First time visitor? Learn more.

Obama, Hagel, and the Mullahs; Update: Chuck Hagel opposes abortion even in the case of rape

by Speranza ( 87 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Iran at January 8th, 2013 - 3:00 pm

A scary thought – Hagel is to the Left of Obama on foreign /defense matters. with Kerry at State, Hagel at the Pentagon, freedom is in danger. Can you imagine if this team was in power during the Brezhnev years?

by  Stephen F. Hayes

What should the United States do about Iran?

This has been among the most important and urgent questions on U.S. national security over the past four years. Barack Obama began his presidency with a series of conciliatory gestures, nearly all of which were rejected (or mocked) by the Iranian regime. The president’s rather accommodating approach has given way to a slightly more assertive U.S. posture, albeit one driven more by the international community and the U.S. Congress than the White House. And over the last four years, the one consistent message from the Obama administration to the Iranian regime has been unmistakable: We don’t want a war.

That message reflects a basic truism. Nobody, of course, wants a war with Iran. But the surest way to avoid a war is to make clear to Iranian leaders that their provocations – on nuclear weapons, terrorism, regional troublemaking – will produce one.

With the selection of Chuck Hagel as his nominee to be secretary of defense, President Obama is amplifying the message of his first term. Hagel, as others have noted, has taken a rather soft line on Iran over the years, even ruling out a military response to the Iranian threat, arguing that it is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” As Phillip Klein notes, “if Iran doesn’t think America would act, the deterrent value in saying all options are on the table erodes.”

Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has vast combat experience, no doubt comes by his views honestly. And nobody thinks war should be the first answer. But a look at Hagel’s record during his second term in the Senate suggests a policymaker who not only possesses a healthy skepticism of war but an eagerness to disregard information that might make that last of all possible choices the only one.

In 2007, Hagel voted against an important amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that would label the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) a terrorist organization. The role of the IRGC in providing weapons, training, and financing to those killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan was not seriously in doubt. And in the months leading up to that vote, the evidence of a consistent campaign against U.S. troops was indisputable and well documented. In a lengthy and detailed briefing in July 2007, Brigadier General Kevin Bergner laid out the case against Iran and the IRGC’s Qods Force in aiding these “special groups.”

“Funding and training of the special groups started in 2004. The Qods Force supplies special groups with EFPs, machine guns, rockets, sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and IEDs. [........]

These were not the rogue activities of an autonomous group. “Our intelligence reveals that senior leadership in Iran is aware of this activity,” Bergner reported.

And yet when the IRGC amendment came before the Senate on September 26, 2007, Hagel was one of two Republicans who opposed it. One month later, Hagel urged the Bush administration to pursue “direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.”

Not quite a year later, in remarks at the Brookings Institution on June 26, 2008, Hagel went further, suggesting that it would be in the interest of the United States to establish an “interest section” in Tehran.  [.........]

Hardly. A month before Hagel proposed such rapprochement, then-CIA director Michael Hayden was unequivocal about the Iranian targeting of U.S. troops. “It is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest levels of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq.”

In July, on a trip he took to the region with then-senator Barack Obama, Hagel heard about the Iranian threat directly from Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai. According to a leaked State Department cable dated July 24, 2008:

Obama and Hagel solicited Karzai’s opinion of Afghanistan’s western neighbor. Karzai began his reply by saying we try to engage them, talk to them; however, the current Iranian regime ‘suspects our relationship with you.’ Obama asked if the Iranians had caused problems for Afghanistan. “Yes,” Karzai repled, “we’ve confirmed reports they supplied weapons to the Taliban. National Directorate for Security (NDS) chief Saleh added that three weeks ago, NDS had arrested “an agent of the Iranian consulate in Kandahar” who had been training the Taliban in the use of landmines.

Hagel’s views on Iran put him to Obama’s left. Although the president has made clear that he doesn’t want war with Iran, and that’s he is open to direct talks, he has never ruled out the military option, as his Defense nominee has. And while Obama was an enthusiastic supporter of direct talks with Iran, he never went so far as propose a U.S. “interest section” in Tehran as a way to advance our interests.

