football and beer…

    Israel knows where it stands with Obama, yet the election which weakened Netanyahu was was held in Israel, by Israeli voters, after the re-election of Obama. As a goy that has always supported Israel, it leaves me scratching my head. Elections have consequences. The question which must be asked is do the Israelis want to survive? It's not a silly question. The Muslim world and their "Palestinians", (or as I refer to them, the made-up people) will not rest until the Jewish state is destroyed. They've made no secret of it. It will be very interesting to see what happens when Obama visits Israel. Netanyahu must make it clear to Obama that he is willing to "cross the Ribicon" in the defense of his nation. Will the Israelis stand with him? Will the Israelis show the way? Will G-d's chosen people be the light our nation so desperately needs to show us that we should never give up,and that we, too must be prepared to risk all and snap us out of our complacency? To show our people that evil must be confronted, regardless of the cost?

    Please, Israel, fight! Make it clear to the international left that the righteous will never surrender! Stand with BiBi, and in one powerful voice let them know that you will not go down without a fight, and a costly one for Israel's enemy's.

    Matt, thanks for another wonderful article.

    • Jim_C

      All that the recent elections in the US and Israel show is that a certain view on national security is falling out of favor. In my opinion, it is one of common sense. In your point of view it is one of weakness. I think the US is tired of blood and treasure spent trying to make the ME a nicer place, and that we have problems at home that are far more pressing, and represent a more immediate threat to our national security, than does Islamism.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "All that the recent elections in the US and Israel show is that a certain view on national security is falling out of favor. In my opinion, it is one of common sense."

        The "common sense" of leftism.

        "In your point of view it is one of weakness."

        When reality is factored in, Rocco is correct. He's using reality based common sense. Strange how I have to qualify what common sense means today because there is no common sense today.

        "I think the US is tired of blood and treasure spent trying to make the ME a nicer place,"

        Leftist obstructionism has taken its toll, that's for sure.

        "…and that we have problems at home that are far more pressing, and represent a more immediate threat to our national security, than does Islamism."

        You seem to assume that they're not inter-related. By the way, what represents a more immediate threat to national security than Islamism? Are you high? The Chinese are waiting for the Jihadis to weaken us while they grow their military. Our answer? Weaken ourselves!

        Brilliant "common sense."

        • Jim_C

          Economy. Health. Health care system. These represent national security threats greater than the one Islamism poses.

          As for common sense, the only thing more tiresome than a snarky twit who parses each sentence in internet comments is the one who decries "the lack of common sense today." The first is a teenager's substitute for critical thinking; the second reserved for Gramps before he's had his butterscotch sundae.

          Nor are mine "leftist" ideas. As I point out time and again, in foreign policy there is a school of thought called "realism" to which I belong, and one called "neoconservatism," of which this site is a bastion, and one known for its pipe-dream idealism and not, let's say, "common sense."

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Economy. Health. Health care system. These represent national security threats greater than the one Islamism poses."

            Because you say so. OK. You win.

            "As for common sense, the only thing more tiresome than a snarky twit who parses each sentence in internet comments is the one who decries "the lack of common sense today." The first is a teenager's substitute for critical thinking; the second reserved for Gramps before he's had his butterscotch sundae."

            I never relied on common sense. I'm not sure it ever existed so I'm not decrying it's supposed loss. I'm actually arguing simply that today nobody can use any appeal to common sense because leftists live in an entirely different world. We have no common frame of reference. That was the point.

            "parses each sentence in internet comments"

            Poor you getting called on what you say. I thought you were the realist? Don't you want to be challenged, to see if your ideas can withstand a critical rebuttal? I do. Leftist sense of being victim when challenged. You're indoctrinated. Indoctrinated people almost never know it.

            "Nor are mine "leftist" ideas."

            When you say that Islamism is not a threat, this is leftist. I can give you other examples. But when you (for example) dismiss a civilization that has tried to destroy all other civilizations for almost 14 centuries – that's not living in the real world.

            "As I point out time and again, in foreign policy there is a school of thought called "realism" to which I belong,"

            Everyone thinks they're the realist ones. You just can't show any evidence that it's true in your case. That's the challenge.

            "…in foreign policy there is a school of thought called "realism" to which I belong, and one called "neoconservatism," of which this site is a bastion, and one known for its pipe-dream idealism and not, let's say, "common sense.""

            These are your highly subjective thoughts. They are subject to challenge. Leftists cry victim when challenged. More evidence you're a leftist. If you want to call that your reality, that's evidence for my claim that there is no common sense, though many leftists try to claim there is. I never said you were one of them, but you actually do claim to own "common sense" when you claim to be in the realist camp. It's the exact same idea. Your closing paragraph made an argument that you represent common sense but you think you avoided that fallacy by using different phraseology.

            Too bad you hate being challenged. You might be smart enough to wake up but you're too arrogant to listen. Your scare quotes in your last sentence for "common sense" acknowledge that you don't object to the idea, but only the words. This is another leftist idea. You hit all of the leftist notes.

            I'm just trying to help you. Helping you also helps others too when you participate in objective reality.

        • Jim_C

          >>"I think the US is tired of blood and treasure spent trying to make the ME a nicer place,"

          Leftist obstructionism has taken its toll, that's for sure. <<

          So the problem to you is not the ACTUAL problem of the futility of trying to "reform" the ME and (supposedly) combat Islamism by going after a country that neither attacked us on 9/11 nor had an Islamist regime in power. But, golly, you have a convenient excuse for why a bad policy didn't work too well!

          Less snark, more thought, ofm.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So the problem to you is not the ACTUAL problem of the futility of trying to "reform" the ME and (supposedly) combat Islamism by going after a country that neither attacked us on 9/11 nor had an Islamist regime in power. But, golly, you have a convenient excuse for why a bad policy didn't work too well! "

            There are lots of futile activities, but that doesn't mean that every action must be futile. There are constructive solutions. That's what I advocate, and when I have the time and the room I can articulate that in more detail, but this is a comments section always attached to specific subtopics and people like you already cry about writing too much or whatever. So what do you want, more or less from me? Not that I'm bound to comply, just saying you're not consistent.

