E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSChuck Hagel -- a man without a party… And a man who has a tough confirmation fight ahead… The nut of the Hagel fight, and why Obama is sticking with him… Kerry-Hagel-Brennan -- a Team of Loyalists… McConnell on the upcoming fiscal fight… White House’s “far broader” and “more comprehensive” campaign to curb gun violence… And Hillary Clinton returns to work.
The Daily Rundown's Chuck Todd reports on President Barack Obama's latest additions for his cabinet.
*** Hagel -- a man without a party: This afternoon, President Obama will tap former GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel to be his nominee to lead the Defense Department. Hagel’s biggest obstacle to confirmation isn’t his controversial comments about Iran and Israel or his “overly aggressive gay” remark. Rather, it’s that he’s a man without a party. If Hagel were a Democrat, for instance, you would have seen someone like Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) embrace his potential nomination on “Meet the Press” recently instead of being tepid about it. And if Hagel were a true-blue Republican -- having campaigned for Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates last fall -- you wouldn’t have seen folks like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) speak so critically of him. But Hagel’s in no-man’s-land territory, the place where the public says it wants many public officials to be, but where Washington can eat folks like this alive. He’s a Republican who later opposed the Iraq war, whose wife endorsed Obama in ’08, and who campaigned for Democrat Bob Kerrey in 2012. In recent times, every cabinet nominee from the opposition party (Bill Cohen, Norm Mineta, Bob Gates, Ray LaHood) has sailed through easily. But since we started covering politics, Hagel might be the first cabinet nominee from the opposition party who doesn't have the backing from that party. It’s amazing how things can change: Republicans universally support John Kerry for Secretary of State, but oppose Chuck Hagel for Defense.
Jim Young / Reuters
Senator Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., attends a meeting in the Cabinet Room at the White House in this file photo from Oct. 28, 2009.
*** And a tough fight ahead: That said, Hagel does have a constituency of one -- and that’s the president of the United States. But it’s not going to be an easy fight. In fact, we’ve heard that as many as 10 DEMOCRATIC senators might be “no” votes on Hagel, or they at least start out as “no” on Hagel. So Hagel will have a lot of work to do, especially in his individual meetings with Democrats. Yet we hear that Senate Armed Services Chairman Jack Reed (D) will campaign heavily for Hagel, and that could flip Dem votes; Reed is very close to Hagel and very well respected on both sides of the aisle. Here’s something to chew on: What message would it send if Hagel -- a decorated war hero, a Vietnam vet, a two-term senator who served in office without scandal -- doesn’t get confirmed? As administration official told the New York Times, “At the end of the day, Republicans will support a decorated war hero who was their colleague for 12 years and has critical experience on veterans’ issues.” But as we argue above, Hagel’s bigger problem might be with Democrats, not Republicans. And don’t be surprised if you start hearing this complaint from Democrats: “Why does our party continue to pick Republicans (like Cohen, Bob Gates, and now Hagel) to head up the Defense Department?”
President Obama is set to name a new secretary of defense today, and his pick, Republican Chuck Hagel, a former senator from Nebraska, faces opposition not only from Democrats, but from some within his own party as well. NBC's Chuck Todd reports.
*** The nut of Hagel fight: There are two basic lines of attack against Hagel. One has to do with whether he’s a true ally of Israel. Detractors point to some votes Hagel made when it came to Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as some votes on Iran sanctions. But supporters of Hagel note he always voted in favor of full funding of Israel aid and did sign on to key pieces of legislation that did target Iran’s nuclear program and did target Hamas. Then, of course, is the quote attributed to Hagel where he referred to pro-Israel groups as “the Jewish lobby,” which is offensive to both pro-Israel supporters and Jews who do not like to be lumped in with the AIPAC’s of the world. Gay rights groups are not excited at all about Hagel because of comments the Nebraska Republican made against a gay ambassador nominee from the Clinton years, when he referred to James Hormel as “openly aggressively gay.” Former Congressman and (and potential TEMPORARY Massachusetts senator) Barney Frank has been highly critical. So there is a lot of “cover,” if you will, for someone on the left or right who WANTS to oppose Hagel to find a political reason to oppose him. But realize, some of the real reasons for folks to be against Hagel won’t be the issues we discussed above. For some Republican senators, it will simply be the fact that many of Hagel’s former Republican colleagues have not gotten over Hagel’s high-profile flip on the Iraq war. And for some Democrats, it’s the frustration that the president is turning to his SECOND Republican to run the Defense Department.
Dan Senor, the co-found of the Foreign Policy Initiative, and Steve Clemons, the Washington Editor-at-large for the Atlantic and Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, debate the nomination of former Sen. Chuck Hagel.
*** Why Obama is sticking with Hagel: So with all this potential political controversy surrounding Hagel, one might ask, “Why is Obama sticking by him?” There are two big reasons. One, he likes the idea of a man who wore the uniform who will NOT be intimidated by the generals at the Pentagon. And two, with the budget fights dominating the next few years in Washington and the issue of downsizing the Pentagon on the table, what better person to have leading the downsizing argument than a former Republican senator.
*** A Team of Loyalists: In addition to making the Hagel pick today, President Obama will announce White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to be his nominee to head the CIA, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Officials argue that, since 9/11, he has been at the forefront, on the front lines against al Qaeda. He has been involved in virtually "all major national security issues and will be able to hit the ground running at CIA,” the officials add to Mitchell. Brennan also has the complete confidence and trust of the president. And that’s the big signal Obama is sending by picking John Kerry for State, Chuck Hagel for Defense, and John Brennan for CIA -- he’s selecting people with whom he’s comfortable and who are loyal to him. (And in National Journal, Ron Fournier writes that Hagel “is Obama in a GOP jersey,” and that’s his biggest problem.) Bottom line: These are Obama people. But these are also three white men, and you’re going to start hearing voices demanding diverse picks for the other cabinet positions. And that grumbling could get louder when, as it is expected, the president names current Chief of Staff Jack Lew to Treasury and elevates current dep. National Security Adviser Denis McDonough to Chief of Staff. This could end up being a very busy week at the White House on the personnel front.
*** McConnell on the upcoming fiscal fight: The other big news today is over the upcoming political fight over the debt ceiling, the sequester, and government operations. On “Meet the Press” yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – who helped strike the fiscal-cliff deal with the Obama White House – didn’t disavow his 2011 comment that refusing to raise the debt ceiling is “a hostage that's worth ransoming." McConnell told NBC’s Gregory yesterday, “What we're saying here is the biggest problem confronting the country is our excessive spending. If we're not going to deal with it now, when are we going to deal with it? And we've watched the government explode over the last four years. We've dealt with the revenue issue.” When Gregory followed up to ask if tax revenue would not be part of the conversation, McConnell replied, “Yeah, that's over. I'm in favor of doing tax reform, but I think tax reform ought to be revenue neutral as it was back during the Reagan years. We've resolved this issue.” But McConnell also declined to answer if he would rule out a government shutdown. “What I'm telling you is I haven't given up on the president stepping up to the plate and tackling the single biggest issue confronting the country.” While McConnell was careful not to threaten a government shutdown, many of the Republican rank-and-file were not.
*** White House’s “far broader” and “more comprehensive” campaign to curb gun violence: Also, the Washington Post reported yesterday that the Obama White House “is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.” More: “A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.”
*** Hillary Clinton returns to work today: After her concussion and her hospitalization due to a blood clot, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton returns to work today, meeting with her assistant secretaries at 9:15 pm ET.
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
countdown to the 2nd inaugural. And some RepubliCONs want to ruin the party starting with obstructionist approach to Pres. Obama's nominations for Defense and CIA.
What's ironic is that RepubliCONs are already crying wolf - by nominating Hagel, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham argues, the President has started his 2nd term with an 'in-your-face' attitude against the GOP.
But...as Fleetwood mac likes to tell the GOP -
If you wake up and don't want to smile
If it takes just a little while
Open your eyes and look at the day
You'll see things in a different way
Don't stop thinking about tomorrow
Don't stop, it'll soon be here
It'll be better than before
Yesterday's gone, yesterday's gone
Not Fit to Govern:
By their very nature conservatives feel more comfortable with life as it once was and resist change in an ever-changing world. They tend to be prolife and oppose Roe v. Wade, thus denying women the right to choose.
Conservatives are usually anti-immigration, preferring to minimize the influence and talents of Asian and Hispanic cultures. They see little value in diversity and resist the uncontrollable dynamics of demographics. America as it was in the 1950s when white men were in control of women and minorities were their good ol' days.
Conservatives like big business and small government. Big businesses focus on making profits while government focuses on caring for the welfare of its citizens. Certainly 67 House Republicans did not care about the victims of Hurricane Sandy as they voted against providing government aid to those unfortunate enough to be hit by a natural disaster. We didn't see big corporations helping the people of New York and New Jersey; they were busy making profits and making political donations to Republican politicians who will advocate on their behalf.
What has been said so far is what conservatives once believed. But today's Tea Party conservatives have moved so far to the right that they are not fit to govern. Let's begin with voter suppression. Conservatives claim they are attempting to reduce voter fraud, but in fact their real purpose is to disenfranchise seniors, minorities, and students, people who often vote for Democrats.
Tea Party Republicans continue to engage in a war on women. They oppose the Lilly Ledbetter Act that requires equal pay for equal work and pass state laws attempting to control a woman's reproductive rights. Why should a group that suppresses voting, minority rights and women's rights ever be allowed to govern?
But there is one more reason why today's conservatives are unfit to lead. Being financially conservative can be a good trait, but adhering to an ideology that risks destroying our own economy and perhaps the world economy is crazy. Threats to not pay our bills for goods and services already provided; threats to shut down our government, using the debt ceiling as leverage to destroy America's social safety of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is totally unacceptable.
To proceed along this line of thinking will convince the majority of Americans that conservatives are, indeed, unfit to govern.
In President Obama's face
Senator Lindsey Graham says 'incredibly controversial choice' will be an 'in-your-face nomination to all supportive of Israel'.
Senator Graham would you please stop being a "Drama Queen" and get of the President's face. Barack Obama is the President of the USA. You need to learn and accept that. You and your Party Lost and have F'ed up this country.
BTW: You own Hilary and Susan Rice apologies for all your Bengazi gate sequels
Know your enemy. In that spirit, I give you Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice-President of the National Rifle Association. Following the bloodbath at Newtown, where 26 people - including 20 six and seven-year olds - LaPierre stepped forth with the solution to the routine gun carnage in this country. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
This makes one wonder why when given the opportunity during the Viet Nam conflict, Wayne - ever the good guy - opted for the hallowed halls of academia, when he could have had a gun and stopped bad guys with guns. Of course, the answer is that LaPierre is just another draft-dodging, tough-talking coward. But he is a very dangerous coward, because like so many other cowards, he is able to motivate the mindless.
Good guys without guns can stop bad guys with guns, and here's a perfect illustration. A father took his family to a bank to open an account for their soon-to-be nine-year-old daughter. Her birthday was the day following. What's more fiscally conservative and responsible than teaching thrift?
As they sat at the new accounts desk, a bad guy with a gun walked in and announced a hold-up. (Some birthday present, wasn't it? Surprise, little girl!) Dad, also surprised, moved to serious anger in a split-second. He put himself between the gunman and his family, and assessed the situation. Father is a veteran and an excellent marksman, but he realized even with a handgun, there was too much that could go wrong. When the adrenaline is flowing, even a good guy doesn't hit his target every time at 25-feet. In fact, a miss is the rule, not the exception. Seasoned and responsible shooters know this.
Father couldn't rush the bad guy, there was too much distance, and had the bad guy turned and fired, he might have hit anyone. The remaining option was to wait the bad guy out and follow him. The instant the gunman cleared the exit, Father raced after him and followed him all the way to where the gunman lived. Dad didn't have a cell phone, so he ran to a phone booth, called 9-1-1, and within minutes the place was swarming with deputies.
The idiot gunman had even left rounds in a Styrofoam cup on the console of his vehicle. Long story short, the cops pelted bad guy's mobile home with BFR's (that's Big Effing Rocks for the uninitiated) and the bad guy emerged. He said he didn't rob the bank, but he had a great deal of difficulty explaining the bag of cash that was in his home.
He was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to 25-to-life because he was a career criminal. He died in prison recently, with about 15 years remaining on his sentence.
Turns out, he was a horrible sex offender, so by almost any definition he was a bad guy. Add the armed robbery to his resume, and he was by any definition, a bad guy with a gun. He was chased down by a good guy who had no gun. Shakes out like this. A good guy without a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun. There's other stories like that.
Mostly, I just want you to know that the good guys can win and we will win if we don't let the constant gun deaths recede to nothing more than background noise. I also want you to know that Wayne LaPierre is a liar and a stone-cold psychopath. He is the enemy you must know.
I am re-posting this challenge to the FR lefty liberals for the third time because I got no credible responses last Thursday and Friday. C'mon FR lefty liberals: Hillary is your favorite for succeeding King Barry the First in 2016, SURELY you can rise to the occasion and list five of her greatest accomplishments as SoS.
Nasty DumbFux??
Bev??
Seeking Stupidity??
Pigslop??