[........]The Iranian government, according to the Obama administration, has a secret agreement with al Qaeda to allow the shipment of money and fighters on Iranian territory – what one official called the “core pipeline” for al Qaeda.

Does Hagel still believe the military option should be off the table? Does he think the United States ought to open an interest section in Tehran to advance our interests?

What, if anything, does Chuck Hagel think the United States should do about Iran?

Read the rest - Obama, Hagel, and Iran

Update: The Obama Regime used Rick Santorum and Todd Akins stances against abortion even in the case of rape as a club to hit Republicans over the head with. It turns out Chuck Hagel has the same views on abortion as Santorum and Akins.

While former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel has taken intense heat for past opposition to gay rights, his conservative view on abortion has been drawn less attention from Democratic critics.

But as a Senator, Hagel repeatedly voted against amendments to allow servicewomen to pay for abortion services at military hospitals out of their own pockets.

According past campaign literature, he also opposed abortion in cases of rape and incest because those cases are “rare.”

[....]

“I am pro-life with one exception — the life of the mother. I oppose taxpayer funded
abortions. We must promote adoption and support the strengthening of American families. I will vote with and support the pro-life movement,” Hagel said in a piece of 1996 campaign literature, according to the Omaha World Herald.

The Democrats will totally ignore Hagel’s abortion views. The truth is Progressives do not really care about abortion. They just use the issue to club Republicans over the head with and scare women. Hagel will get a pass for having the same views as Santorum and Akins.

 

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

87 Responses to “Obama, Hagel, and the Mullahs; Update: Chuck Hagel opposes abortion even in the case of rape”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | January 8, 2013 3:13 pm

    Hayes needs to update this:

    The Iranian government, according to the Obama administration, has a secret agreement with al Qaeda to allow the shipment of money and fighters on Iranian territory – what one official called the “core pipeline” for al Qaeda

    .

    They are no longer allies and this agreement is null and void.


  2. 2 | January 8, 2013 3:14 pm

    You would think that the fact that Israel is against his appointment and Iran and other radical Islamic countries are FOR it would send up a red flag or two. Same thing with the beast Obama has nominated to head the CIA -- the one who says the “War on Terror” is essentially over.


  3. heysoos
    3 | January 8, 2013 3:14 pm

    I have this fantasy involving Hagels daughter, who victimized me with a killer cocktail dress


  4. 4 | January 8, 2013 3:14 pm

    The Left’s support of Chuck Hagel needs to be thrown back at their faces. Next tike they yap abortion, just throw Hagel back at them.


  5. buzzsawmonkey
    5 | January 8, 2013 3:15 pm

    “What should the US do about Iran?” Simple: the US should say, “You may not have nuclear weapons. You will abandon your efforts in this regard and open your facilities for inspection by X date so that your abandonment of the program can be verified, or we will bomb them, and your government, into oblivion.” Then do it if the facilities are not opened.

    Brutal? perhaps. But Iran has been at war with us since the Carter Administration. It would be a wholly appropriate response.

    There is less than zero chance of that happening under Obama.


  6. 6 | January 8, 2013 3:16 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    the one who says the “War on Terror” is essentially over.

    Sadly it is. Both parties support the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda at this point.


  7. 7 | January 8, 2013 3:17 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    There is less than zero chance of that happening under Obama.

    Unless the Muslim Brotherhood, Saudi Arabia and Qatar orders us too. Then we will bomb Iran.


  8. 8 | January 8, 2013 3:17 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Days like this make me miss “Stormin’ Norman” even more….


  9. 9 | January 8, 2013 3:17 pm

    Iran makes Brezhnev look like a friend of America. For all his faults, Brezhnev wasn’t batshit insane. The Mad Mullahs are. And Obama is cool with them getting atomic bombs while he wants to take away my right to own an AR 15. Priorities, you know…


  10. buzzsawmonkey
    10 | January 8, 2013 3:17 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Same thing with the beast Obama has nominated to head the CIA — the one who says the “War on Terror” is essentially over.

    One more post-pimp, for the hell of it.


  11. 11 | January 8, 2013 3:21 pm

    On Dec. 28th President Obama signed HR Bill 3783, Countering Iran in the Western Hemisphere Act of 2012 after it was overwhelmingly passed by both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Searching Google News, CNN, and Fox News websites – no U.S. media reported on the president’s signing the bill as of this post.


