Ray Jay wrote:I'm not blaming the news media. I'm just saying that it isn't the most important part of the story. What's important is the qualifications and viewpoint of the nominee.

Can we argue that Hagel will be so different than Panetta, Gates or any other reasonable future nominee? Will his utter incompetence drive the DoD into ruin and damage the fighting force and be a threat to America? I don't think even the most ardent critics (who aren't asses) would say that he would or even could.

A new McCarthism, however, would damage America, which makes it more notable and newsworthy. The tone and nature of some of the questions were out of line and deserve the attention they got.

Going after a "traitor" to the party does seem to explain why Republicans are so vehemently opposed to Hagel.

ray

I don't think it shows him as incompetent in the whole, although there are a couple of patches where he doesn't sound great.

Frankly I think he was flummoxed by Senator "Old Man Who Shakes his fist at clouds" who seems to want to re fight the rationale for the Iraq war.
Look, the members of the Senate Committee aren't horribly well qualified for their position as arbiters of who's qualified for the position of defence secretary. For instance if McCain's judgement is right then
- The Us would have invaded Libya
- The US would have sent troops to Georgia
- The US would still have large numbers of troops in Iraq.
McCain is still licking his wounds over his incompetent run for the Presidency, and his legacy of pronouncements on various foreign adventures indicates he hasn't seen an opportunity for military involvement that he didn't like. He's still cheesed at Chuck because Hagel figured out that Iraq wasn't worth it... Seeing as how Iraq is now a close ally of Iran and has signed all its oil over to China and Russia and others ... one would have to say Chuck was right. So what does McCain's questioning of Hagel in the hearing really mean?
It means McCain is an angry old man who wanted to hurt Hagel over an old slight, and his own failings.

If the Republican Party no longer has room for people like Chick Hagel it is rapidly on its way to becoming a constant minority party.

geojanes wrote:

GMTom wrote:Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction, the Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party.

I hadn't heard he said that.

He's right, and making a completely spot-on accurate assessment. Of course, that condemns him as a RINO, as opposed to being seen as sensible and speaking the truth. Sensible and speaking the truth = traitor to the Republican Party = Party of Stupid.

He's wrong.

The Democrats have moved so far to the Left that JFK would not be welcome. And, there is no way that Clinton would have dealt favorably with Reid and Pelosi.

Democrats don't like to admit it, but President Obama is a very liberal President.

An aside: on FB recently, a liberal snidely commented on a post of mine, implying that I believed Obama is an illegal alien from Kenya. I said, "That's rubbish. It's only his aunt and uncle who are illegals from Kenya."

Bulletin: Hagel is being temporarily filibustered because the Administration will not give Congress info re: Benghazi. All you have to do is listen to McCain or Graham to know that.

Did you know, for example, there were survivors of the attack?

Did you know they were interviewed by the FBI?

Did you know "the most transparent Administration in history" won't let Congress see the interviews?

When Bin Laden was killed, they made sure a movie was made.

When our ambassador was killed, the first in more than 30 years, they went into cover-up mode.

That's what the Hagel thing is about.

fate

Did you know, for example, there were survivors of the attack?

Everyone who is informed enough, or who checks Wikipedia knows this... And they were survivors from the CIA Annex primarily. Only six were state department. The rest presumably CIA operatives...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

If most of the employees were CIA operatives, there's a pretty good reason that their interviews and identities are not being released. However, there's an awful lot of detail already known... Including the fact that a small team of CIA operatives aided by a company of Libyan troops responded quickly enough, and adequately enough to save 32 staffers at the cost of 2 dead at the Annex. They killed about 100 Libyan "terrorists" whilst defending the Annex.
There's little unknown about the attack now. republican critics are grasping at straws and inundating the Internet with misinformation to keep their core riled...

I think he is right (mostly) in what he said, I do think a lot of this most certainly is part witch hunt. But Steve is also right where he says the Democrats and Obama are incredibly far to the left and liberal. I think it's also correct in saying he did poorly during this whole ordeal and he has shown to likely be a poor choice.