Jack-off in Port’s mouth??
Dr. Ron??
BlowJob1??
Outhouse??
Da Rhiod??
Jody, Planet Liberal??
Surely David Wanker can whip up a long-winded and boring 2,000 word essay on the glories of SoS Hillary??
Or MAYBE all this lefty liberal Hillary-worshiping is just mindless Clinton idolatry.
Pignorant Republicans want to obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct. But they are going to fail, fail, fail.
Who doesn't like a good fight?? I can't wait. It's drama, it's a reality show...politics is a reality show.
... well Joe in Alabaster, let me start you off with just one as I am sure you have a salmon on the grill and history shows that you can hold but one idle thought at a time.
Ms. Clinton saved the signing of an historic Turkish–Armenian accord that established diplomatic relations and opened the border between the two long-hostile nations.
Obstruct??? Cmon Pig you know that if the Hagel appointment would be done by a Republican, there wouldn't be a lib on this board forgiving him for his anti-gay remarks of the past. His apology of those remarks being "insensitive" is not an apology BTW.
I like President Obama's ( like the sound of that name) pick of Hagel for Defense. The Repugs are going nuts. "He's a turncoat, you know." Love out President challenging the Repugs on this one. I think more to follow.
Glad to see Hillary back to work, Boy, she's tough.
Hagel is anti-Israel ... of course he gets Obama's nomination ! Enough said ....
Truly Joe, your post as well as all your other post never deserve a reply since they are so intermixed with Fox facts and other downright false statements. As another poster has said there was an election and America won, republicans lost. So maybe, just maybe a majority of citizens at least the ones that vote are telling you that conservative fascist such as yourself are, and were wrong to try to lie your way back into power. This is only going to get better for America as the demographics change. You are wrong, you have always been wrong and you will always be wrong in the eyes of most Americans. So maybe you should just STFU and listen.
Hi Ron,
It looks like we Progressives need to make sure that these people are voted Out of Office. They are not fit to serve!
Ron Indiana
Good Morning Ron;
Great post! I endorse your comments 1000x. They are not fit to manage a dog shelter. The only solution to calm these cowardly, wayward, maniacs is the new "Thundershirt" product for treating the anxiety and fears of dogs.
When the Democrats have taken over the ideological spectrums of right, center(, and the left), there is not much the extremist RepubliCONs can do except staying on the sideline and continuing to be marginalized in US politics. The RepubliCONs only have themselves to blame.
Why pick Hagel? How about he'd be a really good target to throw cuts at, vilify for his stances, and he does align somewhat with the President. It's a win, win, win for the President. He'll maintain the President's international positions and fall in line, he'll say something that'll get the media's attention and suddenly the Republicans will be at fault for the Defense Department, and he'll get to deal with (and be the front man) when all of the defense cuts kick in- again a Republican at the head when the SHTF.
Not that surprising.
I see the 'we owe fidelity to Israel and Grover Norquist before the Nation' crowd is out playing in the mud of their own making.
jim numbers, Please produce proof that Hagel "hates" Israel?
Little Joey still thinks he's funny this morning. Get a life Joey nobody wants to read your drivel anymore. Besides SoS Clinton hhas way toe many accomplishments to list only one or two.
Just returned from vacation and I see Joe in Albany has gotten into "hysterical "baiting of many of the regular FR posters.
Hey Joe,
Hillary Clinton, along with the President, have kept us out a new wars, unlike the last administration of George W.
In the meantime,
I am getting ready for my trip to DC and looking forward to all the festivities of the inauguration.
In your honor, I will order salmon for my celebratory meal with friends in Georgetown on Jan 21.
I would like to remind everyone that today is the anniversary of the start of scumbag Bill Clintons impeachment trial. What a wonderful day for lefty liberals to celebrate. Sure would be nice to have so few brain cells that you don't care what a joke your leaders are.
blackcatwhitecat
All that Hilllary really did about the Turkish Armenian Accord was to help write an agreeable signing statement. The two countries were going to sign their accord but there was some disagreement with the acceptance speeches between the two countries. And we all know that a Clinton can parse words (Read LIE) very well. So I wouldn't count that as any big accomplishment from her. Everyone knows that the Clintons say one thing and mean another most of the time.
NorthstarDFL - What wars have they kept us out of? Remember that we don't go to war without Congressional approval. Except if you are Obama and just escalate them. Or stand back on the sidelines and say that NATO is doing the work, which we all know who NATO is.
Why is it always the republicans you libs? Seems to me he is facing a challenge from both sides of the aisle. Hell the lead in "headline" link even stated "Hagel Pick Under Fire from Both Parties".
You may want to reread the first paragraph of the article.
joe who did you blow in albany Nobody answered your challenge because no one cares!
Talk to the hand Why is it always the libs? Same question back to you. That holds true with you also.
@Johntho #1.16, Please provide proof you can read ! You did actually READ THE ARTICLE above before opening your yap didn't you ? His anti Israel remarks have also been on the airwaves ... if you clean out the wax occasionally, this would help you as well.
Also, please provide proof I said "hate" ... or we will ALL know you are a liar ! I merely said he was anti-Israel.
Hi Beverly: Thanks for the shout-out. I enjoyed your post as well.
JoeNY; For all of the reasons you said, I agree. Hagel is a real war hero and vetran of a mistaken war. Hagel has seen innoscent soldiers die becuase some white old man politician in Washington (Cheney) wants to use the big money military we have been investing in for all these years of peace. Hagel, unlike fake fiscal conservative Republicans, realizes the US military complex costs more than the next 11.75 countries spending combined. WTF!!!! We could cut our military spending by 73% and still have the most expensive military in the world. I do not garee with that as the job losses would be overwhelming to our economy, But Hagel knows we could cut $100 billion a year from our military by "conserving" our resources and avoid overpriced toys, recycling older ships and planes for 5 to 10 more years and using our military to defend the US, not put our nose where it does not belong.
When your party offers candidates such as Romney you don't exactly set the bar too high. What would his greatest achievement be? Implementing Romneycare, the model for the nation or as failed Governor who ranked 47th out of 50 states in job creation with one of the 3 that did worse the victim of the destruction of it's largest city by Katrina?.
Folks, why do you feed the Albanian idiot? His only value lies in keeping right-wing insanity, bigotry, unjustified hatred, and an "intellect vacancy" sign on view. However, there is nothing of substance that requires a response.
Let's proclaim this "Starve a Troll" week.
Its almost funny to see how in love with 0bama you libs are. He picks a gay bashing anti semitic bigot and you all think it's wonderful.
0bama could take a crap on your Cheerios and you would all come on here with glowing stories about 0bama supporting a fiber rich breakfast.
This has to be one of the lowest periods in our country's history. You people are willfully being dictated.
David Walker- So you want to make this a gun topic? Here goes:
1. Gun laws only apply to people whom abide by them. If all it took was a law to cure the ailes of society, then right now we should be living in a drug free, safe place, where all peoples have equal human rights, etc. Guess what- that's not the case. From what I hear heroin, cocaine, and many other illegal drugs continue to flow around the country- how can that be if they are illegal? Hey, how about passing an anti-gang law (can't exist)- they'd go right away and we'd never have to see tagging anymore, no more gun and drug crime, no more gang banging, no more justice system issues with the perps- that would be just great! How do you think that would work out???
2. With the newspapers whom are putting it upon themselves to distribute the names and addresses of gun owners, here's how to deal with them: 1. Stop buying their papers and stop your advertisements with them., 2. File a lawsuit against them for discrimination(they are pointing you out though you abide by the laws- maybe you won't get that new job if the business owner doesn't like guns[not that they would have known that you are a lawful owner otherwise], etc), violating your privacy, and so forth. I think this would be a great ACLU lawsuit because it directly violates your civil liberties to legally own guns.
3. To the state politicians whom are thinking of creating legislation publicizing gun owners as a matter of public record, I say if you plan on doing that then why not publish the names of everyone receiving government (public) aid- welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc. etc. etc. These people are receiving public money in the form of public aid so technically that's a matter of public record too. The difference is that no politician would ever advocate that because it's embarrasing to the users and they might vote. To me this is clearly anti-gun politicians exploiting a moment for their gain. If not then I want to know more about my politicians as they are our public representatives- their lives should be clearly presented to the public as they are public servants. I want to know how much they make, their investments, do they own a gun, do they drink, do they like porn, have they ever been sued, are they squeeky clean? I bet they'd balk at that one.
Hates gays. Hates Jews.
Defends Iran. Defends Hamas and defends Hezbollah.
Why wouldn't you want Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense?!
.
.
.
If you were president of IRAN!!!
Why must we have to listen to Israel regarding decisions made in the US. I, for one, am darn tired of them interfering in our internal affairs. From who is nominated to run for President to who should be a cabinet member or who we should be friends with, this interference is getting to be a bit much. We make extremely generous aid payments to Israel every year (3Bl) as of 2011, what fools we are to be giving our hard earned tax dollars to a wealthy country who then turns around and insults our President and the American people.
We need people like Chuck Hagel in our government, people who are straight shooters, decent and honest and will work for us to be a better country. You know he's good, if he has members of his party out to get him.
Had Clinton been able to run for a 3rd term he would have wiped the floor against Bush. A balanced budget, strong economy and 4.2% unemployment. No one cares about Bill's little indiscretions except RWNJ's. You are correct, Bush was a joke yet didn't leave many laughing.
Spine Doctor- Don't get me wrong, I do agree with you that cuts to defense are needed. Some "friends" note that there is rampant waste in procurement, there are annual increases in their budgets (so no "increases" is code for beyond the previously approved 3% annual increase), and as we've seen a lot of politician's friends seem to get great government contracts for things the military doesn't want (Osprey, etc.). We need some separation of the DOD from the lobbyists and the politicians, as well as let them determine what their budget cuts should come from.
David Walker
Trolls live on a steady diet of mommy's mac and cheese, so starving the buggers could take months.
Better just to back the car over them several times.
Salud
Joe in Albany
Hey Albanian idiot,
You were bagged at birth!!!!
Awww!!! Poor little Joe n albany, even if we listed SOS clinton accomplishments your silly, right wing minded a$$ wouldn't even believe it anyway. So why should we waste our time.
Hagel voted against voted against the Iraq war, is generally against intervention in the Mid-East, and is unliked by most politicians. So far so good.
JH-479998
Diplomacy works and walks at a seemingly snail's pace and what may seem small to the outside observer tends to loom large with the passage of time to those who ultimately live within a new framework.
http://www.dw.de/turkey-and-armenia-sign-accords-to-normalize-diplomatic-relations/a-4781064
As foreign ministers from Russia, France, the United States and the European Union looked on, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his Armenian counterpart, Edouard Nalbandian, signed two protocols at the University of Zurich on Saturday evening, re-establishing diplomatic ties and opening the border between the two nations.
But even as international dignitaries gathered to observe the signing, the Armenian representatives unexpectedly demanded a review of the closing statement's wording. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally managed to bring the parties together by arranging a compromise that led to no statement being read at the end of the signing ceremony.
So, in the end, both Davutoglu and Nalbandian signed the accord and shook hands to applause from onlookers. The European Union quickly welcomed the agreement.
"The European Commission warmly welcomes the signature by the Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers... of the protocols on establishing diplomatic relations and developing bilateral relations, including the opening of the common border," said a statement from the EU commission.
The statement further congratulated both parties on their efforts.
"The Commission considers it a courageous and far-sighted step forward towards peace and stability in the South Caucasus region and a truly historic decision showing readiness to compromise on both sides."
elliot Its almost funny to see how much you hate the President. But its even more funny to see one person carry so much hate. It must suck to be you to be so hateful. I guess to a right wing person hate is a family value. Or is it the one with the most hate the winner?
I'm so glad to see a govt once again being led by elderly white men! All that diversity under Bush was too much to handle.
*standing O* for Gingerbread Mamma!
The reaction from the right wing nitwits proves the President has made the correct choice, especially when it comes to defense "spending"! ;o)
Is it just me, or do the little parrots seem angrier than usual this morning? lol
Contrary to popular belief, try, try, and try again is often a recipe for disaster. Just look at our little miser Joey, the Albanian idiot, and his repeated attempts to copulate with railroad tracks. Every time he goes at it, the little choo-choo train that could ends up with splinters in his
dickersprivate parts. Trying to give little clueless Joey a list of SoS Hillary accomplishments is just like giving all the Obama haters a list of Obama accomplishments. We can list them, site them, quote them, source them, yadda, yadda, yadda, but they will never see them. It is time for the Joey's of the world (and I do mean baby Kangaroos) to think about removing the railroad tie from their a**es. The tar covering those wooden ties has literally gone to your head.PS - Ron and David - excellent posts!! Cheers and Kudos. Having been on the receiving end of a gun by many a conservative, I would venture to say that conservatives and guns don't mix. But alas, it is like trying to part the Albanian idiot from his railroad ties.
JoeNY
Even though there are traffic laws, bad people still run red lights. So should we get rid of traffic laws, too? It makes no more sense to deny that laws are desperately needed that require background checks for gun show purchases, the number of guns that can be purchased per year, and the kinds of guns and ammunition that can be purchased. Sure, bad guys will still find a way around these laws sometimes. But why make it easy on the bad guys? The real reason behind opposition to common-sense gun laws is that when bad guys buying guns it increases the gun industry's profits as much as when good guys buy guns.