  12. 12 | January 8, 2013 3:21 pm

    Obama thrives on chaos; he doesn’t want competent Cabinet members as much as he wants a distracting battle over Cabinet appointees wherein he further discredits Republicans. He’s the embodiment of the “perpetual campaign” -- and he’s as good at campaigning as his is incompetent at governing.


  13. Speranza
    13 | January 8, 2013 3:22 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    You would think that the fact that Israel is against his appointment and Iran and other radical Islamic countries are FOR it would send up a red flag or two. Same thing with the beast Obama has nominated to head the CIA — the one who says the “War on Terror” is essentially over.

    He was nominated precisely because he is anti-Israel.


  14. heysoos
    14 | January 8, 2013 3:23 pm

    war on terror
    war on poverty
    war on drugs
    war on Big Gulps
    1-4


  15. Da_Beerfreak
    15 | January 8, 2013 3:23 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    That would be fine as far as it goes, but isn’t that asking America to once again be the Policeman of the World??


  16. buzzsawmonkey
    16 | January 8, 2013 3:23 pm

    I suspect Hagel was nominated at least as much for the purpose of “proving” that the Republicans are simply intransigent towards any Obama initiatives, and not “interested in being bipartisan,” as for any hope of getting him confirmed. Also, the more Obama can wear out the opposition on Cabinet appointments, the greater his likelihood on prevailing easily when he nominates some creep like Cass Sunstein to the Supreme Court.

    Obama probably wants Brennan more than Hagel.


  17. 17 | January 8, 2013 3:25 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Notice how the Left is giving him a pass on his Abortion and Gay views?


  18. 18 | January 8, 2013 3:25 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Maybe the Caliphate and Iran will nuke each other. That’s our only hope at this point.


  19. 19 | January 8, 2013 3:26 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    One day, Buzz, we need to memorialize your brilliance on a CD.


  20. 20 | January 8, 2013 3:26 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Funny how his abortion views do not matter.


  21. Da_Beerfreak
    21 | January 8, 2013 3:27 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Obama thrives on chaos; he doesn’t want competent Cabinet members as much as he wants a distracting battle over Cabinet appointees wherein he further discredits Republicans. He’s the embodiment of the “perpetual campaign” — and he’s as good at campaigning as his is incompetent at governing.

    My unreliable capital hill source told me Obama had to go with Chuck Hagel after Jane Fonda turned him down… :twisted:


  22. buzzsawmonkey
    22 | January 8, 2013 3:27 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    That would be fine as far as it goes, but isn’t that asking America to once again be the Policeman of the World??

    First, someone has to be. Second, as I said—Iran has been at war with us for over 30 years. We just have such a fat ass, nationally speaking, that we’ve been able to ignore most of the pins they’ve stuck in it. I think a little righteous anger would be a good thing.

    In the larger sense, I’m not suggesting the US become “the policeman of the world.” I’ve said nothing about nation-building; nothing about cleaning up the mess. I say total them as quickly and cleanly as possible, because with all their posturing about the US as the Great Satan, we’re looking at the possibility of Iranian nukes threatening our own people, here. It’s a matter of self-defense.


  23. 23 | January 8, 2013 3:27 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    That would be fine as far as it goes, but isn’t that asking America to once again be the Policeman of the World??

    We already are both. We are a policeman for the emerging Caliphate. Both parties have sold us out to foreign interests. We are no longer a sovereign nation.


  24. 24 | January 8, 2013 3:28 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Exactly. That and he is objectively pro-Iran, and thus pro-Islamist. Obama is pathetically transparent, but I expect Hagel to be confirmed. Kerry is just as bad, as is this Brennan, apparently. Our National Security team is going ot be made up exclusively of people with solid anti-American cred. It is scary.


  25. heysoos
    25 | January 8, 2013 3:30 pm

    if I were POTUS I’d call Iran on the phone and tell them they have 48 hours to prove they are shutting down their bomb programs…when they don’t I’d simply tac nuke the sites and take the shit for it…I’d probably be a hero…it’s not that complicated


  26. buzzsawmonkey
    26 | January 8, 2013 3:30 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    Obama is pathetically transparent

    See? See? Most transparent Administration ever!


