E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUPDATED, 12:34 pm ET -- Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns will retire at the end of his current Senate term.
"We have decided not to seek re-election," Johanns and his wife, Stephanie, wrote to constituents Monday. "It is time to close this chapter of our lives."
Johanns called state Republican officials, including Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, to inform them of his decision to retire. Heineman is likely to seek Johanns' seat, open in 2014.
An announcement event wasn't planned, but the senator had already scheduled a series of town hall meetings across his state this week while the Senate is on break.
Johanns is one of just two Republican senators publicly backing former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R) nomination to be defense secretary. Other GOP senators have been aggressively critical of their former colleague, labeling him unqualified for the job. Hagel's nomination by President Obama was filibustered this past week as GOP opposition to Hagel intensified. Johanns replaced Hagel in the Senate.
Before he was senator, Johanns served as governor of Nebraska and was Secretary of Agriculture under former President George W. Bush.
Several candidates have already told state Republican officials they're interested in running. Heineman can't run for the governorship again -- he's term-limited -- and will be ending his tenure as governor in 2014, making the timing of the race ideal.
Also interested is Jon Bruning, the current attorney general, who lost to current Republican Sen. Deb Fischer in the Senate primary in 2012. State treasurer Don Stenberg, who's run for Senate four times before, could also get in, as could U.S. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry.
Here's Johanns' full letter to constituents:
Dear Fellow Nebraskans,
We would like to share with you a decision we have made about running for re-election to the United States Senate. We have decided not to seek re-election.
Words are inadequate to fully express our appreciation for the friendship and support you have given to us over the past three decades.
With everything in life, there is a time and a season. At the end of this term, we will have been in public service over 32 years. Between the two of us, we have been on the ballot for primary and general elections 16 times and we have served in eight offices. It is time to close this chapter of our lives.
During these many years, we have cherished our time together. So as we think about the next stage of our lives, we want a quieter time with our focus on each other, our family and our faith. We are also confident that there will be many more opportunities to serve our state and our nation.
We look forward to the remaining time in the Senate. It is an honor to have served in so many ways over so many years.
May God continue to bless Nebraska and our great nation.
Sincerely, Mike & Stephanie Johanns
This story was originally published on Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:35 AM EST
Leave a Comment:
Oh my, this senator supports Chuck Hagel, and now he is retires after even less than one term. What was said to him by the nuttier by the day GOP/TP party. And now Iowa will have to senatorial seats open in 2014. Wow things must really be bad in the conservative world. Where will it all end for them? this gets more interesting every day.
So, the musical chair game begins:
..................and the Gov Heineman hopes to replace Johanns.
How do you 'retire' after only 1 term, 6 years?
2014 Senate contests:
21 Democrat controlled seats and 14 Republican controlled seats (at this time) will be contested next year.
Even with 7 more seats to defend and with 2 Dems retiring who come from solid Red states the Dems are still favored to retain the Senate majority.
GBM
Maine's senator Susan Collins(R) threw Hagel under the bus, not for any reason related to his actual nomination, but to protect herself from a Tea Party challenge in her primary. How sad is that?
Personally, I'd love to see Mike Michaud (D) take her seat. He is a Representative who is supported by Independents, moderate Republicans and Democrats. It would be so nice to have another independently minded senator from Maine, who really focuses on the job at hand, instead of a Republican party hack.
Oh wonderful...Deb Fisher will now be the Sr. Senator for NE and Heineman will hype his arse into the Senate behind her.
I think it will be fair to say that the Nebraska Senate delegation will be a 'bend over and do what you will to us' vote for the GOP.
"Bringing Nebraska values to Washington" my a**.
Don't fall for it, Sen. Collins. Don't play their game. After the departure of Sen's Lugar, Snowe, and Hutchinson, you're one of the very few reasonable Republicans left in the upper chamber. That alone is the sole reason why you have the privilege of representing a blue state despite being a Republican. If you further shift to the right to protect yourself from the Tea Party in your primary, a Democrat or Independent will kill you in the general election, just like Sen. King did Charlie Summers. Maine isn't Oklahoma. You can't keep your seat by shifting to the right.
On second thought, do whatever you wish to do, Senator. The notion of another independent or a Democrat taking your seat from you in 2014 isn't so grim.
*Hutchison, not Hutchinson.
This news also puts his 'support' for Hagel in better context. He needs to sure-up his private sector opportunities. Even with Nebraska being a Red State, he would not be in a good position to be seen as not supporting a former Nebraska Senator for such a high profile Position as SecDef.
He told the GOP leadership well before he was retiring that he needed to bow out 'looking good'. Deb Fisher doesn't even know how to fart w/o being told how to. She has no credible reason to not support Hagel for SecDef. Her opposition is purely political and if Johanns wasn't retiring after 4 years of doing nothing for the State worth remembering, he would have been another GOP Senator on the 'No' list.
32 years sucking off the public, that sounds about right for a 'small government' advocate...... he's made enough money, so see ya'!
The truth as they say shall set us free.
Well, somebody finally did it!
Think Progress has a list of the 5 most over-rated presidents.
Thos. Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and Ronald Reagan are among them.
Now we're getting somewhere. LoL
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/18/1605931/happy-presidents-day-meet-the-five-most-overrated-american-presidents/
At least Johanns will finish his term in office!
GBM, no, Iowa's Grassley doesn't run again until 2016 so we only have one senate race in 2014.
Very interesting read, Pat.
Thanks, especially on Presidents' Day...Dubya rated close to the top for worst! lol
Seems to me Pat in Boston, you are trying to start stuff. ( - :
A lot can happen between now and the 2014 mid term elections. Republicans up for re-election are widely popular in their districts, and there are a number of Democrats considered vulnerable. If all Obama is going to do is obstruct progress so he can play the blame game, he might just find a weary nation after six plus years of those tactics. At some point even liberals might start wondering why Obama is so inept at getting anything done, especially since his endless blame and excuses hasn't solved anything. It won't take much for the tide to turn against Obama, and the Middle East could very well be his undoing.
Johntho:
Nah. Just tired of getting 1/2 baked perspectives on past presidents when it comes to important decisions they have made that hurt people and/or progress, yet continue to be ignored.
Amy, I was disappointed in Collins both for her role regarding Hagel and her eagerness to join the witch hunters on Susan Rice. It's sad that someone like her would allow the tea-party crowd to scare her; she's probably a pretty secure seat in Maine even if primaried. Even if she lost the primary, she could always run as an Independent and likely win the Maine general....unless she lets herself be dragged far to the right and sacrifices her integrity.
Pat, that's good news! It's about time someone called out the Reagan myth as being just that...a myth; I've said for decades, Reagan was a mediocre president at best.
Sorry @Rick but I don't history, not public polling supports the notion that the Nation believes the President is the point of issue with things not getting done. Widely popular support at the District level can be said of both sides. Each election cycle there are fewer and fewer, truly swing Districts left.
Republicans made it clear the second Obama won in 208 what their role/priority would be for the duration of his Presidency and that fact hasn't been lost on the Country.
It is again always refreshing to see those kind of willingly root for the 'tide to turn' against any President, let alone President Obama.
Susan Collins has something like a 63% approval rating in Maine, however I don't think she is as invulnerable as people think. Just the fact she would help jam up Chuck Hagel's nomination, suggests to me she feels vulnerable to a primary challenge, just as her more-popular colleague Olympia Snowe was excorated by the Tea Partiers in Maine. It is said the reason Snowe didn't endorse Charlie Summers in the Senate race was because she was still mad he didn't support her during the Republican primary run up.
