Who was that great woman interrogating him? I'd like to find her video. "You are further left than this administration."
I think Hagel is a ploy. Just like Rice/Kerry... first, toss some target out there to get blasted to pieces. Then, offer your alternate, the one you really want second.
If the Republicans rip the second choice, they can be portrayed as being obstructionist's
Call me a gambler, but I still believe this guy will be confirmed in the end. I hope I am proven wrong. I truly do. However, I just don't have any faith in the GOP anymore. None. If they don't put him in? I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, with a big smile on my face.
If Sen. Hagel is not confirmed, I cannot imagine where b.o. is going to find an even less competent nominee since he is not available. Perhaps, he will "pardon" the FT Hood workplace violence major.
"Mr. Hagel, could you tell us just what exactly makes you uniquely qualified to be Secretary of Defense. Please elaborate."
"Well, quite frankly, in spite of past statements that I have erroneously made, of which I'd like to answer differently now for your benefit, and in spite of my inability to tell you what the role of Secretary of Defense really amounts to and what strengths I may bring to the table, I have to say this - what difference, at this point, does it make? I mean, really.
I will get my marching orders from President Obama and therefore I will not really need to know anything about the job responsibilities. I'm a Republican, so if the job goes south on us in any way (which it probably will), I will be the scapegoat for the President and the Republican party will take the blame. Is that clear enough? Can I go now? (psst, hey aide, did I say too much?)"
I hear you O', But look at how roughly McLame treated Hagel, with the possible exception of Rand Paul, I did not see Hillary grilled at all. Some of the questions were tough, but the way she was treated by the Rino's was not tough enough for me.
She came out perfectly poised for 2016, and I have little doubt she will win the ill informed voters and history seekers. Also, the democrats will cheat in the inner cities of Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland and other major cities in the swing states, and consequently will win the election (again).
It is a damn shame. She is just as poorly qualified to lead as Obama is - i.e. Benghazi.
Seems Hagel and McAmisty where Best Friends for Ever before Hagel backed oBummer when Mclame was running for Prez. So that's why McAmisty grilled him.
I absolutely agree with you. I was screaming at my laptop for them to cut the butt kissing and get on with the grilling. Barky clearly promised his fraud machine in 2016 if she covered his backside with these and the F&F murders. Part of my hopes he stabs her in the back again, just like he did when she had him speak at the DNC.
I personally think with the increased taxes, unemployment, Dems wooing illegal aliens and promising amnesty and jobs to them and not Americans, illegals getting slots in our colleges at "instate tuition" when our children must pay out-of-state tuition, ObamaCare, illegal wars, etc. will bring this administration to its knees by year's end. We are set to take the Senate in 2014 and shut this guy down until we replace him with a solid conservative in 2016.
Hitlary is a dried up old prune. She clearly looks like she had cosmetic surgery to make her look younger. Four more years will not be kind to her health.
Because she was a member of their club for years.
Cruz is a newbie and doesn't give a damn anyway about the senate's bogus club rules.
Hagel looks like a harder drinking and partying version of Boehner. He really looks too old and sick for the job.
Since I posted more than once yesterday about Chuck Hagel I will only now add he should save everyone, including himself, from another embarassing display of his incompetence by withdrawing his name from consideration.
I almost felt sorry for Hagel. Disaster.
On another note. I hope we see the story here about Schumer backing out of enforcement of the border before illegals 'come out of the shadows'. Rubio just got swindled. Dumb GOP. Suckers all of them. Rubio cant be a legitimate leader if he's gonna fall for this crap.
Why would he need to be competent? I mean our president is incompetent so why would he be any better suited for his job?
Wow, I think I could have done as well as Hagel and that's not to say I'm up-to-date on world events, rather it's a comment on how poorly Hagel performed. He came across poorly, as if he had no clue about the subjects on which he was being questioned. It was, I think, a reflection on what he must be like in his role as a senator. I just can't imagine him being selected as SecDef, unless the Senate Club Rules kick-in and everyone votes "Yea" even though Hagel appears woefully unprepared for such an important position.
Too bad the RINOs couldn't have been as honest with Kerry as they were with Hagel. Kerry has stabbed the American military in the back all of his public life. A North Vietnamese General stated they were ready to surrender until Kerry and his democratic members encouraged them to stay the course until they could turn the American people against the war. GOOGLE IT and see how a traitor to this country can be made Secretary of State by over 90% approval of the Senate after committing treason.Kerry, Hagel and McVain, all American heros. What a freaking joke.
