You lie down with neocons

I completely agree with Glenn Greenwald about this (though I wish he hadn’t continued to flog SweetieGate):

But much more importantly: when it comes to issues such as war, militarism, defense spending and Middle East policy, isn’t substance much more significant than whether someone has an “R” or “D” after their name? As Obama himself proves – and as Biden and Clinton before him proved – the fact that someone has a “D” after their name is hardly a guarantor that they will oppose policies of aggression and militarism. Indeed, as Clemons said Friday night on MSNBC, most Democrats in the Pentagon are so afraid of being cast as “soft on defense” that they hug policies of militarism far more eagerly and unquestioningly than Chuck Hagel ever would. Is partisan identity so all-consuming that it completely trumps substance, so that a hawkish Democrat is preferable to a war-skeptic Republican?

There’s a reason Hagel’s nomination has become so intensely controversial and such a vicious target for war-cheering neocons such as Bill Kristol and the Washington Post Editorial Board. It’s because Hagel is one of the very, very few prominent national politicians from either party who has been brave enough to question and dissent from the destructive bipartisan orthodoxies on foreign policy.

(via)






157 replies
  1. 1
    different-church-lady says:

    Batlight.

  2. 2
    Culture of Truth says:

    Mindless partisan militarism like opposing the Iraq war?

  3. 3
    Sly says:

    Shorter Greenwald: Obama’s selection of Hagel is an inspired choice, even though Obama is still an evil imperialist and Democrats are morons trapped in a cult of personality.

    He simply can’t help himself, and at this point it’s just sad.

  4. 4

    Here’s Douglass’ oration on Abraham Lincoln.

    http://american_almanac.tripod.com/dougorat.htm

    A quote:

    I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

    I don’t know why I think of this when reminded of Saint Greenwald’s passion. Probably doesn’t apply. Pay me no nevermind.

  5. 5
    Dave says:

    What the hell is sweetie gate?

  6. 6
    Baud says:

    @Joseph Nobles:

    We really need a WORSE THAN BUCHANAN meme.

  7. 7
    Sly says:

    @Dave: @Dave:
    Obama once referred to a female reporter as “sweetie” during the 2008 campaign. No one gave a shit outside the fevered swamp of wingnuttia, and it didn’t even stay on their radar for more than a day. Obama’s fatigue-induced “57 states” comment got more play.

    In other words, it’s Greenwald grasping at any straw he can.

  8. 8
    ellennelle says:

    making obama’s (expected) nomination of him all the more powerful, and exciting.

  9. 9
    Baud says:

    @ellennelle:

    Finally, Obama is appointing someone who will stand up against Obama’s policies.

  10. 10
    dmsilev says:

    Which is why President Obama immediately ordered preparation for an invasion of Iran in Feb. 2009.

    (rolls eyes)

  11. 11
    Maude says:

    @dmsilev:
    Or Dubai because it had nothing to do with Iran.

  12. 12
    Baud says:

    @Sly:

    That is obscure. This is the first I’ve heard of it.

  13. 13
    WereBear says:

    @Joseph Nobles:

    Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

    This is beautiful, and so sensible.

    It describes what I believe happened with LGBT rights and President Obama. Whatever his true beliefs, he framed it in such a way, “Our brave soldiers at war show there shouldn’t be a difference in the way they are treated,” and there was the rationalization so many other Americans needed, even wanted, to have behind them in order to move forward.

  14. 14
    amk says:

    Obama chose an ‘anti-war’ guy from the opposite bench, so Obama is a warmonger. Idjit.

  15. 15
    Fluke bucket says:

    @Baud: I had never heard that either and I thought I was very very tuned in.

  16. 16
    geg6 says:

    Fucking Greenwald. Will no one rid us of his bullshit? The biggest hypocrite of them all (who supported the invasion of Iraq–Greenwald or Obama?) hates him the black guy who was right when everyone else was wrong.

    That said, I’m all in for Hagel on the strength of his antipathy for AIPAC’s and Bibi’s feefees.

  17. 17
    BethanyAnne says:

    I remember the sweetie thing. Commenters at TalkLeft have never forgiven him for it. IIRC, he apologized, but that wasn’t enough for them. The Purity Police, lead by Saint Greenwald are why I stopped reading sites like that. Just couldn’t take the impulse to stone anyone insufficiently pure.

  18. 18
    Paul says:

    As Obama himself proves – and as Biden and Clinton before him proved – the fact that someone has a “D” after their name is hardly a guarantor that they will oppose policies of aggression and militarism.

    This is just baseless and re-writing of history. The very reason Obama’s campaign in 2008 did so well from the get-go vs Clinton’s (and McCain) was that Obama took a hard stance against the war in Iraq before it even had started. And furthermore, once in office, Obama has for all practical purposes ended the war in Iraq.

    Obama has been quoted as saying “I’m not against all wars, I’m against dumb wars”. Surely most of us can agree with that. WWII was worth fighting. On the other hand, the attack on Iraq was so stupid that words can’t describe the stupidity behind it. And as a nation, we are paying for it now. A $trillon and counting…

  19. 19
    Chyron HR says:

    @amk:

    At least he’s ‘evolved’ from his views during the Kagan confirmation hearings–that anyone appointed by Obama must be inherently unfit to hold the position.

  20. 20
    AxelFoley says:

    Fuck Greenwald. He can come around and declare Obama to be the best President ever and I’d still disagree with that fucker for spite. That’s how much I can’t stand that troll.

  21. 21
    Napoleon says:

    @Joseph Nobles:

    That is a great quote. I will read the whole thing later.

  22. 22
    Napoleon says:

    @Sly:

    Really? I remember that but seriously GG is still hung up on that? I figured he must be talking something about Petraous (sp?)

  23. 23
    Johannes says:

    Seriously, Doug? Greenwald depicts the guy who is ending two wars started by his R predecessor as aggressive, militaristic, and imperialistic, and you agree? Look, Obama’s taken some hard line stances in what his prerogatives are, with which I emphatically disagree, but how he has used his authority , especially compared to Shrub? Night and day.

  24. 24
    the Conster says:

    @different-church-lady:

    I predict 300+ comments – I’m in b4 El Tiburon.

  25. 25
    Marc says:

    The attack on the most gay-friendly administration in history as being led by a vicious anti-gay bigot is a nice touch as well.

    Christ almighty, Greenwald is a flaming asshole.

  26. 26
    Schlemizel says:

    Doug, I assume you were trolling since you bring GG in here.

    I don’t even need to read the comments, I can easily imagine the foaming at the mouth going on even though GG is right on this point.

