Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will reportedly propose a Pentagon budget that will shrink the U.S. Army to its smallest number since 1940 and eliminate an entire class of Air Force attack jets.
The New York Times reported late Sunday that Hagel’s proposal, which will be released to lawmakers and the public on Monday, will call for a reduction in size of the military that will leave it capable of waging war, but unable to carry out protracted occupations of foreign territory, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Under Hagel’s plan, the number of troops in the Army will drop to between 440,000 and 450,000, a reduction of at least 120,000 soldiers from its post-Sept.11 peak.
Officials told the Times that Hagel’s plan has been endorsed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and protects funding for Special Operations forces and cyberwarfare. It also calls for the Navy to maintain all eleven of its aircraft carriers currently in operation. However, the budget proposal mandates the elimination of the entire fleet of Air Force A-10 attack aircraft, as well as the retiring of the U-2 spy plane, a stalwart of Cold War operations.
The budget plan does keep money for the F-35 warplane, a project which has been beset by delays and criticism over design flaws.
Other characteristics of the budget will likely draw further ire from veterans groups and members of Congress. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Hagel would recommend a limit on military pay raises, higher fees for health-care benefits, less generous housing allowances, and a one-year freeze on raises for top military brass.
“Personnel costs reflect some 50% of the Pentagon budget and cannot be exempted in the context of the significant cuts the department is facing,” Defense Department spokesman Adm. John Kirby told the Journal. “Secretary Hagel has been clear that, while we do not want to, we ultimately must slow the growth of military pay and compensation.”
“This is a real uphill battle with Congress,” Mieke Eoyang, director of the National Security Program at Third Way, a centrist think tank in Washington, told the Journal
“God bless [Hagel] for trying to get a handle on these costs,” she said. “But in this political environment, in an election year, it’s going to be hard for members of Congress to accept anything that’s viewed as taking benefits away from troops.”
Y’all, (the proper way to address a group of people), Know that Ted Cruz, and a few other Conservatives are fighting like Hell to derail Obamacare. Naturally, this has interrupted MSNBS host Chris “Crazy Legs” Matthews a great deal. Weasel Zippers has the sad, but all too predictable result, a Matthews meltdown, it is like a regular meltdown, only bigger and more pathetic. As a public service I, who am merely a “blogger”, will translate Matthews diatribe.
Chris Matthews let loose Tuesday night with what he really thinks of Republican senator Ted Cruz, the face of the defund Obamacare movement. Matthews and Democratic congressman Jim Moran called him dangerous, with Matthews gong so far as to declare he is a threat to the entirety of the American political system. [...]
Now, when Matthews says Cruz is dangerous, what he really means is that Cruz is Reaganesque, and that Matthews is deathly afraid of Cruz because Cruz, like Reagan has the ability to speak directly to the people, thus influencing the people to understand how bad Obamacare is. Matthews, being an elitist, naturally detests any and all who would oppose his Neo-Marxist ideology.
He recalled how Cruz’s political debut was his accusations about Chuck Hagel‘s extremist ties in a very “Joe McCarthy fashion,” calling Cruz “totally and utterly destructive” and dismissing the idea he’s educated a single person about the health care law.
Whenever a leftist like Matthews invokes the name McCarthy they are attempting to smear a Conservative who has an effective message. Do not allow yourself to be taken in by this hateful rhetoric. Remember this Leftists attack Conservatives not because they disagree with them, which they of course do, but because they FEAR them!
Moran said Cruz is “ignorant of the facts” and predicted he won’t be able to accomplish much after these “antics.” Matthews noticed how Cruz is “sneering” every time he talks about an issue, calling the Texas senator a “threat” to the American political system, and while he admitted using the word “terrorist” would be a little strong, he did leave it dangling over the conversation.
What Matthews and Moran, who is so crooked he has to screw his pants on are really doing here is attempting to further smear Cruz by calling him ignorant and accusing Cruz of “antics”. How rich, Matthews, who engages in antics and hyperbole like no other throwing that charge at Ted Cruz.
Look, all you really have to know about Matthews is that he looks like Newt Gingrich’s retarded little brother, and jabbers like an incoherent drunk on a bar stool at the diviest bar you can imagine. No, wait, that is not fair. An incoherent drunk makes more sense that Matthews does.