  27. 27 | January 8, 2013 3:30 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    That would be fine as far as it goes, but isn’t that asking America to once again be the Policeman of the World??

    The world will either have a policeman or it will have anarchy, it is ours to choose.


  28. 28 | January 8, 2013 3:31 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I wonder who Hagel supports in the Iran vs. Muslim Brotherhood conflict?


  29. heysoos
    29 | January 8, 2013 3:32 pm

    BO and his admin have a death wish…I wonder if they realize what risk they are putting themselves?


  30. 30 | January 8, 2013 3:33 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I’ve yet to see any real Iran v. Muslim Brotherhood action. Taqiyya! They are all on the side of th eCaliphate. They’ll kill each other over who gets to rule the rubble after they’ve killed us and the Israelis.


  31. 31 | January 8, 2013 3:37 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    BO and his admin have a death wish…I wonder if they realize what risk they are putting themselves?

    Remember the business book “Thriving on Chaos”? It’s as if he read it and has decided to apply it to geopolitics. It’s pretty good business strategy, but nothing short of horrifying in geopolitics.


  32. heysoos
    32 | January 8, 2013 3:37 pm

    when the govt is more concerned about law abiding American gun owners than they are about Iranian nukes, I fallback and totally discount them


  33. 33 | January 8, 2013 3:40 pm

    @ heysoos:

    It is all a matter of who’s side you are on. Obama is on the Mad Mullahs’ side. The American people, not so much…


  34. heysoos
    34 | January 8, 2013 3:42 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    It is all a matter of who’s side you are on. Obama is on the Mad Mullahs’ side. The American people, not so much…

    then we will all die together…I fear my own govt more than I fear the Mullahs


  35. buzzsawmonkey
    35 | January 8, 2013 3:43 pm

    MSNBC Lawn Jockey works overtime.


  36. Da_Beerfreak
    36 | January 8, 2013 3:43 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    That would be fine as far as it goes, but isn’t that asking America to once again be the Policeman of the World??

    First, someone has to be. Second, as I said—Iran has been at war with us for over 30 years. We just have such a fat ass, nationally speaking, that we’ve been able to ignore most of the pins they’ve stuck in it. I think a little righteous anger would be a good thing.

    In the larger sense, I’m not suggesting the US become “the policeman of the world.” I’ve said nothing about nation-building; nothing about cleaning up the mess. I say total them as quickly and cleanly as possible, because with all their posturing about the US as the Great Satan, we’re looking at the possibility of Iranian nukes threatening our own people, here. It’s a matter of self-defense.

    Policing and nation-building (which I also didn’t say anything about either) are two separate issues. I only asked the question about policing because some folks are uncomfortable at the thought of America being seem as the World’s cop.


  37. Da_Beerfreak
    37 | January 8, 2013 3:49 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    That would be fine as far as it goes, but isn’t that asking America to once again be the Policeman of the World??

    The world will either have a policeman or it will have anarchy, it is ours to choose.

    The World Order has always been a state of anarchy. Nation States do whatever they believe is in their best interests and will do so as long as they believe they can get away with it.


  38. heysoos
    38 | January 8, 2013 3:49 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:
    Da_Beerfreak wrote:
    That would be fine as far as it goes, but isn’t that asking America to once again be the Policeman of the World??
    First, someone has to be. Second, as I said—Iran has been at war with us for over 30 years. We just have such a fat ass, nationally speaking, that we’ve been able to ignore most of the pins they’ve stuck in it. I think a little righteous anger would be a good thing.
    In the larger sense, I’m not suggesting the US become “the policeman of the world.” I’ve said nothing about nation-building; nothing about cleaning up the mess. I say total them as quickly and cleanly as possible, because with all their posturing about the US as the Great Satan, we’re looking at the possibility of Iranian nukes threatening our own people, here. It’s a matter of self-defense.

    Policing and nation-building (which I also didn’t say anything about either) are two separate issues. I only asked the question about policing because some folks are uncomfortable at the thought of America being seem as the World’s cop.

    nuking Iran is self defense as Buzz pointed out…and I have no reservations about using tactical nukes against Iran or anyone else who threatens me


  39. buzzsawmonkey
    39 | January 8, 2013 3:50 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    I only asked the question about policing because some folks are uncomfortable at the thought of America being seem as the World’s cop.