    I just don’t get it. So many people around here kiss Sullys ass and quote him like he is gods gift to thinking when he has never been on our side. His first instance is always to shit on liberals and progressive ideas (save the one that affects him and if that is not the first sign of a conservative?). Yet many here sing his praises while he lies and fabricates and ignores reality. Yet GG, who despite his failings is right more than he is wrong and who instincts are 1000 times better than Sullys gets no respect. If he wrote that the sun set in the West there is a cadre here that will whine about how that does not matter because it was GG that wrote it.

    There is a similar thing with the GOS. They can’t be forgiven for their mistakes despite being on our side.

  27. 27
    Baud says:

    So many people around here kiss Sullys ass and quote him like he is gods gift to thinking

    Whaaa? Who TF does that here?

  28. 28
    mai naem says:

    Greenwald was on Bill Maher last season. He contributed virtually nothing to the panel discussion. I don’t remember who he was on with but I don’t remember them being guests who just take over the conversation. He just looked dumb.

    My problem with a Republican leading DOD is that as long as you keep saying that a Dem would be more militaristic, when do we get a real true moderate to liberal Dem in there? How does the American population know that a Dem will be perfectly competent running Defense.

    OT, I get more out of one Up with Chris Hayes show than ten MTPs. I know they would never let Chris Hayes do MTP but he would be awesome. Rachel would be even more awesome. People would actually be scared to go on with Rachel.

  29. 29
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Schlemizel: I don’t think that much of either Sullivan or Greenwald. So there.

    @mai naem: FWIW Panetta is Democrat.

  30. 30
    Paul says:

    They are?

  31. 31
    weaselone says:

    @Johannes:

    Yes, but he uses drones so Obama is sandwiched between Temujin and Attila on the bloodthirsty warmongers list regardless of his actual propensity for war.

  32. 32
    Ben Cisco says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Agreed.

    Neither is even worth the time it would take to mock at this point.

  33. 33
    Sly says:

    @Schlemizel:

    If he wrote that the sun set in the West there is a cadre here that will whine about how that does not matter because it was GG that wrote it.

    “The sun sets in the West, but only because Obama assassinated it while his sycophantic supporters cheered him on with bloodthirsty glee.”

  34. 34
    Ash Can says:

    DougJ must be bored this morning if he’s trying this hard to start a 380-comment flame-war thread.

  35. 35
    JPL says:

    Obama never called me sweetie. just sayin

  36. 36
    Baud says:

    @Ash Can:

    Agreed. He should have waited till tomorrow. It’s a lazy Sunday.

  37. 37
    PsiFighter37 says:

    While it would be nice nominating a Democrat for DoD, I’m not really thrilled with the main alternative. Sure, Flournoy would be a history-making choice, but she seems a bit too hawkish for my tastes. Hagel endorsed Obama in 2008, and I would imagine that they’ve fully vetted whatever his stance on LGBT issues are now to make sure it’s not an issue. Heck, I like the nomination just because everyone in the village is getting a rise out of it, and I am always a fan of GOP-on-GOP violence. Fireworks should be fun to watch. I’d love to see Hagel talk smack to Lindsey Graham, that’s for sure.

    And Greenwald’s an asshole, so who cares what he says. The best I can say is that he writes cogent things once in a while, unlike most firebaggers. Maybe that’s just a broken clock being right twice a day.

  38. 38
    General Stuck says:

    I can’t even get mad at Greenwald any more. He is so out of touch with American politics at the level of any nuance, it is something like me trying to write about British politics. I know enough just to sound like an idiot.

    It doesn’t surprise me, so many progs have come out for Hagel and shows their clueless shallow emo for supporting a man who would let the poor eat cake and rat porridge he is so stingy conservative. It is nice he opposed the Iraq war, but was for it at first, like mister Greenwald, so that is hardly anything to brag much about.

    There is finally something I can full frontal oppose Obama on if he nominates this guy, and GG is correct for his basic argument that it signals lingering fear amongst dems of the “traitor” and “weak on defense” canard. So let’s just feed that lie some more. No thanks from this Obot.

  39. 39
    debbie says:

    Greenwald’s self-righteousness blinds him every bit as much as anyone on the right. He’s just not worth reading anymore.

  40. 40
    Paul says:

    @General Stuck:

    It is nice he opposed the Iraq war, but was for it at first, like mister Greenwald, but that is hardly anything to brag much about.

    So was future Sec of State Kerry and our current Sec of State Clinton.

    Bernie Sanders (and probably 95% of all senate Democrats) are against closing Gitmo. With that in mind, I think Hagel would fit in just fine with the Obama admin and the Democratic party for that matter. Hagel is a perfect example of how extreme the Republican party has become. but let’s not pretend that Democrats in Congress are saints.

  41. 41
    IM says:

    @Chyron HR:

    Greenwald was from the start quite pro Sotomayor.

  42. 42
    Joey Maloney says:

    @mai naem:

    I know they would never let Chris Hayes do MTP but he would be awesome. Rachel would be even more awesome. People would actually be scared to go on with Rachel.

    And that’s while she’ll never get the job. They’d lose President McCain and when you’ve lost President McCain, you’ve lost America.

  43. 43
    PsiFighter37 says:

    OT, but we should really get a post for that assclown Douthat’s column today. “Boehner, American Hero”? I don’t remember Captain America ever being as drunk, as orange, or as incompetent as Orange Julius.

    That kind of dreck isn’t even worthy of a minimum-wage salary, much less whatever overpayment NYT is undeservedly giving him.

  44. 44
    dmsilev says:

    Irrespective of Hagel’s actual merits and demerits, reading things like this makes me smile:

    “He has long severed his ties with the Republican Party,” Graham said during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “This is an ‘in your face’ nomination by the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel.’

    “It looks like the second term of Barack Obama is going to be an ‘in your face’ term,” Graham added.

    Poor put-upon Lindsay Graham. It’s a slap in the face! Under the bus!

  45. 45
    Baud says:

    @General Stuck:

    If Hagel is able to get control of defense spending and war policy by virtue of being a Republican, then it’ll be worth it. Unfortunately, I think the main audience here is Senate democrats, who seem to have an unhealthy need for “bipartisan” backing for whatever they do.

  46. 46
    PsiFighter37 says:

    @dmsilev: That is all good to me. I’d like to see some solid tire tracks on Graham’s back and a pond full of his tears by the time these next 4 years are up.

    What a loathsome, awful human being Lindsey Graham is.

  47. 47
    Paul says:

    @dmsilev:

    “It looks like the second term of Barack Obama is going to be an ‘in your face’ term,” Graham added.

    I take it that Lindsay Graham wasn’t around during 8 year term of George W bush when everything bush did was based on “in your face” tactics. These people…

    BTW – this is no way to run a fricking country. Obama won the election. He should be able to select whoever he wants on his cabinet. The GOP has completely gone overboard in its advise and consent role. This is another reason to reform the filibuster role.