In short, Cruz scares the living Hell out of the Left, and the douche bags that make up the GOP establishment.
Because, McCarthy, was, as Stacy McCain points out, was RIGHT! Oh, and so is Ted Cruz
Democrats and the major news media — but I repeat myself – have decided that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s opposition to the Chuck Hagel nomination makes him the “New McCarthy.”
And they say that like it’s a bad thing.
Sen. Joseph McCarthy has been unjustly and dishonestly maligned for so long that even many conservative Republicans nowadays use “McCarthyism” as a slur, without any real understanding of who the man was, or what he was trying to accomplish.
Intellectuals who today think of themselves as the rightful heirs of William F. Buckley Jr. often seem to forget that the second book Buckley wrote, after God and Man at Yale, was McCarthy and His Enemies, which Buckley co-authored with his brother-in-law Brent Bozell (father of Brent Bozell III, who is today head of the Media Research Center). Buckley knew, as do all honest and intelligent students of the Cold War era, that even if one stipulates McCarthy made mistakes and had unfortunate personality traits, he was really a better man than his vindictive critics, and certainly more sincerely patriotic than the Communist enemies he sought to expose.
Ah, but for the accurate teaching of history! The Left’s version of history is always, edited, re-written, spun, sanitized, or completely fallacious. Sadly, as Stacy points out, many folks are victimized by the Left’s “re-invented history”. This is a tremendous post go read the whole thing, but here is a small sample of how the Left uses “invented history”
McCarthy vs. ‘McCarthyism’— Propagandists of the Left, including journalists and academics, have made Joe McCarthy a symbol of things for which he was not even remotely responsible. Joe McCarthy did not create a “Red Scare.” Concerns about Communist penetration of the federal government, and about Soviet espionage, existed before anyone outside Wisconsin had ever heard of Joe McCarthy. He was not responsible for “blacklisting” anyone in Hollywood or getting Communist teachers fired from public schools. Investigations of Communist subversion undertaken by the FBI and the House Committee on Un-American Activities preceded Joe McCarthy’s arrival in the Senate and continued for years after McCarthy was dead and buried in a Wisconsin grave. However, by demonizing McCarthy, and making him a scarecrow symbol for alleged wrongs that he had nothing to do with, leftists have attached to McCarthy’s name a radioactive taint that makes it difficult for people to separate the complex Man from the simplistic Myth.
Bingo. the Left habitually uses this tactic to smear, and demonize its opponents. The Tea Party, Conservatives, the NRA, Christians, gun owners, etc. They attach such stigmas to any topic they do not wish to be challenged on, that many fear even broaching those topics.
Secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel said Israel is on its way to becoming an apartheid state during an April 9, 2010, appearance at Rutgers University, according to a contemporaneous account by an attendee.
Hagel also accused Israel of violating U.N. resolutions, called for U.S.-designated terrorist organization Hamas to be included in any peace negotiations, and described Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “radical,” according to the source.
Kenneth Wagner, who attended the 2010 speech while a Rutgers University law student, provided the Washington Free Beacon with an email he sent during the event to a contact at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. The email is time-stamped April 9, 2010, at 11:37 AM.
“I am sitting in a lecture by Chuck Hagel at Rutgers,” Wagner wrote in the email. “He basically said that Israel has violated every UN resolution since 1967, that Israel has violated its agreements with the quartet, that it was risking becoming an apartheid state if it didn’t allow the Palestinians to form a state. He said that the settlements were getting close to the point where a contiguous Palestinian state would be impossible.”
“He said that he [thought] that Netanyahu was a radical and that even [former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi] Livni, who was hard nosed thought he was too radical and so wouldn’t join in a coalition [government] with him… He said that Hamas has to be brought in to any peace negotiation,” Wagner wrote.
AIPAC had no comment.
Wagner said the remarks were made during the Q&A session. The speech took place at the Rutgers School of Law in Newark.
Wagner, a pro-Israel activist, reiterated the account in an interview with the Free Beacon and called Hagel’s comments “pretty shocking.”
“I was very surprised at his attitude because I had been listening to politicians speak about the situation in the Middle East and the U.S. Israel relationship for about two decades,” Wagner told the Free Beacon. “And it was probably the most negative thing I’d ever heard anybody in elected office say.”