    Understood.

    I’m merely saying that flattening Iran’s efforts towards nuclear capability is a proper response to a nation that has declared itself to be at war with us for over 30 years, as a matter of basic self-defense.

    Ten nukes sent here via containerized freight; five get through and are trucked to target areas. Disaster on an epic scale, and quite plausible—especially when you consider how much freight the US takes in, uninspected, which comes through Muslim-held shipping facilities. That is not something that can be permitted to occur—but which will easily occur given the ineffectuality of sanctions, if sanctions are our only response.


  40. 40 | January 8, 2013 3:53 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    IT really is a matter of time. Iranian nukes may do for us before we get to the inevitible economic collapse. I don’t have a lot of long-term hope for the United States. Re-electing Obama is the worst mistake we’ve ever made as a nation. Electing McClelland in 1864 would have been a cake-walk compared to th emisery that re-electing Obama has in store for us.


  41. buzzsawmonkey
    41 | January 8, 2013 3:58 pm

    Again, our idiot government spokespeople keep going on and on about how Iran doesn’t have the missile capability to hit the US. They forget that nineteen boxcutters were sufficient to bring about 9/11; they are so mesmerized by high tech that they are not even looking at low tech under the radar.


  42. Da_Beerfreak
    42 | January 8, 2013 3:59 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    I only asked the question about policing because some folks are uncomfortable at the thought of America being seem as the World’s cop.

    Understood.

    I’m merely saying that flattening Iran’s efforts towards nuclear capability is a proper response to a nation that has declared itself to be at war with us for over 30 years, as a matter of basic self-defense.

    Ten nukes sent here via containerized freight; five get through and are trucked to target areas. Disaster on an epic scale, and quite plausible—especially when you consider how much freight the US takes in, uninspected, which comes through Muslim-held shipping facilities. That is not something that can be permitted to occur—but which will easily occur given the ineffectuality of sanctions, if sanctions are our only response.

    No disagreement there. There has been a cold war between us and Iran since ’79 with no peaceful end in sight. Force is the only possible way to end this conflict. At the moment Iran knows we are not willing to go that far so the centrifuges keep spinning away…


  43. Da_Beerfreak
    43 | January 8, 2013 4:04 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Again, our idiot government spokespeople keep going on and on about how Iran doesn’t have the missile capability to hit the US. They forget that nineteen boxcutters were sufficient to bring about 9/11; they are so mesmerized by high tech that they are not even looking at low tech under the radar.

    If the public knew that the FedGov couldn’t stop a nuke from being smuggled into the Country they would rise up and demand action be taken to remedy the situation. The FedGov is lying to the public to cover its own ass.


  44. 44 | January 8, 2013 4:05 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    I’ve yet to see any real Iran v. Muslim Brotherhood action. Taqiyya! They are all on the side of th eCaliphate. They’ll kill each other over who gets to rule the rubble after they’ve killed us and the Israelis.

    They are fighting in Syria as we speak.


  45. heysoos
    45 | January 8, 2013 4:06 pm

    there is an ageless question regarding football….
    do you play to win?…or do you play not to lose?
    chew on that


  46. 46 | January 8, 2013 4:07 pm

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    I only asked the question about policing because some folks are uncomfortable at the thought of America being seem as the World’s cop.

    I’m tired of it. Being the world’s policeman mean we have been Islam and the EU’s bitch. They say jump, we say how high.


  47. buzzsawmonkey
    47 | January 8, 2013 4:08 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    If the public knew that the FedGov couldn’t stop a nuke from being smuggled into the Country they would rise up and demand action be taken to remedy the situation. The FedGov is lying to the public to cover its own ass.

    Saw an article last week about a 16-year-old kid from Arkansas who has built a fusion reactor. He has also designed a sort of nuke detector that resembles the metal detectors at airports, which—if a container is taken through it—will detect the presence of fissionable material without harming the contents of the container.

    Genius.

    It has not, however, as far as I know, been put into production/use. It would be great if it were—but the need to run all the containers that come into US ports through such machinery would be a bottleneck.