  48. 48
    General Stuck says:

    @Paul:

    Many have those dems done mea culpas that they were wrong about Iraq. I don’t oppose Hagel for his Iraq war vote, and am not particularly impressed by his later oppo. I oppose him because on about every other issue, he is extremely conservative, especially regarding any and all help for the poor. It is a basic pol character issue for me, as well as dems and Obama caving to old canards about dems as weak on defense. So they put in wingnuts to top cabinet positions to do with national security. I would rather have a democrat in those positions, and Hagel can be secretary of commerce, or the like.

  49. 49
    danielx says:

    Can rage against Greenwald with some justification, but his views on the Forever War are pretty much on the money. Why would Villagers, or generals, or the Carlyle Group, or General Dynamics, or Lockheed, want it to end, anyway?

    Confidently expecting spittle and brickbats.

  50. 50
    Paul says:

    Fair enough. But it appears that Hagel would be far more liberal on defense than Democrats like Panetta was. Do you know a Democrat that would be more liberal on defense and could be nominated? The only alternative I have seen seems more conservative than Hagel.

  51. 51
    Napoleon says:

    @dmsilev:

    Awesome, it is in your face for a Democratic president to nominate someone for DoD that is not a Republican.

  52. 52
    PsiFighter37 says:

    @General Stuck: I would be more concerned if Hagel was nominated for something like Commerce, because he’s indicated no shift in his (from what I recall) standard-issue conservative views on economics.

    But he’s being nominated for SecDef, which is something where his views line up more. I really don’t give two shits what he thinks about tax policy in this case, because he’s not going to be speaking about tax policy at all.

  53. 53
    JPL says:

    @PsiFighter37: Inquiring minds want to know what color Boehner’s face would be if he didn’t visit the tanning salon.

  54. 54
    LAC says:

    another year begins and the stench of the Chinless Fuck wafts through. Why do we have to care about what greenwald thinks about anything?

  55. 55
    General Stuck says:

    @Baud:

    If Hagel is able to get control of defense spending and war policy by virtue of being a Republican, then it’ll be worth it. Unfortunately, I think the main audience here is Senate democrats, who seem to have an unhealthy need for “bipartisan” backing for whatever they do.

    In today’s cold civil war climate, I doubt there will be any added cooperation from senate republicans, because one of their former own gets to be secdef. In fact, as we already see, they are branding him with the scarlet T, and are likely to oppose anything that Obama and Hagel would propose just because.

    I don’t see we gain anything for picking a GOPer, who may have renounced his former party, but still is a grade a stingy wingnut on about everything else. This doesn’t really anger me much, as I also don’t think it is a big mistake, but I think Obama is doing it for the wrong reasons, at this point in time.

  56. 56
    Emma says:

    Doug, when it comes to Greenwald, remember Teresa Nielsen Hayden’s immortal words; just because you’re on their side it doesn’t mean they’re on your side.

  57. 57
    MomSense says:

    Ok, let me get this straight. Obama is an unabashed proponent of militarism and aggression as evidenced by his nomination for Sec Def the person that Greenwald describes as “…one of the very, very few prominent national politicians from either party who has been brave enough to question and dissent from the destructive bipartisan orthodoxies on foreign policy.”

  58. 58
    IM says:

    A freshly re-elected democratic president nominates a conservative republican as secretary of defense.

    And that is a “in your face” to republicans.

    A mad world.

  59. 59
    Baud says:

    @General Stuck:

    I was unclear. My point was the Senate democrats would have less need to find senate republicans to support them because they will be able to say that republican Hagel supports them. That’s why the GOP is trying to frame Hagel as not really a republican.

  60. 60
    General Stuck says:

    @Paul:

    i will say. If Hagel gets confirmed and his presence causes some paring down of our oversized military machine, then I will say it was worth it. If not, then put a dem in that position. I can’t think of a name right off the bat, but there are plenty of dems around that aren’t war mongers. Kerry could have been secdef, and I don’t hold his Iraq vote against him either, but on the whole, I am able to trust him more than a stalwart wingnut on everything but maybe military matters. And I don’t support feeding the canard/meme of dems weak on defense, so we need a republican to do the job.

  61. 61
    some guy says:

    nothing like a Greenwald quote to bring out and rile up all the centrist and conservative Obama cheerleaders.

    you too funny, dougj

  62. 62
    pillsy says:

    Man, even when I essentially agree with the argument that Greenwald is making, he still comes off like a complete asshole.

  63. 63
    dr. bloor says:

    Going from Panetta to Hagel is a trade up.

    Would he be my personal choice? Probably not. But just because the POTUS is a Ni-CLANG as well as a Perpetual Sellout to a wing of the D party who had no idea who they were really voting for, it doesn’t mean Obama shouldn’t be given the widest possible latitude in appointing his cabinet that has traditionally been accorded to the President.

  64. 64
    Randy P says:

    @dmsilev: Mr. Graham: Obama is in your face because he’s in the governing-the-country business and you are in the prevention-of-government business. That makes you natural enemies and means you are always going to find yourself toe-to-toe.

    Either that or under the tire treads.

  65. 65
    General Stuck says:

    @Baud:

    I see. Maybe. But the nutters are not going be moved to act from anything but pure ideology and scorched earth oppo to Obama. It could give creds to the bipartisan thing, which is comical that so many progs like him, but don’t like bipartisanship otherwise. I would just like to see a dem in that office to push the narrative away from past bugaboos of dems being weak on anything.

  66. 66
    SteveM says:

    There’s a reason Hagel’s nomination has become so intensely controversial and such a vicious target for war-cheering neocons such as Bill Kristol and the Washington Post Editorial Board. It’s because Hagel is one of the very, very few prominent national politicians from either party who has been brave enough to question and dissent from the destructive bipartisan orthodoxies on foreign policy.

    I don’t buy it. They’ll go after anyone Obama appoints, to any office, for any reason, if they think they have an opening. They’re making an exception for Kerry because they think they can win his Senate seat, but if they have any gotcha on any appointee Obama puts forward, they’re going to go nuclear, for whatever reason, and whatever the appointee’s ideology. All they have left is sand to throw in the gears.

  67. 67
    Paul says:

    @General Stuck:

    You make sense. I think we have to agree to disagree on Hagel.

  68. 68
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    @some guy: When did you stop beating your wife?

  69. 69
    Culture of Truth says:

    So GG who likes to use the term “Dear Leader” is attacking others for their failure to support Obama’s controversial nominee?

    Oh, the irony…

  70. 70
    General Stuck says:

    @Culture of Truth:

    Oh, the irony…

    Tiz extra sweet on this one, taint it?

  71. 71
    Jay C says:

    @Napoleon:

    Even more awesome, Sen. Graham seems to think it’s “in your face” for the president to nominate someone for DoD who IS a Republican!