I'm telling ya it's the Good ol' Boys Rules for the Senate. Generally the questioning senators make a display of being very upset with the nominee in the hot seat. Then those senators do sound bites for the television cameras and imply that they're going to vote "No" on the nominee's confirmation and they list all the reasons why they can't vote for the nominee. But when the actual vote is held, everyone votes "Yes" because that's what the Rules call for: "No member of the Senate shall vote against one of our own being nominated for a cushy job, no matter how poorly prepared the nominee may be." Okay, maybe that's not actually what happens, but it sure seems like it unfolds that way.
And what adds insult to injury is Hanoi John was confirmed on the anniversary of the beginning of the Tet offensive. What a disgrace! I am forced to admit at times like this I AM ASHAMED to be an American.
Hagel clearly demonstrated that he has NO CORE CONVICTIONS, he goes with the flow, just as we would expect from any good democrat or rino.
So. It isn't the slamdunk some of you thought it was going to be huh? Ya' reckon the votes will start peeling away like this were a banana eating contest? Uh huh.
Hagel might find himself in the monkey penalty box. At least Iran likes him. The man in the Yellow Hat too.
If you leave all of those anti-semitic comments aside, not to mention all of the stupid comments about Iran, the thing that struck me most about Hagel’s testimony yesterday was that he seemed so dumb. And I’m not trying to be funny here.
The man did not have a command of any major issue, he didn’t seem to know his facts about much of anything, he didn’t have a great strategic brain that could identify present or potential global threats to this nation (which would be kind of a useful thing for the Secretary of Defense to have), and he certainly wasn’t quick on his feet when answering any questions. He seemed to stumble and genuinely seemed confused at times. THIS is the guy we want running the Pentagon?
It just seems that, on sheer incompetence, this guy should be disqualified. And if the Democrats are voting for this guy simply because Obama wants them to, rather than thinking about the security of this nation and having the best candidate run the Pentagon, then they not only are pathetic hacks but they are also putting all of our lives in danger, not to mention all the people working for the Pentagon. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is treason. Anybody who knowingly assists in placing this country in danger is guilty of treason, and giving an critical job like Secretary of Defense to a incompetent fool like Hagel is treason.
I had to wonder if his memory was so bad because he was caught or because he has Alzheimers. All he said was, "I'd have to know the context" "I would change my words"
I think you hit the nail right, squarely, on the head here. One of the maxims of management is that to be a successful manager you should hire people below you that are smarter than you are. For Egoist managers they do the opposite as their frail self esteem does not allow them to be questioned by others. So in turn they hire people that they know are not as smart as they are.
In Obama's case, they have to be really, really, unintelligent to get below his standart of intelligence.
Hagel basically grunted his way through this.
"If you leave all of those anti-semitic comments aside, not to mention all of the stupid comments about Iran, the thing that struck me most about Hagel’s testimony yesterday was that he seemed so dumb."
Not a Hagel fan myself but criticizing Israel is anti-semitic? Sounds a lot like the Left's meme that criticizing Obama is racist. And if criticizing Israelli politics is ant-semitic then there are a lot of Jew hating Jews living within Israel.
Hagel didn't simply critique an Israeli political position. You must be blind to not see a difference here.
Being anti-Israel doesn't necessarily make you anti-semetic, but when your criticisms of a nation/ally are so unreasonable as to characterize acts of self defense as "sickening slaughter", and to continually defend the interests of the Islamist, who are definitely motivated by anti-semetism, it does begin to make your motives suspect.
Also, to be irrationaly critical and hostile towards ones own country (just as the leftists in our own country are towards America) is just as reprehensible but psychologically different from feeling that way towards another nation and people. So far, nothing Hagel has said (that I know of) can unequivically be categorized as anti-semetic, but his pattern of biased criticism makes many (including myself) very suspicious of his motives.
Voting the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil as the saying goes. Learn from history, Bush tricked us in 2000 that he was a conservative and now conservatism is blamed for that moron. I learned my lesson, I admit my mistake and will never defend that idiot. Bush is the reason Hamas is in power, Bush is the reason for the arab springs that produced the muslim brotherhood to statehood power. Bush is a moron for thinking uncivilized people should have democracy and I was a moron for supporting him. Romney was Bush on steroids and the damage he'd have done would have ended conservatism once and for all. Never again, not me.