Thanks, Charlie! Glad you like my avatar. A true Maine hero, he died of his injuries on the battlefield...50 years later!
Why hasn't Senator Menendez retired yet? Sexual intercourse with children in the Dominican??
No wonder he's in NJ.....real close to all the Dominican kids in NY......
Way to do your homework voters, it's more than just checking the box by [D] or [R].......
Funny.....way to report real news MSNBC........
You have a credible source for this... yes?
A team of FBI agents has been conducting interviews in recent weeks in the Dominican Republic and the United States, looking into allegations that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) patronized prostitutes in the Caribbean nation, but has found no evidence to support the claim, according to two people familiar with the investigation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-probing-allegations-sen-menendez-patronized-prostitutes-in-dominican/2013/02/15/49b64e7c-77c5-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_story.html
Pat Boston
You do realize that Ian Millhiser is a far left progressive/liberal working for Think Progress don't you? And his list of the worst President's is just his assinine opinion? But I can see the majority of lefties on this blog kissing his rear end. You don't mind if I think his opinion is worthless do you?
Senator Johanns put in his 5 years in the Senate so he is fully vested for retirement now. When are "we the people" going to stand up to all these politicians that we have to support with our tax dollars after they do nothing for us? He will probably make more in his retirement than most of you will make in your entire life.
JH,
There is a 5 year vesting period (as you stated) for the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), which means a 1 or 2 terms Representative would not get vested, but a Senator would.
A single-term Senator could take retirement at age 62. The amount is the average annual salary for the 3 top-earning years multiplied by years served (6) multiplied by 1.7%.
Right now, a Senator makes $174,000 a year. If we assume that amount for the top 3 earning years, and we assume that the Senator served a single term, then we come up with a pension amount of $17,748.00 per year.
Senator Johanns will receive $17,748.00 per year
http://www.opm.gov/retirement-services/fers-information/computation/
"Glad you like my avatar. A true Maine hero, he died of his injuries on the battlefield...50 years later"
Clueless Amy probably doesnt realize Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a proud Republican his whole life...
That is the first and last time Amy will say anything decent about a Republican, since she is a paid Democrat partisan hack.
Certainly you can look it up yourself......it's on every single major news and newspaper website.
Except MSNBC of course.
. . . since she is a paid Democrat partisan hack.
This statement coming from GOP Comeback explains why there will be no comeback for the GOP in '14.
I did and couldn't find anything...
Obviously you have a source, so please share it or are you doing your usual routine of tossing out unfounded accusations... again? lol
That would be a NO!
Firstly, it would not be 'sexual intercourse' concerning children. It would be 'sexual assault/rape'!
No doubt you have no complaint against what happened at Penn State, priests in the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, etc......those cases did/do involve children.
Susan Collins would throw Joshua Chamberlain under the bus, if it kept the Tea Party Republicans from challenging her in her primary. What's the fate of another Republican war veteran when you need to jam up President Obama's agenda to stay in the good graces of the right-wing?
Dennis, Columbus
$17,748.00 per year for his Senate service. You and everyone else knows he will receive far more for his other positions over his 32 years. Not to mention his health care and social security. We tax payers will NEVER know the full amount that we pay every years for all retired politicians and public sector union workers. If they could ever come up with the actual figure there would be a revolution in this country.
JH,
They just updated the article to show he had 32 years of public service.
But even at that he will come nowhere close to full pay. His pension will be $94,656.
Thanks Jody...I got my state's mixed and realized soon after as I was thinking about it but already had left the house. This really is musical chairs. The turnover is amazing.
Amy
Susan Collins is more likely a target by the Tea Party than a friend. I'm amazed at how the left confuses this issue despite the facts, but I understand that they painting every republican as a tea republican because they see a potential political advantage to do so.
This won't work with Collins.
Anyone who wants to know why Sen Menendez is being investigated there is an Opinion piece in the NYT on Feb 12 2013.
lisa - yes, but it is still an investigation - no firm facts are known at this time. If it turns out he is guilty, his sorry a** needs to be kicked out! But, we usually wait to make sure allegations are true. It's the American way!
1. Little Round Top; d*mn the political party.
2. The party that ended slavery.
Seeking Sanity, I know is it an investtigation. I was just trying to clarify what they were actually looking in to and not the tabloid trash that people are repeating.
Laker Steve, why hasn't GOPer David Vitter resigned yet? Seems only democrats are required to resign based on allegations but republicans proved guilty and confessing their guilt--with their wives standing beside them in shame--are re-elected!!!
GBM, it's easy to get Nebraska and Iowa mixed up; western IA adjacent to Nebraska is pretty conservative!
lisa - sorry - you're absolutely right!
Seeking Sanity, Not a problem Seeking. You have a great day.
G.O.P. comeback said "Clueless Amy probably doesnt realize Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a proud Republican his whole life..."
You do realize the republican party then is not the republican party today, or are you that clueless yourself?
The GOPTP today would think Eisenhower was a commie.
A couple of observations--
1. By definition, the obstructing party cannot possibly be the governing party. The opposition party is the one technically in the position to "obstruct," as the governing party is the one that has the mandate to set an agenda. Obama doesn't belong to the current opposition party--he is, in fact, the leader of the governing party. He cannot possibly "obstruct" anything.
2. "Progress." Again, by definition, progressives are the ones who stand for progress; conservatives are the ones arguing that progress isn't necessary, that conserving the status quo is the way to go. Regardless of whether you agree with one side or the other, you cannot imply that a conservative is trying to lead this country to progress and a progressive is obstructing that. Unless you want to suggest that we've been wrong all along and Republicans are the progressive ones, while Democrats are conservatives, you're wrong again.
This isn't a matter of perspective. You're just flat out wrong. Obama is trying to set an agenda of progress for the country and the Republican House, along with the filibustering Republican senators, are obstructing it. Period. No way to spin that.
***PAGING LAKER STEVE****
You gonna share your source or just scurry off with your tail tucked?
Democrat party of the 1960's is not the same as today, what's your point Johntho? They're still called Democrats right?
How would you know that the Tea Party would think Eisenhower was communist?
[***PAGING LAKER STEVE****]
Faker Steve is gone :(((
And I was soooo looking forward to his citations of proof.
Wishful thinking, eh? They feel the same way at FOX too. But as Elmer Fudd said "Be afwaid, be verwy afwaid!"
What, and ruin a perfect record? Not a chance! And besides, Steve wouldn't know a credible source if it bit him in the arse.
He caught a ride on the last train to Beckistan... lol
Tony,
Notice the pattern?
When the RWNJ's demand sources from the left, we provide them. When the left requested sources from the RWNJ's they run out of here with their follicles on fire!
Losers...
"Clueless Amy probably doesnt realize Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a proud Republican his whole life..."
GOP Comeback 2014 the cluleess one is you. The Republican Party of Lincoln, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, TR, Taft, Ike and even Reagan has NOTHING in common with the Republican Party of the 21st century other than the name. Don’t insult such great Americans as Chamberlain and TR by comparing them to the likes of George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann
My point is Paul, obviously you are a size two hat. The republican party used to be the party of progress, today it is the party of the rich and the few two hats like yourself that still believe they are conservative. Not so grass hopper, not so.
And your second question, the answer is Duh.
Charlie, two thumbs up if I could give them. Lets add, Boner, Lyan Ryan, and Cantor. The neoconservative fascist of today wouldn't be good enough to carry the heroes of the past gym bag.
Indeed! And we all know who the main source for these folks is, don't we. I suppose if Hannity all of a sudden became a liberal, the world would stop completely on it's axis. Well, as they used to say on Seinfeld "yada yada yada!" These clowns fool no one, but it sure is fun shooting them down like ducks on a pond.
