"I’m not going to give you a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ I’ll defer that to the judgment of history... I did question the surge. I always ask the question: Is this going to be worth the sacrifice? We lost almost 1,200 Americans and thousands of wounded. Was it required? Was it necessary? I’m not sure. I’m not that certain that it was required."
January 31, 2013
McCain "pressed Hagel on whether he stood by his opposition to the decision to surge U.S. troops into Iraq in 2007."
"Hagel, who once called the surge the 'most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam' resisted McCain’s repeated attempts to solicit a 'yes' or 'no' answer."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
107 comments:
Hagel, who once called the surge the 'most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam'..."
Yes, let's make someone who exhibits such spectacularly wrong military judgement the Secretary of Defense.
McCain is close to crashing another plane.
Is this just another trap?
I can't tell anymore.
The surge (of which Junior was a big fan) was less about more men than better tactics.
People like Hagel, threw the country away after we had won.
What he, and the Dick From IL and Little Zero, did was nothing short of treason.
garage mahal said...
McCain is close to crashing another plane.
No, he's going after a more dangerous RINO than Arlen Specter.
And, last I looked, he was shot down.
PPS I didn't hear garage say anything about Lurch's 3 Purple Owies.
McCain is close to crashing another plane.
Will there be torture to follow? I hope so!
Not a McCainiac, but after what he went through in Hanoi, he gets a pass from me on certain things.
"I’m not going to give you a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’"
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Don't know much about Hagel.
Is he gay
black
Jewish
retard
female
lesbian ???
Or what??
I don't want to affend anyone.
"I did question the surge."
He didn't "question" it. He opposed it. This guy is slimy. I really hope he is not confirmed.
Original Mike said...
"I’m not going to give you a ‘yes’ or ‘no.’"
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Exactly. This kind of non-answer gets Hagel half-way to standard Administration practice. He won't be all the way there until he fakes moral outrage while ducking questions.
I wish Hagel would have responded with "well this was obviously a stupid fucking war to start with", but I guess he couldn't really say that unfortunately.
Well, as someone in the service I must say the lack of decisiveness shown by the nominee doesn't bode well for DOD. For one, we need to make significant budget driven force structure and stationing decisions. Hagel won't get years to mull on those and he's going to be villified as SECDEF no matter what he decides. If he can't answer that question then he's either too indecisive or too sensitive for the position.
I think -- I'm not sure -- that I was okay for the surge. I could go back and look in althouse comments to find our for sure but I won't.
Still, you take a position for or against something. Then you don't second-guess yourself. McCain is just like all the righties here who are always after Althouse to apologize for voting for Obama. A better question from McCain would have been: What have you learned from your opposition to the Surge in Iraq -- a surge that had some successes -- that colors your views of the Military today?
Karl Marx "stood 'Hagel' on his head".
I would respect Hagel if I thought he was an isolationist of the Old Right, in the tradition of Taft, i.e., someone for whom foreign entanglements and military adventurism are no different from any other government program: costly and oftentimes ineffective, with all sorts of bad unintended consequences. That would be consistent with an overall small government philosophy.
I get the feeling, instead, that he's just an opportunist.
garage mahal said...
McCain is close to crashing another plane.
If Hagel isn't intelligent enough to admit when he is wrong, then he has no place as secretary of defense. If he isn't intelligent to KNOW he was wrong, he should just go home and play with his underage prostitutes like any good Democrat.
Tank said...
Don't know much about Hagel.
Is he gay
black
Jewish
retard
female
lesbian ???
Or what??
Lefty moron sums it up nicely.
garage mahal said...
I wish Hagel would have responded with "well this was obviously a stupid fucking war to start with", but I guess he couldn't really say that unfortunately.
He could, but, since the drivel garage insists on perpetuating originated because the Demos were afraid Dubya was getting too popular and the people were getting too patriotic, I think whatever he says hasn't got much to recommend it, considering he actually wanted us to lose.
Is this just another trap?
I can't tell anymore.
Both parties are permanent war parties. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the permanent government, whichever party controls the executive branch, wants permanent war. The permanent government wants foreign entanglements. Witness the permanent strategy of keeping the pot boiling. Witness the impenetrable ultimate aim of our government. There is no endgame. Only that the game go on. Anyway, maybe that's not why Pogo can't tell anymore, it's why I can't tell anymore.
edutcher said...