The news of the comments given during the 2010 speech comes at a time when the embattled secretary of defense nominee has been forced to respond to a report that he called the State Department an adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry during the Q&A portion of a 2007 speech at Rutgers.
The Free Beacon reported Thursday on a contemporaneous account of another speech then-Senator Hagel gave at Rutgers in 2007. The report, written by Hagel supporter and political consultant George Ajjan, claimed Hagel had described the U.S. Department of State as an extension of the Israeli government.
Sens. Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte on Friday sent a letter to Hagel requesting an explanation of the alleged comments. The Anti-Defamation League also called on Hagel to explain, and the American Jewish Committee said, “Further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
Hagel has disavowed the remarks and says he does not recall making them.
“I do not recall making any such statement, or ever making any similar statement,” he wrote in a reply letter to Graham and Ayotte on February 16. “I completely disavow the content of the alleged statement attributed to me.”
According to one of the 2007 event’s organizers, Hooshang Amirahmadi, who is currently running for president of Iran, Ajjan’s account of the 2007 speech is “complete nonsense.”
Amirahmadi told the Free Beacon that some of his “very good Jewish colleagues who are very pro-Israel” did not appear offended at any point during the speech.
The Daily Caller reported on Monday that Amirahmadi accepted funding grants from the Alavi Foundation, which federal law enforcement officials have called a front group for the Iranian regime.
Amirahmadi is also the head of the American Iranian Council, which awarded Hagel an expensive clock in 2002.
Another attendee at the 2007 speech, Rutgers Professor Charles Häberl said he is “certain” Hagel did not say the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli government, BuzzFeed reported today.
When the Free Beacon contacted Häberl about the 2007 speech last Thursday, he said he was not the best person to talk to about the event.
“Have you been in touch with Hooshang Amirahmadi?” Häberl wrote in an email. “He’s the one who organized the event, and he would be the best situated to talk about it. At the time, I was just a lecturer.”
Meanwhile, Ajjan stood by his account and said he is the only person who has provided a written report from the time.
“If somebody comes out with a transcript and those words aren’t uttered, I’d be the first one to say, ‘My apologies. I wrote something down that was wrong – I misheard it, or I misreported it,’ if that’s the case,” Ajjan told the Washington Free Beacon.
“I’m a conscientious person,” Ajjan said. “When I was blogging at that time, I did my best to record things accurately… there’s no way that I would pick a phrase like ‘adjunct of the Israeli foreign ministry.’ That’s a pretty odd combination of words to use. I wouldn’t have just pulled those out of thin air.”
When asked about Häberl disputing his account, Ajjan said he wants to make it clear he is not trying to undermine Hagel’s confirmation or the Rutgers event. He said he is still a supporter of Hagel.
“I suppose [Häberl] thinks that I’m somehow trying to disparage Chuck Hagel or cast a dark shadow over his confirmation hearings. That’s not the case at all. And I certainly don’t wish to besmirch the people who organized the event,” said Ajjan. “I very much enjoyed the event, I appreciate the people who organized it.”
The Free Beacon is working to obtain transcript and video of Hagel’s comments during the question and answer sessions at Rutgers in both 2007 and 2010, and is continuing to speak to others who attended both events.
A representative for Hagel did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
Poor Chuck, his pathetic testimony before Congress is not his fault, he just cannot remember anything!
Chuck Hagel is disavowing a comment he reportedly made six years ago tying the State Department to Israel, according to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Graham announced on “Fox News Sunday” that Hagel sent him a letter, saying that he did not recall making the remark in a 2007 speech at Rutgers University. In that speech, the former Republican senator from Nebraska reportedly said the State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli foreign minister’s office. Graham, also a Republican, called that alleged remark “disturbing,” as critics said it was part of a pattern where President Barack Obama’s nominee to be the next secretary of defense has taken stances seen as hostile to Israel.
But Hagel has furiously sought to rebut criticism over Israel and appears to have done so in his letter to Graham, who had sought clarification.
“He did not recall saying that,” Graham said of Hagel’s letter. “He disavows saying that. … If that’s true, that would end that matter.”
“I will take him at his word,” Graham said, “until something else comes along.”
Come on Lindsey! Wake up! He is LYING. Good Freaking Grief, just when I was ready to say some good things about the Senator Graham he reverts back to Wimp Mode!