    Some comment involving oxidising farm implements comes to mind….

  72. 72
    Jay C says:

    @pillsy:

    Man, even when I essentially agree with the argument that Greenwald is making, he still comes off like a complete asshole.

    It really is an amazing gift, isn’t it…?

  73. 73
    General Stuck says:

    What would be a novelty, to break the norm, would be nominating someone in house at the pentagon, a long time high ranking public servant with knowledge of the trenches and where the bodies are buried, that is also left oriented. And popular amongst the Pentagon rank and file. If you wanted to shake down that giant money sucking machine with 8 sides.

  74. 74
    SiubhanDuinne says:

    @WereBear: I would lay money that POTUS is very very familiar with this quote. He probably has it memorized.

  75. 75
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    Well, the magnetic poles have shifted between R and D in the 1800’s. We had Southern Dems in the 20th century who wore hoods.

    What’s a small ‘d’ Dem, anyway?

  76. 76
    waratah says:

    @PsiFighter37: Surely she is not the only Democrat choice? I think that the president could have found more choices. He wanted Hagel his friend which is fine but I think he needed to look towards the future and chose a younger Democrat who might end up being chosen from a future Republican President instead of Democrat President’s always chosing Republican as they have more experience.

  77. 77
    General Stuck says:

    Another thing to consider. If you put a gooper person in that job and give him the political power of gracious bipartisanship, then he decides he wants to bomb this or that country for his own reasons, then you are in a real presidential pickle. street that runs both ways.

  78. 78
    Paul says:

    @Jay C:

    Even more awesome, Sen. Graham seems to think it’s “in your face” for the president to nominate someone for DoD who IS a Republican!

    Today’s GOP would think it’s in your face to them if Obama nominated Rumsfeld. Heck, Obama could nominate Jesus and the GOP would think it’s in your face.

    It reminds me of when the GOP were demanding Obama set up and appoint a deficit commission. As soon as Obama was for it, the GOP was against it!

    Top Republicans on Wednesday were hostile toward President Obama’s plan to create a bipartisan commission on cutting projected deficits. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, was evasive when pressed by reporters at the Capitol. “I’m not going to decide today what we’re going to do in the future,” he said. But the House Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, seemed to suggest that Republicans might not take their allotted seats on a commission.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01......html?_r=0

    It really doesn’t matter who Obama appoints to anything. The GOP will be against it.

  79. 79
    Paul says:

    @General Stuck:

    Sure. But Hagel has been more vocal against the Iraq war than either Kerry or Clinton. I would be more worried about those two. Furthermore, Hagel couldn’t just start bombing a country. It would be up to Obama. And unlike bush, I trust Obama’s judgement.

  80. 80
    jp7505a says:

    I guess we should have know that Chuck Hagel was such a flaming radical. After all what else could he be having represented that wildly leftist state of Nebraska as a Republican senator for all those years. (sigh). The GOP will be offended if Obama were to name Jesus as the offical savor of christianity (oops I see this one is already taken).How about nominating Santa Claus as the ambassabor to the North Pole?

  81. 81
    pamelabrown53 says:

    @PsiFighter37: I agree. I think Hagel’s role is to oversee smart budget cuts at DOD. Plus, I’m all for the president nominating the person he wants for the job; he has his reasons.

    Now many of dubya’s appointees pissed me off because they were hostile to the agency they were supposed to be leading. Two examples that immediately come to mind are John Bolton for U.N. and Elaine Choi for Labor.

  82. 82
    Baud says:

    @General Stuck:

    Same problem, or even worse problem, if you have a Democratic hawk in there. But have we ever had a Sec Def that got us into a war that a president wanted to keep us out of? Sadly, I think it’s been the prez or other top officials that were leading, or certainly in full agreement with, the charge.

  83. 83
    Amir Khalid says:

    @General Stuck:
    Does a SecDef have that kind of latitude, especially a Republican one under a Democratic President? Or one under this Democratic President?

  84. 84
    General Stuck says:

    @Paul:

    Yea, I know Hagel can’t just start bombing a country, but if the subject came up, or there was reason to consider it, you have handed a lot of extra political authority to your bipartisan choice for secdef. I watched Hagel for years in the senate, and appreciated his outspoken opposition for continuing the Iraq war, but I do not trust him. His mind is pure elemental wingnut, except from war, that was likely shaped from bitter experience in Vietnam. He is not “anti war” per se, just against the Iraq one.

  85. 85
    Baud says:

    @General Stuck:

    Given his wingnutty background, I’m actually more apprehensive about how he handles personnel issues in the military than war policy.

  86. 86
    General Stuck says:

    @Baud:

    Just don’t see it that way. A democrat is plugged into party politics and the power structures thereof, and can be brought to heel for lining up with a dem president. Hagel is outside that party power structure and all the control factors that come with it. Same principle as an independent Lieberaman, that dem party power brokers could not get to him over some of his votes early in the Obama term. But I could be totally wrong about Hagel, and it is not an emo oppo for me. He is also friends with Obama, so that is a fairly powerful loyalty factor. I surrender. :)

  87. 87
    Jay C says:

    @pamelabrown53:

    I think Hagel’s role is to oversee smart budget cuts at DOD

    If so (and you’re probably right), it would explain a lot of the Republicans’ animosity (other than the mere “Obama appointee” factor) towards Hagel. Few things, I think, can send such strong shivers of actual fear down so many spines in Washington as the prospect that the unimaginably vast and lucrative gravy train of the “Defense Budget” – the one all too many DC players have agreed to pretend for decades isn’t any form of “government spending” – might slow down even a little bit: or, G*d forbid, actually get reduced.

  88. 88
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @SteveM:

    They’ll go after anyone Obama appoints, to any office, for any reason

    This.

    Obama presidents while being a Dem and being near.

    More than enough “reason” for Rethug offal like Huckleberry to have their panties in knots.

  89. 89
    Baud says:

    @General Stuck:

    No, you raise legitimate points. I see it like a baseball team that takes a risk on a player than has potential but has had off the field difficulties. If it works out, it’s a great pick up; if it doesn’t, then it’s a bad deal. We’ll have to wait and see.

  90. 90
    General Stuck says:

    @Jay C:

    Hagel is extremely stingy on government spending on anything. So if that mindset is channeled into paring down the military machine, then that would be a very good thing, and well worth any of the possible pitfalls I have mentioned in this thread.

  91. 91
    some guy says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    right around the time you stopped downloading kiddie porn.

  92. 92
    jp7505a says:

    @General Stuck: I don’t think you want a Sec. of defense who is ‘antiwar per se’. After all war is, for better or worse, what the defense departmrnt is all about. But I do think you want one who is willing to question the assumptions for what ever war is being planned. Maybe if Robert McNammara had been a bit more skeptical and questioned some assumptions we might have avoided the nightmare of Vietnam.

