Hagel confirmed as Sec of D despite neo-con smears

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

In fact, three recent nominees — Donald Rumsfeld, Les Aspin and Harold Brown — faced such little opposition that they were confirmed by a voice vote, where senators are not even troubled to go on the record with a yea or nay.

Or some Senators knew they would pass, did not want to be held personally responsible for it one way or the other to their constituents, and did not object to a voice vote to avoid that possibility.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[mastoidbone]

His accusing Jews of a Jewish lobby is still unacceptable statement from a cabinet member---and is similar to fascist claims from nazi time.

100% wrong by him and he still has not made a public apology to America and Jews.

Nothing wrong with skepticism over Israel----but now Jews are a lobby---all of them? Jewish Americans?

All of us?

Should we be round up as well?
Keep an eye on them?


He is pathetic---a bit like man who appointed him.

Imagine him appointing a man who accused African American being a threat to white women???? Same kind of classic hateful accusation I thought we left behind 50 years ago.

"The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” Critics faulted both his implication that lawmakers are bullied and his use of the phrase “Jewish” rather than “Israel,” suggesting that all advocates for Israel are Jewish. Senators from both parties have expressed discomfort with his choice of words.

Guess I need to take a loyalty oath before meeting hagel---I am half Jewish--who knows what I am doing or where my loyalties lie.
I guess the Jewish bully is a bit weaker then corn lobby in NEB---but he goes out of his way to denounce Jews---nice guy.
Those scary scary Jews......

[mastoidbone]

My other issue---how can you nominate a guy to SOD who is against Iranian sanctions as well as a strike against Iran?

Appeaser?

Why signal to Iran that you are against a strike?
Why not be neutral on the subject or at least ambiguous?
Obama took strike of the table with nomination.
Iran 1 Obama 0

I think president should get who he wants--I would vote yes for him on policy prerogative---but no to an anti-Semite.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us...QL33llrlWmvHBA

[Row6]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

His accusing Jews of a Jewish lobby is still unacceptable statement from a cabinet member---and is similar to fascist claims from nazi time.

100% wrong by him and he still has not made a public apology to America and Jews.

Nothing wrong with skepticism over Israel----but now Jews are a lobby---all of them? Jewish Americans?

All of us?

Should we be round up as well?
Keep an eye on them?


He is pathetic---a bit like man who appointed him.

Imagine him appointing a man who accused African American being a threat to white women???? Same kind of classic hateful accusation I thought we left behind 50 years ago.

"The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.” Critics faulted both his implication that lawmakers are bullied and his use of the phrase “Jewish” rather than “Israel,” suggesting that all advocates for Israel are Jewish. Senators from both parties have expressed discomfort with his choice of words.

Guess I need to take a loyalty oath before meeting hagel---I am half Jewish--who knows what I am doing or where my loyalties lie.
I guess the Jewish bully is a bit weaker then corn lobby in NEB---but he goes out of his way to denounce Jews---nice guy.
Those scary scary Jews......

1 He absolutely did apologize, numerous times during his hearings and many before.

2 The term Jewish Lobby is also used in the Israeli press, so I guess by your standards Israel is rife with nazi-like fascists.

3 The Jewish Lobby in Nebraska - literally this time since they are rabbis - support Hagel and have accepted his apology.

4 Which half of you is Jewish, so we'll know if you really qualify. My kids' mother is Jewish, so they are officially by both Jews and by real anti-semites who don't care what part is. This of course concerns me - they are my flesh and blood and my wife, their mother, the love of my life - and I thereby have no tolerance for real anti -semites. You might try to learn the difference.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by mastoidbone

My other issue---how can you nominate a guy to SOD who is against Iranian sanctions as well as a strike against Iran?

Appeaser?

Why signal to Iran that you are against a strike?
Why not be neutral on the subject or at least ambiguous?
Obama took strike of the table with nomination.
Iran 1 Obama 0

I think president should get who he wants--I would vote yes for him on policy prerogative---but no to an anti-Semite.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us...QL33llrlWmvHBA

.

He's not an anti-semite and nothing is off the table. Try to at least be factual before ranting.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by Row6

.

He's not an anti-semite and nothing is off the table. Try to at least be factual before ranting.

He is not an anti-semite? You base this on...what eactly?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

He is not an anti-semite? You base this on...what eactly?

I think you actually have to show he is, rather than someone proving he's not.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

He is not an anti-semite? You base this on...what eactly?

The same thing that makes me think you're not an anti-semite - lack of evidence that you are - though in Hagel's case he also has a long history of voting for aid to Israel and voicing his strong support for both it's relationship as a special friend of America and the importance of it's security.


What makes you think he is one?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Row6

I note the source - gop.com.

I agree - as does Obama - with talking with enemies. Good plan.