            And I'm not excusing the policies. My suggestions call for changing policies. I'm assigning blame for why we arrived at those bad policies.

            "Less snark, more thought, ofm."

            You want more of my thoughts. OK. I'll keep that in mind as time allows.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "So the problem to you is not the ACTUAL problem of the futility of trying to "reform" the ME and (supposedly) combat Islamism by going after a country that neither attacked us on 9/11 nor had an Islamist regime in power."

            Iraq was not attacked due to "Islamism" or "reforming the ME." They did not attack us on 9/11/2001, but the events of 9/11/2001 revealed to everyone (paying attention) that terrorists could land big hits if we don't change how we deal with "far away" terrorists. There isn't "far enough away" any longer.

            We have evidence of Iraqi involvement in global terrorism. The US government has no position against any religion other than Shinto AFAIK. I do personally, but that has nothing to do with my policy suggestions, especially military ones. Not until the war is already justified, and only then when it's clear religious ideology was a factor leading to those needs, then the model in Japan is fine with me. Personal worship of allah is anyone's right. Scheming against a sovereign is not.

            "Yellow cake" or not, the leftist uprising was absurd anti-Americanism that led to encouraging the insurgents just as it did during the cold war with the Soviets. But perhaps you don't think our enemies monitor "peace movements" here in the West. In fact they fund them.

            The bottom line is that lies about the USA and disloyal citizens shouting those lies at moments that served the enemy can NOT be denied as adding to the blood and treasure costs of that war or any war since the 1960s.

            At the very least, leftists would keep their mouths shut at least until they show a more constructive solution, but that's not their agenda. That is the point. That is the bottom line conservative position, no matter how you characterize it as the self-professed representative of "reality." The kind of reality that is very liberal with the use of objective facts. Problems don't go away by simply ignoring them. Clinton's appeasement policies vis-a-vis Islamic regimes and militants failed and so did Carter's. Reagan wasn't generally focused on Islam but did a lot better. Bush didn't go far enough either. That's looking back though and I can forgive honest mistakes. I don't need or want to forgive traitors and or liars.

      • atthebeach

        Sadly; 'Islamism' is a problem – a security issue; as is it's 'promise and threat' per it's goals in America; as much as it is, elsewhere in the world. . .

        …and of course; while it may be that 'America' is tired of vesting it's treasure in other – 'thankless'. yet – countries; do not think this Administration could care less; about our Military. (Witness Ft. Hood.)

        After all; these ideologues; are not known for their 'patriotism'; nor; in truth; do they suffer; the same; in others. They like the idea of 'military power' and laying claim to it. . .they appreciate our Military; inasmuch as it can serve; empower; 'them'. Little more. IMHO. . .

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Hagel is now free to not only aid in Obama's anti-American wrecking train, but to "pay back" some of his financial (and ideological) associates – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/27/chuck-hagels-
    http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/26/chuck-hagels-

    An unmitigated American/western disaster. Brennan's appointment seals America's fate.

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

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "“In order to get Hagel barely across the finish line, the president had to burn up a tremendous amount of political capital to keep pro-Israel and vulnerable Democrats in line while Hagel was forced to disavow every position he’s ever held that endeared him to foreign policy leftists,” one senior Republican Senate aide told Tim Mak of Politico."

    It's a fair point, but I'm sick of settling for quarter glasses with this RINOs.

  • ELISHAWAH

    WOE TO THEE THAT SPOILEST,AND THOU WAST NOT SPOILED;AND DEALEST TREACHEROUSLY,AND THEY DEALT NOT TREACHEROUSLY WITH THEE!WHEN THOU SHALL CEASE TO SPOIL,THEN THOU SHALL BE SPOILED;AND WHEN THOU SHALL MAKE AN END TO DEAL TREACHEROUSLY,THEY SHALL DEAL THEACHEROUSLY WITH THEE.BEHOLD I LOOKED IN THE MIST OF THE NIGHT AND SEEN THE SUN…

    • Whaterver-Man

      WOE NELLY!

  • Whaterver-Man

    The Republicans who voted for Hagel deep down agree with Hagel.They just paid lip services to the zionist lobby so the could have it off their back.
    They know he is a man who risked his life for his country and wishes nothing more that to serve it. They also know he is an American elected official, not an israeli pawn.

    • ziontruth

      "The Republicans who voted for Hagel deep down agree with Hagel."

      He reads mind, d'you hear? He is psychic. Soon he will declare his further glorious powers that raise him above mere mortals.

      "They just paid lip services to the zionist lobby so the could have it off their back."

      Says the one who's not only got the Islamic Lobby on his back, but is actively being sodomized by it and he's enjoying every second of it!

      "They also know he is an American elected official, not an israeli pawn."

      The Muslims worldwide know they have a subservient pawn in the form of the current American administration.

    • Choi

      He is an IRANIAN/MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD/JIHADIST PAWN and YOU WELL KNOW IT!
      And you are their CYBER-TROLL!

    • eltheoldsoul

      This means then that there is not really an Israeli lobby controlling America and American media, right?

      • EarlyBird

        No, the torture of Hagel shows that the Israel First lobby is alive and well in America. Not that they win every battle. Americans still seem to have some say in their own foreign policy, thank God.

        • Western Candian

          Gee, now this earlyloon thinks they waterboarded him? Not part of the definition of torture, by the way.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Gee, now this earlyloon thinks they waterboarded him? Not part of the definition of torture, by the way."

            He gets crazier by the day. You see his use of "torture" also means we should ignore all of his other distortions where he tries to use drama and emotion to make his point when facts are not on his side.

          • EarlyBird

            No, I'm referring to the kangaroo court the Israel First lobby put him through.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "No, I'm referring to the kangaroo court the Israel First lobby put him through."

            Torture, kangaroo court, what next? Just say anything you want as you claim to be the reasonable thinker who encourages rational analysis.

          • reader

            Who would call constitutional process "torture" and kangaroo court"? People who dismiss the Constitution, of course. Anti-American, just like Obama.

          • WilliamJamesWard

            He was in Australia………nasty kangaroos, watch your back with those
            characters…………………..William

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The Republicans who voted for Hagel…"

      Are scared of leftist cultural hegemony and offending their Saudi paymasters.