    At the moment the war in question is with Iran and it is encouraging that Hagel is asking questions before the shooting starts. Maybe he learned a lesson or two from both Vietnam and Iraq.

    The real issue for the GOP/neocons is Hagel is not on Bibi’s speed dial. They would be much happier with the Rommney formulation of ‘when Bibi calls I will do what ever he asks’.

  93. 93
    Culture of Truth says:

    Both use over the top rhetoric, but I still respect GG, more than I can say for Sully.

  94. 94
    Donut says:

    @General Stuck:

    Many have those dems done mea culpas that they were wrong about Iraq. I don’t oppose Hagel for his Iraq war vote, and am not particularly impressed by his later oppo. I oppose him because on about every other issue, he is extremely conservative, especially regarding any and all help for the poor. It is a basic pol character issue for me, as well as dems and Obama caving to old canards about dems as weak on defense. So they put in wingnuts to top cabinet positions to do with national security. I would rather have a democrat in those positions, and Hagel can be secretary of commerce, or the like

    You know, the irony of you calling out Obama for “caving” on ANYTHING, should not go unremarked upon.

    Firebagger.

  95. 95
    karen marie says:

    Greenwald blocked me on Twitter. I consider it a badge of honor.

  96. 96
    feebog says:

    I think Obama is choosing Hagel for a very specific reason; the choice provides some cover for the defense cuts he intends to make over the next four years. That is why Republicans like Graham and McCain are freaking out. Now that the middle class Bush tax cuts are permanent, they know the the biggest chunk of discretionary spending is in defense. Once we are out of Afghanistan it is going to be very tough to argue that we need to spend 700 billion a year on defense. Or 600 billion for that matter. We need to cut defense down by several 100 billion dollars over the next ten years, and the Republicans are scared to death it might happen.

  97. 97
    General Stuck says:

    @Donut:

    You know

    Thanks, I try to stay up on current events, but am not always right. OR, lol, no’wut?

    edit – I see. LOL, sometimes it snows in hell.

  98. 98
    JoyfulA says:

    @PsiFighter37: Flournoy was a signatory to Project for the New American Century proposals to increase the size of the military: http://rightweb.irc-online.org.....oy_michele

    She is definitely someone I wouldn’t support for SecDef.

  99. 99
    JoyfulA says:

    My opposition to Flournoy is in moderation.

  100. 100
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @feebog: That is why Republicans like Graham and McCain are freaking out.

    I actually think that if he weren’t so terrified of a Tea Party primary, especially one that’s willing to go after his personal life, Graham would be calling for cuts at the Pentagon. I can’t imagine there’s a lot of love lost between Graham and DeMint, who I believe said purifying the Senate from the right was one of his new goals.

  101. 101
    General Stuck says:

    @Donut:

    You know, the irony of you calling out Obama for “caving” on ANYTHING, should not go unremarked upon.

    Before this thread, I did not know that Obama and Hagel were close personal friends, so it is less than a cave on Obama’s part. More like an unnecessary risk, that could well turn out to be an inspired and brilliant choice. Time will tell.

  102. 102
    evodevo says:

    @mai naem: And THAT’S exactly why they will NEVER offer the MTP host position to anyone with talent, conscience or intellectual street cred.

  103. 103
    amk says:

    @General Stuck: They also worked together on controlling nuclear arms. They do have seem to have some mind meld on FP and wars.

  104. 104
    MomSense says:

    @feebog #96

    Yes!! A Republican Sec Def can provide cover for defense cuts–especially to those weapons systems that the Pentagon do not want but Congress votes for anyway (because those defense contractors are in every district!)

    While Gates was Sec Def they did exactly this. Overall spending did not go down but they did cut some outdated weapons programs. This didn’t get much play at all only because it was Gates.

  105. 105
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @feebog:

    We need to cut defense down by several 100 billion dollars over the next ten years, and the Republicans are scared to death it might happen.

    Because that disrupts the gravy train, and we can’t have that disrupted. Put the generals on food stamps before we disrupt the Defense contractor gravy train.

    @evodevo:

    And THAT’S exactly why they will NEVER offer the MTP host position to anyone with talent

    Oh, I don’t know, it seems the talent to deliver first class blow jobs with enthusiastic swallowing to guys like Dick Cheney, is very important, as it obviously became Pumpkinhaid’s forte.

  106. 106
    Davis X. Machina says:

    Does it actually matter, beyond the dreaded ‘optics’, who SecDef is? Actual policy’s made elsewhere, and no real-world SecDef candidate is going to have a perspective so outré that it’s not already in the conversation.

    Any SecDef candidate who did have a perspective so outré that it wasn’t already in the conversation would be a transparent exercise in tokenism, and find themselves ignored in short order. (Sec. Cindy Sheehan, ayone??

    I can’t think of an instance of the latter. Bryan at State under Wilson? But he was a macher in the President’s own party, and wound up resigning.

    Even a hetman is still a Cossack, and the Cossacks work for the Tsar.

  107. 107
    Ted & Hellen says:

    @AxelFoley:

    Fuck Greenwald. He can come around and declare Obama to be the best President ever and I’d still disagree with that fucker for spite.

    Exactly. Thank you for pointing out why most BJ Kool Kids have zero credibility on Greenwald. Your hatred for G is as pathological as your worship of O.

    Consider moderating your drooling passions.

  108. 108
    redshirt says:

    Where did that Graham quote come from? And more so, what was the reporter’s follow up? LOL, right? But really? Was there a “But Senator Graham, Chuck Hagel is a Republican – how could this nomination be ‘in your face'”?

    LOL again.

  109. 109
    Suffern ACE says:

    If they’re going to go this nuts over Hagel, I wonder if the administration could rid himself of a lot of pains in the asses by floating the rumor that he’s considering a few New Black Panther Party members as alternatives. I believe that Lindsay Graham would drop dead on the spot.

  110. 110
    burnspbesq says:

    @General Stuck:
    Many have those dems done mea culpas that they were wrong about Iraq. I don’t oppose Hagel for his Iraq war vote, and am not particularly impressed by his later oppo. I oppose him because on about every other issue, he is extremely conservative, especially regarding any and all help for the poor. It is a basic pol character issue for me, as well as dems and Obama caving to old canards about dems as weak on defense. So they put in wingnuts to top cabinet positions to do with national security. I would rather have a democrat in those positions, and Hagel can be secretary of commerce, or the like.

    Old canard, still quacks, as Saint Molly would say if she were still around.

    I view the Hagel nomination as something of an “only Nixon could go to China” move with respect to defense spending. I also like the fact that Hagel seems to have all the right enemies.

    A final note: irrelevant litmus tests are for the FDL crowd. Sure you’re in the right place?