Better to support a proven Job-Creator like Mitt Romney than to take marbles and go home and allow the Marxist another 4 years.
mike3e4r7 : Go ahead and get your last word in. You always do. I'm done with you.
Says he's done with me, also says I have to have the last word then turns himself into a hypocrite trying to have the last word. ROTFLMAO! Project much Mike? The professionals call it "transference".
Calling someone anti-semitic because that someone doesn't support Israelli policies is akin the progressives calling everyone who opposes Obama a racist. How very progressive of you Mike.
Also, stereotyping me as a Paulie because I used RP in an example to make a point is extremely socialist-like. Sorry to disappoint but I am an individual not someone you can put in any category other than that of an individual. I strongly disagree with RP's foreign policy while at the same time understanding he is absolutely correct we shouldn't have meddled in Iran in the first place (thank Jimmy Carter for the mullahs). RP fails to realize is that we already did meddle and I did NOT vote for him. And we thank George W. Bush and his moronic neocon idiotic idea that we should democratize the ME as we will be suffering the consequences of that moronic decision for decades to come too. Indeed just another example of how we didn't heed George Washington's advice warnings and we suffer the consequences today for that meddling in the past.
And of course, they go on and on. They always have to have the last word, because in their minds they have an answer for everything, even if that answer is to change the subject (e.g. when I answered this guy's original question about whether Hagel was anti-semetic just because he criticized Israel, he doesn't respond to my points but brings up how George Washington supposedly agrees with Ron Paul.)
It's a hit and run kind of argument, or as Mark Levin might say, "catch me if you can". You respond to one thing and he's off on another "point" already.
No proof? No proof of what? You might want to educate yourself on George Washington's farewell address so you don't sound so ignorant.
Romney RINOs grouping an individual into their little collective socialist categories is quite laughable and extremely liberal and progressive. You socialist-lite Romney-bots crack me up.
I also tend to see them pushing the argument back to us to prove yet they provide no proof. Reminds me of the libs
Yes, they're very predictable. They always like to talk about how rational and logical their positioins are and yet when you respond to one of their points their response is to change the subject.
I didn't make the thread about RP, I used him as an example to make a point. Hagel is not anti-America, he's anti-war. I personally can't knock a guy who's seen war up close and personal for wanting to use war as a last resort. I supported Bush and the war in Iraq but I'm man enough to admit it was probably a huge mistake to promote democracy in the ME. We'll be suffering consequences of that policy for years to come just like we suffer Iran because of Jimmy Carter's meddling.
He parrots the founding fathers? Maybe on some issues. On some issues he's a disingenous, dishonest wacko. How is it we're talking about Ron Paul again? Oh that's right, you continue to make this thread about Ron Paul. Thou doth protest too much, just like your hero. Your denials of being a Paul supporter are drowned out by the fact that all your responses to me center around Ron Paul and how he parrots the founding fathers and how he's not wacko, etc.
Also, I've never heard the quote from Washington you cite. Not sure if he really said it. Sorry, but your credibility is a little shakey right now. If he did say that, I'd be interested to know the context, considering how our alliance with France played a significant part in our winning the Revolutionary war.
Go ahead and get your last word in. You always do. I'm done with you.
OH cheese, now you going to accuse me of being a Paulie. SMH! I disagree with Paul's foreign policy but I don't think he's a wacko for believing what he does (like some around here do) because he parrots the Founding Fathers.
Who brought up Ron Paul? Oh, you did. I kind of thought you had an agenda, but I wasn't certain. I was simply answering your query as to whether criticizing Israel meant you are automatically anti-semetic. To re-summurise my answer - No, not necessarilly, but in certain instances, anti-semetism is the motive. For the reasons I described above, I believe it is the motive with Hagel.
George Washington said America should have free trade with all and alliances with none. I suspect that he'd be considered an America hater or a crazy person like Ron Paul is these days. Oddly enough RP parrots the Founding Fathers and so called constitutional conservatives blast him for it. Truly bizarre!
You don't need brains to be in O'Blamo's Cabinet....
All is required is a very strong hate of all things America & a fervent burning passion for Socialism......and Agenda 21 of the U.N.
btw...check this out....
Crazy gun nut shoots man just for breaking into her house
Brilliant Mother with Lady Smarts outwits poor Hispanics "trying to sell Duct Tape door to door".....snort!