Aw Charlie, you forgot Nixon. Go ahead, you can say it.......Nixon, Nixon, Nixon!!! It reminds me of that movie "Where the Buffalo Roam" with Bill Murray as Hunter S. Thompson and the scene with the dummy of Nixon and he shouts to his Doberman "NIXON" and the dog proceeds to rip it apart at the crotch. LOL.
"How do you 'retire' after only 1 term, 6 years?
Alright, is this some kind of Sarah Palin joke?
And as to sex with children, what the hey? GOP been screwin' kids since at least the St Reagan days.
"Aw Charlie, you forgot Nixon. Go ahead, you can say it.......Nixon, Nixon, Nixon!!!"
I’ll take Richard Nixon over the Republicans of today. He was a better man. He had his dark side but he did do some good. That’s more than I can say about most of today’s Republicans.
He knows he can't vote the way he wants because he knows the teabaggers will
have a fit. Good for him. Now he can vote the way he wants with-out fear.To bad Mcangry can't. He is a scared pitiful old man...sad.
I agree with you. All jokes aside, Richard Nixon was brilliant when it came to foreign policy. People like to give most of the credit to Reagan for ending the Cold War, but if you really want to see where the seeds were planted, look no further than the Nixon presidency. He initiated the SALT Treaty and opened the door to China. Whether or not that's good is debatable, but it most certainly was historic. Too bad guys like the whacked out G. Gordon Liddy got too close to him and eventually brought him down.
Drive,
Clinton helped himself to a youngster and left a mess on her dress...
Sorry little man - how old was Monica again when she gave Bill the hummer?
Hint - Well over 21... Your point again is WHAT? lol
Step away from your Obama Derangement Syndrome, life might be better... LMAO@U poor thing!
And exactly how old was Clinton again?? She was 23, barely an adult compared to the old man Clinton...
Nice try...
JK1963 - Monika was NO youngster. She went to DC after following her married professor (who she was having an affair with) to Iowa. And, she told everyone she was going after the President. She was no innocent. So, get over it. Had Clinton actually taken advantage of her, it would be a different story!
As usual you show how vulgar, crude, classless and ignorant Republicans are required to be!
"...23, barely an adult..."
And in a court of law, this would mean???
Y' Sorry loser. Or, to quote a real dumb-ass: "Nice try..."
Seeking,
Talk about vulgar. So are you saying it wasn't Clinton's fault?? You want to blame the woman?? Please get over yourself. You only fit the facts when its suits your warped sense of reality! You continue to show what a low life person you really are...being the mindless bully from the left.
Drive,
I would comment but I'm already spending time responding back to one loser, or in your case a dunb-ass...
JK1963 - YOU are nothing at all. I would never blame the woman if she were not the one who pursued him. Those are the facts and her friends as well as the married professor all support them. You are a total low life. If you thought well of me I'd know I'd sunk into the gutter where you dwell.
You are a total idiot and your posts show that daily. You bring up Clinton when, of course, the thread had NOTHING to do with him!
YOU are nothing - zero; zilch; nada! Again, crude and vulgar are your trademark!
Drive - no worries. JK has no arguments anyway - just his usual "dumb-ass" posts!
Seeking,
Once again you post drivel...so it's ok to reference raping children in the context of insulting a republican, but equate to your idol of Clinton and you have a meltdown. Please...get over yourself... you are nothing but a pimple on the backside of society. Your posts show time after time instead of engaging in a real discussion you do nothing but berate people over and over again. The only I insult is when you have already lowered yourself and it seems that the only intelligent method to points across to you is by lowering to your level. Trust me low life...you and your posts mean zilch to me. Insult away, because I know deep down that you are just an insecure little bimbo that follows all the other posters around. Not once have I EVER seen you post a link...just go along with the usual dimwitted crowd. It's ok...people should feel sorry for you, but what they really are doing is just laughing at you behind your back.
"And exactly how old was Clinton again?? She was 23, barely an adult compared to the old man Clinton..."
Hey JK-1963--- don’t forget --- Newt Gingrich (he's older than Clinton) was boinking his secretary at the same time he was all in an outrage about Bill and Monica. And she is the same age as Monica.
"You bring up Clinton when, of course, the thread had NOTHING to do with him!"
Funny – these Republicans just love bringing up Bill and Monica but the never talk about Bush and Iraq, or Bush and the economy, or Bush and spending. . I guess they know that if Clinton could run again he would win in a landslide and it Bush could run again he would be lucky to carry Texas.
The only thing that bothers me about Clinton, is that he smashed the door down for Wall Street to wipe out our economy, and laughed all the way to the bank.
If you are adult enough at age 18 to go off and fight bull@!$%# wars, then you're adult enough at 23 to blow the POTUS!
Nice try, is right! Still LMAO@U
I don't remember a total saturation advertizing campaign on Newsvine like that of "wilsonarden whatever the number". This has all happened since the new and "improved" Newsvine. It seems they have been hacked and are unable to prevent the re-regs of wilsonarden. Of course, I guess I'd rather read the ad than read all the hate and crap and Fux lies being thrown around by the radical, racist, right wing republikan garbage lurking around Newsvine like a pedophile hanging around a schoolyard.
And JK you want to blame the man. It took two to tango and both were above the age of majority. Shut up. Clinton may have been the best president ever, and at least had a grip on the budget. He led with authority and led this country in the right direction. Clinton did not rape Monica, but W. Bush raped the country.
Hagel is "unqualified" because he's a Republican who supported Obama for President.
Johntho,
I see...so excuse the philander in chief, right? In case you forgot, Clinton didn't get in trouble for doing Monica, he got into trouble for lying under oath. I know that goes right above your head, but that's a pretty big no-no for being a lawyer. Also, Clinton was the luckiest guy on earth to be in office for the tech revolution. He was just there at the right time...nothing more, nothing less. And let's not forget that he was the guy in office when America was the victim of the biggest domestic terrorist attack in US history. Yes...he was such a great president...
Johanns is one of just two Republican senators publicly backing former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R) nomination to be defense secretary.
I guess he feels that he might be in the wrong party and is stepping aside. When you are only 1 of 2 backing someone you probably get a lot of flack from the GOP.
nomoresameo,
They just updated the above article to include the letter from Johannes.
He has been in various elected and appointed office for 32 years.
Looks like there will be more than one to toss their hat into the ring for this Senate seat.
The teatards will likely nominate some crazy and that means another pickup for the Democrats. Who knows – in 2014 we may have a filibuster proof Senate and a Democratic House.
The teatards will likely nominate some crazy and that means another pickup for the Democrats. Who knows – in 2014 we may have a filibuster proof Senate and a Democratic House.
Since he has been there 32 years he retires with his FULL SALARY. $174,000 a year. Not bad.
He's only been a Senator since 2009. The article says he served in public office for 32 years - not as Senator.
"I'd be honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity," Senator John McCain (R-AZ) told the New York Times in 2006. "He'd make a great secretary of state."
In 2008, presidential candidate McCain said he and Hagel were "close and dear friends" and that Hagel could have a place in a McCain administration.
When rumors swirled that Obama might choose Hagel as his running mate in 2008. McCain was all for the idea. "I don't know anything about that," McCain said about the idea of Obama picking Hagel for vice president, "except to say Chuck Hagel is a distinguished veteran and a very dear and close friend of mine and I cherish his friendship and have for many, many years."
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton won’t be taking much time off after stepping down from the Obama administration. She will likely join the paid speaking circuit this spring, probably in April or May, reports Politico’s Mike Allen, who was first with the news that she selected the Harry Walker Agency to represent her.