  111. 111
    aimai says:

    Are people forgetting that Obama has been trying to split the notional GOP by offering admin positions to Republicans for a long time? He destroyed the “sensible” Governor of Utah’s chances as a presidential candidate by making him ambassador to China. He tried to co-opt the Republicans with Cohen–I can’t find a link to that but I seem to remember that Cohen strung him along and then declined the post?–the problem with this as a strategy is that it used to be seen as a viable method of dragging the opposition party halfway to your side by choosing well respected members for your administration. But the new new new Republican party will defenestrate anyone and any idea if Obama touches it. So what used to be a conciliatory gesture now becomes another chance for Obama, seemingly from the GOP perspective, to stick a thumb in the GOP’s eye.

    aimai

  112. 112
    Jon says:

    @Sly: Even Shorter Greenwald: Yay Hagel cuz war people don’t like him.

  113. 113
    Mnemosyne (iPhone) says:

    I really don’t understand certain pundits’ conviction that Obama somehow unaware that he is trying to appoint a Sec Def who is opposed to war with Iran. I know Greenwald thinks Obama is an idiot, but geez.

  114. 114
    MosesZD says:

    As usual, Greenwald doesn’t play ‘team Democrat’ and suck Obama’s dick and the comments are full of BS attacks, half-of-which are just neocon talking points.

    Obama has said himself — he’s a MODERATE REPUBLICAN. Or, to put in a way the oldsters like myself see him: Obama is nothing more than Black Nixon.

    Same shitty domestic policies. Same wishy-washy character. Same lack of respect for the law. Same kow-towing to power. Same bombing civilians and innocent people because he can, not because it’s right or makes sense (with only scale being different).

  115. 115
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @MosesZD: Property still isn’t theft, either. No real point in voting for Democrats under those circumstances.

  116. 116
    General Stuck says:

    @burnspbesq:

    Hagel is the best choice according to the FDL crowd. Why do you think Greenwald is so in the tank for Hagel? Learn your shit before mouthing off.

    edit – and fix your blockquotes

  117. 117
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @Davis X. Machina:

    No real point in voting for Democrats under those circumstances

    Yeah, but the symbolic value…..

  118. 118
    dedc79 says:

    Greenwald doesn’t do nuance – he has his own version of Bush’s “you’re either with us or against us.” And now he finds himself in a bit of an awkward position because if Obama is the war-monger/torturer in chief he’s been railing against, then why is he appointing Hagel?
    I would’ve thought Greenwald would instead argue that Hagel is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  119. 119
    Tomolitics says:

    Hagel shmagel.
    Nominate Krugman for Treasury, dammit.
    http://signon.org/sign/nominat.....05-koFPHkx
    (I know, I know…but a fella can dream, right?).

  120. 120
    General Stuck says:

    @burnspbesq:

    And since when was nominating a lifelong conservative republican for a top cabinet post in a dem administration “an irrelevant litmus test”? It may end up being a great idea, as I stated, but it is hardly irrelevant to question this nomination.

  121. 121
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @burnspbesq:

    he is extremely conservative, especially regarding any and all help for the poor

    Since he’ll be at the Pentagon for a budget bug-hunt, this seems a feature for the poor, not a bug in their ointment.

  122. 122
    General Stuck says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    precious. Coming from a firebagger now supporting Obama in his bipartisanship by nominating a republican after so many years of haranguing him for sucking up to republicans. clowns.

  123. 123
    Davis X. Machina says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin): Nothing wrong with symbolic actions. I am nothing if not reasonable, and open to compromise.

    Expropriate some of the expropriators!
    Workers’ ownership of a large number of the economy’s controlling heights!
    A significant down-payment on power to the soviets of workers and peasants!

  124. 124
    handsmile says:

    After addressing and setting aside as inconsequential both Hagel’s 1998 remark on gay rights and the matter of party affiliation, Greenwald pinpoints the definitive reason for neoncons’ objection to his nomination as SecDef: his apostasy on Israel. The full paragraph from Greenwald’s column:

    “There’s a reason Hagel’s nomination has become so intensely controversial and such a vicious target for war-cheering neocons such as Bill Kristol and the Washington Post Editorial Board. It’s because Hagel is one of the very, very few prominent national politicians from either party who has been brave enough to question and dissent from the destructive bipartisan orthodoxies on foreign policy. What plausible Democratic candidate for this job has been willing publicly to point out that the US and Israel are separate countries and American interests should trump Israeli interests when they conflict, or to advocate for direct negotiations with Hamas, or to candidly point out that America’s Middle East wars are fought for oil, or to condemn the power of the pro-Israel lobby within both parties, or to harshly point out the stupidity of attacking Iran rather than cowardly mouth the “all-options-on-the-table” platitude?”

    I find this fully persuasive.

    With Hagel or any other nominee, efforts to impose significant cuts on the bloated Defense budget will muster robust resistance from Democrats and Republicans alike. Yay, bipartisanship! As was pointed out on “Up with Chris Hayes” this morning, the Defense budget has increased over 40% since 2006, a span during which each party has reigned both in Congress and the White House.

    I am surprised that Team D’s bench for this cabinet post appears so thin. Other than Kerry, Hagel or Michelle Flournoy, I’ve read of no other names seriously entertained.

  125. 125
    Anya says:

    @General Stuck:

    I oppose him because on about every other issue, he is extremely conservative, especially regarding any and all help for the poor.

    In “The private war of Chuck and Tom Hagel,” the quote below stood out for me. I agree with you that Mr. Hagel’s lack of compassion to the poor is a huge deficit and I hope he changes this huge character flaw.

    According to Tom, his own experience of doing without, of being on the outside looking in, inspired him to pull for the underdog. His brother’s reaction to being on the outside, Tom says, was to try to get inside. Always ambitious, Chuck wanted access to wealth and power.

    Chuck Hagel grew up very poor and was abused by his father (who was probably suffering from PTSD) and learned the wrong lessons from that experience. Hopefully he changed some of his views, like he changed his views on war, but in DOD he does not have any much say about policies that affect the poor.

    My support to his nomination is solely based on the objections of the neocons and the Israeli firsters. We should not surrender our foreign policy to that group and if Hagel’s nomination is defeated, we might as well hand our Mideast policy to Netanyahu.

    Also, I don’t buy the idea that Obama is nominating Hagel because of the old canard about Democrats being weak on national security and other idiocy. I think he’s nominating him because he likes Hagel, and on foreign policy they’re in complete agreement. I think the President would’ve liked Kerry for defense but Kerry wanted to be Secretary of State.

  126. 126
    ruemara says:

    @MosesZD: He’s never said that and you’re a liar.