That is, after all, what PC is all about, it is also about thought control, intimidation, speech control, censorship, and creating an environment where the Left cannot be challenged. Stacy McCain elaborates
Yesterday, I saw Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball rant for 10 minutes about Sen. Ted Cruz as a latter-day Joe McCarthy for having dared to ask questions about possible ties between Hagel and foreign governments. Chuck Hagel isn’t just some random citizen who has been grabbed off the street for interrogation about his loyalties.
No, Chuck Hagel is under consideration as Secretary of Defense, and the Senate therefore has every right — indeed, it has a solemn duty — to investigate his associations with groups that seem rather secretive about their funding.
If I could give the biggest reason I started writing op-ed columns 17 years ago, and then created this venture with Ed Daley, I would say it was to stop the erosion of our liberty! PC is the number one source of that erosion, and I will be damned if I sit by and allow that to happen!
After reportedly receiving support from Iran, Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s defense secretary nominee, has yet another endorsement to add to his resume, this one coming from the Communist Party USA.
People’s World, the Communist Party USA’s official magazine, touted Hagel as “represent[ing] the more sober elements who have called in our national discourse for rejection of the old cold war tactics, the unilateralism and the continual push for wars all over the world.”
The magazine’s labor editor, John Wojcik, slammed the ”neocon” U.S. Senate for trying to “force Hagel to disavow his opposition to what they call the ‘successful’ surges in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
A People’s World blast email further lamented Hagel “is still the subject of controversy due to some mild criticism he made of the State of Israel.”
Wojcik contended “it was the U.S. Senate, not President Obama’s nominee, Chuck Hagel, that fell down on the job at the hearings.”
“It was allowed to become a place for right-wing grandstanding and unacceptable efforts to rewrite history,” he continued.
Wojcik conceded that Hagel “does not have the kind of record that progressives conclude will make him a Secretary of Defense who would chart the entirely new foreign policy direction the times require.”
Last week Hagel took heat from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oka., who asked during the Senate hearings why Iran supports Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary.
As a senator, Hagel opposed sanctions on Iran, instead calling for “direct, unconditional talks.” He was one of only 12 senators who refused to sign a letter asking the European Union to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
WND reported Hagel went on the Middle East satellite network Al Jazeera in 2009 to argue that before dealing with the nuclear arsenals of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea, the U.S. and Russia must first lead the effort by phasing out their own nuclear weapons.
WND also reported Hagel serves on the board of the Ploughshares Fund, a George Soros-funded group that advocates a nuclear-free world.
The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of anti-war advocacy and is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons.
Hagel’s thesis on minimizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal was reiterated in a 2012 report he co-authored titled “Global Zero: U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission.”
The report called for an 80-percent reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons to about 900, with only half of those being deployed. It further called for the eventual phasing out of short-range nuclear weapons and the elimination of ICBMs and B-52 bombers.
The report was the initiative of the Global Zero advocacy group, which works for a nuclear-free world.
Hagel co-authored the commission report with former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, who reportedly previously held clandestine meetings with Hamas aiming to open U.S. dialogue with the terrorist group.
Iran is arguably the largest state sponsor of terrorism.
Regarding his views on jihad, WND exposed that in unreported remarks during a 2007 Senate hearing, Hagel posited that terrorism does not arise from religious beliefs but instead is a response to despair and a lack of hope.
The Communist Party USA may ideologically support some of Hagel’s ties.
WND reported Hagel sits on the board of a fund that serves as the main financial backer of a group urging the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court, which could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses.
Opposes U.S. missile defense
Ploughshares, meanwhile, opposes America’s development of a missile defense system and contributes to scores of anti-war groups highly critical of U.S. foreign policy and military expansion.
Ploughshares is directed by Joseph Cirincione, who served as an adviser on nuclear issues to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Cirincione also was director of nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress.
Among the groups to which Ploughshares donates are the anti-Israel Americans for Peace Now, the Arms Control Association, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Policy Alternatives, the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, the radical Citizen Action, Citizens for Environmental Justice, the Coalition for New Priorities and the radical Institute for Policy Studies.
More grantees include the New America Foundation, the Nonviolent Peaceforce, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Nuclear Freeze Foundation, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, Peace Action, the Peace Studies Association, Physicians for Human Rights and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Ploughshares has also funded the Soros-financed Connect US Fund, which urges more U.N. helmets on U.S. troops, as well as the Center for American Progress, which has strong influence on White House policy.