JH-47..... OMG you DO love to live in the past, don't you? It must really frost you that, even after impeachment hearings, Bill Clinton could destroy ANY Republican that ran against him - even today, if he was allowed a 3rd term. Now go whine some more. It's all you have!
You assume that most Americans believe we should give Israel whatever it wants, smile as they build settlements outside their borders and promise to support them in any military actions they choose. The fact Obama was elected twice indicates that isn't true.
Watch out, Smitty has his word of the day and marching orders.
Concerning the choice of picking Chuck Hagel...Sometimes when one pisses off the extremes, one has made the perfect decision. Other time when most of both sides are pissed off, one has made the worst possible choice. The former or the latter ? Hmmmm...
Hey Ron, what's re-roofing buildings in Michigan got to do with Hurricane Sandy? What does fisheries in Washington state, or the island of Samoa got to do with the victims of a hurricane? You people are pathetic, relief is relief, not a bill filled with BS pet projects for Democratic Congressmen / women, for that matter why wasn't the orginal bill just about the hurricane? What part of broke do you not understand? Yes, relief for those poor souls, no to add on pork which made up half the original bill, typical Washington crap. Put that in your pipe pal.
the Senate Democrat-created Sandy relief bill is packed with tons of pork barrel spending, some of which won't even occur until after 2013:
The opposition to this man is from the Jewish lobby on the hill namely the NECONS and anybody those people hate is to shelf for me. Hagles so called sins are minor things. The opposition to him from democrats is because they think he should nominate a Democrat not because of his policoes and will vanish as the smoke clears. The article is a sham article as not on Democrat has offered any suggestion that he or she is actually opposed to Hagle and BTW at this time he has not even been nominated so you righties with you propoganda posts can go suck and egg.
Larry
You are one of those blind libs aren't you? If you think that scumbag Bill Clinton would have beat Bush because of how good things were going then why did Al Gore get beat? Like I said, it must be nice to have so few brain cells, you can go back to bed now.
Seeking Sanity - keep seeking you might find some.
You can respect an accuse rapist, womanizing, cheater, and liar all you want. It says a lot about you. How the heck could any woman approve of a scumbag like Bill Clinto? But if you don't have many brain cells it doesn't matter as long as the person is liberal, right? Please tell me why I'm living in the past, I just mentioned an anniversary that you and your ilk would like to remember.
Let the fight begin. The reality of today's GOP is simple: it does not matter who President Obama nominates, the GOPers will oppose that person for no other reason than to obstruct. Republicans, including McCain and Graham, praised Hagel as a senator, praised him in the years since he left, and now they attack him for the very things they once praised. The only reason the GOP isn't opposed to Senator Kerry's nomination is that they boxed themselves in when they did their character assassination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice while praising John Kerry. GOP = Hypocrites
As for Israel, since when does Israel dictate WHO the United States and WHO our President can select to head any agency? Hagel supports Israel, he just refuses to allow Israel to tell the USA what OUR foreign policy should be; he wasn't afraid to be critical of both Israel and Palestine. I say, good for being realistic and good for speaking what most likely is how majority of both Israelis and Americans feel. The GOPers get their noses out of joint over the UN, yet are willing to allow Israel to run our middle east policy.
As for Hagel's comment about gays, it was insensitive and harsh but it was a pretty common view back when he said it. We need to remember that. The LGBT community needs to step back and remember just how far we as a country have come since the 1990's. We had DADT signed by President Clinton. That is now gone. Former democratic Senator Jim Webb once believed that women should not have a role in combat. Democrats and republicans once believed gays should not serve in the military. Let us remember how far we've come and be accepting of an apology when an apology is given.
elliot Thats a snappy comeback. Hate works so well for you.
Hagel -- a man without a party?
WOW... it's not that hard to understand why RepubliCONs, the extremists, hate him so much. How dare Hagel to be...a man without a party?
"They've been fighting for 2000 years. It can't be much longer."
Zohan's mother, from "You don't Mess with the Zohan".
Seams to me, That if the Palastinians had their own country, the fighting would end, then Isreal wouldn't have any more political clout, .....oh, wait a minute.......
Salud
If people in both parties dislike him, he must be good!
JH - I've said it over and over and you prove it daily. Seeking sanity in the Republican party but as you, elliott, Joe in Albany, and others on this site prove - there is absolutely NONE to be found in the GOP!
"An accused rapist" - see here in the US no one is gulity until it is proved in a court of law. Try again.
And, there would still be thousands of Republicans who would vote for the man you vilify - Bill Clinton. You really can't stand the fact he can walk circles around any person the GOP puts up, can you?
GBM - Bravo to you. Being against Knitting-yahoos does not an anti-Semitic make. I too am sick of that right wing Israeli Jihadist, as are many of the Israelis. Why they allow that Romneyesque puppet to lead their nation is beyond me; apparently, when you arm school teachers with nukes and AK-47s, it means you also get to run a nation (much to the chagrin of the extremists in this country).
Knittingyahoo is a perfect example of why this country wouldn't elect Romney. May that skein (or ball of yarn) wad up and wither away. When Israel decides to come to the table of the 21st century and act like adults, they are more than welcome. Sadly, with their new decision to put up yet another fence, I don't see it happening anytime soon. The Lot and their fellow Sodomites are losers as long as they have the Knittingyahoo at the realm of their most powerful position. Kings Solomon and David would be ashamed.
Hey Jody, it was also common in Germany in the 30's and 40's to kill million's of Jews. Chuck Hagel is a damn homophobe, period. He's pathetic, it WAS NOT common to call gays names in the late 90's or 00's, only by bigots like Hagel, and here you are defending that bigot. If a "supposed" enlightened Senator can speak like that in the last 25 years in this country he is not the kind of "leader" I want in DC. He is going to have a damn hard road to get in, but Obama wanted a fight, and he'll damn sure get one, and it won't be from republicans. Obama has to be totally stupid to use his "capital" on this loser Republican.
For the love of GOD.......what does RACE have to do with it???????????
Ron, great post.
Albany Joe, to put it so that you can easily understand, your comments aren't worth reading let alone answering; I skip right by them daily. I do not respond to anyone whose attempt to get an answer involves deriding and name calling. The only reason I even noticed today is that you double spaced a long list of names and then added your childish and idiotic HAHAHAHAHAs. You, Joe, deserve no answer so you will not get one from me--not because I cannot answer but simply because I do not respond to arrogant drivel from an inane drone.
First Thoughts: Hagel -- a man without a party
==========
Although I'm certain, meant as a slight against, I think the title says it all. Maybe we need more people like this in Government today. Love him or hate him, I can at least appreciate the notion that he not known as another, typical 'Republican' Senator.
Like the article says, as many as 10 Democrats might be no votes on Hagel. But do liberals mention that fact? No, they just rip Republicans. Liberals are hypocrites, the do as I say not as I do new Democratic Party of the people. Complain about tax breaks for the wealthy, but not when Democrats stuff the fiscal cliff deal with breaks for the rich. Complain about Republicans questioning Hagel's appointment, but not the Democrats which are going to do the same thing. Although the Democrats that are opposed will probably just sell out for some special interest spending to come their way. It is hard to take liberals seriously when the only standards they demand are for those in the other party.
As for Clinton beating Bush if he could have run for a third term, I think he would have. But then, Clinton would have had to deal with the downturn in the economy due to the dot.com bust. And don't forget, 9-11 which also hurt the economy. I would rather have had a republican president when our country was attacked rather than a democrat. Don't forget, it was under Clinton when the USS Cole (2000) was attacked, and our embassies in Kenya (1998) and the Marine Barracks in Saudi Arabia (1996) and the first attack on the World Trade Center (1993). Clinton knew it was Osama Bin Laden and the CIA had found him in Afghanistan in 1998 yet he delayed in letting the military take him out with cruise missiles (which were fired too late, Bin Laden had left 30 minutes earlier). Democrats don't make good military leaders and republicans don't make good domestic policy leaders.
And just so you know, I voted for Clinton...twice.
.
yet you applaud, encourage and defend Fisty despite that thing doing the same thing you despise...
BTW you did answer Joe..
<cough> HYPOCRITE <cough>
JCB #'s -
What did those House members spend their time on since 2010? Trying to legislate women and naming post offices. Apparently fiscal matters were not on the top of their list. A more productive use of time would have been writing legislation that requires CLEAN Bills.
As usual Joe in Albany starts with a straw man assumption "Hillary is teh liberals choice!" and runs with it. Let me check it off for you Joe.
Arsenic is a liberal, Arsenic can't stand the Clintons, and Arsenic will wait till about 2015 before Arsenic decides on who to vote for. By then, after the Republican Meltdown of 2012-2014, there could be a replacement party to consider.
You, and your party, are barely relavent any more.
Think about it-3099387
As for Clinton beating Bush if he could have run for a third term, I think he would have. But then, Clinton would have had to deal with the downturn in the economy due to the dot.com bust. And don't forget, 9-11 which also hurt the economy. I would rather have had a republican president when our country was attacked rather than a democrat. Don't forget, it was under Clinton when the USS Cole (2000) was attacked, and our embassies in Kenya (1998) and the Marine Barracks in Saudi Arabia (1996) and the first attack on the World Trade Center (1993). Clinton knew it was Osama Bin Laden and the CIA had found him in Afghanistan in 1998 yet he delayed in letting the military take him out with cruise missiles (which were fired too late, Bin Laden had left 30 minutes earlier). Democrats don't make good military leaders and republicans don't make good domestic policy leaders.
And just so you know, I voted for Clinton...twice.
============
I get the whole, I voted for Clinton twice therefore my statements are valid angle, but I guess in your '30 minutes late' comment, I'm not getting a whole lot of meat on the bone as to the context of this 30 minutes and what evidence are you using to make the sweeping statements about Dems and foreign policy and for that matter Republicans and domestic policy (although for the record, I think Federal and State actions from GOP leaders speak more than loudly on the domestic policy front, so I am already with you on that one).
Gingerbread, cheers! That is precisely the point, well said.
Cannot help wondering if the GOPers legislators frequent comments and demands to end all foreign aid includes foreign aid to Israel; perhaps the media can ask that they next time any GOPer suggests ending foreign aid.
Spine Doctor,
Every community under 100,000 in the US could have free renewable power stations built with that 73% Defense cut, and we would still have the largest military world.
That would make us the most economically competitive nation in the world, because nothing increases productivity and profit like free power.
Of course, that would allow millions of Americans to work thier way out of being wage/debt slaves to the kleptocracy of our current plutocrat/congressional cabal.
That ain't gonna happen peacefully.
Seeking Sanity - You will never find it!!
The far left liberals who post on this site are too far gone to ever help. There are still many good democrats but there are getting to be way too many far left loons. And I count you as one right up at the top of the loon list. You being female (not a lady though), could you please explain why you defend that scumbag Bill Clinton? Do you remember when Patty Murray first came to the Senate? Patty and Hillary joined forces to get rid of any GOP member that ever said anythjing nice to a woman. Remember Bob Packwood? How about the Secretary of the Navy? They tried to get him stripped of his pension when he retired because he was in charge at the time of the Tailhook party. He wasn't there but he was in charge. You idiots applaud that type of reaction only when it furthers your political agenda. Then scumbag Bill takes advantage of an intern and we hear nothing but silence from your ilk. You are disgusting. You will never convince me that scumbag Bill Clinton is anything but a scumbag.
Happy Anniversary scumbag Bill on your impeachment trial. (my way of respecting a scumbag)
FR:
Gregory should have asked McConnell if he was willing to kill the hostage if his demands aren't met. Maybe it's time to send in the SWAT team to rescue the hostage, which happens to be the global economy that will go into recession if the US defaults on its debts.
Gee, jim I see not one word in the article about Hagel "hating" anyone. He spoke out against the abuses of the Israel lobby. Thats wrong? I really don't think you have enough feet on the ground here. Maybe it is you that is reading something into nothing, which by the way, which is a conservative fascist trait.
Don't Carry It All's quote "JCB #'s -
Couldn't agree with you more, that's why the republican party is pathetic, as is the democratic party. Neither are responsible, and are both disgraceful and cowardly. I don't vote party, I vote person, though most times I hold my nose doing it. It's most often two evils, you just choose the smaller poison.
Nonsense, Most liberals believe in people being treated equally whether gay or women on female rights issues but unlike right wingers we don't foam at the mouth when someone disagrees. That's why democrats almost never get unanimous support on anything. There are lots of pro gun democrats. What difference would a mans views be who has no power to implement any policy other then what the president supports?
The media are the ones that are building this nomination into a crisis. They need to drop it and let the process continue without them adding all the drama.
How about doing some real news? Like a special report on gerrymandering?
JH-479998
Seeking Sanity - You will never find it!!
The far left liberals who post on this site are too far gone to ever help. There are still many good democrats but there are getting to be way too many far left loons. And I count you as one right up at the top of the loon list. You being female (not a lady though)...