    With regards to the nom., it is obvious that Hagel is there to scale back the wars and the contracts. Also, Greenwald is another left-wing bigot. If there’s one thing 2007-2013 has taught me, fucking racist bullshittery on the left is more disgusting than the racist bullshit on the right. It’s the knife in the back. Take our votes, and burn shit down if an actual elected person tries to make things work without enough purity.

    He’s not wrong about war and not wrong about MIC, but he is fucked in the head about a black man being in charge and his fanbois here, Hi T&H!, are as pig ignorant obsessive about loving him as they accuse every one else who disagrees with GG, of being an “Obot”.

  127. 127
    Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin) says:

    @General Stuck:

    You seem really hung up on labels. My practice is to see how a person’s words are reflected by behaviors; you know, context. BTW, what is a small ‘d’ democrat, as you describe yourself. It’s not that I find you complex, but rather far too simple to take at that face value.

  128. 128
    General Stuck says:

    Even though I conceded that this might end up being an inspired choice by Obama, some of the comments in this thread make it clear that many on the left still are motivated by their lingering BDS, rather than dealing with the here and now.

  129. 129
    General Stuck says:

    @Machine-Gun Preacher (formerly Ben Franklin):

    You are completely full of shit. Go away.

  130. 130
    Jewish Steel says:

    @aimai:

    This is how I saw this. A little divide and conquer.

  131. 131
    General Stuck says:

    @Anya:

    I hadn’t known that Hagel and Obama were close friends until someone mentioned it after my first comment. That makes a huge difference in actual motive and appearance of motive relative to obama acting from reactionary reasons of dems weak on defense.

    The part about being stingy with the poor, as I stated, went to general character and not his proposed duties at the Pentagon. With new info, I am not so opposed as I first indicated in this thread. But I still do not trust Chuck Hagel any further than I can throw him. That comes from a lot of senate watching I do. So let’s see what happens.

    But it is both comical and sad that the firebaggers are so on board with this pick. Though not surprising.

  132. 132
    handsmile says:

    @aimai:

    To the best of my recollection, William Cohen (who did serve as Clinton’s Defense Secretary and if that’s the “Cohen” you mean) was never approached for a position in the Obama administration.

    What you describe, however, seems to apply to former New Hampshire Republican senator Judd Gregg who was nominated to be Obama’s first Commerce Secretary in 2009. Several days after accepting this offer, the dim-witted Gregg realized he had violated Pope Grover’s edict on bipartisanship (“[It’s] another name for date rape”) and withdrew his service. The cowardly Gregg now works for Goldman Sachs.

  133. 133
    scav says:

    There”s also This from the Guard about the rightward drift (cough) in Israel and their elections. An appointment that sends solid whoooaa signals in that direction and provides a non-hawk budget bug hunter sounds fine to me, especially if it comes with a slight icing of symbolic pre-emotive bipartisanship/cooperation to boot (esp. in this environment and for the purposes of the out-of-beltway non-loon audience).

  134. 134
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @handsmile: I always wondered how McConnell et al pulled Gregg back, wondered what kind of horse’s head was left in his bed. Turns out, at least as far M. Grunwald’s book goes, and I’ve never seen any other report, that the Republicans basically just said, “Dude, come on!” and Gregg flipped. Mildly interesting that Barbara Bush personally lobbied him to back out.

    And William Cohen should be ashamed of himself for sitting quietly while his protogees in the Maine Senate Caucus jumped on the crazy train, especially wrt Susan Rice.

  135. 135
    Anya says:

    @General Stuck:

    But it is both comical and sad that the firebaggers are so on board with this pick. Though not surprising.

    The use of the “Dear Leader” is nothing but projection. If Greenwald or one of the top firebagger says it’s okay to support someone, they will support that person to the end.

    Speaking of GG, that fucker is the king of false equivalency. So, Obama calling a female reporter sweetie is equivalent to Hagel apposing a qualified individual for a post because he’s gay?

  136. 136
    Rex Everything says:

    Half a sentence on sweetiegate is a hell of a flogging indeed.

  137. 137
    redshirt says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Cohen is exactly the type of Republican many people remember, and thus still support the Republican party. He was a good man and sincerely wanted best for his state and country, regardless of Party.

    That Republican no longer exists, and there’s no simple way to return to those days. Not before we burn away the crazy.

    So I put no blame on Cohen for what has become of Collins (and the now departed Snowe). Collins used to be pretty reasonable too, but she’s become infected with the crazy virus – to a milder degree, for sure, but infected nonetheless.

  138. 138
    Brachiator says:

    @General Stuck:

    I see. Maybe. But the nutters are not going be moved to act from anything but pure ideology and scorched earth oppo to Obama. It could give creds to the bipartisan thing, which is comical that so many progs like him, but don’t like bipartisanship otherwise. I would just like to see a dem in that office to push the narrative away from past bugaboos of dems being weak on anything.

    This narrative doesn’t mean anything anymore. Probably never did. No one outside the Village much knows or cares who the Secretary of Defense is, or what political party he or she belongs to. And everyone assumes that the Secretary of Defense will pursue the policies of the Obama Administration, not an independent or GOP directed agenda.

    And even if one wants to consider narratives, we are far beyond the “Dems are weak on defense” stuff, and still deep into the “Obama is too weak or too naive or is really a secret Muslim” narrative which holds that whatever Obama does will betray America.

    And while liberals go on about the supposed need to appoint a Democrat, the GOP is busy crapping all over Hagel and blathering that he is not a true Republican. This would seem to further muddy any narrative about the value of a Republican overseeing the Pentagon.

    On top of all this, there is the little thing that the current Secretary of Defense is a Democrat (and a former official of the hated Bill Clinton Administration). And previously, McCain and other GOP dopes were signaling that Kerry would be acceptable for either Defense or State, anything to get him out of Massachusetts and Scott Brown back into the Senate.

    Lastly, the GOP is insanely doubling down on their most cherished fractured fairy tale, that the primary purpose of the Defense Department is not to pursue America’s national interests, but to mollify Israel’s extreme right wing. This is more important to them than who might be stronger on defense.

    So we are down again to the typical situation: Obama’s choice angers all Republicans and some liberals. This tells me that he must be doing something right.

    Even if Greenwald grudgingly approves.

  139. 139
    Rex Everything says:

    @Schlemizel: pssst, it’s because Sully gesticulates before their idol of choice (this act being the only de facto virtue & its omission the only de facto sin).

  140. 140
    waratah says:

    @JoyfulA: That is why he floated Flournoy so Hagel would look better.

  141. 141
    JoyfulA says:

    @waratah: Good Point! I should have thought of that.

  142. 142
    Rex Everything says:

    @dedc79:

    And now he finds himself in a bit of an awkward position because if Obama is the war-monger/torturer in chief he’s been railing against, then why is he appointing Hagel?

    Honestly, I think this quote & the sentiment behind it represent a major, maybe THE major bone of contention between the Obots and Firebaggers.