      • EarlyBird

        No, you're not a radical, you're a "conservative." Dolt.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "No, you're not a radical, you're a "conservative." Dolt."

          That's your reply? How does that address any topic on this page?

  • mike

    If you have not read the book "The Israel Omen" by David Brennan now is the time to research it. When it comes to Israel God said to those who curse you he will curse and those who bless you he will bless. Remember when Bush and Sharon gave the PA the Gaza Strip? Shortly after that we got the Katrina and Shron had a heart attack and is still in the hospital. This teeter-totering has been going on since 1948 and the simularties are sobering. My guess is that from this nomination and act of stupidity we should be alert to the judgement's of the almighty. God bless Israel!

    • Sky Soldier

      You are correct, Mike. And, just as the final Pope, the "black/evil" Pope is appointed for the RC cult, the Obama adminsitration just may be the final President (and he happens to also be evil) of America as God will destroy America through our adversaries (the ones Obama sees as his supporters). America is done. For some of us, Jesus is returning soon to rapture His true church and we're out of here. But, where will you be?

      • Jim_C

        Jesus, I hope you are right!

      • EarlyBird

        Yeah, so even the Roman Catholic church is now a "cult." Got it.

        Not that you're bigoted and insane or anything.

      • Western Candian

        Rapture is not part of the old or new testaments….. You, are a moron.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    The fact is Hagel, Kerry, Brennan and Obama will be in charge of our National Defense and they
    have shown by thier histories that they are not friendly to America, hate Israel and will do all they
    can to promote Islam, Communism, Socialism, Leftism and any ism that destroys our identity
    with freedom and liberty…………Thank you RHINOS, you did your limp wristed best and can now
    pat yourselves on the back and lick the boot of corrupt government and fraudulent taxing.
    The next election will not save us unless there is a fundamental change in the minds of
    voters who have created our present political misery…….Third party!!!………….William

  • ApolloSpeaks

    THE SICK, DEPRESSING, MISERABLE

    Chuck Hagel is the right Secretary of Defense at the right time in history serving the right administration for completely destroying the Pax Americana and replacing it with a New World Disorder. That the weak-on-terror, Israel-hating, unfit to head Defense Hagel was confirmed by the Senate on the 20th anniversary of the first jihadist bombing of the World Trade Center (killing 6 and wounding 1000) is a dire warning of things to come for the safety, security and defense of our nation.

    • EarlyBird

      Yeah, moron, W. Bush surely handed off a "Pax Americana" to Obama, didn't he? Duuuh..

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Yeah, moron, W. Bush surely handed off a "Pax Americana" to Obama, didn't he? Duuuh.."

        Yada yada yada, Bush, Israel, evil, blah blah blah.

        • EarlyBird

          Your preferred, hyper-aggressive, radical foreign policy in the Middle East did all this:

          4,500 US servicemen killed, 35,000 wounded
          100,000+ Iraqis killed
          Countless orphans and widows
          Added 1 trillion dollars to the US deficit
          Empowered Shia Islam in Iraq and therefore Iran
          Empowered Iran
          Destroyed Iraq and has created another playground for terrorists.

          And idiot that you are, you not only do not admit these objective facts, but want us to do it again in Iran. Because you're an infant.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Your preferred, hyper-aggressive, radical foreign policy in the Middle East did all this:
            4,500 US servicemen killed, 35,000 wounded
            100,000+ Iraqis killed
            Countless orphans and widows
            Added 1 trillion dollars to the US deficit
            Empowered Shia Islam in Iraq and therefore Iran
            Empowered Iran"

            The leftist uprising early in the Bush years enabled all of that. When a nation is divided internally over delusional fantasies, their crucial foreign policy objectives being used for those divisions, it makes achievement of realistic objectives that much harder.

            The left got what they want. I didn't.

            "And idiot that you are, you not only do not admit these objective facts, but want us to do it again in Iran. Because you're an infant."

            Your simple abuse of statistics doesn't support your opinions unless you think the answer was to simply not respond to Islamic terror until the great appeaser came along. Leftists love to use fantasies from alternate universes of their own construction.

            It's obvious who the idiotic infant is.

          • EarlyBird

            Yep, screw things up royally and it's okay, because you've always got the "left" to blame. An "uprising" early in the Bush years somehow took place.

            You're sort of cute when you're hallucinatory.

          • objectivefactsmatter
        • WilliamJamesWard

          Bush may have been a latent Kangaroo, or a phobia is in the making………….William

  • mike

    What-ever-man I served in Viet-Nam myself and believe me that does NOT make anyone a hero just someone willing to go. Hagel, like Obama, is NOT a wise man. He is foolish to think he should divide Jerusalem aka God's land and make a 2 state solution. The land belongs to the Jews and who is he to decide what another country should do? Like I said the man has no wisdom.

    • EarlyBird

      Mike, Israel doesn't get to have it both ways: they don't get to demand a "special relationship" with the US, bully America's foreign policy community to do its bidding, interfere with the selection of a US Sec of Defense, demand an alliance "without daylight between us," and accept $3+ billion dollars a year in subidies of their security, and then be able to tell us to butt out of it.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Mike, Israel doesn't get to have it both ways"

        Your opinions are not based on facts. You're not worth anyone's time.

        • EarlyBird

          You sure spend a lot of time on me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You sure spend a lot of time on me."'

            I spend a lot of time pointing out leftist stupidity. It's your fault you feature so high.

      • Lan Astaslem

        I guess the billions that go to egypt, a cesspool that hates our guts, is ok with a horse's a$$ like you, huh earlyturd?

        • EarlyBird

          Lan,

          Has it every occurred to a simpleton like you that one can be against aspects of our relationship with Israel without being a friend to her enemies? Or are you just stupid?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Has it every occurred to a simpleton like you that one can be against aspects of our relationship with Israel without being a friend to her enemies?"

            Sure, but you've never outlined a coherent explanation for any strategy other than shouting down people you refer to as "neocons" which is the latest quasi-acceptable way to try to slur those who understand the crucial events in Israel.