  48. Da_Beerfreak
    48 | January 8, 2013 4:09 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    there is an ageless question regarding football….
    do you play to win?…or do you play not to lose?
    chew on that

    All depends on whose ahead at halftime. :grin:


  49. 49 | January 8, 2013 4:09 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ heysoos:
    It is all a matter of who’s side you are on. Obama is on the Mad Mullahs’ side. The American people, not so much…

    That’s probably why Obama has not intervened in Syria. Assad is backed by Iran and the rebels by the Muslim Brotherhood. He would have to make a decision on that.


  50. buzzsawmonkey
    50 | January 8, 2013 4:12 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    That’s probably why Obama has not intervened in Syria. Assad is backed by Iran and the rebels by the Muslim Brotherhood. He would have to make a decision on that.

    Poor thing; he loves Morsi and Valerie Jarrett backs the mullahs. Plus he wants to use Iranian nukes to destroy Israel. It’s hard out there for a pimp.


  51. heysoos
    51 | January 8, 2013 4:14 pm

    That’s probably why Obama has not intervened in Syria. Assad is backed by Iran and the rebels by the Muslim Brotherhood. He would have to make a decision on that.

    yet, over and over again BO has said he will not allow Iran it’s bomb….interesting…deception ought to be grounds for impeachment


  52. 52 | January 8, 2013 4:15 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    :lol:

    Yes, he has no stance on Muzz vs. Muzz action.


  53. Da_Beerfreak
    53 | January 8, 2013 4:16 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    Ways would still be found to bypass such a system. All an enemy would have to do is get the parts into the US and any good drug smuggler would know how to do that.


  54. buzzsawmonkey
    54 | January 8, 2013 4:17 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Ways would still be found to bypass such a system. All an enemy would have to do is get the parts into the US and any good drug smuggler would know how to do that.

    True. One cannot rely on one particular means of prevention/detection. But the nuke detector I mentioned upthread would certainly be a useful arrow in the quiver of defense.


  55. 55 | January 8, 2013 4:18 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Also, the fact that they cannot reach, say, the United States does not preclude reaching our NATO allies, or Israel. If I were the Saudis and other Arab nations, I’d be very worried about that madman running Iraq looking to expand his empire.

    Which is why, just like with Saddam Hussein, we’ll see the obligatory hand-wringing and finger-pointing from these Arab twits and the jerks in the U.N. how they are sooooo against intervention by anyone, especially Israel, but are internally praying to whatever diety they pray to that Israel neutralizes the threat.


  56. buzzsawmonkey
    56 | January 8, 2013 4:21 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Yes, he has no stance on Muzz vs. Muzz action.

    He is, in most cases, a gutless waffler. That is what makes it so galling to see someone like Boehner kowtowing to him; if ten or fifteen or twenty legislators stood up and called him out, consistently and loudly, he would either crumple like a newspaper in the rain or react so nastily that more would join the fight against him.

    Obama is a bully, which means that au fond he is a sniveling coward. Yet those who should be strong enough to stand against him are willing to let him browbeat them.


  57. Da_Beerfreak
    57 | January 8, 2013 4:21 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    No doubt that everything helps in its own way. It’s like Haysoos said upthread; do you play to win or do you play to not lose.


  58. 58 | January 8, 2013 4:23 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I don’t view Obama as gutless. He went full boar into Libya without Congressional approval.


  59. 59 | January 8, 2013 4:24 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    If Iran wasn’t enemies with Israel I would not mind them having nukes. That would put the Arabs in their place. But once Iran gets nukes, then the Saudis will get from Pakistan. Once the Saudis get it, Muslim Brotherhood Egypt will get them. That means al-Qaeda will get them.


  60. heysoos
    60 | January 8, 2013 4:25 pm

    I think the Syria slaughter is the best side show America could hope for…BO is clueless, same with this Morsi fuck…if he expresses his honesty, he loses….BO has a tiger by the tail and when he splits his endorsement of one faction he loses the other


  61. buzzsawmonkey
    61 | January 8, 2013 4:28 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    I don’t view Obama as gutless. He went full boar into Libya without Congressional approval.