The surge (of which Junior was a big fan) was less about more men than better tactics.
People like Hagel, threw the country away after we had won.
What he, and the Dick From IL and Little Zero, did was nothing short of treason.
===================
Earth to Edutcher. We never won. Had we stayed, we still would have been bushwacked by the Noble Purple-Fingered Freedom Lovers! Iraq would have still been a de facto ally of Iran since the Shiites are now in charge - and there were never going to be statues put up to George Bush, McCain or other such neocons, or the Hero Liberating American Troops....(Save statues of them erected for Iraqis to spit on or throw shoes at).
Had we stayed, the Iraqis would have still hated America's "Special Friend Israel" as much as any Muslim or European nation does.
Given that, was the Great Surge worth it? Given the extra 280 billion and 6800 casualties?
Perhaps.
While we still lost the war to the Mullahs of Iraq and Ayatollahs of Iran who they answer to....we didn't flee the bungled war in disgrace. We lost, but we kept our dignity.
Same sort of exit will have to play out for Bush's Noble Freedom Lovers in Afghanistan.
All the idiot crap about schools for girls, liberating women from their burquas will evaporate once the Taliban Noble Freedom Lovers take over from the Narcokleptocratic Karzai Klan's Noble Freedom Lovers.
All the neocon crap of nation-building and uplift will be remembered by the Afghans with the same fondness as they remember the last nation building and uplifting infidels...the Soviets. Who built most of the roads, power plants, modern hospitals, and started trying to bring equality to the women.
Both wars are great lessons in Imperial Overreach and branding the Neocons as unfit to ever again have sway on US foreign policy.
Especially foreign policy that has nothing to do with supporting America's vital interests but in doing Israel's bidding..
So we perhaps do need Hagel at DOD and Kerry at State to best keep us out of new Republican wars of adventure.
(Republicans lost one of their great appeals to the general electorate in the process - for generations, it was the Democrats that were thought the Party of launching disastrous new wars, and bungling the ones that we had no choice but to fight)
Mr Garage said:
I wish Hagel would have responded with "well this was obviously a stupid fucking war to start with", but I guess he couldn't really say that unfortunately.
Of course, Mr Garage knows that Senator Hagel voted FOR the "stupid fucking war" before he began to undermine the war effort! Like the former SOS and the current SOS they voted to send our warriors into harms way and then began to criticize the effort when it got tough! I would call him a ChickenShit!
Did anyone ask him if he intends to bomb Israel?
I know Cedarford would be behind that one.
It seems like he is an Ideal choice join the Obama team as they march forward during the next four years.
And lets face it now that Obama has been in charge for 4 years, what happened in the past isn't nearly as important as it used to be.
I mean, what difference does it really make?
Because it's not like anyone in the Obama administration either past or present will ever be called to accountability for their actions. Any errors in judgement made by this administration whether they be 4 years, 4 months, 4 days ago, or 4pm today will be carefully wallpapered over by the mainstream media. It all goes down the memory hole.
I'm sure you can all remember the way they always covered for president Bush during his administration....
The very idea that the North American Provence can maintain a Military that is THE Hegemon enforcing Pax Americana is deeply repugnant to Hagel, to Kerrey, and to Obama the Ruler.
Those guys know the true enemy is the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's dirty, you know.
I wish Hagel would have responded with "well this was obviously a stupid fucking war to start with", but I guess he couldn't really say that unfortunately.
Considering he voted in favor of it, yes.
I wonder if Hagel feels the same degree of ambiguity about Obama's troop surge in Afghanistand? That troop surge seems to have been far less successful than the one in Iraq, and the left is not criticizing Obama for his profligate waste of American lives......At the end of WWI, the French generals were reluctant to the German offer of an armistice. They wished to press forward and have a victory parade in Berlin. If the French generals had been heeded, thousands of lives would have been squandered. History would have remembered them a butchers. And WWII would never have happened.
Obama did a telegraphed failure surge into Afghanistan for no reason except to wear out and humiliate the Military that won in Iraq. Obama is a bastard.