            "Or are you just stupid?"

            The question is whether you are. You're the one that makes all of the erratic nonsensical statements. In my view, that answer was provided a long time ago. By you.

          • EarlyBird

            You deserve nothing but mockery and contempt.

            There is absolutely nothing that could be said, no facts presented, which could possibly penetrate your worldview or get you to reconsider. You blame the 8 years of Bush's foreign policy and fiscal disasters on "the left."

            Bush's disasters, and your inability to acknowledge them, is central to your sickness and others on the silly right wing fringe. You are cheerleading for the very same disastrous policies now.

            You deserve nothing but ridicule.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Bush's disasters, and your inability to acknowledge them, is central to your sickness and others on the silly right wing fringe."

            You're wrong on just about every count. But let me give you a clue to understanding some of your root problems. To start, Bush tried to build consensus. 0'Bama doesn't. O'Bama is a present-day threat. Bush is merely a convenient skape-goat for 0'Bama.

            That and your poor reading comprehension might explain some of the reasons you have no real idea what my positions are.

            "You are cheerleading for the very same disastrous policies now."

            Wrong. Again.

          • EarlyBird

            Wow. I actually read these words: "…Bush tried to build a consensus."

            Where to start? Demanding WMD intelligence fit his desires to go to war and excluding any analyses that told him otherwise was an example of building consensus? Going out of his way to piss off every single US ally in the process of going to war?

            Was it that he shunned generals who told him he'd be going in way too light that he tried to build consensus with? Bush himself said repeatedly he didn't give a damn about polls or what others think.

            You are waaaay out there, OFM.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Where to start? Demanding WMD intelligence fit his desires to go to war and excluding any analyses that told him otherwise was an example of building consensus? Going out of his way to piss off every single US ally in the process of going to war? "

            Your characterizations summarizing leftist talking points don't constitute an actual case to prove your point.

            "Was it that he shunned generals who told him he'd be going in way too light that he tried to build consensus with?"

            That's exactly the point. You can't please everyone. How can you pretend to misunderstand the point? Are you really that stoo pid? Reaching across the aisle means giving bad news to some conservatives. Get it?
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-m

            "Bush himself said repeatedly he didn't give a damn about polls or what others think."

            EarlyBird heard that Bush said that….and so forth. The forum participant least likely to quote someone or paraphrase accurately: EarlyBird.

            "You are waaaay out there,"

            I'm completely aware of your perspective.

            Bush tried to build a consensus. He seemed to succeed, but leftists like John Kerry had their fingers crossed ready to attack as soon as the goons showed up in the streets to protest against "war" as if taking the initiative means that we created the state of war.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Next you'll tell me how great 0'Bama is in reaching out to build consensus with those who hold conservative views.

  • mlcblog

    What a nightmare. His idea to bring UN troops and American troops into Jerusalem lets me shudder. I am glad God is on the throne.

    • WilliamJamesWard

      It is amply put in the Scriptures that Jerusalem is off grounds for anyone to alter, I
      shudder to think of the reprecussions possible for the offense………….William

      • mlcblog

        Amen, brother. What fools.

  • Ryan

    It's nice waking up to neocon butthurt in the morning

    • Lan Astaslem

      not as nice as having an incompetent sec. of state who's the darling of the fascist iranian regime and the Jew and white hating bag of sh*& louis farakhan

    • Gabrielle

      Yes? And when this incompetent bunch brings this entire country to it knees will you still be happy to wake up in the morning?

      You are smiling now, but will you always have cause to smile?

  • Asher

    Rand Paul looses many supporting votes now for voting for Hagel….Anyone who sympathizes with Islam is not a friend to Israel….More evidence that Ezekiels war is coming and Armageddon. Enjoy whats left of your lives folks.

    • Sky Soldier

      Agree… Rand Paul has just jumped off the Tea Party wagon onto the sinking ship of the Republicants.

      • Western Candian

        What planet are you from???

      • EarlyBird

        The Tea Party has embarrassed the Republican Party for too long, and lost Romney the election. The Tea Party is a bunch of hysterical, reactionary, ignorant nutbags and as such are irrelevant to the issues facing America.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "The Tea Party…"

          Racists

          "The real threat to American security"

          Stupid, selfish people that upset leftists and Islamic terrorists. Oh well. Maybe they're great for flushing out leftists and Islamic supremacists, who lie as naturally as breathing. I mean that literally.

          Go Tea Party.

    • Choi

      Rand Paul IS his father's son.
      I was beginning to think he was a "better"man than his father,BUT HE ISN'T!

      • mlcblog

        No surprise here.

    • Jim_C

      I highly doubt it.

  • Sky Soldier

    By Obama appointing Hagel and Brennan to their respective posts as Defense Secretary and CIA Director, he has just signed America's death knell because their focus will be on aligning with Islam and the Palestinians… against Israel – God's chosen nation. As a Christian first who loves Israel through God/Jesus, I find the Obama administration an abomination to what is righteous and good. It is disgusting, but I know this is not a "human" thing, but is spiritual warfare in heavenly places. Obama and his evil administration is but a tool of Satan on earth.

    • ziontruth

      I believe the day of reckoning is coming because of the 40 years elapsed (Psalms 95:10) since Roe v. Wade. This is without regard to the current administration's stand against Israel. However, that's not to say this turn of events is not disastrous for America—it means one of the last remaining points on which an appeal to HaShem's mercy could be based on is being taken away.

      If I were an American I'd no longer believe in fixing America, I'd hold to a position of a remnant True America resisting (both spiritually and physically) a corrupted and corrupting mainstream.

    • Western Candian

      Even when you get a few things right, you are still a loon.

  • Brujo Blanco

    Hagel has made it clear that he is anti-Jew and anti-Israeli. It would not surprise me if there is a.plan to eliminate all of the Jews from.the mideast. Obama has stated that if things go bad in the Midwest that he will come down on the side of the Muslims.

  • ProTruth

    I will never vote for Rand Paul for president after his vote for pro-iran Hagel. He has lost all credibility on the issue of Israel and the defense of America.

  • Metatron

    Hagel appears to be a Muslim tool…as does President Obama. What a travesty!!!