No word on how much money Clinton will get per speech but she’s expected to have “fees well into the six figures” and will likely “be one of the highest paid speakers in the history of the circuit,” writes Allen. But, as is usually the case with such high-profile personalities, Clinton is also expected to speak for free for causes she believes in and even occasionally donate her fees.
The news has been confirmed by the company as it posted an announcement on its website this morning saying Clinton “has joined the Harry Walker Agency exclusively for her speaking engagements.”
The Harry Walker Agency already represents Clinton’s husband, and many of the most high-profile paid speakers from the world of politics and media, including former vice presidents Dick Cheney and Al Gore.
.
Have fun ... Girl.
Write a book...don't forget
Run for President...Don't forget.
Whatever Hillary gets paid for her speaking engagements, she will have earned it.
Before Presidents Day slips my mind ... another one-termer
We Canadians do not have a Presidents Day … the effigies of our Prime Ministers burn out of control.
That being said, my pick of the week is the one and only James K Polk, the perennial number 11 on many a list who also happened to be the 11th President. A man of his word, he served but one term and accomplished most of what he set out to do. Polk was a consummate land grabber and increased the size of the nation by a third … who can forget the show tunes such as "Fifty-four Forty or Fight", or the stage production that ensued called “Manifest Destiny”? Considering his achievements one could justly argue for a higher ranking but perhaps he is doomed to his spot by Sam Houston’s wry observation that Polk was "a victim of the use of water as a beverage”. This temperance in the world of spirits was matched by his wife who was referred to as Sahara Sally.
Ps, let us not forget that he signed the Smithsonian into existence. The roof is leaking damn it, fix it.
Quick quiz … who was Polk’s VP? Hint, he is one of six possibilities for the name of a city.
BCWC I live in the town of Pineville, NC where his memorial is. Quite an interesting family afternoon going over the exhibits and the cabins recreated to show the world in his day.
I know I wasn't going to comment anymore but I found it interesting that you posted about JKP.
'Sahara' Sally attended the few colleges in the Union to allow women, Moravians' "female academy" located in Winston-Salem. In ways, the South was more advanced than the North.
ps Talk ... enjoy your history day with your family. History makes us what we are. Wish I was there.
Yes,
Polk help set the US boundaries to the North and South.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/i_r/polk.htm
The little quirk in the MN US Northern boundary is another story.
Lets get our geography straight, and little known facts about the Northwest Triangle of MN which gives US the quirk in boundary beyond the 49th parallel.
http://geography.about.com/od/unitedstatesofamerica/a/northwestangle.htm
I have been in this part of the Lake of the Woods, beautiful country.
Northstar, Manitoba has a welcoming committee on standby ... I am sure these folks all watch CBC and say "eh".
BCWC, interesting, thanks for the history refresher.
Talkto, Pinesville NC, sounds like a fun historical outing.
"In two terms in the Senate, Chuck has earned the respect of his colleagues and risen to national prominence as a clear voice on foreign policy and national security," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). "He has consistently fought to expand free trade, particularly with Vietnam. Chuck's stature as a leading voice in foreign affairs has earned him a reputation, in just 12 years in the Senate, as one of Nebraska's great statesmen. This is a tribute to his intelligence, hard work, and devotion to a country that he has served his entire adult life."
"When Senator Hagel came to the Senate, his actions often reflected his experience as a combat veteran. He did what he believed was best for the men and women in uniform, and he defended his positions forcefully," said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ). "Senator Hagel has continued to protect and defend the country, notably through his work on the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. He had strong opinions, and he was never shy about letting them be known."
Republicans have decided Chuck Hagel is unqualified?
John McCain, a man who was as pro-Iraq invasion as anyone. A man who saw nothing wrong with invading and killing citizens who had nothing to do with September 11th. A man who knew what the inspectors were saying at the time about finding nothing. He ignored their warnings.
John McCain said nothing and ordered no hearings while our embassies were being attacked frequently during the GWB years.
John McCain, who saw nothing wrong with sticking the United States of America with Sarah Palin as second in line to the presidency should he win. Sarah Palin, easily the worst vp pick in the history of our nation was who McCain supported 100%, otherwise he would not have selected her. She was ill equipped at every single level for the job. He felt SHE was qualified for the job.
His fellow Vietnam vet on the other hand, Chuck Hagel was intelligent enough to understand the folly of Iraq and said so. In John McCain's eyes, that is not acceptable. And so he has decided that Hagel isn't up for the job. For being 100% correct.
Hagel questioned while McCain didn't. When caution and clear thinking was essential, McCain showed neither. He is a stubborn, mean spirited, war mongering fool. A man who looked the other way when inspectors said there was no cause to go into Iraq.
Chuck Hagel not up to the job?
There are a lot of people who are not up for the job. Hagel is not one of them.
John McCain will backstab anyone in order to appear right. An impossible task as we have come to find. No wonder he selected Palin.
GOP Establishment. Not only did they destroy Iraq for no reason whatsoever, they almost destroyed the United States of America. They will never admit their mistakes and have decided that now they will just waste everybody's time attempting to destroy those who were honest. That's what the GOP does. And John McCain has become Karl Rove. The same Karl Rove who tried to destroy McCain.
John McCain, when throughout the years was in a position to make important decisions, made bad decisions. Incredibly bad decisions.
And because of this fact, witch hunts are now back in vogue.
As Steve Benen wrote:
Watching Standards Fall To New Lows.
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/18/17004860-watching-standards-fall-to-new-lows?lite
... and the hunting weapon of choice is to bitch.
h/t Obama Diary:
Israeli President Shimon Peres’ office said Monday that Obama will be recognized for his “unique and significant contribution to strengthening the State of Israel and the security of its citizens.”
Won't that upset the applecart towed around by the viper tongued Right.
BCWC, LoL. Oh yeah.
In addition to the many other bad choices McCain has made, he is another republican who never got over the US saying "enough dead Americans", throwing in the towel and leaving Vietnam. Reagan's big push in Afghanistan was rooted in the same "defeat communists at all costs" thinking about Vietnam because it was viewed as a loss by the USA. McCain supports war first, we need only look at his own actions and words. He was all for putting boots on the ground in Libya and has a similar view on Syria. McCain was perfectly happy to keep American troops in Iraq for "a hundred years". Thank goodness, voters said NO and McCain lost in 2008.
Great points Jody. McCain and legislators like him seriously need to go. Their mindset is terribly dangerous at a time when we want competence and peacemakers.
Good one, BCWC! I look forward to the upsetting of the vipid-tongued GOPers applecart; of course, it is a load of rotten, bad-tasting, bitter apples they've been hauling.
Rachel Maddow's "Drift" was a terrific read; she didn't have much good to say about Reagan although the book was not written from a partisan perspective. A refresher course in our military. "Ghost Wars" was more difficult to read but enlightening in terms of Afghanistan, Reagan, etc.
Pat
There are democrats who have expressed reservations too. But don't worry, they will tow the party direction when the votes come in unless they get a pass from leadership because the wrong vote may jeopordize re-election.
Another rat jumping off a sinking ship (see rightys, two can play at that game).
Acutally, the best we can hope for to replace him out of Nebraska is another Ben Nelson clone. The downside is another foaming at the mouth bagger. Please reconsider Senator.
Al---we can hope for a Tea Party candidate from the right and a regular Democratic candidate and have a chance to pick up that seat.
True Steeler fan. I'm sure Nebraska has their share of home grow Todd Akin/Richard Mourdoch clones who would do well in the primary.