Also on the list of Ploughshares grantees is The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has long petitioned for the U.S. to reduce its nuclear stockpiles. According to Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, the work by the magazine editors was for the benefit of the Soviet Union.
Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.
Ploughshares funds the International Crisis Group, a small organization that boasts Soros on its board and is a key promoter of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine used to justify the NATO airstrikes in Libya last year.
Massive defense slashes
Another Ploughshares grantee is the Institute for Policy Studies.
Ploughshares is listed on the institute’s website as a partner organization.
The institute works with the Center for American Progress to release an annual “Unified Security Budget,” which reportedly has influenced White House military policy. Previous recommendations from the two groups’ yearly Unified Security Budgets have been adapted by the Obama administration.
The 2012 budget, reviewed in full by WND, called on Obama to use the U.S. Armed Forces in part to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and increase “peacekeeping” forces worldwide.
The budget called for massive, second-term slashes to the military budget. The savings are to be used to invest in “sustainable energy” and in fighting worldwide climate change.
The report makes clear the stated objective of transforming the U.S. Armed Forces to stress conflict resolution and diplomacy.
The report takes issue with the use of forces on the ground in various countries to secure or influence the longer-term strategic position of other nations.
It recommends scaling back all U.S. ground forces by 20 percent and reducing the Navy’s surface fleet by 20 percent, including two carriers and carrier combat air wings. It also calls for reducing the Air Force by two combat air wings while cutting standing peacetime overseas deployments in Europe and East Asia by up to 50,000 troops at a time.
The budget’s authors strongly argue for the reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 292 deployed nuclear weapons and the complete elimination of the Trident II nuclear missile. It’s a process Obama already initiated in April 2010 when he signed a deal with Russia reducing stocks of weapons-grade plutonium.
The accord with Russia was signed at a nuclear summit in Washington arranged by Obama at which leaders of 47 nations committed to reducing the world’s nuclear stockpiles. One week earlier, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and Obama signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, committing both countries to reducing their deployed nuclear arsenals.
Obama had broadly proclaimed his disarmament intentions during a 2007 campaign speech.
“Here’s what I’ll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,” Obama said.
By 2010, as president, he was arguing: “We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union – a country that doesn’t exist.”
Obama’s declaration came just as Russia signed a major arms deal with Syria and began to revive its Cold War-era naval bases in the Middle East, including in the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia on the Mediterranean.
The joint CAP and IPS report, meanwhile, recommends the U.S. cease all further development of missile defenses.
The report pushes for all current missile defense programs to be cut, including Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptors.
“It is unwise to fund more advanced systems for missile defense while current ones have yet to be proven effective against their targeted threats,” complains the report.
The military’s vital Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation program is to be cut by $10 billion across the board.
Next on the chopping block: the complete cancellation of the second SSN-744 Virginia Class submarine. While the Unified Security Budget describes the new model as “unnecessary to address any of the threats facing the United States today” and “a weapon looking for an enemy,” the SSN-774 is designed for covert collection of intelligence, transportation of special operations teams and launching of tactical Tomahawk missiles – flexible capabilities tailored to rapid responses required by the 21st-century’s conflicts with irregular combatants.
Similarly targeted for cancellation are the V-22 Osprey helicopter and the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Combating ‘global warming’
The 2012 Unified report sets the tone of its lofty agenda by demanding immediate reductions in the military’s already heavily slashed budget. But there is one exception requiring massive increases in funding – any spending that funds “alternative energy” or focuses Defense Department resources on combating “climate change as a security threat.”
The report authors recommend investing “the lion’s share” of the few allotted military increases in addressing the so-called “threat” of climate change.
The report wants Obama to take billions of dollars from the U.S. military and instead use them for a “green stimulus.”
These groups also envision the military as a tool to fight so-called global warming. In 2011, IPS released a 40-page CAP-endorsed report titled “The Green Dividend,” a term IPS defines as “a major shift of resources from the military budget to sustainable energy.”
The IPS research paper identifies the Pentagon as the “largest institutional energy user – and greenhouse gas emitter – on the planet,” arguing that if it undertook a “crash program” to convert to renewable energy sources and clean vehicles, it could make a significant impact on global emissions.