    I’m considered a Firebagger, and my feeling about Obama is he’s probably a pretty good guy, probably a sincere liberal, and his compromises and “sellouts” have been absolutely necessary; that we can’t imagine the forces he is up against or the pressure they bring to bear on him. I also think that in the context of my duties as a citizen, none of that matters much. We have to either support or oppose his policies; we as a public need to throw our weight behind what we feel is right or against what we feel is wrong. Is Obama the man good or evil? Who gives a shit? It’s a completely different subject.

    Again and again on Balloon Juice, Obots have demanded to know why I hate POTUS, why I’m blaming him for everything, why I think he’s such a bad guy, etc. It’s really odd when you think about it. I don’t hate him at all … but that shouldn’t enter into it. I sometimes oppose his policies. I sometimes emphatically oppose his policies. I feel it should be discussed. That’s why I’m here.

    The way I see it, Greenwald is just trying to hold Obama accountable for his record. The whole set of priorities that gives rise to the above question—“if Obama’s a warmonger, then why etc?”—is foreign to his way of thinking. Is Obama a warmonger? i.e., is it important to stick him with a particular label? and doesn’t the present act absolve him? This isn’t the way I think, and I doubt it’s the way GG thinks. I support the Hagel nomination and therefore I applaud Obama for it, but it must be weighed against his record as President. The question of the moral stature of Obama the person doesn’t enter into it.

    As I said, I personally think Obama is decent and I would probably do worse in his shoes. GG may disagree. But so what? That’s not relevant. It is not our job as citizens to speculate on his moral character.

  143. 143
    AxelFoley says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    Exactly. Thank you for pointing out why most BJ Kool Kids have zero credibility on Greenwald. Your hatred for G is as pathological as your worship of O.

    Consider moderating your drooling passions

    Oh, sweet irony. Anyone who mocks or rips into President Obama will have you creaming your pants.

    DIAF, asswipe.

  144. 144
    AxelFoley says:

    @ruemara:

    @MosesZD: He’s never said that and you’re a liar.

    With regards to the nom., it is obvious that Hagel is there to scale back the wars and the contracts. Also, Greenwald is another left-wing bigot. If there’s one thing 2007-2013 has taught me, fucking racist bullshittery on the left is more disgusting than the racist bullshit on the right. It’s the knife in the back. Take our votes, and burn shit down if an actual elected person tries to make things work without enough purity.

    He’s not wrong about war and not wrong about MIC, but he is fucked in the head about a black man being in charge and his fanbois here, Hi T&H!, are as pig ignorant obsessive about loving him as they accuse every one else who disagrees with GG, of being an “Obot”

    This. All this.

  145. 145
    Gex says:

    Glibertarians have perpetually voted for the wars on foreigners and the wars on drugs and Americans for their tax cuts. They have aided and abetted the “Democrats are weak on…” arguments. Then when the Democrats make the necessary moves to appeal to the electorate that we have, they bitch that they don’t have the old anti-war hippies around anymore.

    Fuck them. Vote for higher taxes and less killing of innocents sometimes, see how that works for you.

  146. 146
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Ted & Hellen:

    Like we give a rat’s ass what Greenwald thinks of us, troll.

  147. 147
    Michael Finn says:

    I really liked him, then I hated him, and now I couldn’t care less about GG.

    Once you realize he is an advocate and not a journalist then everything makes sense. He takes money not for asking the hard questions but rather to tell a very specific audience what they want to hear.

  148. 148
    IM says:

    @Suffern ACE:

    Louis Farrakhan, ambassador to Israel

    Bill Ayers to the pentagon

  149. 149
    Paul says:

    @MosesZD:

    Obama has said himself — he’s a MODERATE REPUBLICAN.

    Why are you mentioning this out of context? What Obama actually said was: “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-th.....z2HE8Yr4Oj

    Quite a difference, don’t you think?

    Or, to put in a way the oldsters like myself see him: Obama is nothing more than Black Nixon. Same shitty domestic policies. Same wishy-washy character. Same lack of respect for the law. Same kow-towing to power. Same bombing civilians and innocent people because he can, not because it’s right or makes sense (with only scale being different).

    Speak for yourself. BTW – Why no praise for Obama and the same name calling for Bernie Sanders and the Dem Senators regarding Gitmo? As you are well aware Obama tried to close it, and Bernie Sanders kept it open.

  150. 150
    eemom says:

    I doubt there’s anything more to say about Hagel’s nomination that wasn’t said two weeks ago when the news first broke — and much more intelligently and eloquently than anything that ever emanates from the bloated pen of that overhyped windbag with his newfound British accent, by various people who, unlike him, possess a category of shit as to which they also possess actual knowledge.

    But by all means, now that HE has opined, let’s rehash it all.

  151. 151
    LAC says:

    @some guy: and greenwald’s fanboy base, all oiled up and ready to go colon diving.

  152. 152
    different-church-lady says:

    @Schlemizel:

    So many people around here kiss Sullys ass and quote him like he is gods gift to thinking when he has never been on our side.

    Which Balloon Juice have you been reading? Because it sure as hell ain’t this one.

  153. 153
    liberal says:

    @Paul:

    The very reason Obama’s campaign in 2008 did so well from the get-go vs Clinton’s (and McCain) was that Obama took a hard stance against the war in Iraq before it even had started.

    Agreed, but IIRC he wasn’t all that strong as far as shutting the war down after he got to the US Senate.

    Obama has been quoted as saying “I’m not against all wars, I’m against dumb wars”.

    Afghanistan might not have been a dumb war when it was commenced, but it surely was a dumb war before Obama launched his “surge” there.

  154. 154
    Tim I says:

    I was initially shocked by your post, as I find GG to be one of the stupidest assholes ever to walk the earth.

    But goddamnit, he got this one right!

    Broken clocks and all that, I guess.

  155. 155
    liberal says:

    @General Stuck:

    But I still do not trust Chuck Hagel any further than I can throw him.

    Well, if you want to go in that direction, there’s a theory “out there” that he rigged his own first election to the Senate by owning the company that made the machines in NE, and flipping votes.

  156. 156
    liberal says:

    @Mnemosyne (iPhone):

    I really don’t understand certain pundits’ conviction that Obama somehow unaware that he is trying to appoint a Sec Def who is opposed to war with Iran.

    Did some pundits actually make such an idiotic claim?

    On the contrary, I find this nomination particularly heartening, because it portends that Obama might really try to push back against the pressure to attack Iran (regardless of whether Hegel makes it in as SecDef).

  157. 157
    Humble Lurker says:

    @Ted & Hellen:
    Couldn’t have anything to do with GG being a hypocrite and a bully, now could it?

    Bring on the Hagel. If he’s got chinless so irked he’s gotta be a good idea.

Comments are closed.