What is the NE governor like? I'm sure he is pretty conservative but he seems to have avoided the spotlight put on the true GOP loons like Snyder, Kasich, Walker and the nuts iin VA and FL. If after the smoke clears we ended up with a Bob Dole type guy, that wouldn't be that bad.
Al, good one!
Who knows, maybe former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerry will give it another try. I doubt it but you never know.
I am more than confused. Since 1930 Nebraska supposedly does not have Party representation. Google it. I can't explain the in's and out's.
Well, in a non-technological age, the idea sounds great. The non-partisanship just means that Party affiliation isn't listed on the ballets for those running for the Unicameral. Whomever gets the most votes during their respective Primaries go at it in the General w/o Party affiliation listed.
The gentleman who argued for the change to unicameral wanted to draw a difference between the positions taken by a Party at the National level vs the positions that might be taken at a Local level, basically arguing that the R or D wrongly entices a voter to vote for a candidate that in reality holds an opposing view than that of the voter on local matters.
Again, 1937 great idea, but in 2013 when you can find out everything about a person while waiting at a friggin red light, not so much.
Hagel is not a war monger and that is exactly what the republicans have against him.
The republicans want someone who will lie us to war and drive our economy to the brink of destruction just like bush and cheney.
Benghazi gate is just another reason for McCain to spew hate and obstruct the president who beat him soundly in 2008. Just like fast and furious there is no conspiracy except the one that lingers in the brains of an addled old man showing signs of dementia.
What McCain and other neo-conservatives want is a signficant and costly permanent U.S. military presence in the Middle East.
Stone
Why at the turn of the 20th Century did we make bases in the Philippines important? Perhaps because of the threats from China and the difficulty of protecting US citizens and our own interests from the mainland of the US
Why did we set up bases in South Korea? Because of the threat from China and their puppet, North Korea.
We set up overseas bases to make it more efficient to protect our national security and our vital interests. It is far cheaper and more effective to have these bases than to transport from the US in the event of a threat.
So go ahead, close all foreign bases, ignore treaties and defense pacts, raise the cost of the Defense budget if that's the path you want to choose.
Yeah but what were our soldiers protecting us from in Iraq? Big militaries have a tendency to be used to justify their expense to the populace...hence the lies lies and more lies from cheney et al
remember the trliions spent on a faux cold war against an enemey that was incapable and unwilling to do the things we were told they would for 40 years? Yes I'm talking about the evil empire, the soviet union...
for 40 years our leaders lied to us about the threat to justify their butting into every nook of the world, especially those with important assets like oil...
We spend more than the next dozen or so countries combined and most of them are our allies...how much is too much for you?
Larry Robinson,
So we have to be the World's Policeman--that's what you're saying? Name another country that has even one-tenth the number of major foreign bases as we have. You say you can't? Gee, wonder why that is. How many countries have one-tenth the number of aircraft carriers roaming the seas far from home as we do? Can't make a guess, huh?
You might do well do consider the financial connections that exist between Congress, corporations and the Defense Department. Maybe that will shed some light on (1) why our Defense Dept. (nice, 1984 doublespeak term there) budget is so bloated, (2) why we keep building new aircraft carriers, etc. when there is wide disagreement over whether we need them, and (3) why we maintain so many bases overseas.
Again, our defense budget as a percentage of GDP is lower than during the Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan years.
National defense is the FIRST priority of our Federal Govt, a fact that even Obama has acknowledged.
I don't care what numbers other countries have as long as our capabilities remain superior to every threat.
Of course like a typical lying liberal Jack- I never said anything about not knowing the numbers of bases or carriers. Having worked for over 25 years with the Pentagon, Military Procurement Commands, and members of Congress during my Aerospace/Defense Career, I am well aware of both the necessities and the waste that can come into play. That said, we have the best and most efficient military including how we spend our dollars of any country in the world.
We can reduce our defense spending strategically by 10-15% by increasing the use of drones, special forces, and returning to the use of targeted assassinations. We have reduced the number of overseas bases under BARC by 30% over the past 20 years. And certainly there are more bases (especially in Europe) that we can dismantle. If we agreed to let the Japanese change their constitution and form their own military again, we could have some reduction there, but we still need a far Pacific base of operations. It is cheaper and more effective to do so than to have to dispatch naval, air, or even ground forces from the US mainland. It could even be deadly to US citizens without that quick capacity.
One of my sons served in a Marine Unit that travels the world training to rescue US citizens in the event of terrorism. The ability to react quickly and with sufficient force is essential to US National Security, Security of US citizens, and to our vital national interests.
Traditionally, there are three factors that drive U.S. foreign policy: Trade (expand that today to include non-trade factors, such as foreign investment); Missionary activities (complicated today by a complex "End of Days" scenario, which particularly impacts our role in the Middle East, so expand that factor to "religion"); and Energy (which today is essentially still fossil fuel based and within that category, oil-based).
In the 19th century, much of the Pacific expansion of the European powers and ourselves, in the latter category was the the transformation of naval forces from sail to steam and the consequent need for coaling stations to support their fleets, which - in turn - were protecting their missionaries and traders.
Two world wars in the twentieth century, the expansion of technology, and the end of communism have changed the need for a global military presence. The latter was achieved largely through "outspending" the Russians, whose resources - much like ours in Vietnam - were drained by a war they should not have fought...Afghanistan. That drain left them without the capital to counter a U.S. Star Wars system, which negated their huge investment in nuclear weapons, and left them vulnerable to a U.S. first strike, in response to any ground invasion of their neighbors, to which we might respond in the defense of our allies.
The question today, on a smaller scale, in the Middle East is similar, in regard to the Arab Spring, which was largely inspired by the Bush administration's inability to find WMD in Iraq.
That failure turned the "justification" for our invasion from the threat of "imminent attack" to one of freeing the Iraqi people and creating a "beacon of freedom and democracy" in the Middle East, overturning corrupt dictatorships - i.e. the Arab Spring. President Obama's Cairo speech, prior to the Egyptian revolution (and others throughout the region) was simply Obama "walking the Bush talk."
That brings us to a foreign policy cross-roads: Do we move forward, in light of the Arab Spring, in support of self-determination in the region, WHEREEVER it may lead, OR do we return to the installation of "client states," led by those who ALWAYS follow U.S. policy in the region?
The former is certainly the "rationale course," considering our national debt and necessity to cut the size of government. The latter is both more complex and more expensive, and involves moving increasingly toward Israel as the "keystone" of U.S. Middle Eastern policy.
Israel has become the new Western Europe of the Cold War and just as 500,000 U.S. forces IN Europe became necessary in the early fifties, following the Russian's acquisition of a nuclear arsenal, so will the presence of massive numbers of U.S. troops in the Middle East serve as the "trip wire" toward a new stand-off between nuclearly armed Israelis and Iranians.
The threat of an Iranian nuclear capiability is not only that they might use the weapons, but that by possessing such weapons, they prevent the Israelis from using theirs on them, in the advent of a non-nuclear ground war.
What is the Israeli alternative to a nuclear stalemate? A huge U.S. troop presence. How do we justify the defense of what is basically a religious, democratic-socialist state? By two of the three factors I listed above: religion and energy. The first concerns Hagel's statements of the Jewish lobby in the USA. AIPAC is one of the strongest lobbying groups in Washington, probably comparable to the NRA. But, recognizing a "fact," does not mean rejecting that influence. Just as the NRA is entitled to represent their membership's desires, so is AIPAC entitled to represent theirs. The second is "energy." If we are capable of achieving energy self-sufficiency, that decreases the importance of Middle East oil corresponsingly, removing another reason for our long term involvement there.