Hagel explained in his hearing that he did not sign the letter because he doesn't believe in Congress directly addressing foreign entities as that is the president and administration's job and congressional involvement can constitute interference and be counter productive. I agree with that. He was also asked about another vote - don't recall the exact details - that he opposed that seemed a no brainer and replied that Condeleeza Rice had asked that the bill not be passed as it would hamstring the administration's position. Abstaining from grandstanding is a virtue in my opinion. As it was, those senators asking about these cherry picked "events" chose to not let Hagel even answer and he was only able to between Senators or when another sympathetic senator gave him a chance. I'm sorry but gop.com is part of an ambush that was big on out of context quotes and low on anything having to do with Hagel's new role as Sec of D.

Well he either said all this stuff and voted this way, or is it all a lie?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Well he either said all this stuff and voted this way, or is it all a lie?

Those aren't the only options and I think I explained his positions pretty well. Perhaps you want to respond specifically - or not - as you are able.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Row6

Those aren't the only options and I think I explained his positions pretty well. Perhaps you want to respond specifically - or not - as you are able.

It's filled with quotes from Hagel and also his voting record. Those are not opinions

[jimgata]

If it is true, it is not a smear. What did anyone lie about what Hagel said in any of his speeches? He made those comments and not his crirics.
A smear is practically 90% of what Obama says about his detractors.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by jimgata

If it is true, it is not a smear. What did anyone lie about what Hagel said in any of his speeches? He made those comments and not his crirics.
A smear is practically 90% of what Obama says about his detractors.

What comments are you talking about? BTW, taking a quote out of context can be a smear. I started this thread with an example of one made about Hagel.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's filled with quotes from Hagel and also his voting record. Those are not opinions

I think I accurately recounted his explanation of some of his votes above. Do you have a problem with those explanations? What quotes do you have a problem with?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

It's filled with quotes from Hagel and also his voting record. Those are not opinions

which quotes show that he's anti-Semitic?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Row6

I think I accurately recounted his explanation of some of his votes above. Do you have a problem with those explanations? What quotes do you have a problem with?

Hagel In 2001: “The National Security Of The United States Is Not Served By Isolating Iran.” (Sen. Chuck Hagel, Remarks To The American Iranian Council, Washington, DC, 6/27/01) - See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf

This is clearly misguided because Iran must be isolated so their government can eventually crash and burn.

Hagel “Denounced U.S. Sanctions Against Iran” In 2001. “On June 27, 2001, however, Mr. Hagel, addressing another AIC [American Iranian Council] gathering in Washington, denounced U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya, asserting that they ‘isolate us.’” (Editorial, “Iran And Its Apologists,” The Washington Times, 3/29/02) - See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf

Absolutely boneheaded

Hagel Was “Solely Responsible” For Blocking An Iran Sanctions Bill In 2008. “If, given the prevailing political winds on Iran, it sounds strange that Republicans would have blocked a get-tough measure on the Islamic Republic — there’s an explanation. According to a congressional aide who spoke on background to the Huffington Post, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel is solely responsible for the hold on the bill. (Request for confirmation from Hagel’s press office was not immediately returned.)” (Seth Colter Walls, “Dems Blame Senate GOP For Blocking Iran Sanctions Bill,” The Huffington Post, 11/3/08) - See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf

Boneheaded again

Hagel In 2005: “Any Lasting Solution To Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program Will Also Require The United States’ Direct Discussions With Iran.” SEN. CHUCK HAGEL: “Any lasting solution to Iran’s nuclear weapons program will also require the United States’ direct discussions with Iran. The United States is capable of engaging Iran in direct dialogue without sacrificing any of its interests or objectives.” (Sen. Chuck Hagel, Remarks At The Council On Foreign Relations , Washington, DC, 11/15/05) - See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf

Obama thought the same thing, what happened

In 2006, Hagel Said The Nuclear Issue Could Not Be Resolved Until Iran’s “Broader Interests” Were Addressed. “Iran holds the key to so many issues, Hagel said, that the nuclear issue cannot be addressed in isolation. ‘Iraq, nuclear capabilities, terrorism, Israel and oil are all part of an Iranian puzzle game that cannot be played one piece at a time,’ Hagel wrote. ‘There will be no lasting solution to the Iranian nuclear threat until the broader interests of Iran, the U.S., the region and the world are addressed.’” (Glen Kessler, “U.S. Under Pressure To Talk To Tehran,” The Washington Post, 5/11/06) - See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf

Wut? Clearly off his medication with this one

[quote]In 2007, Hagel Sent A Private Letter To President Bush Urging The Pursuit Of “Direct, Unconditional, And Comprehensive Talks With The Government Of Iran.” “I have just secured a private letter — not yet publicly released — from Senator Chuck Hagel to President Bush and copied to Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and Stephen Hadley. I should add that I did not receive this letter from Senator Hagel but from other sources. The letter urges the President to pursue ‘direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.’” (Steve Clemmons, “Hagel To Bush: Talk To Iran!” Huffington Post, 10/31/07)