    That was bravado. Do not mistake bravado for courage. He was daring the Congress to call him out on the War Powers Act, just as he has dared them on the debt ceiling, the fiscal cliff, etc.; just as he has dared them with his drunken spending spree. That’s bullying/bravado, not courage. He’s trying to grab power, and each time the Congress has backed down; instead of invoking the power of the purse, John Boehner keeps slapping Obama with his purse.

    Hitler, when he sent his troops into the Rhineland, did the same thing; he admitted in his own papers that had France moved against him he’d have had to withdraw “with our tails between our legs.” But France didn’t have the guts to do it; had the French done so, WWII might have been averted or at least postponed. Obama keeps “sending his troops into the Rhineland”; Congress might, perhaps, still be able to slap him down, but that window is fast closing as Congress sits still for more spending, more non-deal “deals,” and more executive orders.


  62. 62 | January 8, 2013 4:28 pm

    There’s too many people on BOTH sides that want the U.S. to become a version of “Fortress America” and divorce ourselves from our role as the preeminent superpower. We simply must be involved, at some level, in the daily havoc lest it become catastrophe. 9/11 happened not at a time of heavy military involvement, but only eight months after the Clinton administration during which such involvement was eschewed. I don’t want direct action in every shitty little war that flares up, but the serious threat of such action can be cause for reflection.

    The United States is one of, if not the only country on earth whose very existence owes to specific, and universal principles, and when these principles are violated we have a moral obligation to act by virtue of being who we are.


  63. Speranza
    63 | January 8, 2013 4:32 pm

    Hagel is the ultimate paleocon.


  64. heysoos
    64 | January 8, 2013 4:32 pm

    @ MacDuff:
    pretty much how I feel until it comes to Muslims…they can kill each other all they want, and I nothing the US can or should do about it…cold? yes…practical?, yes…as for Iran, I’d nuke them instantly, just on principle


  65. 65 | January 8, 2013 4:35 pm

    e@ MacDuff:

    The problem is all our military interventions the last 20 years have been on behalf of Muslims. That’s why many on the Right have had enough. Let’s say the US was helping Christians, I would have no beef. But since both parties use the US military to help Muslims, I am against intervention unless it’s a direct threat.

    I hope this help explains my view. I am not opposed to Intervention, just I do not trust our decision making anymore.


  66. Speranza
    66 | January 8, 2013 4:35 pm

    MacDuff wrote:

    There’s too many people on BOTH sides that want the U.S. to become a version of “Fortress America” and divorce ourselves from our role as the preeminent superpower.

    Trotsky said “You may not be interested in war but war is very interested in you” or something to that effect.


  67. The Osprey
    67 | January 8, 2013 4:35 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Notice how the Left is giving him a pass on his Abortion and Gay views?

    That’s mighty queer! :lol:


  68. 68 | January 8, 2013 4:35 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    Hagel is the ultimate paleocon.

    That’s why Taki, Raimondo and Buchanan love him.


  69. 69 | January 8, 2013 4:36 pm

    @ The Osprey:

    :lol:

    But it’s true. Notice the hypocrisy?


  70. 70 | January 8, 2013 4:37 pm

    heysoos wrote:

    @ MacDuff:
    pretty much how I feel until it comes to Muslims…they can kill each other all they want, and I nothing the US can or should do about it…cold? yes…practical?, yes…as for Iran, I’d nuke them instantly, just on principle

    Yup, that is why many on the Right are tired of Interventions. All we do is help Islamic scum.


  71. Speranza
    71 | January 8, 2013 4:40 pm

    Chuck Hagel’s courage

    Oh, by the way, in 1995 Mr. Hagel told the Omaha World Herald that his opposition to abortion was total and made no exception for cases of rape or incest—a view that helped get him elected to the Senate the following year. He later voted repeatedly against allowing servicewomen to pay for abortions out of their own pocket, according to the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. Now that Congress has authorized the Defense Department to pay for abortions in cases of rape, it would be worth asking Mr. Hagel if he has evolved on this one, too.

    But give Mr. Hagel this: When it comes to expressing himself about Israel, its enemies, and the influence of the so-called Jewish lobby, he has been nothing if not consistent and outspoken. Maybe that’s political courage. Or maybe it’s a mental twitch, the kind you can’t quite help. The confirmation process should be illuminating.