  • Choi

    @ Sky Soldier:
    By your SN you indicate that you were /are 173rd Airborne Brigade.
    As an Army E-5 Vet, I can assure you that YOU are MORE QUALIFIED than Hagel for SOD.
    Thanks for YOUR SERVICE.

  • pinnie

    Another in a long line of dis..Appointments…..Im shuddering.Rand Paul<load of crap >R entire Govt.Load of crap.In 2008 McCain as a nominee was the clear indication that we have one party..Communism Period.Pray..and Keep praying! Its what we have…..You all know..BO said"tell putin ill have more felixability after the election He ddi not say> If < …He knew he would win ….We r just watching their game plan unfold…No one will stop it.NOT A LIVING BREATHING SOUL.

  • Kurt

    Hagel is a dhimmi,case closed.

    • Rostislav

      Yes, Sir, the case with Hagel the dhimmi is closed, indeed – but I suspect that the case with Obama the Destroyer of America is in its first pages only –as Elisa Doolittle sung "Just you wait, Henry Higgins, just you wait"… We have already listened to that kind of songs here in 1917. Russia never had a fame of the land of the free, naturally, – but nevertheless it took five years of fierce Civil War and omnipresent uprisings before our obamas and farrakhans could say "The social justice finally won!" Can't guess though, how long it would take for the genuine Land Of The Free to hear the same happy sigh of her present-day oppressors, – or for all the world to hear the happy sigh of her tired manly defenders: "The freedom finally won". Can't guess, alas. Anybody can? Rostislav, Saint-Petersburg, Russia.

    • EarlyBird

      Kurt, you're a thoughtless idiot, case closed.

      • Western Candian

        And you are an ignorant loon. Case closed.

        • Kurt

          Canadia is a stupid country.

        • Kurt

          And stop beating baby seals.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Kurt, you're a thoughtless idiot, case closed."

        Your opinions are worth absolutely nothing. That case was closed long ago.

        Hagel is a dhimmi and that case was closed a long time ago as well. That's why 0'Bama reached out to him.

        • EarlyBird

          It is as if I am actually involved with a collection of insane people. Its as if you and all the rest of these nuts are paranoid schizophrenics.

          Hilarious!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "It is as if I am actually involved with a collection of insane people. Its as if you and all the rest of these nuts are paranoid schizophrenics. "

            That is how the world looks to crazy people.

      • Kurt

        Go find a worm.

  • EarlyBird

    Hagel's only "sin" is that he would engage in rational cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis in regard to Iran. This analysis is basic and traditional to American foreign policy, exactly what our leaders have always done, except for W. Bush days.

    There would be a VERY big cost to America's security to launch another pre-emptive war in the Middle East. That's exactly why Israel wants us to do that job for them.

    Consider, if you can, the chain of events we would set in motion by launching an attack on Iran. Could we actually destroy their plants by airstrikes alone? Not likely. What would another invasion and occupation look like?

    It's not enough to say "It would be bad if Iran got the bomb." Of course it would be. The question is HOW bad, and WHAT PRICE in American lives and treasure, and regional and global stability, are we willing to pay to prevent it?

    • Western Candian

      The brits had a bomb during WWII that could take out their nuke plants. Not a new tech.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Hagel's only "sin" is that he would engage in rational cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis in regard to Iran. "

      You could be right except for the crucial "rational" aspect, and the "cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis" was done on his own personal level not on behalf of those he supposedly serves.

      "This analysis is basic and traditional to American foreign policy,"

      LOL. You're a laughingstock.

      "…exactly what our leaders have always done, except for W. Bush days."

      Bush failed to consult the earlybird for that traditional rational analysis.

      "There would be a VERY big cost to America's security to launch another pre-emptive war in the Middle East. That's exactly why Israel wants us to do that job for them."

      You have no clue about anything.

      "Consider, if you can, the chain of events we would set in motion by launching an attack on Iran."

      Why don't you go attack Iran? Do you live your entire life in fear? When was the last time you loved America?

      "Could we actually destroy their plants by airstrikes alone? Not likely."

      EarlyBird has inside information from the Pentagon.

      "What would another invasion and occupation look like?"

      What invasion? What occupation? Facts matter. Your fantastic imagination is just fear-mongering.

      "It's not enough to say "It would be bad if Iran got the bomb." Of course it would be."

      So you're the adult that understands this all and we're the children.

      "The question is HOW bad, and WHAT PRICE in American lives and treasure, and regional and global stability, are we willing to pay to prevent it?"

      Really? Then why do you maniacally oppose anyone who suggests we start keeping our word when we say we won't tolerate nuclear proliferation? If you want to argue that there is ANY scenario where the world or the USA is better off tolerating nukes in Iran, you're going to have to unpack that argument.

      Of course you don't have any rational case. You have rhetoric. You just like to attack anyone who offends your leftist sensibilities. All of your positions are derived from your emotions, and then you talk the simple rhetoric of someone who was once lectured on "cost benefit analysis" but didn't really understand it.

      • EarlyBird

        Your plan:

        Plan A: A glorious, short, easy war takes place, where after the Good Guys vanquish the Bad Guys, John Wayne climbs to a hill and plants the Stars and Stripes, just a US jets fly trails of red, white and blue smoke above him. Roll credits.

        Plan B: If anything doesn't turn out perfectly, blame "libruls!" for blowing it, like we did Vietnam and Iraq.

        And to think that you're this site's intellectual heavyweight.

        "So you're the adult that understands this all and we're the children."

        Bingo.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Plan A: A glorious, short, easy war takes place, where after the Good Guys vanquish the Bad Guys, John Wayne climbs to a hill and plants the Stars and Stripes, just a US jets fly trails of red, white and blue smoke above him. Roll credits."

          Plan A: A short, full-strength, no leftist compromise war takes place, where after the Good Guys vanquish the Bad Guys.

          "Plan B: If anything doesn't turn out perfectly, blame "libruls!" for blowing it, like we did Vietnam and Iraq."

          Plan A: Always honestly evaluate results to use for future improvements.

          • EarlyBird

            Just for giggles, professor, help us imagine what comes after this magic war.