I think a good question would be:
After our help in regime change in Libya that we now see led to further destabilization of the region, are you going to support military intervention in Mali once France has run out of interest?
I don't think deference to history is a great quality for a defense secretary to possess. How can he make decisions for the present and future when he's still so unsure about the past?
Colonel Angus said...
After our help in regime change in Libya that we now see led to further destabilization of the region, are you going to support military intervention in Mali once France has run out of interest?
Binga!
Another question:
Would you have advised the POTUS to destroy the stealth drone that was lost to Iran?
Why the big celebration of the "troop surge?" Is this a litmus test now in Washington that to be considered "serious" one must bow down and celebrate "the surge?"
(I ask this without any opinion on Hagel's qualification to be approved; I'm inclined to think anyone Obama would put forth for any position in his administration is a bought and paid for company man--the "company" being the status quo, things as they are, making the world even more profitable for the 1%, the military/intelligence/police/prison/corporate complex, etc.)
The war in Iraq was a catastrophe that we unleashed without valid reason, a war crime resulting in the needless destruction of a society, the deaths of hundreds of thousands, (if not more), and the rendering of millions into refugees. Therefore, any actions we undertook in furtherance of that crime is criminal.
The connection between American Military as world Hegemon and surrender first hollow threat America is simple.
The only reason the dollar remains the world reserve currency is our military strength.
Obama and Hagel's target is always the US dollar. It stands in the way of a new world currency that China, Russia and the EU are salivating to get control over.
Within a year after the dollar is replaced, the North American Province will all look like Mexico.
I don't think that the war in Iraq was smart or well done, and if anything, it showed that trying to reconstruct a society that has fundamentally different beliefs from your own is doomed to fail.
What I would be more interested in is what Hagel thinks the correct response to these countries should be? If the isolation approach used under Bush (I) and Clinton is correct (with all of the civilian indirect deaths that were caused, frankly dwarfing the war casualties).
Or the aerial approach used in Libya with little ground is best (leaving a country in tatters, and weapons scattered all around)
Or is the Syrian approach of trying to not pay attention while arming randomly and hoping it all comes out in the end ok to be the approach?
I prefer the idea of just smashing the regime and staying away and let the natives fight out the (inevitable) civil war, then deciding if we need to smash the victors again too.
But I'd like Mr Hagel to tell us what he wants. And why if the Iraq war was immoral, why the policies we followed before the war were not worse.
"Because it's not like anyone in the Obama administration either past or present will ever be called to accountability for their actions."
Of course not; they share this privileged immunity with the members of previous administrations.
Hagel and McCain have similar maverick tendencies. Maybe Hagel will buck Obama's inclinations to get more involved in the Middle East. I think Panetta and Gates both did a good job. We need to get out of Afghanistan and refrain from jumping in to this other shit. If we need to take out Iran it should be quick like Gulf War I. No nation building or wars of adventure.
"Would you support bombing Iran?
They just sent a monkey into space!"
William @12:03 - Exactly.
Obama's policy in Afghanistan is what should be one the table. The nominee is about to take ownership of Obama's military adventuring, not Bush's. Explain away, Mr. Hagel.
Ironclad said:
"I prefer the idea of just smashing the regime and staying away and let the natives fight out the (inevitable) civil war, then deciding if we need to smash the victors again too."
I think that is great idea. We can call it the "Hulk Smash" theroy of foreign policy.
I hope we use it in Egypt when the military and Muslim Brotherhood fight it out.
Cool Beans!
"While we still lost the war to the Mullahs of Iraq and Ayatollahs of Iran who they answer to....we didn't flee the bungled war in disgrace. We lost, but we kept our dignity."
We didn't "flee" at all; the Iraqis threw us out. Obama wanted to prolong our stay there, but Bush had signed an agreement our troops would withdraw in 2011. In negotiating for permission to retain bases in Iraq, Obama wanted our troops to have immunity from prosecution by the Iraqis for crimes our soldiers might commit in country. The Iraqis would not agree to this and we were handed our hats and shown the door.
There is and was no "dignity" in our presence or endeavors in Iraq, merely the shame of criminality.
I think that in the Middle East the dynamics are such that all change is for the worst and that every wrong thing is ultimately the fault of Israel and the United States.