=============
Wait a minute, you're going to bust out with "good democrats" are getting overwhelmed by 'far left liberals' and then recognize someone as female, but 'not a lady' and then we are supposed to wait with eager anticipation what sound and rational argument you want to present?
Yeah, you run with that.
JCB, what the heck does Nazi Germany and the Holocaust have to do with America's past anti-gay views? You cannot make a remote comparison of the two; in fact, by invoking the Holocaust as your argument, you disrespect the horrors of it as well as the Jewish community. BTW, JCB, apparently you've not paid much attention to far worse comments made by conservatives even today regarding gays than Hagel's comment. After all, conservative so-called Christian preachers blame just about every natural disaster on Gays.
Thumbs up ^... Chuck tells it like it is....
Hahahahahahahaha!
Tomas are you related to a "troll"?
The pink, fat thing, who unfortunately started this argument column, is "mama-Troll". I think everyone knows that by now.
I see your drinking the media koolaid. WE WILL NEVER DEFAULT ON OUR DEBT!! Never happen, because we take in enough revenue monthly to service our debt, but not enough money to keep this monster size government we have created going. We would pay off our obligations to other countries as far as our debt service, social security, medicare, medicaid, etc...would be paid with no problem, but the parks, epa, cabinet offices would temporarily close as would Congress. That might be a good thing. Maybe it will bring about a beginning to end the insanity in which DC lives, with money it doesn't have. But, I have no illusion, DC is full of cowards on both sides of the aisle.
One more thing, after that supposed "downgrade" last year, we saw more buying of our debt from other countries than ever before, and that is a fact. A sad fact, because we are so collectively stupid to continue to spend money we don't have.
@johnnytoehold #1.73, Wow ! What a "douchy" reply from you !!
In #1.9, I merely said Hagel is anti-Israel, prompting your ASININE demand in #1.16 that I prove he hates Israel (which I never said to begin with). Then you throw out utter garbage trying to deflect from your demonstrated idiocy in your asinine post at #1.73 .... once again trying to imply I said something I did not.
Logic and integrity are obviously STRANGERS to you ... you might be a LIBERAL !! Epic failure by you !!!
I'll tell you how I feel about Bill Clinton, if he had declared himself king for life in 2000, I not only would have supported it I would have campaigned for it. The American people spoke about his little indiscretion in electing him to a second term. It just did not matter to a MAJORITY of Americans. It had nothing to do with the running of the country and was a matter of fact blown way out of proportion by the right wing azzholes in congress. We not only would have avoided 9/11 as Clinton was better then Bush in every aspect of running the country we would have avoided the financial melt down caused in part by two unpaid for wars, and an undeserved tax cut aimed primarily at the uber rich. By now the debt ceiling would not even have to be considered, he would have paid the debt, and balanced the budget, and perhaps we could have had health care for everyone not for just those that financially well off. You conservative fascist suck big toes in my opinion, it is basically all you are good for. Well there is always the laugh you give me for being so dumb as to believe you can afford to be a republican.
jim-1455434
Logic and integrity are obviously STRANGERS to you ... you might be a LIBERAL !! Epic failure by you !!!
===================
No, anyone who says dumb crap like this is flirting with the borderline of 'epic failure'.
JH-47998 . . .
Takes ADVANTAGE of an intern who SAVED her dress so that she'd have a bargaining chip in the future? Took two to tango in that litte affair and Monica wanted to tango ... badly! Good grief. How's that glass house you live in? Did you vote for Gingrich? His picture is next to the word scumbag when it comes to affairs.
GingerbreadMama, great post this morning and Jody, loved the response to the Albanian troll.
Yay more gridlock! Eff you, DC!
JH - you are correct. I will never find any sanity in the Republican party - as you confirm with each and every post!
That "intern" had gone to Washington with the stated purpose of having sex with the President. That was after she followed a married Professor from her home state when he moved to Iowa - to continue an affair with him, after he had wanted to stop it. So, let's not make dear little Monica out to be an innocent - since she clearly wasn't.
Bill Clinton was totally wrong to get involved with her but let's not bring personal issues into the Presidency or dear little Mr. Bush would be crucified!
Your assessment of me is of no concern since you are hardly what I would consider a man! Your hatred of President Obama has warped any intelligence you MIGHT have once had and your constant dragging of Bill Clinton into the conversation shows a really unhealthy obsession with him. You might want to seek help - again, no sanity at all in the Republican party - no class either!
Incredible.....starting with the first comment on the thread, the preprogrammed, automatic reflex lib idiots jump all over the GOP, despite the fact that the article clearly states that there are Dems who are also opposed to the Hagel appointment, most notably those favorite sons & Daughters of the left....the gays! So, why aren't you libs blasting Barney Frank and his merry band of guys & gals???????
Hey Pig,
Guess you missed THIS line in the story...
jim, you might be a conservative fascist, oh wait, that is what you are. So ok, where is he anti-Israel? Which by the way would equate to hate Israel in conservative tones. Totally trumped up as everything else the republican party does. The failure is in the republican party, the failure to recognize that Obama was RE elected and gets to make appointments and they should be of his choosing not the whack jobs of the G.O.P. You jim are the insignificant whiner from the right side that has his hat handed to him and is shown the door every single time you post. Idiot would be a level of intelligence above yours.
You liberal kook, who the hell do you think you are? Who made you the "decider"? Gay's have been discriminated in this country to this very day, they have been indeed murdered, and beaten for their sexuality, and I can use any analogy I want. Funny, your so worried about the jewish community as you defend the jerk who is completely disliked and by that very "community" that you speak about, they can't stand Hagel by a huge %. My point is people thought is was ok to kill people for whom the differed with, based on nothing but hatred, the kind you throw around here on a daily basis. What the hell does "Christian preachers" have to do with Hagel using homophobic remarks? or "conservatives" using homophobic remarks, the discussion is about Chuck Hagel jerk, and what Hagel has stood for in his public service. He is a republican loser, who happens to be wrong for the job he's nominated for based on his positions and his actions, period.
Joe in Albany,
I will respond to your question by giving you things to read about Hillary Clinton's accomplishments:
http://www.politonomist.com/hillary-clinton-achievements-thus-far-001409/
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/30424/secretary-clinton%E2%80%99s-accomplishments-in-africa-blunted-by-junk-politics/
It is important to research before writing. It also pays to be well mannered. Please, for your sake, demonstrate this two things when you post.
To everyone on this seed. I believe that Hagel is a good choice. He appears, at least to me, as someone who would rather not go to war and this might be the real reason that people oppose him. If their corporate masters are defense industry corporations, they definitely would not like someone who would rather keep our children at home than send them to give their all.
PublicSpeech
Listen Chuckles. We all know you have very been lonely ever since you're sister married your brother.
Get help.
Salud
Wow you're a sharpie. Number one, Gore wasn't Clinton and had no more to do with our economy and surplus then Bush did. Number two Bush didn't beat Gore. Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. I'm sorry with your high intellect you didn't know that. Bush was declared the winner by the SCOTUS not by the ballot box and not by the majority of Americans.
Now, if we could just figure out who his eyes adored, or was he the object of the twinkle in his daddy's eye?
Hagel is a quasi libertarian (regarding foreign entanglements), a sane republican who didn't whole heartedly tap dance to George Bush's visions of conquest. He spoke his mind against, the Iraq surge and also against Obama's Afgan surge. He appears to be a man that speaks his mind and doesn't play politics he doesn't do the status quo all the time. That is the reason both sides are coming against him. The below is to give some perspective for those that falsely parrot that Hagel is anti-israel and pro Iran.
Chuck Hagel's views on war forged by Vietnam experience.
By Mike Mount
Badly burned after his armored personnel carrier hit a land mine in Vietnam, Chuck Hagel sat in a medical evacuation helicopter thinking of the horrors he had experienced during combat.
"If I ever get out, if I ever can influence anything, I will do all I can to prevent war," he would later tell his biographer, Charlyne Berens.
It was a seminal moment for the young soldier turned Nebraska senator who sources now say will be nominated by President Barack Obama to become the next secretary of defense.
Should he be nominated to replace current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Hagel would bring to the Pentagon a distinct bias against armed conflict forged during the Vietnam War.
Hegal volunteered to join the Army and ended up serving a yearlong tour in 1968 during the Tet Offensive, considered the most violent period in that war. Because of a clerical error, he served side by side with his younger brother.
He earned two Purple Hearts, one of which was for saving his brother's life. The second Purple Heart was for shrapnel he took in the chest while on patrol with his brother; his brother saved his life by patching up the wound.
After coming home, Hagel worked briefly as a newscaster, then had a career in business, before entering public service as a Republican senator from Nebraska. He served in that role from 1997 to 2009.
Hagel's time in Vietnam forged his thoughts about combat for the rest of his life, earning him a reputation on Capitol Hill as someone with an independent streak that meant he was sometimes at odds with his Republican colleagues.
"Not that I'm a pacifist - I'm a hard-edged realist, I understand the world as it is - but war is a terrible thing. There's no glory, only suffering," he is quoted as saying in his 2006 biography, "Chuck Hagel: Moving Forward."
Hagel opposed the troop surge in Iraq, as did Obama, calling it, "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." He similarly opposed Obama's surge in Afghanistan and called for deep cuts in defense spending.
Those and other positions did not sit well with Hagel's Republican colleagues, and they hurt his chances to move up the ranks to power positions.
Most recently, Hagel has taught at Georgetown University while serving as co-chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.
While serving in the Senate, Hagel became close with then-Sen. Obama, and they seemed to find common ground on the use of military force and on Hagel's fairly moderate approach to foreign relations issues. Obama also appreciated Hagel's willingness to buck his own party.
Hagel, Obama and Sen. Jack Reed toured parts of the Middle East, including Iraq, in 2008.
"It was an extraordinary trip," Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat, told CNN's Security Clearance. "There was just an exchange of ideas about the region, and I think the president was also impressed with not only (Hagel's) understanding but the questions he raised, not just with the president but with the foreign leaders that we met."
Hagel and Obama also have common ground when it comes to Iran. Both believe in open dialogue with Iran, though Hagel has argued against sanctions, while the president has tightened the screws on Iran with tougher sanctions.
"By refusing to engage Iran, we are perpetuating dangerous geo-political unpredictabilities," Hagel said in a 2007 speech. "Our refusal to recognize Iran's influence does not decrease its influence but rather increases it. Engagement creates dialogue and opportunities to identify common interests, demonstrate America's strengths, as well as make clear disagreements," he said.
In September, Hagel co-authored an opinion piece in the Washington Post backing the idea of "keeping all options on the table" for stopping Iran's suspected nuclear program.
"Since the consequences of a military attack are so significant for U.S. interests, we seek to ensure that the spectrum of objectives, as well as potential consequences, is understood," it read. The piece did not rule out the possibility of using military force.
For Hagel, getting to the Pentagon would mean overcoming vocal opposition from pro-Israel groups and others who object to his stance on Iran and Hamas. Hagel has opposed efforts to isolate militant groups such as Hamas.
He has also faced opposition from gay-rights groups, strong supporters of Obama's election campaign, for a comment Hagel made in 1998 in which he questioned whether a nominee for an ambassadorship was suitable because he was "openly, aggressively gay." He apologized for that remark in December.
If nominated and confirmed, Hagel would be handed the challenge of closing the final chapter on the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and overseeing the continued footprint of a smaller U.S. training force there.
Hagel has been critical of U.S. policy in Afghanistan. In 2009 he opposed Obama's 30,000-troop surge, telling the National Journal, "I'm not sure we know what the hell we are doing in Afghanistan."
"It's not sustainable at all; I think we're marking time as we slaughter more young people," he said. Later he called for the United States to stop its "nation-building" there.
He would also have to tackle the Pentagon's budget. Hagel has said in the past that be believes the Pentagon's budget is too big.
"The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated," Hagel said in a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. "So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down."
CNN's Barbara Starr and Dana Ford contributed to this report.
Maybe gun control will finally move in the right direction...
I'm encouraged by the “far broader” and “more comprehensive” campaign statement as all the talk about 'bans' will do little if anything about our gun problem. For all the drivel from the NRA about how gun laws only affect 'responsible gun owners' because the criminals ignore the law, the part that the NRA always glosses over is the fact that all guns start out 'legal'. Somehow some of those same responsible gun owners that they defend manage, through either stupidity or dishonesty, to let guns slip into the hands of criminals or wackos.
Lots of activities/occupations require a education, licensing and/or bonding before you do them (driving, medical, food handling, locksmith, the list can go on...) because public safety is involved, why not gun ownership? Isn't that the 'responsible' thing to do?
Another case of “Selective Morality Syndrome” or SMS… is described as a disease that crosses party lines and circulates mostly in the political circles of the United States Congress, but has been identified at the state level. SMS can go dormant for years while partisan politics play out, politicians sometimes will serve for years or even decades together without ever having any “serious” issues between them, only when the other person is nominated for a cabinet level position does Selective Morality Syndrome appear. When it does everybody and their brother who was ever a “friend”, colleague or “unidentified source who want to remain anonymous” has a problem with something the other person has said or did in years past… “…oh he’s anti-gay… or said stuff about Jews that made people really mad…” or as in the case of a nominee in past (Sen. John Tower (R) Texas) for SECDEF, “…he’s a drunk and a womanizer…”.