            Sure, we could decimate Iran in a matter of weeks. Then what? What happens to that country when it is torn apart? What happens regionally? How does it contain terrorism, reduce terrorism, produce stability, reduce the fervor or our enemies, help control oil prices…? How does blowing apart a nation which is predictable and understandable, however evil, increase US and global security? How does it give us more control over things we wish to control?

            THINK man. This is real life, and you're a grown up now.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "help us imagine what comes after this magic war."

            You're the only one suggesting magic.

            "Sure, we could decimate Iran in a matter of weeks. Then what? What happens to that country when it is torn apart?"

            If you study what we did historically in Iraq, the mistake was failing to listen to the Pentagon about initial troops needed for the early occupation. This was the fatal mistake that led to the Vietnam syndrome because Rumsfeld was convinced he could pull off a political coup by silencing the left's concerns. He should have been conservative (realistic) and listened to the experts.

            "What happens regionally?"

            As opposed to what scenario? Iraq already lived under a quasi-secular regime and had not been clamoring for sharia or anything like that. The new regime could have been tilted towards a democratic republic very easily with a secular constitution acknowledging Islam culturally without allowing the deadly aspects of sharia to remain a threat. Think Sadat after the peace settlements but with a constitution to back him up.

            "How does it contain terrorism, reduce terrorism, produce stability, reduce the fervor or our enemies, help control oil prices…? "

            If you can't work all of the rest out on your own, you're going to have to make some effort to take care of yourself. I can try to help you resolve these questions but experience tells me I'll be wasting my time with you.

            A stable democracy replacing a tyrant will answer a lot of those concerns very easily if the right incentives are put in place. Most people do actually want to engage in trade and so forth. Usually it's maniacal leaders and religious zealots who want to blow things up for ideological reasons.

            Obviously if we had pulled it off more cleanly, there would be a lot less drama to use to recruit new jihadis. That doesn't mean it would be perfect. You're the one reminding me about reality? That's funny.

          • EarlyBird

            "… Rumsfeld was convinced he could pull off a political coup by silencing the left's concerns. He should have been conservative (realistic) and listened to the experts."

            Wow. That's a big admission for you. Thanks.

            But you are imagining a magical war. If I'm understanding you correctly, you want another chance to do Iraq, but this time do it right in Iran. A quick decapitation of the government, followed by a stable, pro-democracy Iranian regime. I think I'm characterizing your idea fairly here.

            The problem is that it generally doesn't work that way. This would not be a liberation ala' Paris in '44. It would be seen, even by the ayatollahs' internal enemies, as a coup by outside force and occupation. It's that simple. The country would dissolve into chaos and sectarian civil war, and we'd be right in the middle of it again.

            Oh, and you haven't checked the bank account. Even if that dream could come true, we'd go bankrupt doing it.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Wow. That's a big admission for you. Thanks."

            Can you see my eyes rolling? You need to exit your own imagination more often.

            "But you are imagining a magical war. If I'm understanding you correctly, you want another chance to do Iraq, but this time do it right in Iran. A quick decapitation of the government, followed by a stable, pro-democracy Iranian regime. I think I'm characterizing your idea fairly here. "

            I've already said that Iraq was executed poorly because of Rumsfeld's overconfidence in "transformation." Google: military transformation

            He tried to accomplish too much under experimental conditions (to impress leftists at how simple it would be if successful). This was not realistic. What we got instead does not offer prove that our primary strategic goals were unrealistic.

            Bush was a pushover. Rumsfeld a demagogue. Most politicians are flawed. The ones on the left are a lot more flawed than those on the right (greatest understatement of all time).

            "The problem is that it generally doesn't work that way. This would not be a liberation ala' Paris in '44. It would be seen, even by the ayatollahs' internal enemies, as a coup by outside force and occupation. It's that simple. The country would dissolve into chaos and sectarian civil war, and we'd be right in the middle of it again."

            My objective is to develop the best ideas, not the perfect ideas. I don't claim there are no risks. There are bigger risks doing nothing. There are no risks simply looking back and counting losses in order to claim you're smarter. That's all you do. You don't suggest any alternatives based on the full reality of the world as it exists. Most of the time you don't suggest anything constructive at all. You're conclusions are just fears. Fears are reasonable but that doesn't mean that those risks could not have been managed. I don't care what mullahs think. They need to be removed from causing problems if that is what's stopping us from bringing a more secure world forward rather than just wishing or dreaming about it.

            "Oh, and you haven't checked the bank account. Even if that dream could come true, we'd go bankrupt doing it."

            You just don't get it. Our position today would be better than it is now. Not perfect, but better. You keep striving for incremental improvements based on realistic objectives and that is what life on earth is about. Accounting has a lot more dynamic factors than you can apparently understand, so leave that to the experts or return to school when you work on reading comprehension. I'm not suggesting a "do over" in 2013. I'm suggesting we learn from past mistakes.

          • EarlyBird

            You are absolutely saying "do over." And you now have some magical bookkeeping plan, too.

            You're focusing on the immediate military operation, the easy part, rather than the next step, of transforming the Iran's government and culture, which we have very little power over.

            Iraq was a disaster because we thought we could transform an alien, hostile culture which we didn't understand, which we had no connections to and had a long and hostile history with. Sound familiar? We broke open a society that had boiled with sectarian hatred since Iraq was formed, after smashing its already weak infrastructure and institutions.

            "There are bigger risks doing nothing."

            If I agreed with your Armageddon scenario, there would be no price worth paying to avoid it. But it's nonsense.

            The only thing we know for sure: if we attempt to again occupy another ME country, in order to chase another pipe dream, we will go bankrupt. Period.

          • EarlyBird

            I mean, "no price NOT worth paying to avoid" the Argmadeddon scenario.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You are absolutely saying "do over." And you now have some magical bookkeeping plan, too."

            Just stomp your feet on the ground and that will ensure you are correct.

            "You're focusing on the immediate military operation, the easy part, rather than the next step, of transforming the Iran's government and culture, which we have very little power over."

            We empower those who would separate the state with Islam, or at the very least require the same thing from them that we required from the Japanese to end that war successfully. I guess you don't know much about Shinto either or what people thought about Japan and Japanese culture before the war, and for a long time after the war.