In 2008, Hagel Expressed Support For Opening A Diplomatic Post In Tehran In The Form Of A “U.S. Interest Section.” CHUCK HAGEL: “Now, as to your question about an interest section, obviously we can’t just fly over Tehran and drop an interest section. I get that. But the conversations I’ve had with the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, both — actually, the last three, including the current one — other indications I have, I think that that is an area that we could explore. I don’t know why that would not be in our interested to do that.” (Chuck Hagel, Remarks At The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, 6/26/08)
- See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf[/QUOTE
The gift that keeps on giving

Hagel: “America’s Refusal To Recognize Iran’s Status As A Legitimate Power Does Not Decrease Iran’s Influence, But Rather Increases It.” (Chuck Hagel, America: Our Next Chapter, pp. 87, 2008) - See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf

Again off his medication
I can keep going and have not even opened the can on Hezbolah and Hamas yet

[Row6]

[quote=gatorman_07732;6440334]This is clearly misguided because Iran must be isolated so their government can eventually crash and burn.


Absolutely boneheaded


Boneheaded again


Obama thought the same thing, what happened


Wut? Clearly off his medication with this one

In 2007, Hagel Sent A Private Letter To President Bush Urging The Pursuit Of “Direct, Unconditional, And Comprehensive Talks With The Government Of Iran.” “I have just secured a private letter — not yet publicly released — from Senator Chuck Hagel to President Bush and copied to Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates, and Stephen Hadley. I should add that I did not receive this letter from Senator Hagel but from other sources. The letter urges the President to pursue ‘direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.’” (Steve Clemmons, “Hagel To Bush: Talk To Iran!” Huffington Post, 10/31/07)

In 2008, Hagel Expressed Support For Opening A Diplomatic Post In Tehran In The Form Of A “U.S. Interest Section.” CHUCK HAGEL: “Now, as to your question about an interest section, obviously we can’t just fly over Tehran and drop an interest section. I get that. But the conversations I’ve had with the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations, both — actually, the last three, including the current one — other indications I have, I think that that is an area that we could explore. I don’t know why that would not be in our interested to do that.” (Chuck Hagel, Remarks At The Brookings Institute, Washington, DC, 6/26/08)
- See more at: http://www.gop.com/news/research/chu....u5RV9GN6.dpuf[/QUOTE
The gift that keeps on giving


Again off his medication
I can keep going and have not even opened the can on Hezbolah and Hamas yet

Your disagreement on Hagel's position on Iran is mildly interesting, but so what? No doubt you don;t agree with the president on Iran either. Where's the anti-semitism or anything he else needs to apologize for?

BTW, are you aware that "mainstream" American foreign policy - you know the kind the McCain and Bush and Graham and lieberman pursued - resulted in turning Iraq from Iran's deadly enemy into one of it's allies, and that the current leadership of Iraq spent most their country's war with Iran hiding out there?

[gatorman_07732]

[quote=Row6;6440348]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

This is clearly misguided because Iran must be isolated so their government can eventually crash and burn.


Absolutely boneheaded


Boneheaded again


Obama thought the same thing, what happened


Wut? Clearly off his medication with this one



Your disagreement on Hagel's position on Iran is mildly interesting, but so what? No doubt you don;t agree with the president on Iran either. Where's the anti-semitism or anything he else needs to apologize for?

BTW, are you aware that "mainstream" American foreign policy - you know the kind the McCain and Bush and Graham and lieberman pursued - resulted in turning Iraq from Iran's deadly enemy into one of it's allies, and that the current leadership of Iraq spent most their country's war with Iran hiding out there?

I haven't got there yet, and decided to start with this because Obama thought the same exact think and got nowhere, so I believe it's fair to point this out as wrong policy.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I think you actually have to show he is, rather than someone proving he's not.

Really? Remember this when you and Row accuse conservatives of racism or some such similar thing.

In any case, it is well documented that he has taken several anti-Israel positions. He more often than not takes those positions when given a chance. He seems to be more sympathetic to Hamas and Iran than he is Israel. His confirmation testimony not with standing, as it is clear he will say almost anything to get confirmed.

He has slandered Jews on more than one occasion and only provided a half heart'ed apology when it became clear it might cost him the nomination.

Need more?

I don't.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Really? Remember this when you and Row accuse conservatives of racism or some such similar thing.

In any case, it is well documented that he has taken several anti-Israel positions. He more often than not takes those positions when given a chance. He seems to be more sympathetic to Hamas and Iran than he is Israel. His confirmation testimony not with standing, as it is clear he will say almost anything to get confirmed.

He has slandered Jews on more than one occasion and only provided a half heart'ed apology when it became clear it might cost him the nomination.

Need more?

I don't.

Please find one quote where I've accused conservatives of racism.
Meanwhile, can you point to something he said that show anti-Semitism or slandered Jews? thanks.