The problem that I have is not whether any of the accusations are true or not, they probably are, but why are those things from the past an issue now, they were not serious issues when the guy was “drinking and womanizing” so why should it be an issue for you now? I think it really says a lot about the people who let stand the “drunks and a womanizers” and other bad actors in our government until they are offered a position at higher levels of government. But these same people will have no such problem taking money or favors from non-governmental bad actors with even lower moral qualities who would use them for personal, political or business gains and also allow themselves to be used. Pick any name from that list and try to make a case that nobody knew the true or changed character of these people once they got a taste of power.
Randall Harold Cunningham
James Traficant
Bob Ney
Samuel B. Kent
Jack Abramoff
Tom DeLay
William J. (Cold Cash) Jefferson
Larry Craig
Barbara-Rose Collins
Wes Cooley
Dan Rostenkowski
Walter Fauntroy
David Durenberger
William (I did not have sex with that woman) Clinton
James G. Watt
Caspar Weinberger
Michael Myers (not that Michael Myers)
Richard (I am not a crook) Nixon
Spiro Theodore Agnew
H. R. Haldeman
…and that is just the “some” of the bad actors who were indicted or sent to prison, impeached or resigned.
@johnnytoesucker, I will send you an extra large tube of Preparation H .... apply liberally. Anyone who cares to follow your first idiotic post to me where you misquoted me, then have been despersately trying to spin it ever since ... they will understand.
Again, maybe you missed out on R.I. F. program .... Reading is Fundamental. The article mentions anti-Israel issues, but apparently you never read the article ! Then, of course, you make a fool out of yourself ... only to repeat ! LOL !!
huskergal: Thank you for your post. There are many who will appreciate it. But not one RWNJ will even read it.
Hagel is an excellent choice. We need to quit flushing money down the Pentagon toilet.
@insanity
Yeah Bill Clinton would win because, in liberals minds, theres nothing wrong with him doing Monica in office....and lying about it.
Poor Hegel. He towed the GOP Party line in his time and, now that the party has changed, they are blaming him.
He wasn't a big supporter of Israel when the GOP in general wasn't a big Israel supporter (It's a wonder what alot of donation will do to a party). He was anti-gay when it was okay to be vocally anti-gay.
Either way, it's fun to watch the GOP eat its own.
Joe in Albany: The best punishment that you can ever endure is to be who and what you are. your post just shows so much unhappiness. Blame the libs, blame the .....(insert group here).
Joe: First of all I don't think she will run in the next election. but as for qualifications. try reading her resume. it's clear that you hate whom you are told to hate. Anyone who has ever tried to do good for "we the people" is the target of you and the right wing. people like you simply cannot understand that in a country of close to 500 million people, that fitting them all into two little groups "us and them" is at best pure foolishness. I can't get five people in a room to agree on what topping to put on a pizza, and you thing , all liberals are, all conservatives are, all..........(insert group here). etc.
So what do your posts tell me? they tell me that you are a bot. you follow the emotional rants of O'reilly, Rush and hannity, and then try to make yourself seem important or even intelligent. it's not working.
How to appease a far right republican?
Recommended readings: If you Give a Mouse a Cookie
It seems there is nothing this administration can do that will please the far right. There is no correct answer except to do exactly what the far right wants. The concept of compromise has been completely abandoned. Yes, I read the article and it mentions Democrats are having trouble with the nomination as well, however, if you read the comments it is only the Republicans complaining.
I have seen several posters mention that since both sides are complaining it must be good, none of these comments seemed to come from those who lean right.
JCB-1236504
The Koolaid I've been drinking is the consensus reality koolaid. Even the Wall Street Journal has warned that not raising the debt ceiling would be a disaster.
It's a fact because foreigners think that it's safer to keep their money in the US than in countries that are politically and economically unstable. If the Republicans succeed in destabilizing this country, they'll start withdrawing their money and the destabilization will accelerate.
This is hilarious! Leftists defending the homophobic anti-semitic bigot from the "extreme" Republicans. I swear, if Obama nominated David Duke you leftists would be claiming he was misunderstood.
Too funny :D
Pigotry
In the mind of a liberal anything short of blind obedience is considered "obstructionist".
IQ-22 - I hardly doubt Obama would nominate KKK David Duke. Perhaps in your fantasy land, that same fantasy land that had Romney winning the election by a landslide.
george pauljohn
Ok, first off, 311 million isn't remotely close to 500 million. Perhaps knowledge of basic facts would bolster your case. Another detriment to the point your attempting to make is your blatant hypocrisy. If "us and them" is pure foolishness then your comment -"Anyone who has ever tried to do good for "we the people" is the target of you and the right wing" makes you a fool by you by your own admission and standard.
Akeem, New Jersey
Exactly, just like the democrats compromised with Bush after they took control of Congress his final two years. Oh...wait... I almost forgot. It was the democrats who were the original "party of no". How quickly we forget. Especially when it is something we never wanted to remember in the first place.
The hypocrisy is amazing. Both parties constantly bitching about the other guys doing exactly what their own party does. And we wonder why the people we elect can't work together? It's because the morons who elect them don't really want them to and only blind puppets fail to see this.
Funniest thing I'll ever read on this board "but let's not bring personal issues into the Presidency"
I don't care which party you favor, that right there is some funny stuff!
I would not call it hypocrisy, I understand both situations and I do not see anywhere it was written that I approved of the Democrats'action. So where are you getting this hypocrisy from?
Either way I believe it is foolish to try and make a serious attempt to compare the actions of the Democrats against Bush to what we have seen with the Republicans against the current administration.
Ron of indiana...
So sorru to hear about your continuing mental diminishment. I thought you were going to keep up your meds...
Conservatives want to go back to the old ways and not change???
Hmmm. reid wanted obama to take us over the cliff, but obama had the good sense (for once) to have ol' joe handle senate negotiations.
Obama still thinks that as POTUS it is still his way or no way. What's up with threatening vetoes? Hasn't he got confidence in the senate to offer up bills requiring reconciliation with the house?
Simpson-bolles gave the unflattering analysis that reforms needed to be made on entitlements and military spending. I wonder why oba,ma didn't veto the recent military appropriation that were passed overwhelmingly by both the house and senate? Could it be that congress had more than enough votes to overthrow him?
Speaking about entitlement reform just how much back peddling to the past do we have to see from obama and company. The great pbama wants to maintain or at the very least maintain the status quo here. It should come as no surprise that once again SS and medicare are in trouble, yet obama and company thinks that ignoring it is oh so much better than addressing it.
During the passage of the 1986 tax reform act congress was also to make significant spending cuts. Amazing how we saw our tax structure change, but that the spending cuts never really did materialize now did they. Talk about going back in time it appears the same is happening again only at a smaller level with the right moving forward on selected rates and the democrats wanting to ignor the other side of the equation on spending cuts.
Seems more that the left wants to return to the days of spend, spend and spend some more.
Bigredmch - what's funny about your post is that not only would Democrats vote for Bill Clinton again but, as in the past, many Republicans would too - which got him elected both times~
american - (which all of us are by the way) I love how your post totally ignores the past - Bush - and his deciding it was his way or not at all - as he clearly stated and Cheney agreed with him. The rest of your post is nonsense - as usual for Republicans!
If Nobama and Dems like/want Hagel, the we had better look at why very carefully before we approve him....
Larry,
The Supreme Court refused to hear the Gore case so you are wrong on that, plus if Gore had just carried his home state he would have been President but he lost Tennessee.
On Hagel it is not only Israel. He was one of 4 Senators who voted no on calling Iran's Guard a terrorist organization, he was also one of a handful of Senators who voted against sanctions on the murderous government of Syria. He is also anti-gay, and because you apologize 10 years later does not mean that you are really sorry.
Akeem, New Jersey
Of course you wouldn't, those who are guilty of it rarely admit it even to themselves. The hypocrisy is those in both parties who call out the other guys while ignoring the actions of their own party. Sort of like this-
Funny because I don't recall the republicans ever standing up and applauding the fact that they wouldn't let the President get anything he wanted. But I suspect that you don't recall the dems ever doing that to Bush either. Allow me to remind you- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mqSXsNJzRM
It seems the Presidents first five picks for his new cabinet are going to be white males, where are the calls about how he hates women, blacks, and Hispanics.
His pick for the Treasury Department is a former head of Bain Capital who happens to be his Chief of Staff, yet none of his supporters complain.
It seems you do not read what I actually write Backcountry but seem to make your own interpretation. I was not hypocritical. Now let me explain why you are, in fact, a hypocrite. You accuse me of letting the Democrats off while attacking the Republicans, and to prove it you attack the Democrats, except you actually did excuse Republicans in saying. I am not sure how to respond to you because you are actually making no sense. You somehow in one swoop contradicted yourself twice...
You then attempt to make the argument that I had called foolish, by using a single incident and want me to believe I was proven wrong. I never ignored what the Democratic party did, it is just evidently clear that the Republicans have been far worse. I never excused anyone.
Akeem, New Jersey
I never made any excuse for anyone, you are the only one attempting that. I mention "both parties" every time I made a critical comment that wasn't directed specifically at you.
"Both parties constantly bitching...", "The hypocrisy is those in both parties who..."
You are the only one calling out just ONE party. Pretty hard to misconstrue this -"
"How to appease a far right republican? Recommended readings: If you Give a Mouse a Cookie"
Where exactly is your equal criticism of the left or the dems??
Sure sounds like an excuse to me.
I do not want to go in a back and forth on language.. I am not saying that both sides have to be mentioned for fair criticism. You quoted what I said before and used it as an example of hpocrisy. It was you who implied as if unless I include a blow to the Democrats in my response, I am a hypocrite. You then responded to me doing essentially what I had just done. You took a jab at the Democrats without saying anything about the Republicans.
Akeem, New Jersey
I pointed out that sort of hypocrisy exists in BOTH parties. And if someone bitches about one party while ignoring the fact that their party does the EXACT SAME THING, they are, by definition, a hypocrite. Look up the word if you don't understand what it means.
No, YOU were the only one taking jabs at anyone. I gave an example showing democrats doing EXACTLY what you accuse the "right wing" of doing. YOU were the ONLY one BITCHING about one side even though the other side does the EXACT SAME THING. THAT is hypocrisy. I despise BOTH parties equally albeit for different reasons.
David Walker post 1.3
What an irresponsible post!
While it is true that you can disarm someone with a gun, the odds are far against you. There are far more people seriously injured and killed because they tried to disarm someone without a weapon.
Even in martial arts training they tell people, if they have a knife, you can take your chances, if the have a gun cooperate!
Our heroine Hillary is back to work today ... to finish up her last few days at the State.
We are all waiting for her much-anticipated next move...to be Madamme President in 4 years.
No No. that is what she is mainlining in her veins not what she is. Besides people with concussions and blood clots also have a good chance of brain damage and memory loss (we'll see when/if she takes the stand) and are disqualifiers for the presidency. Better latch onto another band wagon.
It seems like Hillary is at the center of the Behghazi coverup ... of COURSE she would be your heroine !
jim...hahaha...no response merited.
Looks like Jim and Ben are scared to death of Hilary, as well they should be.
Looks like Mo cannot make a comment of substance ... but has a compulsion to RUN HIS MOUTH anyway !
If Hillary WERE to run and WERE to win ... who would she blame the massive $22 trillion in debt upon ? After all Bill paid his dues by supporting Bam-Bam ... but the blame Bush thingy will be quite OLD by then.
jim & ben Its a conspiracy! Their does that make you guys feel better. Its not like this never happened during the last administration. You know 9-11-01. They had intelligence reports that it was going to happen. So give it a rest. You can only beat a dead horse so long.
No response merited, yet you responded to say that. Doesn't that mean a response was merited?
Chuckle...Hey, Bookem' Danno, Thanks for the humor ...to start a new year ..
sophistry?
Bookem' Danno, change your screen name to 'sophie'!!
@Mo - f'ing "A" I am scared. You see the size of those thighs????? Puts Ray Lewis to shame. She's injured and should stay on the sidelines like RGIII should have. Both promising careers more than likely shot.
Ben Looking at Ray Lewis thighs now? I thought you republicans were not like that. Still in the closet? Its ok to come out. We understand that your just coming to grips with that part of you. That explains your anger.
who would she blame the massive $22 trillion in debt upon
The debt is for paying for Bushs bills and the failure of the economy thanks to you right wingnuts who all said deficit spending was a good thin but meant only if Repukes did it. get real
Bush took office the debt was 5.4 trillion and after all his bills added up it was 11.6 trillion. I know the right wing think tanks all like to feather that into Obama's term but that is reality and the only people who believe those numbers are the right wing fools who get their info from faux spews.
Ben, you comments about blod clots causing brain damage is not true. Can they cause brain damage? Yes. Do they always cause brain damage - not even close. Try again. You again look the fool making a general statement about things you know nothing about
I believe we are saying Ben can't turn away from a Minneapolis bathroom - either that, or he has an innate fear of having his cheek-bones crushed from using his head as a thigh cruncher. He may be on to something, blood clots, like tin-foil hats, have a way of distorting reality. Indeed, look for another band wagon.