More later...gotta run errands.
Rick
1. the War in Iraq, which I'm proud of both Bush and our brave men and women in uniform was in direct and legal response to Saddam's Material Breach of a cease fire agreement signed with the US, UK, and Kuwait. It was acknowledged by the Clinton Administration, much of the world, the UN, and our Congress. It was also a legal action in response to Saddam spending over $35 million to the families of jihadists for murdering Americans and Israelis.
2. How old are that you don't know what a threat Russia was. Not just their nuclear capabilities, but their constant efforts to provoke war, and to murder or attempt to murder US citizens. I had numerous engagements against the Soviets and is how I earned my Purple Heart and permanent disability.
3. I don't care how much other countries spend as long as our capabilities remain superior to everyone else
4. National defense is the number 1 priority of our Federal Govt. However we spend far less in the last 20 years as a percentage of GDP than during the period following WWII up to the so-called end of the Cold War.
We must always spend whatever is necessary to maintain that edge. Superiority in capability is itself a defense against possible aggression by others.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Bull crap. I was in the Marines, too, and am a war veteran. Big deal.
You do know how to read, right? Try Andrew Bacevich's "Washington Rules". He was a career Army officer and lost a son in either Iraq or Afghanistan (I forget which). His book will explain what apparently went over your head during all your years working at the Pentagon.
On the other hand, don't waste your time. You're not smart enough to see beyond your own experience.
Okay, I see. You don't have a thought in your head. Don't bother responding to me because I'm not interested in reading drivel. Just plod along with your head down going, Dum-de-Dum-de-Dum, if that's what makes you happy.
Well Stone as might be expected, you completely ignore the cost, efficiency, and response time factors for foreign bases as any debate would be farcical.
I hope you weren't trying to be serious with such an idiotic statement. The Arab spring was result of liberty coming to Iraqis, not some idiotic claim about WMD. We know now that 500 tons of yellow cake were found in Iraq, multiple caches of WMD were found, but more importantly we have Saddam's prison testimony to the FBI interrogator in which he admitted he wanted the US and his neighbors to believe he still had active WMD. Furthermore Saddam admitted that if he could get sanctions lifted he would resume all of his WMD programs including the nuclear option.
Self Determination in the Middle East is NOT incompatible with our need for military bases in the region. Again you choose to ignore the cost, capability, and reaction time advantages to having these bases to protect our National Security and our vital interests.
Finally your obvious Anti-Semitism really comes out in your antagonistic remarks towards Israel. I won't give further credence to your bigotry with a further response.
Perhaps Larry can explain why America should spend such huges sums, spend more money on its military than it does on just about everything else that is equally important to making us "superior".
We can have the most powerful military in the world but what good is it if our infrastructure is crumbling, if our schools and education take a back seat to more and bigger weaponry. When I read comments like Larry's, I think of North Korea, it's people literally starve while it spends its money on arms.
Jody,
We have a national highway fuels excise tax which provides about 50 billion per year for infrastructure. If you don't think it's sufficient, let the Democrats propose raising it again as was done during the Reagan administration.
There is NO constitutional authority for the Federal govt to meddle in education.
And as a reminder as a percentage of GDP, we spend 65% less on the defense budget in the past 20 years than during the period from Eisenhower-Nixon
A purple heart for fighting Russians? Where and when? The last time, and probably the only time, we fought head-to-head with Russians with regular forces was during the Murmansk intervention during the Russian civil war. Going to now reveal to us all of your CIA secret operations?
Amazing that such a devoted patriot is now willing to give up his citizenship and move to Costa Rica over a few bucks in tax increases.
To continue my "thesis" from above.
Being pro-Israel (as opposed to being pro-Netanyahu), I have no problem with SOME guarantee of Israeli sovereignty and security. IMO, the major problems are the failure of its neighbors to accept realities, give up their real and rheotical goals to drive Israeli into the sea and to come to a two-state Palestinian solution. But a second factor, is just as practical as that one, the lack of defensive borders for Israel. TRhe point does not need to be belabored...just look at a map.
Thus, ANY Palestinian solutions ALSO involves not ONLY recognition of Israel, but also an adjustment to defensible borders.
That said, I do not believe the U.S. today as the same level of resources it had in the post WW II era, capable of serving as the "world policeman," in the Middle East or anywhere else. Furthermore, IF we ever have a desire or need to do so again, that role must first be based on a solid domestic economy, with a large and prosperous middle class, which in turn involves the improvement of infrastructure at home, before unnecessary foreign involvements abroad.
That brings us back to the cross roads...and a choice between modified versions of Cold War strategies: containment versus roll-back.
Containment was basically a strategy of staying strong and waiting out the failures of communism to catch up with itself, which is largely what occured. Many other forces, other than the Reagan defense build up and "Charlie Wilson's War" in Afghanistan, brought down the USSR...growing unrest in Eastern Europe, the turn of China to the West and its success, shifts in the politics of Africa And the sub-continent of India, etc., etc.
IOW, it is highly likely that even without a Reagan defense build-up (which diverted capital away from peaceful expansion in both the USA and USSR), the Soviet Union would have collasped of its own accord in five to ten years...and in the post USSR era, we now know that the CIA almost as a matter of tradition, OVER-ESTIMATED the Soviet military capability, which of course, is far better than under-estimating it.
Thus, I see Obama's foreign policy as one of a network of foreign alliances, with a home based military capable of rapid deployment to allied bases, throughout the world, to combat terrorist threats on an ad hoc basis, coupled to better intelligence resources, cyber-defenses, etc. All of that may probably be accomplished at less expense than a forward base strategy involving "trip wire" forces stationed permanently abroad.
Counter to that is the neo-conservative strategy that focuses on "roll-back" And refuses to recognize the evolution of co-existence. IMO, its strategic core is based on a "forward, dominate, military posture," with permanently stationed toops, based abroad, covered by protective naval fleets guarding the world's water passages. IMO, that's the stuff of Empires.
Historically, more great nations have been bankrupted by their inability to economically maintain large military establishments than have failed on the basis of their maintenance of social programs for their own people.
Larry - Contrary to Donald Rumsfeld, the absence of evidence is not evidence. What Hussien wanted to do, was effectively nullified by a policy of containment. And, you'll need to present a source for the yellow cake to Canada story.
P.S. There are two ways to go to war today...the threat of imminent attack on your own country or through a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing invasion.
There were many resolutions against Iraq, but none authorizing the invasion, which many international law experts argue was against the U.N. Charter. In fact, we moved ahead specifically in the absence of obtaining such a resolution when we found we didn't have the votes for such. The Security Council consensus was for an additional few months of U.N. inspection.
And, I am not anti-Semitic. As I noted, one may be pro-Israel without being pro-Netanyahu.
I am also a patriotic American, who would rather see my taxes increase by 5% or so, rather than turn my back on my country...which you claim to do on alternate days.
I'm not surprised that you along with most Americans are unaware of the many engagements we had with the Soviets in the 60's (when mine occurred) and even into the late 70's and early 80's.
We had confrontations in Central America, Asia, and even in the Atlantic (where I lost some of my friends to the Russians). I will not disclose where mine took place because last I checked, it's still classified. But I will say that I was involved in multiple confrontations with Soviet forces in the 60's.
To state as you have that you agree with "SOME" guarantee Israeli sovereignty and security is like saying to some one "I may like you" and having that pass as a commitment to marriage.
Since we disagree on the fundamental basis of developing a strong middle class and necessary infrastructure, I will leave that for a different debate. Needless to say my view involves far less Federal interference and taxation than your view.