IPS calls on the Pentagon to contribute to a green world “by simply getting out of the way, by handing over unneeded military installations to be converted into green job incubators.”
The report lauds Obama’s first-ever U.S. Global Development Policy, which was issued in September 2010 and declares that the primary purpose of development aid is to pursue broad-based economic growth as the means to fight global poverty.
The report goes on to recommend that massive funds be sent to combat global woes, including an increase of $3.5 billion to “Global Health” investment and $2.14 billion to support United Nations peacekeeping and ensure that the United States does not fall behind in U.N. payments.
The Obama administration, it seems, is not pleased with former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel’s performance during yesterday’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The New York Times quotes an underwhelmed member of the president’s foreign-policy team:
“It’s somewhere between baffling and incomprehensible,” a member of Mr. Obama’s own team of advisers on Iran said on Thursday night when asked about Mr. Hagel’s stumbling performance on the question during the all-day hearing. The worry was evident in the voice of the official, who would not speak on the record while criticizing the performance of the president’s nominee. For those who question whether the no-containment cornerstone of the Obama approach to Tehran is for real, or just diplomatic rhetoric, Mr. Hagel clearly muddled the message, he said.
The account refers to Hagel’s response to a question posed by New Hampshire senator Kelly Ayotte, who asked Hagel whether he stood by remarks he delivered to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2007, in which he said that, with regard to American policy toward Iran, “The strategy of containment remain[s] relevant today” and that “this is how we should have handled Saddam Hussein.”
Asked if he still believes containment is an option for dealing with Iran, Hagel said, “No, I don’t now.” The administration’s answer to that question has been “no.” According to theTimes, ”either no one explained that to Chuck Hagel . . . or he forgot it.”
Just what we need another mentally vacuous member of Obama’s cabinet.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Why is John McCain so angry? Forty years after the Vietnam POWs came home, the most famous of them is angrier than ever. Why is America, why are we fighting the Vietnam war all over again in the United States Senate? The ticked off vitriol against Chuck Hagel, what is it about is? Is it for show? Is it about something Hagel said in the cloakroom? Is it about the basic unfairness of Vietnam itself that some went and some didn’t? Is it about Lyndon Johnson’s inability to either win that war or end it? What is it that burns so deeply in John McCain these days? It seems to excite those who knew nothing of Vietnam, but for hard reasons want to replay it again and again in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Syria and, yes, eventually in Iran. Well, tonight, we dig into the deep well of resentment burning in John McCain’s patriotic heart.
A resentment not against the North Vietnamese who imprisoned and toured him all those years, not against George W. Bush and his political henchmen who tried to stain McCain’s reputation back in 2000, but against a guy who fought against fear and rallied against wounds just like he did in the same army of America’s long nightmare in Vietnam, Chuck Hagel. A nightmare by the way whose flashbacks must haunt still the mind and heart of John Sidney McCain. I’m joined by David Corn of Mother Jones and Joy Reid of the Grio. Both are MSNBC analysts. Both of you, sir and lady, are younger than me but I’m absolutely convinced we’re watching a flashback. Watch this. Here is Senator John McCain. Did he a long, angry windup before he launched into his first so-called question. It was really an indictment for a former Senate colleague and former friend and fellow Vietnam veteran Chuck Hagel. It included putdowns as well as references to Vietnam.
Senator McCain is not my favorite Republican, and I have been critical at times of his politics, but frankly, Matthews comments are deplorable. What the Hell has loud mouthed Matthews who looks like Newt’s retarded little brother ever done? Seriously what? I mean besides being a loud-mouthed fool who sounds like he is either drunk, or habitually stupid, or both. John McCain sacrificed for this nation while fighting Communists. Matthews, today, serves as nothing more than a useful idiot for modern-day Leftism. What an absolutely despicable excuse for a man Chris Matthews is.
Along with Iran.
The controversy over the possible nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense is a fascinating reflection of the current state of affairs in the United States. AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which represent the official command center of organized American Jewry, have come out beating their chests over his public acknowledgement of the existence of the 800-pound gorilla of a “Jewish lobby.” On the other hand, “liberal” Zionists like Thomas Freidman and Peter Beirnart are defending Hagel, perhaps because nothing can draw public attention to the power of an 800-pound gorilla more than the gorilla ripping to pieces a respected public figure in broad daylight. Indeed, if Hagel does get nominated and confirmed for the post, you can be sure that Freidman and Beirnart will offer it up as “proof” of the canard of a powerful Jewish lobby.