Some idiot said:
"And Robert Cook still masturbates to the idea of executing Dick Cheney by firing squad for saving Robert Cook's ass from terrorists."
I don't prescribe execution for Cheney, but certainly prosecution and life imprisonment without possibility of parole is the least justice calls for.
Mr. Cheney, btw, did not save my ass or anyone's ass from terrorists. All he did was help cause murder and mayhem and add more misery to the world in pursuit of furthering American hegemony in the region.
The country elected Obama, so the country deserves Hagel and "Magic Hat" Kerry as well, for that matter.
William said...
I wonder if Hagel feels the same degree of ambiguity about Obama's troop surge in Afghanistand? That troop surge seems to have been far less successful than the one in Iraq, and the left is not criticizing Obama for his profligate waste of American lives......At the end of WWI, the French generals were reluctant to the German offer of an armistice. They wished to press forward and have a victory parade in Berlin. If the French generals had been heeded, thousands of lives would have been squandered. History would have remembered them a butchers. And WWII would never have happened.
======================
Wouldn't have happened. It wouldn't have been "thousands of lives squandered, but millions" - and the French Generals had already faced a general mutiny in 1915 from the ranks over their wanton waste of lives.
At the end of WWI, the Germans were still on French soil and the French had no chance of invading Germany itself without the equally dispirited German Army rallying once the Motherland was invaded.
What "got" the Germans was the British blockade had finally started to cause mass starvation after a bad 1918 harvest - weather and Spanish flu had set that up.
But lets say for sake of argument that the Americans had joined the French and did go in at a cost of millions of casualties and militarily conquer. They would still have ended up with Wilsonianism, the Red Terror making "punishment" of the Germans and Austro-Hungarian lands quite problematic unless you wanted the Reds to win, the Wilsonian ethnic self determination that Hitler found so useful in winning democratic elections, and no will to stay in Germany for long. (Especially when America and France were flat on their backs from the Great Depression).
WWII would not have been prevented. IT was set up by the Red Agression of the COMITERN, the rise of fascism to counter the Red terror, the denial of Japan to have the same colonialization rights and access to resources the Western Powers had carved for themselves, and map redrawing that put large areas inhabited by Germans under foreign rule....and by the guarantees the Brits and French had foolishly made to the Poles, Arabs, the lands they ruled in SE Asia.
garage: "McCain is close to crashing another plane."
Jesus, this again?
It requires a special level of stupidity to keep this meme up.
I just hope Chuck Hagel gets to be as much of a pain i the rear for the Democrats as he has been for the Republicans.
Hagel is too dumb to be Secretary of Defense. The Senate is the right place for him.
“Like each of you, I have a record,” Hagel said. “A record I am proud of, not because of any accomplishments I may have achieved, or an absence of mistakes, but rather because I’ve tried to build that record by living my life and fulfilling my responsibilities as honestly as I knew how and with hard work.”
See that? He's obviously completely qualified to be a part of Obama's administration. (except for the hard work thing)
Hagel is an unforced error by Obama.
He is not a true Republican who is respected and supported by Republicans so he loses any bi-partisan points because most of the Republicans are going to vote against him.
He also stands to lose a lot of liberal support because of his stance towards gays. If of course the liberals stand up for their principles (which they won't do because it is the Jug Eared Jesus we are talking about here).
So who really wants Hagel?
Except for Cedarford and Martin Bormann.
Probably producing it in his trailer.
Nope. His Mom's trailer.
Mr. Cheney, btw, did not save my ass or anyone's ass from terrorists. All he did was help cause murder and mayhem and add more misery to the world in pursuit of furthering American hegemony in the region.
You're not really a hegemon when the country you conquered asks you to leave and you agree.
William said...
I wonder if Hagel feels the same degree of ambiguity about Obama's troop surge in Afghanistand? That troop surge seems to have been far less successful than the one in Iraq, and the left is not criticizing Obama for his profligate waste of American lives......
There is a standard military Axiom, that goes to the basics of crisis decision making.
"Better a good decision, implemented now, with vigor, than the perfect decision, timidly implemented, too late"
The Iraq surge was an example of the former, the A-Stan surge, the later. Surging in A-stan at the same time giving a date certain for withdrawal, amounts to just pissing lives away.