Also so as not to bore others, we will simply agree that while we have some agreement, we have substantial disagreement on reasons for the fall of the Soviet Empire.
And having lived in the Far East and having Asian studies as my major field of study in History, I disagree with your assessment on the relationship between the Soviets and China. It had been disintegrating not long after 1949. This was also planned by Mao. I suggest a good reading on China that is both informative and a good read is the Soong Dynasty by Sterling Seagrave.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1277313.The_Soong_Dynasty
I don't disagree with improving strategic foreign alliances, nor with improving rapid deployment capabilities (as I mentioned in my own recommendations for possible defense budget reductions). But we are decades at least away from any dramatic reduction in foreign bases beyond what BRAC recommended and which has resulted in about a 34% reduction in foreign bases.
Stone
the US is a sovereign nation and does not require the UN's approval to defend itself.
Let me quote a previous president who summed up the US approach to National Security and War as well as it can be stated.
It is meaningless to use "classified operations" to justify some debate point. That's like saying: "Trust me, I know, but can't tell you."
And, I studied Soviet Foreign Policy in graduate school.
I'm sorry but I've always taken my oath of my security clearances seriously. I've seen and been involved in security violation investigations and they are not fun. But I can generalize about engagement confrontations with the Soviets in various locations in the Atlantic, and in the Arctic Circle to name two.
still waiting Stone for your response to the presidential speech on National Defense I posted.
FDR's Radio Address "We Choose Human Freedom," May 27, 1941.
Before the founding of the United Nations and before the U.N. Charter.
You live in the past, Larry. Did you catch his "Four Freedoms Speech" as well? Like that one?
Well done. you'd be surprised how many liberals tell me that Bush made that speech.
Regardless, ALL presidents up to Obama have stated emphatically (well maybe also the exception of Carter) that the US is a sovereign nation who must make it's own determinations on national defense and war.
NO US president should ever go before the UN or any other international body to get permission to defend itself.
You won't be surprised to know that I have complete contempt for FDR's communist domestic policies.
P.S. You DO remember them, don't you? Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; freedom from want; and freedom from fear. And the details of the last:
"The fourth is freedom from fear-which translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-anywhere in the world."
stone6,
Excellent posts .
"Counter to that is the neo-conservative strategy that focuses on "roll-back" And refuses to recognize the evolution of co-existence. IMO, its strategic core is based on a "forward, dominate, military posture," with permanently stationed troops, based abroad, covered by protective naval fleets guarding the world's water passages. IMO, that's the stuff of Empires."
I would add that in this post modern world, the alliances being made and trade agreements are vital to many nations throughout the world. China has a huge presence in the Panama Canal Free Zone. Costa Rica had many bridges build by Japanese companies. Israel has agreements with Syria and Turkey to help build energy infrastructure.
It is a global world we live in. And the mindset of empire building, client-state model is not useful .
"I'm sorry but I've always taken my oath of my security clearances seriously."
P.S. Larry - Personally, I consider myself a liberal on domestic policy, but a "hawk" on foreign policy. I do not, however, believe we can continue to afford our post WW II role as "world policeman." We already spend more on defense than the next ten nations combined. The Chinese have just recently launched their first aircraft carrier; we have ten, with several more planned.
Romney wanted economic stimulus through tax cuts and increased defense spending. For what? Against whom? And, more specifically, he wanted more ships. To do what?
Traditionally, blue water navies are the extension of national power. We are ALREADY the largest single national military force on the planet...the addition of more would only have engendered a new arms race, with others having to divert their resources into matching a U.S. military expansion as well, and away from peaceful infrastructure expansion.
Somehow, I suspect that Larry's military confrontations with the Russians took place while he was in the movie theater watching Red Dawn. His Purple Heart was awarded for straining his voice yelling "Wolverines!"
P.P.S. Note, that Bush DID GO TO THE U.N. He was perfectly willing to move into Iraq, as his father did in Gulf War I, under the auspices of the U.N. IF they moved in accordance with HIS time table. When the consensus became one of allowing the U.N. inspectors more time, he went to war with the "justification" that he had to move before the summer heat to allow for force protection against counter attacks with bio-chemocal weapons...which never happened.
Nor, did he move ahead with adequate force. Frank wanted twice the forces and was "talked down" to an inadequate force, because of poor intelligence that anticipated a shorter, less expensive war. I am sure you remember Rumsfeld's famous reply to troops in the field complaining over the lack of body and Humvee armor: "When you go to war, you go with what you've got."
I would contend that not only was the Iraqi war unnecessary, from the standpoint of U.S. national security, it was fought poorly from a strategic perspective, in that Pentagon civilians and neo-cons sent under-equipped U.S. forces into harms way without adequate justification and/or arms. The original plan called for reaching Baghdad and withdrawing most forces within 3 months, at a cost of less thast $100 billion. That plan FAILED. That failure cost American lives, as well as countless Iraqi lives (and the lives of our allies).
And, the "Surge?" There would never have been a "surge," had it not been for the "Iraqi Study Group," that pressured Bush into changing strategy and adopting one similar, from AEI. Who was behind that "Study Group?" Bush I, Scrowcroft, and Jim Baker, along with a Republican Congressman from Virginia.
The Iraqi War was a giant "bluff" to the world that if you mess with us AT ALL...even look cross-eyed At us...we will come down on you like a ton of bricks...you are either with us or against us...and there is no in between...and we'll shoot first and ask questions later.
History will judge whether or not our post-9/11 defense could have been accomplished some other way.
NorthstarDFL - agreed. I would hope there will never be another "World War," on the order of WW I or WW II. Of course, many people thought the same thing in the thirties...i.e. that the world had become too interdependent.
Bush was wrong to go to the UN. He did it to appease Democrats in the Congress.
Bush Sr I have little respect for. He was just another Rockefeller liberal
I am proud of the Iraq war and am a firm believer that it was the right thing to do. Were mistakes made? Sure, show me a war conducted without mistakes.
The War was not a bluff. It was a correct and legal response to a nation that not only was in material breach, but it's leader Saddam had paid out over $35 million to the families of jihadists as a reward for murdering Americans and Israelis.
Hmmm...if you remember, Powell and others within the administration were also in favor of going to the U.N.
Sorry...there were so many mistakes that occured, particularly in regard to neo-cons pushing bad intelligence, I have concluded that it was either gross incompetence or intentional strategy.
Oh goody, a great opportunity for one more Democrat to be elected to the Senate.
If, however, it is a Republican I only hope and pray it is a person who is more main stream and not a wacky rwnj extremist and is young instead of an old guy and/or Fascist wannabe that is so common in the R party these days.
Sorry baldeagle11, we're talking Nebraska where the voters thought voting for a crotchety lady, who used her time in the unicameral to benefit her personal dealings and who swindles seniors out of their own land via the court system was a better Senate candidate than a former Governor who also served 2 terms as our US Senator....you ain't gettin' 'mainstream' out of this crowd.
she tried to seize their land but was unsuccessful, but it cost her neighbors $60k in legal fees.
There is something wrong with this family:
Deb Fischer's three sons all have been convicted at least once of drunken driving, and one has three DUI convictions.
http://omaha.com/article/20120930/NEWS/709309924
I'd bet anything that the GOP/TP maffia coalition found something in the closet of this man and threatened to disclose it if he seeks re-election, they cannot allow anybody who backs Hagel to be in the position to vote for sanity and common sense.
Anathema to them.