Is it the end of the world if he gets the nod? Of course not, but that does not mean he should also get support if not deserving. We have all these democrats crying foul as if he is supposed to simply get rubber stamped. Bottom line, did the guy perform well in the confirmation hearing? ...no.
Have Democrats blocked Republican nominations for this or that in the past? ...yes
So why the cry of foul? ummm, could it be you just may be listening to liberal pundits a bit too much? (me thinks so)

Ricky,
did the President authorize any troops be sent to help Americans being attacked on our embassy grounds (embassy grounds are considered American Soil) we have military bases in Italy, maybe an hour away, they are ready at all times, were they called? That answer is NO, why?
Did he request help from the Libyan Government? ...no, why?
Nobody but nobody thought this was going to be handled without such help, so why no call for help?
Why did the marine who came to help have orders to avoid the conflict? ...nobody has a good answer why
Why did Obama continue with the nonsensical story about the anti-Islamic film for so long when he knew from the start this had nothing at all to do with the attack? ...ignored and not questioned

This stinks, it stinks bad, yet liberal media wants to ignore it ...why?
what "mis-information" do you have us buying into? Please answer what the President has not, what did he do during the attack? He has not answered what was done, the White House has not given an accounting of what has been done yet Ricky knows the situation better than any other?

tom

did the President authorize any troops be sent to help Americans being attacked on our embassy grounds

Why don't you read the account of the incident I linked you to. It answers the questions.

But since your lazy
did the President authorize any troops be sent to help Americans being attacked on our embassy grounds (embassy grounds are considered American Soil) we have military bases in Italy, maybe an hour away, they are ready at all times, were they called? That answer is NO, why?
A CIA response team was sent from Tripoli. Much closer. It got there at 5 AM. They, workjing with Libyan army forces, were sucessful in evacuating the staff, with two casualties. The troops from Italy weren't needed,


Did he request help from the Libyan Government? ...no, why?
Who were those troops fighting with the CIA response team? Why, they weree Libyan regular forces.

Nobody but nobody thought this was going to be handled without such help, so why no call for help?
Why did the marine who came to help have orders to avoid the conflict? ...nobody has a good answer why
I don't know who or what you are talking about. If you are talking about Dougherty, he was CIA, not a marine.He was previously a navy seal, but in Libya he was CIA And he died fighting along with another CIA operative at the Annex. Both killed by mortar fire. So, he didn't "avoid conflict". They managed to kill 100 Libyan terorists according to the reports, so again he didn't avoid conflict.

Why did Obama continue with the nonsensical story about the anti-Islamic film for so long when he knew from the start this had nothing at all to do with the attack? ...ignored and not questioned
Probably because the CIA gave him that story.
The CIA is largely culpable . from wikipedia. Which you could have read...

In their book, "Benghazi: The Definitive Report," Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb report a contributing factor to the attack were covert JSOC operations in Libya planned and executed by Deputy National Security Advisor John O. Brennan, with tacit support from Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael G. Vickers, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, and Commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Admiral William H. McRaven, which led to a retaliation from militias such as Ansar al-Sharia.[18]:25, 29, 56-58 Sometime in mid-summer 2012, Brennan directed JSOC to conduct combat operations in Libya targeting high-level Al Qaeda operatives within Libya militia organizations. While Murphy and Webb say these operations targeting Al Qaeda leaders in Libya such as Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil may be warranted, the problem occurs when "their actions move a multi-billion-dollar counter-terrorist apparatus across the world, and its operations begin to get out of control...all with a non-elected political appointee running the show." They report that with Brennan running his own private war, he did not go through the normal chain of command, and operations were not deconflicted (a term referring to the avoidance of conflict between operations among agencies). Therefore, Ambassador Stevens was not read in on the JSOC operations, and was kept in the dark

Doctor Fate wrote:Bulletin: Hagel is being temporarily filibustered because the Administration will not give Congress info re: Benghazi. All you have to do is listen to McCain or Graham to know that.

...

That's what the Hagel thing is about.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the accuracy of Hagel's statement, but on the relationship of Hagel to Benghazi, that's interesting. If this was really about getting answers to unanswered questions and holding people accountable, wouldn't Republicans be trying to get one of their own into the DoD so that he could help force those answers? Why take it out on Hagel, who is one of them? If what you're saying is true, it seems that Republicans are more interested in making a scene than finding any answers.