That's what many of us see in Benghazi. The natural mode for warriors is to march to the sound of the guns, particularly when your comrades are pleading for aid. Donilon, Obama, and Panetta seem to have dithered the night away... Answers will turn up about what happened that night, all the facts are knwon by too many people...
Hagel is a ditherer. It's the wrong mode for SECDEF. If you had to have him, better to have sent him to DVA and put Shinseki in as SECDEF. Shinseki is a squish as well, but he can make decisions. Look at the Beret :)
Now that we know she has a speech code...
Don't agree. In this case, I'd call it a "stupid code."
Bush never intended nor did he nation build in Afghanistan. He never had an intent to occupy Afghanistan, only to install a government in the capitol with a small foot print. Bush, Cheney and the neocons were well aware of Afghanistan's history and that it would be a waste to nation build a stone age country. He went there as a response to 911. Bush and Cheney said as much, hence the low US body count till Obama's surge. Remember the criticism of the Dems and candidate Obama, that Bush was fighting the wrong war in Iraq and neglecting Afghanistan. Obama even stated he'd invade Pakistan if necessary. The only reason Bush stayed in Afghanistan was for an operations base, it's on Iran's eastern flank.
Iraq is a different story, but we're there for many of the same reasons. Mostly it's on Iran's western flank, geography matters.
"You're not really a hegemon when the country you conquered asks you to leave and you agree."
I said "in pursuit of furthering our hegemony in the region." I didn't say we had necessarily succeeded. Remember, we didn't win, despite our crowing to the contrary.
It is a speech code for certain protected classes.
You can say anything you want about old white guys though.
So knock yourself out.
"Hagel, who once called the surge the 'most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam'
That is so wrong. If it weren't for the surge, Iraq wouldn't be the vibrant, self-sufficient democracy that it is today. Just like if it weren't for our enormous, valiant sacrifices in Vietnam, Saigon might be known as Ho Chi Minh City today. Surely we can all agree that these things were worth the cost.
Amazing Hagel was in such good graces with the Republican caucus for so long. The one thing that will get you kicked you out of the party is being occasionally right about something.
Hagel's "not sure" even years after the fact, and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt by taking that comment at face value. So OK, THIS is your choice and standard of judgement for Secretary of Defence?
"Ann Althouse said...
"So the new policy is people can use the n-word at Althouse comments?"
No, and I deleted the comment your question refers to.
I am not able to see everything and respond to everything. These are not moderated comments."
From previous thread
On the question of the Iraq War, Hagel, who supported it, lacks the integrity to either stand by his original position or take responsibility for being wrong.
On the question of the surge, Hagel, who opposed it, lacks the integrity to either stand by his original position or take responsibility for being wrong.
Nominating this pathetic sack of shit for Secretary of Defense was an act of self-humiliation by Obama. Hagel isn't qualified to write an opinion column about US defense policy.
"If it weren't for the surge, Iraq wouldn't be the vibrant, self-sufficient democracy that it is today. Just like if it weren't for our enormous, valiant sacrifices in Vietnam, Saigon might be known as Ho Chi Minh City today. Surely we can all agree that these things were worth the cost."
Hahahahahahaha! Brilliant!
Wait...uh...are you being serious or snarky?
Professor Ann has a speech code? OH FUCK!
Obama nominated Hagel because he wants a non-entity without friends in either party for Secretary of Defense while he transfers control of the Pentagon to the White House and proceeds to dismantle our military forces.
Both wars where won in less than a month. We made a lot of mistakes after, but Obama threw away our main military objectives. Look at a map of the middle east and ask yourself, "What would Iran want?"
Colonel Angus said...
You're not really a hegemon when the country you conquered asks you to leave and you agree.
Hegemon is just a "scary" word that leftists like to use. Kind of like their whole fear of scary looking rifles. No basis in reality. Just a basis in emotions.
I suppose it is a selection of words that emotionally "feel" right. Rather than taking the time to actually learn and select the correct words.
Words are more important than actions.
We already went over this today.
Pay attention.
McCain and Hagel used to be best buds. However...Hagel wouldn't endorse McCain in 2008 and Hagel's wife even endorsed Obama. So it sounds like McCain is now getting a little payback with his questioning of a fellow RINO.