As far as I can tell all of these people we elected to the Congress & Senate should all "retire" without their pensions and healthcare we pay for. Now they want to discuss Gun Control and Mental Health. Lets start with these fools. Lets test their lazy brains. Oh that's right they would need to get up off theirs chairs for that. Have a Good Day!
May the GOP die a horrid death by 2020.may all the bible thumping scum in it die too,,losers
Revenge: Hagel 'attacked' GW Bush about Iraq, in 2005, so no Defense Secretary, in 2013.
Republicans: Revenge & Knowledge Repudiation
Grudge: Hagel didn't support McCain, in 2008, so no Obama Defense Secretary, in 2013.
GOP is Grudge, Obstruction, and Paranoia
Hagel endorsed Bob Kerrey for Senate over Deb Fischer.
Deb Fischer votes against Hagel a Republican former Nebraska Senator.
Vietnam War
Awards
Purple Heart (2)
Army Commendation Medal
Vietnamese Gallantry Cross
Combat Infantryman Badge
Bible,,,for weak failed,needy losers,,made up bye the same losers
As an atheist, I disagree. There are too many winners who believed in the Bible to hold such a cavalier opinion.
Bulletman- I truly feel sorry for you. Your bitterness towards God and those who love Him is a cancer that eats at your soul and only inflicts pain on you, not God or those who love Him.
When you lose to the worse president in our life time the party as a whole should retire to make room for a new party. Do not get the wrong idea the Democrats having put Obama up for a round two has no room to brag . This all brings up the question of who in their right mind regardless of party wants to follow 8 years of Obama.
Jeff - stop the drug use. It's killing the few brain cells you have. The worst President in modern time is and will remain George W. Bush. President Obama will be in history as one of the top ten.
You sound like the bitter loser McCain- totally deranged!
The Same kind of losers who followed 8 years of the dumb fawk war hungry bush retard
I like the "we" pronoun and the signature of both he and "his wife"........ She was voted in too? Ditch the B and make the switch......we elect one person and not their spouse. Let's get the inside of this country into the 21st century.
reminiscent of president hillbillary i think
Think - both he and his wife hold elected offices and apparently neither plans to run for re-election. They are bowing out of public office. That is the reason for the "we."
Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns will soon retire and I wish the Senator and his family well. I can only hope and pray that a Democrat takes the seat.
It appears another Senator has decided that he came to Washington to Govern, not be part of a CABAL of HOSTAGE TAKING, OBSTRUCTION, BLACKMAILING, SCORCHED EARTH TACTICS to the Economic Well-being of the Country. Too Bad. The likes of Graham, McConnell, Boehner, McCain, should all look at retiring. All have lost the Right to call themselves "Statesmen".
If that is not the Senator's reason for retiring, it should be if he is a Sane Person, unless illness or family issues.
Ted Cruz should really go back home along with Rand Paul. Both ARE over their Heads in what a U. S. Senator is suppose to be to the Country.
Honest Republican Law Makers have been put on notice if they don't destroy Obama/USA they will not get funding from Corporate Groups and Lobbyist. Well rather then be part of a Party they looks to endanger the US and the American people another Law Maker resigns.
The only way the Dems have a chance to pick up this seat is if the GOP put forth a far right, Tea Party Libertarian. Which isn't likely. Though Nebraska is a Red state, through and through, they are not as radical as the South. Nebraska, North and South Dakota do their own thing. Upper Midwest is a very pragmatic region. The current Gov. should take the seat easily.
Career politicians must be headed off at the pass, before they pass go and collect retirement on the public's quarter. Term limits should be vigorously enforced by vote should career-types seek further and future ofices in every state in the nation. Ask your Senator and Representative where they stand on getting rid of tax loopholes and deductions which have benefited those with money and influence. Get registered, vote, and get out the vote! We well know the truth of the concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer people and the concentration of power in stricter, less compassionate hands. "Sweep your state Capital CLEAN....in 2014" "Sweep the House CLEAN....in 2014" "Sweep the Senate CLEAN....in 2014"
2014, the year all of Obozo's gun grabbing starts paying off. The NRA will be spending some big time cash. All of those Blue Dog Dimocraps from red states will get crushed!
Bottom line: Republicans have sacrificed our prosperity, hence, our national security and our competitiveness around the world. During the biggest financial crisis in world history, Republicans are not partners in problem-solving but instead chose to spread ridiculous notions and lunacy within its political base to foment hatred and racism while using obstructionism and sabotaging against every effort, idea and proposal from the Democratic side, somehow thinking this is a strategy for winning a permanent lock on power. And instead of representing the people who elected them, they insult their own base with nonsense while acting as a lobbying group for the wealthy and powerful - who really don’t need their help. Unfortunately, the Republican base takes all this in and then regurgitates it as political gospel, kind of like musical puke that spews across this nation and leaves the rest of the world scratching its head and holding its nose. During the Bush-Cheney era, the rest of the world was – literally – wondering if the United States was going fascist. This soured relations even with our allies. Obama has repaired a lot of that damage but still the Republican-Tea Party-Right Wing Cartel continues to work against our economic recovery, prosperity and security and play the same stupid game plan over and over and over again. Looking at all the chaos, damage and destruction, here and around the world, it is clear that the GOP-Tea Party-Right Wing Cartel is truly the enemy within. Their product of hate, self righteousness, greed, narcissism, etc. has been, and continues to be, the undoing of our formerly great nation. Thanks to Republicans of all stripes, the U.S. has little credibility on issues such as human rights, freedom and fairness. Again, Obama has done much to repair these but in some cases the damage done is permanent; for example, the invasion of Iraq by the Bush-Cheney administration. Neither G.W. Bush nor Dick Cheney (Dickless Cheney actually) dare travel overseas for fear of being charged with war crimes. Looking at the history of the Republican Party, just since 2000, the incompetence, corruption and damage are blatantly clear….
I am amazed. Amazed that there are still people that, without shame and with a straight face, don't mind being identified as/with being a Republican.
I still wonder if this is True?
Link Here :
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/06/08/1098434/-Eric-Cantor-Paul-Ryan-Kevin-McCarthy-Plot-To-Sabotage-US-Economy-with-Frank-Luntz
Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan & Kevin McCarthy: Plot To Sabotage US Economy with Frank Luntz
On January 20, 2009 Republican Leaders in Congress literally plotted to sabotage and undermine U.S. Economy during President Obama's Inauguration.
In Robert Draper's book, "Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives" Draper wrote that during a four hour, "invitation only" meeting with GOP Hate-Propaganda Minister, Frank Luntz, the below listed Senior GOP Law Writers literally plotted to sabotage, undermine and destroy America's Economy.
During the four hour meeting:
The senior GOP members plotted to bring Congress to a standstill regardless how much it would hurt the American Economy by pledging to obstruct and block President Obama on all legislation.
These Republican members of Congress were not simply airing their complaints regarding the other party's political platform for four long hours. No, these Republican Congressional Policymakers, who were elected to do 'the People's work' were literally plotting to sabotage, undermine and destroy the U.S. Economy.
Mitt Romney, who has hired most of Bush/Cheney Policy Advisers, and the GOP party believe they can defeat President Obama, take control of the Senate and maintaining control of the House of Representatives so long as the economic recovery stalls. So they are actively trying to make it happen ... and that's what hate-propaganda Minister Frank Luntz had in mind when he organized the January 20, 2009 covert meeting.
I don't understand? This is legal? And if it is, these people are still in office? America needs to wake T.F. up~
Yup, the TEA GARBAGE AGENDA, Destroy the U.S. because the Nazis hate Blacks and the Allied countries that defeated them.
McConell would have really shed light on the redneck rebellion he didn't show LOL