Uh, Miss Piggy, Hilary has some 'splainin' to do about Benghazi.
Don't make any bets on Hilary PIG, SEEKING people Like the PIG here would not know the diffidence when she makes a statement that her blood clot caused her to forget things. They will take that as the truth and post with that all day not even to bother check if it true or not. BREADEX after 01/01/2013 Obama owns the debt all $22 trillion. by the way the dept when your boy took office was $10.626 trillion in Jan. 2011 it was $14.071 trillion. Obama has spent a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day). Under Bush presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year. How does that compare to Obama? During Obama's presidency to date, the national debt has risen by an average of $1.723 trillion a year — or by a jaw-dropping $1.116 trillion more, per year, than it rose even under Bush.
What would be the reaction from you leftists if a Republican tried to nominate a guy who tried to block the Ambassadorship of someone because they were gay?
How you would howl!
But now that it is an Obama nomination you are silent.
Hypocrites.
SS -- appropriate initials for the beloved Stormtroopers "Brown Shirts" in WWII and you -- what part of "a good chance" do you not understand? Did I say "always?" No. Do I know about traumatic brain injuries, concussions, blood clots in the brain, I surely do. So for a fool just look in your mirror.
*gasp* say it aint so
Ben (@2.1) I certainly noticed the word "also".
Oh please Q22, being gay was the least of that nominee's issues.
Ben - I don't use the initials so your point is useles and totally moot. Your statement was that she would be disqualified from seeking the Presidency - re-read your poorly worded post. As usual, no sanity to be found in the Republican party as you so clearly show!
Ben, Please re-read your history, if you ever did... The SS during the "Night of the Long Knives" rendered the SA the "Brown Shirts" toothless. Oh and it was the Democratic leadership of FDR that defeated those Nazi scumbags not the isolationists like Wendell Willkie and Charles Lindburgh...
Stop tilting at windmills...
If Hillary does run, do you think her first guest would be Monica Lewinsky?
*win
Very possible - gold digging dress keepers like to come out on top - just ask S. Palin.
Hmmmmmmmmm....I've heard palin called a lot of things, but that's reaching for a comment.
Pigotry....you can put lipstick or maybe a new do' on a pig and its stil hillary i mean a pig....sorry it just slipped out....
While the following is only heresay and my source is no longer alive to verify or even worry about the threat of courtmarshal and dishonarable discharge, lets just say that queen hillary should never be considered a viable presidential candidate. I am sure that everyone is aware of what the word "DIVA" means. When bill clinton traveled via air force 1 he was friendly, verbose and took an interest in the air crew. When ol' hillary travelled (without the accompinment of hubby bill) it was a far different and opposite story.
I noticed that while Hagel is a decorated war hero his job as secretary of defense is being voted on primarily by men and women who have never put on a uniform, much less gone to war. It is this president's nomination and barring something egregious he should be confirmed. The same is true of every other president. How can you choose his cabinet and then criticize them for their decisions. Politics is only place I know of where there is no down side to having it both ways. If Hagel truly is a man without a party he has my complete support.
Going to war doesn't make you an expert. Let's not forget, the last President to serve our country was President Bush (the first one) and the President IS the Commander-in-Chief. I'm not saying Senator Hagel is no qualified, just saying going to war is requirement for the job.
And your point is RON ???????????? Obama did not put a uniform on and look how he turn his back on the seals that died in Benghazi. Or the seals of team six that died when he was out spiking the football.
Bob James - your ignorant posts are NOT fact. President Obama has done more for the military and veterans than any other President in modern times. You just look stupid!
Part of Seal Team six died because of logistical error on part of their operations manager (not obama). As per benghazi, I smell black op.
I have a feeling that all this Republican "outrage" is nothing more than sour grapes for losing the Presidential
Election.
After all, if Republicans feel no outrage about being lied into war and all those lives lost, soldiers injured, and civilians needlessly killed, then who would believe they have any legitimate outrage over Benghazi?
American Girl - ya think????
No American Girl- This Republican outrage is just an excuse to do the bidding of AIPAC and Israel, in order to keep the campaign donations flowing. This is solely about Israel and the power they wield in our "bought and paid for" Congresss.
If Hagel is rejected, it will be proof positive that Israel and it's Zionist supporters are pulling the strings of our leaders.
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who are not
allowed to criticize”
—–Voltaire
The only thing worse than a sore loser is a poor winner, was what I was taught!
Now that Hillary is back at work, maaybe Congress should get her down to testify about Benghazi today before she suffers another illness or concussion. If she is healthy enough to come to work, she is healthy enough to testifiy. And let's not have her set a date months from now. Do it today.
Why bother with clinton's self serving testimony,just some more senile blathering between diaper changes,and libs actually believe that this incompetent,venal,slick willie coattail rider could be president.The "buck "has stopped with obama,by the time this monster is through with America NO democrat will be able to drag their sorry butts near public office, as democrats .Unfortunately we will see a lot of them "converting"to conservatism.
Lose an election recently? I hear Obama is giving away clappers to conservatives that have fallen and can't get up.
Red, not to conservatives, just hypocrite neoconservatives.
Touche Patrick - not all conservatives warrant the comment - just the hypocrite neo-cons. Apologies to our friends Frank, MarkSoCal, Lisa_S and others.
Even if the ugliest sec. of state does testify, you wouldn't be able to believe her...she's a democrat and a clinton, liars from start....
Actually, Hillary will not take the stand. She will be sworn in because of the hearing. I am sure she cooked up this whole health problem to avoid the tough questions repubicans will ask her. After, they have such a great track record at taking on her and her husband. I am sure she must be terrified.
ron brock Got some proof? What you just posted is a lie. I'm sure you must be terrified I exposed your lies. You should terrified that we all know you lie.
Hey Smitty, got proof Ron lied. Expressing an opinion is not a lie
Rex I'm just expressing my opinion.
Ron Brock - oh yeah totally cooked up and got all the doctors to go along with it! You Republican idiots don't have a brain cell among the lot of you!
Ron - sorry - just realized you were being sarcastic. It's just that it sounded so much like the idiotcy Republicans post!
Sorry, Ron, but I cannot believe that Hilary Clinton cooked this up because she didn't want to testify. She will still have to testify, but it won't have the same impact because the election has been decided. It would have been much better BEFORE the election.
The only cooking going on is the from the meth labs in the bible belt. Their is apparently a freeway exit lane from the labs to the entertainment industry at Faux News. Lawdy, they love their alternate reality. Has anyone of those Benghazi-flu-gates like SourKraut-HammerHead offered an apology yet? Speaking of that freak, why is it every time I see his face, I am reminded of the bloody battle fields of Iraq/Afghanistan. Talk about a war-torn face. Even Greta VanFreak-Grimace cracks a frown when he shows up on her show.
Does anyone remember the skinny dipping incident last summer
in the Sea of Galilee by Rep. Kevin Yoder?
That booze cruise for 30 republican representatives was paid for by
Israeli interests. I couldn’t care less
that he dipped his wick in the water.
But doesn’t it offend anybody that this was paid for by a foreign
country and these people will be making decisions for the citizens of the USA?
I think Hagel might be right.
I certainly do. Conservatives and their penchant for knittingyahoos and water sports baffles me. Perhaps they desire to mime the shirtless Putin - deviation at its finest.
Yes, I do remember. Not sure which was worse, the fact the trip was paid for by a foreign country special interests, or the fact a bunch of drunken republicans, some skinny dipping, were supposedly representing the USA.
I wonder if it will be fulfilling to be Obama's pick for Secretary of Defense ... at a time when Obama will be GUTTING the military budget as his only effort to reduce spending ! By the time Obama is finished with our military, we will have a toothless tiger as our mascot !
Jim you don't have a clue what you're talking about, you just babbling. But you do have all us Liberals laughing this morning.
I am quite sure you liberals are indeed laughing .... "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".
Perhaps you FAILED to understand that under the "Sequester", fully HALF of the impending cuts would have been to the military, even though the military was far less than half the budget. But you would have to be able to READ to understand that. Still working on your GED ? Still ??
Mo-lotsanumbers:
Please. Starve this troll. It is a fact that President Obama has led the way on spending cuts. It is a fact that he has led the way for better treatment of our veterans. No amount of proof makes any difference to the jim's and the other denizens of the right-wing depths.
Name the spending cuts.
rex Thats my line.
Rex-lotsanumbers and Smitty-lotsanumbers:
You wanted me to name Obama spending cuts. I'll be happy to do that, with two provisos. First, the President cannot really cut spending. He signs legislation that is the result of his proposals and those adopted and/or negotiated and/or compromised with the House. As you know, only the House may originate spending bills. (See, how nice I'm being. I'm pretending you actually knew that.)
Secondly, the citation comes from a source you will not like. Here it is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/12/11/president-obamas-record-and-proposals-cutting-spending
Of course, I know you will object to that source, so for your edification, I am going to tell you how to find other sources that will also show Obama approved/suggested/implemented/proposed spending cuts. Go to a search engine, and in the search block, type "Obama proposed spending cuts". (See how nice I'm being. I'm showing you how to get information, always mindful of the fact that you can lead a person to information, but you can't make him think.)
Also, you might want to take a look at the $716-billion cut to Medicare excessive spending. Of course, you might not.
Excellent post, David Walker.
jimmy? got a response to that? I'd love to see it as your posts today have been so typical for you ...
a 15-18% cut in military spending in a time of relative peace is not gutting. Get a clue. Besides, all the DOD has to do is take down some of the nukes we really don't need. We need enough to keep russia in line and no more.
Quoting a White House blog as an authoritative source ? Are you ffffiiinnnnggg kiddin me ??
ROTFLMAO at you Layton ! Wow !! That is merely Obama's propaganda arm and vague generalities NEVER, EVER qualify as concrete proposals ! Go to your room, put your dunce cap on ... you earned it !
jim,
Yeah, I forgot. Reading comprehension isn't your thing and you dare not move without consulting the crew at Fox first for your daily talking points. The White House as a source. That is way over your head.
Layton-lotsanumbers:
Please join me in a moment of silence, while we hope that jim never figures out how to procreate.
Spending cuts!...Where in the hell in all this budget/fiscal cliff crap has the skunk ever mentioned a spending cut....? Just wait till he drops the tax hammer on those of us that make $40,000 or less....Pelosi almost orgasmed on t.v. this morning talking about more taxes...Spending cuts...just a figment in everyones imagination....If you really think the skunk is going to have spending cuts, crap in one hand, and then make a wish in the other....see which one comes first...
This is another example of Israel dictating to the United States how to run our business. Enough of that and bravo to the President for sticking to his guns.
Will one of you conservatives explain to me what is so great about Israel? And why we have to keep appeasing them? What exactly do they do for the United States anyway? Besides take our money, our military help, our praise like their our king. I'm not against Israel, I just don't see why their so important to us.
Can you liberals explain to us what is so great about Hezbollah and Hamas?
Careful, Mo... Didn't you know that if you don't blindly support Israel, you're anti-semetic?
@ Rex: Not much.
rex As a liberal speaking nothing is great about Hezbollah & Hamas. The same with Israel. Israel has been getting welfare from us long enough.
They are both designated terrorists and enemies of the U.S. If you find some redeeming qualities that make them great liberals haven't seen any. Maybe you see right wing anti women, anti gay pro gun people like these as hero's, we don't.
MO,
Israel is like a piece on the chess board to be used for offense or defensive purpose. Are you really that naive on world affairs or defensive armament?
Israel is a power whore and leech under nehtanyahu. The lobby needs to be disbanded. I am willing to support Israel as son as that warmonger is taken from office and a true effort at peace with Palestine is attempted.
Mitch McConnell might as well settle down and realize that he will lose the political fight over the debt ceiling. President Obama will not get drawn in again over this issue.
McConnell need to hear two words, Fourteenth Amendment!
President Obama needs to read the words "SEPARATION OF POWERS" ... he was NOT elected dictator you know ! Where are the proposed spending cuts Obama campaigned upon ? Are they mythical or can you provide a link to all the details ??
Job1, This is not a political fight! This is a fight that the majority of the country wants to have, the majority who thinks runaway wreckless spending and refusal to addresss our dangerous debt is not acdeptable! The Dems got their revenue, where are the cuts! So much for the balanced approach!
The only legitimate purpose for a Debt Ceiling in the current process is to create a discussion that allows politicians make points about the size of our debt but since the money has already been spent it should not be an excuse to deny an increase of the debt ceiling.
It is not used by most other countries – The U.S. and Denmark are the only democratic countries in which Congress has to approve borrowing separately from spending. In most other countries the authority to borrow money is tied to the authority to spend money.
Solution: Change the process so the authority to borrow is part of every spending bill. Using that method will force Congress to address the amount of spending for each and every spending bill.
The budget fight belongs in either the Sequester (3/1) or the government funding via the Budget CR that expires on 3/27.
job1 -- in 2006 a junior Senator demonstrated wisdom. I wonder what happened to him?