Cedarford said...
Earth to Edutcher. We never won. Had we stayed, we still would have been bushwacked by the Noble Purple-Fingered Freedom Lovers! Iraq would have still been a de facto ally of Iran since the Shiites are now in charge - and there were never going to be statues put up to George Bush, McCain or other such neocons, or the Hero Liberating American Troops....(Save statues of them erected for Iraqis to spit on or throw shoes at).
Reality to Cedar:
The Iraqis begged us to stay. Zero wasn't interested.
Iraq is drifting the way it is because of the malign neglect of the Lurch-Hillary-Hagel-Joe-Zero foreign policy.
To paraphrase William Tecumseh Sherman, when the bomb hits, I hope they're the last ones dead IYKWIM.
Levi Starks said...
It seems like he is an Ideal choice join the Obama team as they march forward during the next four years.
5 will get you 10, if anybody is ever held accountable for anything, it will be Hagel.
He is the house Republican, after all.
The Drill SGT said...
Hagel is a ditherer. It's the wrong mode for SECDEF. If you had to have him, better to have sent him to DVA and put Shinseki in as SECDEF. Shinseki is a squish as well, but he can make decisions. Look at the Beret :)
If Choomie did that, the Rangers would be conducting their next live-fire exercise on Pennsylvania Ave, instead of Houston.
McTriumph said...
Professor Ann has a speech code? OH FUCK!
I think that's the word.
Edutcher:
"The Iraqis begged us to stay. Zero wasn't interested."
No. Our departure was mandated by the agreement signe by George Bush. We were negotiating to stay, Obama wanted to stay, but he would not agree to the Iraqis' entirely rational condition that American soldiers be subject to Iraqi laws and prosecution for crimes they might commit in-country. So, the Iraqis would not agree to an extension or waiver of the already Bush-signed-and-sealed departure date.
I said "in pursuit of furthering our hegemony in the region." I didn't say we had necessarily succeeded. Remember, we didn't win, despite our crowing to the contrary
Well that is certainly up for debate. Our withdrawal agreement was with the new Iraqi government. If the goal was to remove Saddam and install a new government that wasn't run by a madman then I'd say yeah, we did succeed.
"They just sent a monkey into space!"
What was it like?
Amazing Hagel was in such good graces with the Republican caucus for so long. The one thing that will get you kicked you out of the party is being occasionally right about something.
What's that? The worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam that he voted for?
Did Hagel ever admit that his vote for the war was a mistake? If so then I'll give him credit.
Was he for it before he was against it?
Robert Cook said...
The Iraqis begged us to stay. Zero wasn't interested.
No. Our departure was mandated by the agreement signe by George Bush. We were negotiating to stay, Obama wanted to stay, but he would not agree to the Iraqis' entirely rational condition that American soldiers be subject to Iraqi laws and prosecution for crimes they might commit in-country. So, the Iraqis would not agree to an extension or waiver of the already Bush-signed-and-sealed departure date.
As always, Cook has it backwards. Even the media nailed him on this one.
jacksonjay said...
Mr Garage said:
I wish Hagel would have responded with "well this was obviously a stupid fucking war to start with", but I guess he couldn't really say that unfortunately.
Of course, Mr Garage knows that Senator Hagel voted FOR the "stupid fucking war" before he began to undermine the war effort!
Garage believes if it's not in his daily talking points briefing it didn't happen.
I can't decide who wins!
hagar said:
I just hope Chuck Hagel gets to be as much of a pain i the rear for the Democrats as he has been for the Republicans.
OR
Rob said:
Hagel is too dumb to be Secretary of Defense. The Senate is the right place for him.
Retweet
Where do they come from?
Media Matters, MoveOn, OFA, ...?
"Obama wanted to stay>
The Iranians are not developing a nulear weapon.
Our hostages in Tehran were not harmed.
You really are a hoot, Robert.
Original Mike @2:00 thread winner.
"garage mahal said...
I wish Hagel would have responded with "well this was obviously a stupid fucking war to start with", but I guess he couldn't really say that unfortunately. "
That would a fair statement if he had voted NO. The trouble with these weasels is they voted for the war and then to give up. For idiots like Barbara Boxer, that's not an issue as no one expects her to know anything but Hagel wants to be Sec Def.