  72. heysoos
    72 | January 8, 2013 4:40 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    heysoos wrote:
    @ MacDuff:
    pretty much how I feel until it comes to Muslims…they can kill each other all they want, and I nothing the US can or should do about it…cold? yes…practical?, yes…as for Iran, I’d nuke them instantly, just on principle

    Yup, that is why many on the Right are tired of Interventions. All we do is help Islamic scum.

    and we are the war mongers because we believe in stability and peace without reprisal…go figure


  73. The Osprey
    73 | January 8, 2013 4:40 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ The Osprey:

    But it’s true. Notice the hypocrisy?

    Of course!


  74. Speranza
    74 | January 8, 2013 4:41 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    Speranza wrote:
    Hagel is the ultimate paleocon.

    That’s why Taki, Raimondo and Buchanan love him.

    And Andrew Sullivan as well.


  75. Da_Beerfreak
    75 | January 8, 2013 4:44 pm

    @ Speranza:
    Refusing (or being afraid) to fight just makes it easier for the other guy to beat you.


  76. 76 | January 8, 2013 4:44 pm

    @ Speranza:

    Funny how Sullivan hates the GOP for being against Gay Marriage, but Hagel is given a pass.


  77. 77 | January 8, 2013 4:46 pm

    @ heysoos:

    It just irks me that the Republican Party is so gung ho on war in Syria. They claim to be against terrorists, but want to bomb in support of Terrorists. It’s one reason I do not trust Republicans on foreign policy. I expect the Democrats to support terrorists, but not Republicans.


  78. Guggi
    78 | January 8, 2013 4:48 pm

    “Yes,” Karzai repled, “we’ve confirmed reports they supplied weapons to the Taliban. National Directorate for Security (NDS) chief Saleh added that three weeks ago, NDS had arrested “an agent of the Iranian consulate in Kandahar” who had been training the Taliban in the use of landmines.

    Can’t be true because Admiral Fallon said it ain’t so.////////


  79. 79 | January 8, 2013 4:49 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Notice also that Sully never seems to have caught on that Blacks and Hispanics are also against Gay Marriage -- as I’ve said before -- who does he think put Prop 8 over in California? It wasn’t the conservatives and the Mormons.


  80. 80 | January 8, 2013 4:51 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    He’s intellectually dishonest.


  81. buzzsawmonkey
    81 | January 8, 2013 4:53 pm

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    Notice also that Sully never seems to have caught on that Blacks and Hispanics are also against Gay Marriage — as I’ve said before — who does he think put Prop 8 over in California? It wasn’t the conservatives and the Mormons.

    But the Mormons were targeted during the Prop 8 campaign, and afterwards—because they were a) white, and b) (traditionally) religious. Blacks and Hispanics “didn’t count,” since they were reasonably reliably on the Leftist plantation, and because the same-sex marriage initiative exists for the purpose of destroying traditional religion.


  82. Da_Beerfreak
    82 | January 8, 2013 5:10 pm

    Anything Progressives can’t gain control of they will seek to destroy. With traditional religions being at the top of their list.


  83. heysoos
    83 | January 8, 2013 5:11 pm

    man, I hit the jackpot again…Albuquerque is a strange place, but we eat like kings down here…about a mile from me is a small joint called It’s Italia, a sandwich shop…I just copped a full blown Philly Steak and it absolutely delicious, just like Chinks or Geno’s…a bun worthy of the gods


  84. Tanker
  85. Guggi
    85 | January 8, 2013 6:48 pm

    Da_Beerfreak wrote:

    Anything Progressives can’t gain control of they will seek to destroy. With traditional religions being at the top of their list.

    But most of them are followers of esoterism.


  86. Guggi
    86 | January 8, 2013 6:50 pm

    What happened to the new thread ? Can’t click on it


  87. 87 | January 9, 2013 7:25 am

    Rodan wrote:

    The Left’s support of Chuck Hagel needs to be thrown back at their faces. Next time they yap abortion, just throw Hagel back at them.

    Hagel is a Serb-hater from way back.

    His opposition to abortion is the only good thing about him. I doubt it’ll be enough to save his immortal soul, but one never knows.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David