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a Sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. ...Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and Grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
dennis -- maybe make the debt ceiling part of the budget. no budget, no increase
The budget is a resolution – not law and budgets do not and have never controlled spending
Like I said, President Obama will not get drawn in again over this issue. We can not and will not have this fight, and we as a Nation will pay our bills.
Where were you Obama haters when W. Bush was spending us into the big debt hole?
No links to Obama's proposed spending cuts ? Are they real, or are they fantasy-induced ??
Dennis, you are correct, the debt ceiling needs to be raised because we have obligated to spend the money. However, we should be considering the necessary cuts so as future increases are not necessary.
Jim
There are plenty of links to Obama's proposed spending cuts. just Google them. I myself am not going to play the little show me game with you.
Look them up, it's easy!
Its funny how these Obama haters complain so much about the Debt ceiling. Obama did not create "All 16 trillion" by himself. Yes, 5.5 trillion happen under is watch due to an economic collapse in 2008. But I ask you silly obama haters this, how do cut 16 trillion of debt without the Whole Global Economy going into a total collapse.
C'mon haters, I'm waiting. Since you all are the smartest economist in the world. Tell how us you cut 16 trillion of debt.
Most of them were standing in line with their hands out waiting for another of Bush's rebate's. You know the one he gave them in the spring of 2001 so they would forget that the supreme court appointed him, and the one in 2004 to help get him reelected. Everyone screams about the debt and deficit, but nobody seems to remember all those rebate's.
Danno,
Like I said the Debt Ceiling is not the place for that fight.
jim,
There are already $1.4 Trillion in cuts in place and the Sequester requires another $1.2 Trillion to be cut.
Our President has asked the Republicans to provide a list of additional cuts they would like so he can agree or provide a counter offer. Why can't Republicans say what they want cut ?
Like the myth of liberal intellect,the spending cuts,and any adherence to fiscal responsibility are pure fantasy.Incidentally,the lack of a debt ceiling,does not restrict our ability to pay the interest on that debt,it justs results in government slowing or stopping spending in other areas.This is at obama's discretion,so the onus would finally be on him.
dennis -- i am not talking from a legal perspective but rather from a common sense perspective. when a budget is created it is somewhat straightforward to estimate incoming and outgoing cash amounts. when the number is identified the Congress simply votes to increase the debt ceiling in accordance with the budget the Congress has approved.
what do you think?
print,
Not increasing the debt ceiling means we cannot pay ALL bills that are due NOW. It means we as a nation cannot pay all of our bills and will default on some of our obligations.
It is not just the loan interest, it encompasses all of our obligations for the checks that Congress has already written and sent and our creditors have deposited and are waiting for the check to clear.
billybob,
It puts the decision ahead of the spending so I can get on board with that.
However what about spending that is not included in the budget like the costs of disasters or the way the wars were funded in the last administration ?
disasters will always be done as needed. so let's assume we learned a lesson last time.
how do we control spending? we simply cannot keep borrowing or taxing our way to success.
neither side has the courage. but now with a president that is no longer beholding to the people maybe he will take some initiative.
Oh no - I actually almost agree with BillyBob. Eliminating the VOTE on the debt ceiling is actually a better way to go, but since that will never be approved, then yes, approving the debt ceiling after either a budget bill or a continuing budget resolution makes complete sense. The cost of shutting down government over unpaid bills is incredibly expensive. Rather than spending millions of government resources on where to stop payment on bills, we should spend those resources on relief, infrastructure, or reducing the debt and/or deficit.
job -- i am not an obama hater and i think your decision to keep accusing anyone that disagrees with the president's policies as such is exceptionally misguided.
i believe this country is headed for disaster though not likely in my lifetime but certainly in my grandson's.
so we have a spending problem. no one wants to believe that on the left. tax and spend has been the mantra of the democrats for decades.
the republicans have not done any better.
people say these are the bills we have run up in the past that we have to pay -- fine.
why not just stop new authorizations.
how would you get spending under control?
The states with the highest per capita income and the states with the highest percentage of college graduates are all blue states.
The states with the lowest per capita income and the lowest percentage of college graduates are all red. Funny trying to pretend the great thinkers are conservatives. Most college professors are liberals while most rednecks are conservative. It's nice that people like yourself pat yourself on the back for your great intellect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_of_the_United_States_of_America_by_income
Larry, you failed to mention that Dems, blue states, are the largest recipients on govt. assistance. 10 out of 12 top states.
Judging from the conservative comments, they have no real understanding of what the debt ceiling is. The place to have the spending debate is on Congressional budgets, debate spending when Congress passes its spending bills; that is where spending cuts happen or not. The debt ceiling is money Congress ALREADY VOTED YES to spend and it is ALREADY SPENT plus the interest on that money. Not raising the debt ceiling does not change this simple fact: the debt will increase regardless of whether or not they vote to increase it. Failing to increase the ceiling is the equivalent of not paying one's mortgage and then wondering why foreclosure happened--it would be the same as if the USA declared bankruptcy because it refused to meet its financial obligations. Failing to increase the debt ceiling is fiscal insanity.
If GOPTPers were serious about cutting the deficit, and thus not adding to the debt, they would not have voted against the Grand Bargains offered to them several times and each time, those GOPTPers walked away.
print money, care to address all the money printed by the Bush administration and the GOPers from 2001 through 2008. They paid for nothing, nada, zip, ZERO; they charged everything. 333% of our national debt is attributed to Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43; only 81% is attributed to democratic presidents. Name the last fiscally responsible republican president. Is it true, that deficits don't matter unless a democrat is in the White House? I stopped being a republican during Reagan's first term for one primary reason, fiscal irresponsibility.
billybob, for once I agree with you. When Congress passes spending bills, the debt ceiling should be automatically increased. I'll go one further, we should not even have a debt ceiling; no other western, civilized country has such a thing.
Amazing that states with 20,000,000 people would have more on government assistance than those with 2,000,000. But the right wingers never could do math. You ignore that the states on this list also have the highest population.
Jody - I have never seen more Monday Morning Economists as those that exist on this site. Apparently, taking Accounting 101, balancing a check book register, and paying a monthly credit card bill all qualify one as an economist and an expert on fiscal policy. They cannot understand that a liability can be an asset, and an asset can be a liability. They decry the Federal Reserve without any understanding of the role of the institution. The other day, someone ranted on and on about the Fed printing money. It does no such thing. That is as ridiculous as saying the IRS dictates tax policy.
Debt and deficit are two key components to the health of society. Too little and/or too much are the cause of equal concern. Understanding the role of government surplus and debt during various economic situations is key to understanding economics. Few congressional leaders understand this balance, and most posters here have a complete lack of understanding of same said economics. Yet most would have us believe that government is a failure when their isn't one asset to offset one liability. The success of government is knowing when to load up on assets vs. loading up on liabilities. So far, conservatives in government have demonstrated a complete lack of economic understanding, hence, the mess we currently endure.
One thing for certain...We'll all go down together.
[Larry, you failed to mention that Dems, blue states, are the largest recipients on govt. assistance. 10 out of 12 top states.]
Seems you have your red/blue turned around there, Larry:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/where-do-the-47-percent-live/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_reckoning/2012/10/25/blue_state_red_face_guess_who_benefits_more_from_your_taxes.html
Check out the non-partisan tax research group Tax Foundation website:
http://taxfoundation.org/
You're welcome...
Mickey: You have to be the dumbest right winger I've responded to in a long time. You give a link but assume I won't read it? Below is from your link.
I'll take the guys service to our country (especially Vietnam) over his "omg how am I going to keep living" comment about some one being "overly aggressive gay". That would honestly prevent some one from being our Sec. of Defense? At least we have our priorities straight.
The GOP has to stop focusing its effort on blocking this nomination which will be a losing battle (there is not much they can do to contol Obama's choice for whatever reason it is, even though I have my reasons) and focus all their energy instead on what is most important that Obama and the Democrats are too cowardly to address; the runaway spending and our national debt!
Dee patriot,
It will be interesting to see if the 113 Congress will indeed move foward, or just be the" do nothing" Congress contolled by Boehner and the GOP party of NO.
The 113th congress will continue their obstruction.....This whole Hagel push back by RepubliCONS is a stall tactic.....
Hagel dared to think and vote outside the GOP. Hagel will support cuts to the Defense Department.
Two things that the RepubliCONS do not like!
RepubliCONS care nothing about Israel or anything else......
Hagel will be confirmed.
Hope they are do nothing. Maybe they can keep the dictator under 25 trillion in debt before he leaves the mess for someone else to clean up!
The "advice and consent" clause in the constitution has been taken beyond the intent and meaning. The president (regardless of party) has plenary power to appoint justices, ambassadors, cabinet members, etc. The Senate should not be blocking nominations.
Northstar, You seem to forget that we have a Democratic Senate and and Democratic President (who you would assume would be leading in the negotiations and compomised solutions). I guess you still want to be believe that Boehner and the House is the party of no and are alone to blame for this do nothing Congress? Yeah right!
Now that is the BIGGEST DA statement of the day.
Dee Patriot, perhaps you should be asking why the Bush administration and GOPers were too "cowardly" to address their run away spending? Face the facts, Bush was handed budget surpluses of several years, we were paying down our debt and they squandered it.
I'm tired of hearing conservatives talk about fiscal responsibility now, tired of their attacking President Obama over deficit and debt--which were the direct result of GOP's actions of two unfunded wars, unfunded Rx Medicare Plan, unfunded everything and a economic Depression inherited from republicans.
If conservatives were serious about deficit and debt, where were they from 2001 through 2008? Where was the Tea Party? Where were the deficit hawks such as Paul Ryan? Oh, that's right, Paul Ryan voted YES on every single unfunded piece of GOP legislation during the Bush 43 years. Fiscal hawk or fiscal lying coward, Mr. Ryan?
I like Hagel he is the right person for the job! Another great move President Obama! Have the GOP continue to fight against themselves! WONDERFUL!!
tommy -- how about the 10 dem senators that are supposed to not be in favor? if he is not confirmed it will be because of democrat votes against -- it will have to be a bipartisan rejection.
billybob, There will be 51 Democrats voting for Hagel! I am not worried about my party!!
interesting. your sources appear to be better than those of msnbc.
Ron Brock
Took me a minute to realize you're kidding.
For heaven's sake....don't we have anybody better?
Somebody tell David Gregory it's not "media bashing" to point out the whole fiscal cliff drama was a ginned up non-news story that amounted to less than a hill a beans. Correction, it did publicize one thing: House Republicans are willing to damage our economic recovery to win the far right-wing vote in primaries.
Too late! Obama has already damanged our economic recovery with no budget since he was elected, the runaway spending, refusal to address cuts, antibusiness polices and continuing divisiveness (lets add the nomination of the known controversial Hage to that one!)
Bush cut 400 billion in revenue the same time he started 2 wars and an unfunded drug plan turning Clinton's surplus into a deficit in year 1 and never looking back. Bush's last budget which ran from October 2008 until October 2009 had a deficit of 1.2 trillion bringing our debt to 12.1 trillion. Bush averaged only 32,000 jobs a month over his 8 years which is about 1/4 Obama's. Funny how RWNJ's bash Obama but never address how Bush was better or Romney would have done anything different than Bush.
Please fact check, because this statement is a proven lie!
Dee Patriot- first YOU are no patriot. And, you just look foolish repeating FOX lies although I notice more and more that's all you do. Try to go to a reputable news source. You won't look quite so crazed!
job -- i had understood that there has not been a budget passed in a couple of years. i understand that the president submitted budget proposals but both houses simply rejected them. the house has passed proposals but i did not think the senate had considered it.
i have done a search on google but no hits regarding an approved budget for fy2012. can you send me a link.
thanks
Sure, here you go. It's a little shell game being played by the Republicans.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/house-and-senate-unanimously-reject-obama-budgets-or-do-they/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/06/mitt-romney/romney-says-obama-failed-pass-budget/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/16/senate-budget-jeff-sessions_n_1522643.html
Duh-Patriot - how do you account for federal spending decreasing under Obama, or do you have on your duh-blinders? Perhaps you heard that nonsense talking point from DuhFaux News, Duh-Limbaugh, or Duh-Beck.
Job1, I was curious to open your links for your proof of a budget passed but I will not waste my time after seeing the sources they are coming from!
What is Graham's opposition--Hagel not in the mainstream, really, mainstream republicans means what, war without end, America the bully is preferable? Hagel is now being called anti-Semitic, why, because he wasn't in lock-step with the Israeli Lobbyists? Sounds more of an Independent to me. A man who has experienced the horrors of war, a good man to be reluctant to engage in sending Americans to be cannon fodder. Rumsfeld was a disaster, Iraq forever a giant stain on the American psyche, will those wounds ever really heal, I doubt it.
It's interesting that an engineer must have an engineering degree to perform engineering work while the president and congress only have to win a popularity contest...
Dee Ten,
That's why engineers can put a man on the moon but a president cannot balance a budget.
Engineers can also make undetectable orbiting spacecraft that can drop undetectable ordinance packages on anyone they want to.
That is a problem for bad presidents. And good presidents. Presidents in general.
The politicians are hoping that Hal does not figure out how to be in charge. Wishful thinking.