McCain, whose vote could influence Republicans who are on the fence, parried: “I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, and you’re on the wrong side of it.”
Sounds like some potential famous last words.
Look, kids, Hagel is getting it because he didn't toe the line of American aggressiveness... he showed weakness of conviction by questioning the surge, and a person who is willing to question the doctrine of American hegemony is simply politically unacceptable as Defense Secretary.
And sure, America "pulled out" of Iraq... with fourteen military bases and monster Imperial complex left behind. All in that wasteland that Bush & Co made.
Call it "peace" if you want to.
The trouble with these weasels is they voted for the war and then to give up.
Kinda hard to vote "no" when you (and the American people!) are told that Iraq has WMDs and is ready to use them, and that Iraq is providing support for al-Qaeda.
The statements of Bush & Co were as shrewd as they were false. Perhaps the Congress should have known that they were being lied to, but they probably believed that they couldn't possibly be lied to about something so significant and important.
Julius Rein hits all the ludicrous lefty talking points in just 2 postings! A new (for him) world record.
Julius, just put your Che beret back on and go for a walk to clear your head.
He's probably just a cookie sock puppet anyway.
BTW Julius, questioning the surge had nothing to do with going along with "American hegemony" or not you moron.
That's a strategic decision.
We were already there.
The only question remaining was what tactical model we were going to utilize in the ongoing engagment: big foot "conventional" tactics or smaller scale anti-insurgency tactics.
We switched to small scale anti-insurgency tactical doctrine because that was a more appropriate model given the the tactical changes implemented by AQIR and their other pals.
This is really some basic s**t, no wonder it eludes you.
Just watched part of Hagel's statements, he basically said nothing I've ever said represents me or my beliefs. WTF!
" Blogger Original Mike said...
"They just sent a monkey into space!"
What was it like?"
You beat me to it.
McT: "Just watched part of Hagel's statements, he basically said nothing I've ever said represents me or my beliefs."
Even funnier, what he just said is included in that category!
Julius is back.
garage: "Julius is back."
Thanks for that observation.
Any other earth shattering news?
garage mahal said...
Julius is black.
Well I hope he doesn't like hip hop music because he might shoot somebody. Just sayn'
Baron: "Well I hope he doesn't like hip hop music because he might shoot somebody."
Only if he doesn't live in a gun free zone, since living in a gun free zone (aka liberal workers paradise) guarantees there are no guns present.
Robert Cook said...
Some idiot said:
"And Robert Cook still masturbates to the idea of executing Dick Cheney by firing squad for saving Robert Cook's ass from terrorists."
I don't prescribe execution for Cheney, but certainly prosecution and life imprisonment without possibility of parole is the least justice calls for.
=================
I'll accept trials of Cheney and the Neocons as long as we get to name and conduct treason trials of a thousand or so Leftist Democrats.
(With a scattering of, besides Democrats - Maoists, ball licking Castroites, US citizens spying for China and Israel, and a couple of radical Islamist US citizens we can arrest here vs. Obama whacks overseas...)
After that, maybe we can talk about the treason trials of the Bankers, Globalists, black entitlement demanders, Obama..that have helped wreck the US economy.)
Coketown said...
I don't think deference to history is a great quality for a defense secretary to possess. How can he make decisions for the present and future when he's still so unsure about the past?
He's not unsure about the past.... It's not done being written yet. We still don't know if the invasion and toppling of the government in Iraq has given us a new ally in the region or not. We do know that it opened the window and created a power vacuum that Iran was all too happy to fill. We do know that it cost our own country hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, not to mention the sacrifice and permanent wounding of tens of thousands of our young men and women.
We do know one thing that history teaches over and over and over again. Unless you completely eradicate the native population, or demoralize them so completely that there is no longer the will to fight, occupying a country in the long term does not work.
Drill SGT - That's what many of us see in Benghazi. The natural mode for warriors is to march to the sound of the guns, particularly when your comrades are pleading for aid.
And it is the job of leaders to weigh the costs and benefits of a splendid new little war that military officers and NCOs are begging to get in on because they hear the sound of distant gunfire and want the glory and combat promotions.