Lets review what you have to say Ricky, how accurate is your assessment based on the timeline? Or are you assuming some things??? (as I had wrongly assumed the former seal was a current marine ...but lets ignore for now how he was ordered to stay away)

it started at 9:42 AM
it took almost a full hour (10:32 AM) until the Sect of Defense to be notified (that is already a problem and something that is already fishy sounding)

Obama was notified at 11:00 AM, so it took an hour and 18 minutes to think it was important?

11:30 PM all survivors are evacuated from the Consulate

somewhere between midnight and 2AM special anti-terrorist teams are put on alert in Spain and Croatia (again, why so long and why only on "alert"?)

1:30 AM a six person CIA security team finally arrives from Tripoli (a whole six people, almost 4 hours later they may have been "closer" but not in terms of time to get to the scene and is SIX people considered enough??)

at 5:15 AM a second terrorist attack is made on another building

all evacuations are finally started at 7:40 AM

7:57 PM special operations forces finally arrive. (it took almost a full day to get there after the damage was done)

then we have the whole matter of Obama continuing to tell the lie that this was not a terrorist attack but rather a demonstration regarding the anti-Islamic film for several days he told this story when it was known all along that this was a terrorist attack. Nobody seems to be questioning that bold faced lie are they?

I think we have a lot more unanswered questions here than Ricky is simply explaining away as all was done that could be done. Why did it take a full day to get special operation forces in place? Why are we willing to accept a team of SIX CIA agents arriving four hours later as doing anywhere near enough? No Ricky, questions remain, a LOT of questions remain unanswered!

geojanes wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:I'm not blaming the news media. I'm just saying that it isn't the most important part of the story. What's important is the qualifications and viewpoint of the nominee.

Can we argue that Hagel will be so different than Panetta, Gates or any other reasonable future nominee? Will his utter incompetence drive the DoD into ruin and damage the fighting force and be a threat to America? I don't think even the most ardent critics (who aren't asses) would say that he would or even could.

A new McCarthism, however, would damage America, which makes it more notable and newsworthy. The tone and nature of some of the questions were out of line and deserve the attention they got.

Re the first question, I think Hagel may be very different than Panetta and Gates. Certainly his views on Iran are very different.

I do agree with the points made in your 2nd and 3rd rhetorical questions.

I see your point on the 2nd paragraph; it is newsworthy, but is this really a new McCarthyism? That seems very overstated to me. One very junior senator (who was reprimanded by a senior senator in his own party) does not make a new McCarthyism.

Here's a real question I just thought of,
This has nothing to do with Obama in particular but rather any and all presidents...

The President makes his choices of Secretary of State, Head of Defense Dept, etc. Very important positions that are not elected but rather appointed. Several things going through my brain,
The President will no doubt want someone he can work with, but is it "best" to have someone who thinks exactly the same way or to have maybe not a polar opposite but someone who thinks quite differently? Having two of the same opinion has it's bonuses but so does having differing views and thinking out loud, I almost feel the opposing views might be better?
The other question, would it possibly be better to make such positions elected positions? Same with say Superior Court judges, would it possibly be better to have them elected as well? I really can see the pluses and minuses of both sides. Maybe this is best in a new thread???

I don't think you could have individually elected cabinet ministers, that's a recipe for chaos. Most other countries solve the problem by having the cabinet selected from the members of the legislature. That wouldn't work in the American context though, and it's arguably even worse anyway.

Ultimately when you elect a President you're electing the head of the executive branch. You have to back your man to pick his own team.

So you are ok with Harriet Myers?

Harriet Myers was a Supreme Court nomination. As it happens I don't really know a lot about her so I couldn't really express an opinion either way, but I don't really see what my opinion of her has to do with anything in any case. I'm just saying that it's silly to individually elect all the members of the executive branch, that's what you elect a President for. You'll note that I didn't suggest you should do away with Senatorial oversight. I do think there's possibly a case for that where it comes to appointing cabinet ministers (although not Supreme Courth justices), but on the whole it doesn't tend to be a major issue either way.