Your point Dee??? Anyone can run for congress, as long as they are a naturalized citizen. Same with the presidency, except you have to have been born here...the only difference. Our government was based on the premise; of the people, by the people, for the people. What other qualifications do you want them to have? We have had businessman, astraunants, veterns, actors, school teachers and administors, doctors, you name it for congressional members, and presidents. Again, your point.
Dee Ten - and what degree would you require a President to have? Please be specific. There are economists that can't lead; there are doctors that can't converse; there are engineers that are best when working alone; what degree would YOU in your infinite wisdom require a President to have????
It would really be GOOD if Obama had at least a few courses in basic accounting and income taxation ! Maybe then, he would actually understand a BUDGET and understand something about taxes when he blathers on endlessly about taxing the "millionaires and billionaires" .... when we DO NOT tax accumulated wealth in this country (except at death and with property taxes), we tax INCOME !
Obama has yet to submit a REALISTIC BUDGET proposal (getting no support from his own party) and the tax increases will pay for only a week or so of his annual $1+ trillion annual deficits !!!
Degrees are useless without common sense, and anyone with common sense knows his deficit management will be abysmal without significant spending cuts to our government !
President Obama's budgets are VERY realistic and VERY good for this country's economy. Too bad there is so much partisan obstruction to get them in place.
Ricardo, Once again I must tell you ... READING is fundamental. Not even ONE single Democrat has ever voted for an Obama BUDGET ! Are you blaming Democrats for obstructing Democrats ?? LOL !!!
Are you blaming Democrats for obstructing Obama ???
I am sick and tired of the divisive, partisan bickering from the tea-party. The Republicans used to be the party of hope and change. The Republicans used to be about family values. The Republicans used to work across the aisle to do what was best for America.
These Tea-Party Republicans that always berate people who have a different idea than they do, even if that person is in their same party. The tea-party Republicans that use hate-filled speech to attack women and anyone who is different than them. The tea-party is now the paty of moan and groan rhetoric.
If the Republicans want any chance of regaining the Presidency, they have to shed the ugly skin of the tea-party. The Republicans have lost many more progressives than they gained from the tea-party. It's time to put aside childish things.
The only divisiveness that I see is coming from our President! Our country has never seen such divisiveness as we have seen in this current administration. As things aren't tense enough between both parties, Obama had to throw in the most Controversial Senator in for Secretary of Defense knowing this will cause anger with the Republican party (as well as Democrats)! Obama has the right to choose who he wants for Secy of Defense but he had to know this will cause severe opposition to the GOP! Does not help in his effort to work with the other party does it?
Why such opposition from GOP? He is a Republican. Is it because he's not qualified or because he crossed party lines to vote wiith the Democrats on several occasions?
His policies in reference to Israel, Iran and social issues seem to be enough for an opposition from Rebublicans as well as Democrats!
If you think only in terms of a partisan 2-party 'winner take all' system, you ARE right, but the TP is not about party politics but sound, conservative principles (which you will ultimately see are right). TP candidates keep winning despite the GOP backing other candidates or withholding support when representing districts where the electorate is not on the dole! You fail to factor in all the TP candidates who won despite opposition from the GOP this time, and the overwhelming 2010 "shellacking" Dems took largely by TP victories. Sounds like you've got the divisive MSM rhetoric down pat. Enjoy your future!
The only party that refused any compromise was the GOP. Obama's original grand bargain would have cut 2 trillion in spending in exchange for 2 trillion in revenue increases on the wealthy. Republicans responded they wouldn't accept 1 penny in new taxes due to the Norquist pledge. That's why Americans blamed republicans in congress at a 2 to 1 rate including republicans. The tea party republicans no longer represent main stream republicans.
The tea-party is about to write off the entire northeast Republicans. Where will they be then?
The far right -tea party has better start realizing that crazy doesn't win.
Dee - you REALLY need to stop watching FOX. The divisiveness in this country is totally the fault of the Republicans in Congress who decided - from day one - to oppose EVERYTHING President Obama proposed - to hell with the country. They are the group that signed loyalty pledges to Grover Norquist that supercede their Congressional oaths. They should be tried for treason.
You total lack of understanding of the antics of the Republicans says everything about you.
BS ! From the start, Obama said to the Republicans .... "You can come along for the ride, but you 'gotta sit at the back of the bus". Was that a message of division ... of assigning second-class status to the opposite party ? He also made comments like "we won" ... indicating that he, Obama, thought that winning gave him dictatorial powers !
Then, of course, there is his disatrous fiscal management of this country. By the time Obama leaves office, he will have doubled the national debt of all his predecessors COMBINED !!!
From askville.amazon.com
Pigotry while being the dnc taking points queen and the first to post I will assume you didntread the article.... Here let me help both sides are against Hagel so shouldnt you include democrats with your republions. Also here is a small quote from the article about the (D)
In fact, we’ve heard that as many as 10 DEMOCRATIC senators might be “no” votes on Hagel
Dee- And how did we come to this major debt and runaway spending, Gee two unfunded wars and tax cuts that weren't paid for.....
It's sure is funny how republicans magically become fiscal conservatives, when there is a democrat in the WH, but when there is a republican it's spend like crazy!!! LOL
LOL! take Bush's spending and triple it under the Obama Administration!
Bush started with a 5.7 trillion debt and ended with a 12.1 trillion after his last budget that ran from October 2008 until October 2009. Take out the 400 billion Bush tax cut that republicans demanded be extended to everyone, the cost of paying for Bush's wars and drug plan and the 11 trillion in national net worth cost us 500 billion a year in revenue that occurred under Bush's great meltdown and you see why most intelligent Americans blame Bush. The RWNJ's ranted for 4 years that Obama was responsible for our debt yet still far more believed Bush was mostly to blame. You can spew it for another 4 years but still wont be able to sell it.
Yes, the massage debt that W. Bush left us. The argument of high spending on the watch of Obama has been debunked over and over again. We are paying the Bush bar tab.
For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-reality-behind-obama-and-bushs-spending-binge/2012/05/25/gJQAK8ItpU_blog.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ezra-klein-doing-the-math-on-obamas-deficits/2012/01/31/gIQAnRs7fQ_story.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
Tax cuts don't get "paid for". You assume the money I earn is first governments and they decide what I can keep.
But, with your argument, the tax cuts were "paid for" because revenues to the US Treasury were actually up. The problem is that democrats and republicans alike thought it was good to continue the spending.
Other than in a recession revenues are usually up year to year. If as republicans claimed the tax cuts brought in more than was lost then our debt would drop instead of explode as they did immediately after tax cuts by both Reagan and Bush. Reagan tripled our debt & Bush doubled it again. The drug plan, the 2 wars and the tax cut were all Bush. Getting enough democrats to allow a president to implement his agenda doesn't shift responsibility to congress. Only a president implements policy. Congress either goes along or blocks it. The buck stops at the white house. Always.
Boehner claimed the Bush tax cuts created 8 million jobs over 10 years even taking credit for jobs created under Obama because the cuts were extended. Politifact called this claim false. As they stated claiming even the majority of jobs created had anything to do with the tax cuts was dubious at best considering Bush had the lowest job creation record of any president since Eisenhower. Republicans continue to do creative math which appeals to the weak minded. Luckily there aren't enough such people in this country to win the presidency.
Dee Patriot, Reagan and Bush 41 quadrupled the national debt. Clinton eliminated the deficit, had budget surpluses and we were paying down the debt until Bush 43 wiped out the surplus and put us over $1 trillion in deficit annually within his first year. Bush 43 doubled the debt created by Reagan and Bush 41 because he paid for nothing, not even his two long, expensive wars. President Obama inherited an economic Depression 30 years in the making so spare us the faux outrage at the deficit and debt that resulted from total economic collapse and the carry over of Bush 43's eight disastrous years.
The man fought in Vietnam, so he understands the reality of war and is not that keen on perpetual war. Unlike Dick Cheney who shoots small wing clipped birds in a fenced in area and chinned up wars just to line his own pockets.
Bad comparison, Dick Cheney was our Vice President, not Secretary of Defense. Also, if you want to go there, I don't recall Obama fighting in any wars, how would HE know? I guess Obama knows the reality of wars? lol!
That's why a president appoints a SOD that does have that experience the same reason you pick a SOTT who has financial experience. For most cabinet positions a president is allowed great discretion as they are his advisors not congress's.
Dee - did you have a problem with the deserter Bush who started two wars yet never served in any? Or did you have a problem with Romney who ran to France instead of serving? No, I'm sure you didn't.
Typical Republican HYPOCRITE!@!!!
SS, Do you LIE much ? Both wars were approved by Congress.
Obama, however, started a war with Libya authorizing about $1 billion in Cruise missile attacks w/o approval.
Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense from 1989 to 1993. The more you go on, Dee, the less credibility you have. And you didn't have much to start with.
Kind of sick of the liberal press promoting 'war hero' as some sort of VIP pass. Dole didn't make it. McCain didn't make it. And there's no need to add an anti-Israel cabinet member for balance, is there? I'm not sure why some of Hagel's mindless comments aren't as damaging as Akin's-- or Romney's "47%".
Actually isn't that a connie issue too? You guys loved your war heroes until it was time to unlove them...I'd act like that too if my heroes turned out to be draft dodging neonutcases starting wars their own kids ignored...
The SOD is basically the presidents advisor and over see's the military within the confines of the president and what congress funds. He isn't like a judge that has independant power so why should his beliefes disqualify him? A SOD has no power to withhold funding to Israel or implement policy directed at Israel. He is basically an advisor that implements the presidents wishes whatever his belief. Both Akin and Romney were running for a position of independant power, a cabinet member doesn't have that. The same as Hillary as SOS doesn't imput her beliefs on any foreign issue, she represents the views of her president.
Doofus
Your lack of understanding the "difference" is oh SOooo telling. Offend much? Have a social life...I guess Not.
Doofus,the reason is clear,obama has made hegal his boy,in any other circumstance,these same phony supporters,would be squealing to tar and feather him.One thing is sure however,the odd reverence liberals place on all things obama is disturbing,perhaps a new religion.
What will the reichwing do now? Swiftboat Hagel like they did Kerry? Funny thing is they swiftboat an actual hero but gave the cowards in the Bush administration a free pass...bush/cheny/rice/bolton/feith...all cowards when it came right down to it
wow rick could you say anything more ignorant?
lebster
I doubt it as ignorance appears to be your purview.
McConnell, Boehmer and their crew want to politicize everything they can to disrupt the prosperity of this country. Simple and just like Gov. Christie said. McConnell made the famous quote in 2009. We will not work with the Democratic administration. GNP stays at 2% or less because of their actions and big corporations and their management get wealthier and wealthier.
Yank-
What prosperity are you talking about?
Never thought I would be agreeing with my liberal "friends" but hey its a New Year. Chuck is a great choice for Obama. He is a patriot having serving with Valor in Vietnam two purple hearts no less. A leader. Made a fortune in business as well. The rebuke from the right is ridiculous, he dared say the DOD was bloated? hello of course it is. He has always supported Israel, one off the cuff remark should not be a deal killer, same for the "overly aggressive gay" comment Lindsey you are from my home state but you are wrong about this one, confirm him and lets move on
Yikes Celtic 1, now I must inform Seeking Sanity that there is some to be found ... :-)
At Fort Campbell, Kentucky there are 8,500 civilians for 31,500 soldiers. 1 in 4. Imagine what the ratio is overseas, 2 in 4 maybe? Remember the Battle Cry, "If we don't spend it this fiscal year, we won't get the same amount next fiscal year. What a way that would be to run a business.
A master stroke by Obama...appointing a Repbublican to cut defense spending.
I really do not like some of Obama's policies, but I am an SOB if he is not smart as a whip- Hilliary as SOS to remove that threat, neutering the speaker of the house, and selecting a genuine War Hero of for this position. I do not think the opposition will be able to "swift boat" Chuck- in addition he is not a East Coast Elite Liberal, which will disarm that argument of the right
bcwc - Yikes!!!
Celtic - I actually voted you up on that one. Well said!
Its is a New Year, trying to be a kinder, gentler Celtic and not such a jerk sometimes. Happy New Year
celtic 1 You make some good points. Wow its good to see a person on the right who can see both sides of the problem and use ideas from both sides to make things work.
hey smitty, you just want a wishy washy idiot who sounds like a democrat just enough to have no backbone.
I am just a little to the right of Attila the Hun, I am also an American - I am no idiot lebster- and I assure you I have a backbone, and will stand and fight for things I believe in. The fight over Hagel is noting more than Political Grandstanding by Republicans- I am sure that you are to ignorant to see that. Who do you want a paper tiger like Cheney or Rums-flied who could not bust a grape in a fruit fight? Or someone like Chuck who actually whipped some ass when he needed to.
lebster I would rather post with someone who looks at things with a open mind. Who will see both sides of the picture. Celtic may be on the right, I may be on the left but if common ground can be found, find it. Thats what the problem is in our government at this time. The fiscal cliff bull$hit is a good example of no one finding that common ground.
Smitty, to bad you liberals can't see things with an open mind.
Celtic - Happy New Year to you, too!
joe your post is the perfect example of a man with his head up his a$$. Keep posting and you might get it up there farther. Just be careful the $hit you call brains may get in the way.