            "Iraq was a disaster because we thought we could transform an alien, hostile culture which we didn't understand, which we had no connections to and had a long and hostile history with. Sound familiar? We broke open a society that had boiled with sectarian hatred since Iraq was formed, after smashing its already weak infrastructure and institutions."

            You seem to understand the naysayer talking points but only superficially. Your comments do nothing to address what I suggest. If Iran fails to establish a liberal democracy, it would at least be disarmed and it would be done far more cheaply than the operations in Iraq.

            But more to the point, we're a long way from calling for invasion. You're the one who's adamant that we can either support the great appeaser, or we can spend a trillion dollars and waste years fighting a war with our hands tied.

            That's your favorite false dichotomy and it's so old and stale. Worse for you is that nobody here is buying it. Only leftists accept that nonsense uncritically.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "If I agreed with your Armageddon scenario, there would be no price worth paying to avoid it. But it's nonsense."

            You can't make sense out of anything. I have said only that MAD is based on the assumption that the players (game theory) are rational actors. The Iranian regime is the furthest thing from being rational. Their rhetoric and ideology demand threatening world war and destruction of all those who oppose Shia Islam if "allah" gives them the means to fight jihad.

            Nuclear weapons would certainly tilt the power towards enabling that if they were motivated to do so. But instead you present them as rational, just like the atheist regimes.

            Pakistan has nukes too, but for them it's not good enough to blow themselves up only to destroy India, their near enemy. Iran on the other hand hates the US and Israel first. They believe they have a lot more to prove than Pakistan does. Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of the Sunni caliph contenders. Iran is the clear leader of the Shia factions. Saudi Arabia can't hope to attack the West directly any time soon. Iran has a much more realistic hope.

            Pakistan doesn't consider itself a martyr for Islam. That is what it would take because India, though less powerful on paper, would destroy Pakistan if they had the justification. Everyone knows that the West is divided and this makes enemies realize that with the right political approach, military response to aggression can always be greatly mitigated if not completely neutralized. Iran would not only exploit this power, but they expect to get away with it for no more than it cost them to sweep landmines with their own children. They'll take a few hits with bloody glee. You prove with almost every comment you make that you know nothing about Islamic history, ideology or current events. Blood is spilled in the name of Islam every day around the globe.

            "Armageddon" is in Israel. I don't know if Iran is heading there specifically and my analysis doesn't depend on any Biblical theories.

            "The only thing we know for sure: if we attempt to again occupy another ME country, in order to chase another pipe dream, we will go bankrupt. Period."

            The threat to our economy comes from the same man appeasing Iran. I'd like that to change too. I don't want 0'Bama to occupy Iran, that's for sure. You simply can't quote me advising an occupation of Iran under these circumstances. You can't. You can't read with comprehension either.

          • EarlyBird

            You are in thrall to a fantasy. The fantasy starts with Iran being an existential threat, followed by a fantasy that we can march in, invade and make Iran a nice place.

            You're a fool. There is no discussing reality with a fantasist.

    • AnOrdinaryMan

      If you have to ask "How bad?" if Iran gets the bomb, then you don't understand that Iran is America's enemy, probably our No. 1 enemy. Ahmadinejad has made a number of references to America as "the Great Satan," and has made threatening comments about "a world without America." He is alluding to Iranian capability to launch a nuclear-warhead from a ship, close to America's coast, which would explode in the atmosphere, and fry our electric power grid. Iran is also allies with North Korea, a dangerous rogue state; the rulers of which starve their own people. You like to throw phrases around, but your understanding of religious fanaticism is minimal.

      • EarlyBird

        blah blah blah. Yes, I know what he's said. I know too that he isn't the real power in Tehran, the mullahs are. I know too they've never shown signs of suicidal tendencies.

        No, Iran is a basket case. Our biggest security threat is our national debt and the tendencies to rush into every hot spot on earth in the name of God and Country. It's going to be the death of us.

        If ONLY Iran was the biggest threat facing the US today!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "blah blah blah. Yes, I know what he's said. I know too that he isn't the real power in Tehran, the mullahs are."

          He's their spokesman.

          "I know too they've never shown signs of suicidal tendencies."

          No, the mullahs only order their militants to commit suicide while trying to preserve their own lives. How does that support your position? If you're speaking collectively about Iran, they are one of the most suicidal regimes in world history.

          "Our biggest security threat is our national debt and the tendencies to rush into every hot spot on earth in the name of God and Country. It's going to be the death of us. "

          It's a threat because we may lose our abilities in military defense. Nobody but nobody is saying that we should deal with Iran while continuing to ignore our fiscal policies. Your argument is…wow. The more we peel the the layers back of your logic (thanks to all of your brain fart comments), the worse it gets. Most people are able to bring coherency and clarity to their positions as they comment more. You just go round and round, making ever dumber comments as you reach for more ways to contradict reasonable statements.

          • EarlyBird

            You have not explained how a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat. No, they will not suddenly nuke us or Israel the moment they get the bomb.

            We faced down the Soviet Union and China which had thousands of nukes aimed at American cities, and we contained them, without starting WWIII. Iran is in far, far worse shape today than those countries were at the height of the Cold War. I'd rather have a predictable Iran led by the mullahs, than another Middle East country that explodes into chaos.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You have not explained how a nuclear armed Iran is an existential threat."

            Are you serious?

            Google: MAD rational actors

            Then think a lot longer before you ask such silly questions.

            "I'd rather have a predictable Iran led by the mullahs, than another Middle East country that explodes into chaos."

            You're insane. You want a predictable nuclear armed Iran. OK> You are totally lost.

          • EarlyBird

            "Nobody but nobody is saying that we should deal with Iran while continuing to ignore our fiscal policies."

            Yes. You. Are. Even wildly successful wars cost a lot of money, you nit wit. Great powers throughout history have become second rate by over extending themselves militarily. We could win the war and still lose our standing in the world ultimately by going bankrupt, like Rome, Spain, Portugal, England, Germany, France….etc. did.