After all, as many mainstream journalists such as Arnaud de Borchgrave (whose article appears below) have pointed out, “Hagel has always been supportive of Israel and the U.S. commitment to defend it.” Under a Secretary Hagel, there will be no change in the billions of dollars in military aid that goes to Israel at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, and there will be no end to the fire sales of “surplus” military hardware to the Zionist state at bargain basement prices. However, what I believe is different about Hagel is that he will not go out and pitch a murderous Zio-war the way Colin Powell did. He knows war with Iran would be insane, and on that count Hagel is certainly the best nominee we could hope for from the Obama administration.
Alabama is beating Notre Dame like a rented mule. And The Other McCain is having a ball
Eddie Lacy ran for nearly 100 yards and scored two touchdowns, while Alabama’s defense manhandled top-ranked Notre Dame as the Crimson Tide took a 21-0 halftime lead over the BCS college football championship game Monday in Miami.
Alabama dominated from the outset, driving 82 yards in six plays for a 20-yard touchdown run for Lacy. The Crimson Tide capitalized on mistakes by a Notre Dame defense that seemed unnerved and unsteady. Lacy continued pounding away on the second ‘Bama TD drive, alternatiing with passes by Tide quarterback A.J. McCarron who capped it with a 3-yard TD pass to Michael Williams.
Notre Dame’s QB Everett Golson and his offense were luckless. Golson completed only 8 of 16 passes for 93 yards in the first half, while the Irish running game amounted to only 31 yards. Alabama dominated time of possession by nearly a 2-to-1 margin, and the Crimson Tide defense limited Notre Dame to just five first downs in the first half.
Alabama drove 80 yards for its third TD of the night on a 1-yard run by freshman T.J. Yeldon, and scored again just before halftime on an 11-yard pass from McCarron to Lacy. McCarron ended the first half 12-for-18 for 156 yards and two touchdowns.
Quoting Nick Saban and his advice on how to get rid of Chuck Hagel
Superficial sarcasm is arguably unfair: Accusing Chuck Hagel of “hating” homosexuals or Jews because of policy disagreements? However . . .
Since when did the Left give a damn about fairness in politics?
“By Any Means Necessary” has long been the amoral nihilistic slogan of the radical Left, just like ”they bring a knife, you bring a gun” has always been the ruthless ethos of The Chicago Way.
Democrats are willing to accept Hagel’s alleged homophobia in order to gain a weapon with which to clobber the hated “neoconservatives,” by which they really mean, the Israel Lobby.
Let us pause to point out that there is no real reason to believe that the Bush administration’s ill-fated decision to invade Iraq — and the subsequent “nation-building” folly of a misguided scheme to impose democracy on Mesopotamia at the point of a bayonet — was a Zionist plot. Nevertheless, the exclusion of Old Right types from the high counsels of the Republican Party was an Idea that had Consequences.
Maybe you hate the Ron Paul/Chuck Hagel/Pat Buchanan strand of anti-interventionist America First conservatism, but in hindsight, wouldn’t it have been helpful if there had been at least one person in Dubya’s inner circle who could have said, “Hey, wait a minute here, Chief. Is this really a wise choice? Shouldn’t we be skeptical about this project? Aren’t we obliged to consider the downside risk?”
It’s obviously hard to include such people in the Inner Circle if their doubts about the policy merits of foreign adventurism are automatically condemned as evidence of Jew-hating. So . . .
With those serious caveats in mind, conservatives should not hesitate to roast liberals for the hypocrisy and cynicism inherent in the “Democrats for Hagel” bandwagon. If that vicious bastard Andrew Sullivan supports Hagel, this is reason enough for any patriotic American to oppose the Hagel nomination. And the obverse of this brutal logic is that we must welcome every ally to our cause of defeating Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, in order to inflict maximum embarrassment on the Democrats. They might “win” — Hagel’s nomination may be approved by the Senate — but the conservative strategy must be aimed at making that “win” as damaging as possible to the reputation of the Democratic Party.
If we can’t beat them, at least make sure we hurt them.
I tell ya he is REALLY, pardon the pun, on a ROLL!
Enjoy Mr. McCain