And say no when marching to that distant gunfire turns out sticking us in another Asian, African, or Arab morass....and the result is typically America is weaker, poorer. And people that are elected because people react to that dumb, bleedout war and want defense spending cut to reduce the ambitions of warhawks.
PS. To be clear... i don't care if Hagel is confirmed or not. I doubt much will change no matter who is SOD. The system doesn't like change.
People in positions like Secretary of Defense have to make decisions now. They lack the luxury of waiting for the judgment of history, whatever that means. They have to make judgments now.
Actually, Sonic Frog, the system does change. The judgments made by people like the Secretary of Defense have big consequences. Most of that consequence has to do with whether we are in a position to defend ourselves effectively.
McCain pressed Bagel...
Much better.
They keep saying Hagel was vague, wobbly, weak, self-contradicting.
They don't say what seems obvious: he was either stupid or drunk. Probably both. Look at those eyes. Listen to his inability to focus on the topic in question.
Actually, Sonic Frog, the system does change. The judgments made by people like the Secretary of Defense have big consequences. Most of that consequence has to do with whether we are in a position to defend ourselves effectively.
What I would be interested in is what constitutes the concept of "defending ourselves", not so much the person who is SOD.
A long-time Capitol Hill Democrat astounded by the hearing tells me, “It is very clear from the testimony that Sen. Hagel will not be bringing the potato salad to the next Mensa picnic.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/01/31/hagel-sinking/
Ironclad said...
I don't think that the war in Iraq was smart or well done, and if anything, it showed that trying to reconstruct a society that has fundamentally different beliefs from your own is doomed to fail.
There's an important caveat there: "Trying to reconstruct a society that has fundamentally different beliefs from your own is doomed to fail" unless you defeat them right down to the rubble, as we did to Germany and Japan at the end of World War II, and you are then morally strong enough to make their previous ideology (Nazism, Japanese militarism) illegal. There was no doubt in the mind or any German or Japanese at the end of the war that they had lost, that what they had been doing had brought them to their sorry state, and that perhaps they should look at what the victorious Americans had to offer in terms of a new political system.
We instead fought a surgical war in Iraq where we blew up Saddam's palaces while trying to avoid breaking the windows of Joe Iraqi's house next door. The average Iraqi's life didn't change much, and there was no feeling of being crushingly defeated. They weren't living in rubble like the Germans and Japanese had been. And the real problem ideology (militant Islam, not Baathism) was not obliterate in the way that Nazism had been, for instance. Is it any wonder that the Iraqis didn't change in the way that the Germans and Japanese did? If you want to change a society and rebuild them in your own image, you have to turn them into rubble first and use the rubble to rebuild. We no longer have the moral fortitude in our society to do things like that; our current society wouldn't have done it to Germany or Japan, either. That's not a value judgment, just a statement of fact.
Steve Hayes on Fox News with Bret Baier tonight said that Chuck Hagel wound up his testimony by essentially saying that what he did or did not think did not matter, since he would not be in a policy-making position anyway.
It kind of takes your breath away, but I think he is right on that one thing, and it is the President and his White House gang we need to worry about. Chuck Hagel does not intend to even try to matter.
However it all ends in Iraq, I think it is safe to say that Saddam Hussein was the big loser....And when are we going to get all that oil we were supposed to be fighting for?
Mr. Cheney, btw, did not save my ass or anyone's ass from terrorists. All he did was help cause murder and mayhem and add more misery to the world in pursuit of furthering American hegemony in the region.
And how did that work out?
What did we gain?
Robert Cook said...
"You're not really a hegemon when the country you conquered asks you to leave and you agree."
I said "in pursuit of furthering our hegemony in the region." I didn't say we had necessarily succeeded. Remember, we didn't win, despite our crowing to the contrary.
What were the stated goals of our intervention?
McT: "Just watched part of Hagel's statements, he basically said nothing I've ever said represents me or my beliefs."
You nailed it. He wanted to be Secretary of Defense so bad he disowned everything he ever said about the Israel Lobby. In so doing he looked so bad, not to mention craven, that not only won't he be confirmed he came across like a man with no integrity too.
He should have embraced everything he'd ever said about the Israel Lobby. He wouldn't be Secretary of Defense in that case either but at least he'd have his honor.
Post a Comment