            Again: Bush's Iraq War – the same thing you're cheerleading in Iran – cost us $1 TRILLION DOLLARS. That is actual, real debt no matter why it was spent. It's one of the reasons our options in the world are currently so limited.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Again: Bush's Iraq War – the same thing you're cheerleading in Iran – cost us $1 TRILLION DOLLARS."

            This is even more proof you can't read. My suggestions save money. If "saving money" is the sole objective you must dissolve the military forces for the United States. Release all salaried government workers too. Saving money without any regard for consequences, right?

            And my suggestions do save money while meeting the objectives.

            You just can't read with comprehension.

            Here's a big clue to all the wasted trillions (all of the waste, which is about 90% of what we've spent): You can't win hearts and minds of people who are raised on ideologies that lead them to interpret your efforts as weakness and evidence that the cheese god rules all. When you can, it's nice. But you can't make it part of your 'winning strategy" to do so. You end up spending ten times more money, not to mention even more lost soldiers. Bogus rules of engagement also waste money and lives. In your leftist mind we're saving money on ammunition and so forth. You're insane. That's the modern definition of a quagmire invented by the left. Whether you are pro-quagmire or you just live in Ron Paul fantasy-land doesn't really matter since your thinking is not consistent in any case. You simply like to argue with conservative positions.

            "Again: Bush's Iraq War – the same thing you're cheerleading in Iran – cost us $1 TRILLION DOLLARS."

            Repeating stupid statements doesn't help to make them true. It just offers more proof about how dim you are.

          • EarlyBird

            Uh, sorry? You're proposing another invasion and occupation of another alien Middle East culture, and that save us money? It's like saying going on a shopping spree saves money. You're daft.

            How would you magic war save money?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You're proposing another invasion and occupation of another alien Middle East culture, and that save us money?"

            Please quote me rather than paraphrasing.

            "How would you magic war save money?"

            What magic war? Quote me, don't confuse yourself and others trying to paraphrase. Some times people can do that effectively but you can't. Ever.

          • EarlyBird

            OFM,

            You're clearly devoted to a fantasy war against Iran, and there's nothing we'll be able to agree on.

            Ultimately your position is that we should do the very same thing we did in Iraq, but this time it will work out. What's the old definition of insanity?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "You're clearly devoted to a fantasy war against Iran, and there's nothing we'll be able to agree on."

            We won't agree because you can't actually comprehend the discourse.

            "Ultimately your position is that we should do the very same thing we did in Iraq, but this time it will work out."

            You can't actually comprehend the discourse.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "What's the old definition of insanity?"

            It goes like this: Anyone who refers to himself as EarlyBird is very likely insane.

    • Mike in VA

      "Hagel's only "sin" is that he would engage in rational cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis in regard to Iran."

      If only Hagel's "sins" were confined to his alleged "rational cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis in regard to Iran."

      Amongst Hagel's myriad "sins", his poor judgement and lack of faith in our servicemen and women qualify as the mortal "sins" that disqualify him from office. Furthermore, the fact remains that there are people out there who are sympathetic to the president's party and infinitely more qualified than Mr. Hagel to serve as SoD (General Wesley Clark immediately comes to mind).

      The president alone is responsible for nominating this incompetent political lightning rod to head the DoD, thus he alone is responsible for the backlash that he provoked by nominating Hagel. Worse yet, our troops deserve better than Mr. Hagel – shame on the president for ensuring that they would not get better from him.

  • Gislef

    " If the Senate does not confirm him as Defense Secretary because of his opinion on Israel, that only proves that the Senate and the U. S. Congress is controlled by the Israeli lobby "

    Presumably the opposite applies if the Senate does confirm him?

  • Maxie

    Republican opposition crumbles??!!!! How can this be?? Those GOP pit bulls get their teeth into a Marx0crat they NEVER let go! Fast & Furious; Benghazigate, Filegate, Chinagate, Fostergate, Waco, Cattlegate, blatant voter fraud and $t0len election 2012, Al Frankengate the list goes on of fraud and crimes that the GOP has torn the 'Cratz to pieces for! You don't mess with the GOP!

  • mlcblog

    This news makes the "last days" prophecies in the Bible seem more and more real.

  • Len_Powder

    "In fact, the Senate is under no such obligation to do the president’s bidding, especially when the nation’s security is at stake. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to confirm or reject presidential nominees for high appointed office for a reason. Every senator has a duty to do what he or she believes is in the best interests of the country. The president’s convenience or ego-gratification is not supposed to be part of the calculus."

    Current Senator Rand (would-be Presidential nominee in 2016) and all the Congressional Republicans need to decide where their LOYALTY lies. Is it with the US Constitution? With the Founding Fathers and Principles? With the thousands who have died opposing tyranny and defending liberty? With patriotic Americans or progressive America-haters? The GOP may think it can continue sitting on the fence, continue appeasing Obama and the Marxist Democrats, betraying American patriots, eviscerating our constitution and values, but they will pay a price for doing so. Many conservatives will either NOT vote in 2014 or actively oppose the RINOs who run for election or reelection. If the GOP insists on betraying real Americans then real Americans will have to punish them in 2014. Then we can begin building a party which is opposed to socialism, to tyranny, to collectivism, to conformity, to surrender, to defeat. It may take generations to regain our freedom through a Patriotic Resistance but the final result will be certain because despotism always has a limited existence. Human beings cannot surrender their freedom and dignity without surrendering their humanity also.

  • jerome

    another brick in the wall( thanks pink floyd) but the wall of reason and light is going down at break neck speed
    and the radicals rejoice!

  • Mark

    Racist Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Hagel speaks volumes. He, the Rev Wright and Obama are celebrating their victory in getting a corrupt, friend of fundamentalist Iran and an anti-Jewish and anti-Israel Secretary of defense appointment through the Senate. I'm glad that the friends of Israel and those who believe in America and in democracy put up the good fight to expose Hagel as a hypocrite and liar.

  • watsa46

    Soon or later, Hagel will have his epiphany unless he is a Muslim convert. Than he may still have one. It is called miracle.

  • http://adminatutoriale.wordpre vps

    I really love this site. You write about very interesting things. Thanks for all your tips and information.