Cotton: Hagel not right pick for defense secretary
This article was published December 21, 2012 at 8:36 a.m.
- Comments (49)
- aAFont Size
Tom Cotton
LITTLE ROCK — U.S. Rep.-elect Tom Cotton of Arkansas' 4th District is urging President Barack Obama not to nominate Chuck Hagel for U.S. defense secretary.
In a column that appeared Friday in the Wall Street Journal, Cotton slammed the former Republican senator from Nebraska for a "dismal record on Iraq" that included writing a column in 2006 claiming the United States could neither win nor lose the war and suggesting no more troops should be deployed there.
"Imagine my surprise at the senator’s assertions, having just returned that week from combat in Baghdad as an infantry platoon leader with the 101st Airborne Division," Cotton wrote. "My soldiers had fought bravely to stabilize that city, protect innocent civilians and defeat al Qaeda. Those soldiers were proud of their accomplishments.
"No one had told us during our time in Baghdad that we would achieve 'no victory.' Readers might have shared my surprise at Mr. Hagel's words if he had mentioned his earlier vote supporting the war."
Cotton went on to criticize Hagel's proposal to withdraw from Iraq and noted the troop surge he did not support was ultimately a successful operation.
Cotton also slammed Hagel for helping delay emergency funding for the war in 2007, voting to force withdrawal and voting against designating Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. And he said Hagel seems to be in favor of cutting military spending and withdrawing from Afghanistan sooner than planned.
"This is not the record of a leader who can be counted on to stand by our armed forces," Cotton wrote. "While Mr. Obama has every right to choose his secretary of defense, I urge him not to nominate Mr. Hagel. If he is nominated, I urge the Senate not to confirm him. Our fighting men and women deserve so much better."
Cotton, a Republican, was elected to a first term in November. He succeeds U.S. Rep Mike Ross, who opted not to seek reelection.
Comments on: Cotton: Hagel not right pick for defense secretary
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.
You must login to make comments.
ArkansasHawk says... December 21, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.
Cotton, is that the best Arkansas could, sad, just sad.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jackabbott says... December 21, 2012 at 9:16 a.m.
Hagel hit the nail on the head on Iraq. It was a worthless endeavor that gained the USA basically nothing and cost lives and trillions of dollars and help bankrupct the country. Iran has more influence there now than we have, where is all that oil and low gasoline prices that Bush/Cheney promised us. Obama should have been more like Eisenhower and stopped all these foolish wars on day one of his Presidency.
We are no better off today and in some cases worst off in the MidEast today than we were 20 years ago..
If Cotton really knows something about the military, then hopefully he can suggest ways to cut their spending and stop paying these sex starved generals a million a year in pension benefits.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... December 21, 2012 at 9:22 a.m.
The defense budget has doubled in the last ten years and that doesn't even count the homeland security crap. Of course it needs cut back. Hagel served in Vietnam, not this green zone stuff. If I'm not mistaken, Hagel is more decorated. Who is the rookie trying to impress? Not the people he was elected to represent.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 21, 2012 at 9:45 a.m.
Then Jackabbott Why is Obama putting several thousand troops back into Iraq?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 11:01 a.m.
T6...... List your source for this information about Obama putting troops back into Iraq.
Don't tell me you saw it on the World Net Daily site, the religious right National Inquirer.
I say you cannot supply a reliable source of that information.
( permalink | suggest removal )
nwar says... December 21, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
So here we go with our not even yet a Congressman from the 4th District. The Club for Growth has big plans for our boy -- obviously, or he wouldn't be writing Wall Street Op-eds before he is even sworn in. Cotton is going to opt for "Warmonger in Chief" and he doesn't give a cr*p about the 4th district. You can be sure he'll be on the side of the guys all calling for big cuts in Social Security and Medicare so that the U.S. can continue to make defense contractors rich and police the world for everyone else.
( permalink | suggest removal )
B2R says... December 21, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
Not even in office and an expert on war....the bar isn't very high these days.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Nate says... December 21, 2012 at 1:42 p.m.
What was this guy, a First or Second Lieutenant as a Platoon Leader and hadn't had a chance to even become wet behind the ears and now he hasn't even been sworn in as U.S. Congressman and has an opinion? Please, spare me the Sarah Palin bravado! Shut your mouth, learn something, think about it twice then open your mouth to speak!
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 21, 2012 at 3:42 p.m.
BillSmith....What? You don't think your dear Leader would do anything in secret now do you?
You lemmings wouldn't believe it anyway!
( permalink | suggest removal )
PapeJoe says... December 21, 2012 at 4:02 p.m.
Sounds like this cotton got picked before it got ripe
( permalink | suggest removal )
Papakhan says... December 21, 2012 at 4:58 p.m.
We need Hagel as Defence Secretary. Cotton has his Republican agenda but its not what people want. We are tired of our foreign wars.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.
Come on T6, just where did you pick up this tidbit of information. If Obama is doing it in secret, how did you find out about it. You don't have a clue, why don't you email Hal Lindsey, Pat Robertson or Jack Van Impe the prophets and maybe they have the source of info.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 21, 2012 at 6:53 p.m.
Ignore Alex White's (T6) blithering, Bill. I'm sure his trip in the alien spacecraft gave him all this great insight for which he offers no proof. People who are too chicken to present actual facts, tend to deliver what those foul fowls are most noted for leaving about the yard: chickens**t.
Article forgot to mention that the conservative think tank, the Cato Institute, thinks very highly of Hagel and thinks Cotton is way out of touch on this issue.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 21, 2012 at 7:17 p.m.
T6..............................
Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers
*
You have a problem with #2 and #6, you really need to supply your sources to put this to rest.
( permalink | suggest removal )
NoCrossNoCrown says... December 21, 2012 at 8:55 p.m.
Then according to Proverbs that eliminates all the GOP'ers .....lol
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... December 26, 2012 at 11:20 a.m.
Hagel got it right. Cotton is a shill for the GOP special interest. He thinks that the GOP can dominate Arkansas for decades to come. But I would not be surprised if the GOP looses Arkansas in the next election, especially if they drive the economy over the cliff trying to protect the rich and powerful.
The Iraqi war was a pre-planned rape of a country that had done nothing to America but was planned in the early 90's to get the Iraqi Oil. And they have it, those International Companies, all you have to do is follow the ownership through the maze of Eastern Oil Companies front organizations.
When we say lives were lost, I suggest we speak the number: over 6,000 American soldiers and over a million Iraqi innocents killed. over 65% of those killed in Iraq were women and children, but that is not the end of it. The Depleted Uranium weaponry used in Iraq is Radioactive and already the percent of grotesque birth deformities caused by this radiation has tripled above pre war levels and will continue further into the future than the memory of mankind.
When we speak of being a Christian Nation we need to remember this atrocity and try to get those who planned this tragedy out of our Government and in front of the International Court to answer for their crimes.
The Iraqi war was not a war of survival, it was a war of profit for the masters of the GOP.
We all need to seek peace on earth beginning now.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 26, 2012 at 6:10 p.m.
BS....... So because I don't choose to respond to you, You call me a liar. You quote the Bible while being hypocritcal.
YOU and your cohorts on here sure didn't have any problem with bearing false witness, lying against Mitt Romney, or Herman Cain with NO proof.
I ask you. Do you think your President, Leon Panetta, or the Pentagon would lie to the American people? Yes or No?
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... December 26, 2012 at 7:38 p.m.
T6
Looks to me like you did choose to respond to Bill Smith, so why didn't you give the source for that startling revelation?
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 26, 2012 at 10:04 p.m.
The only source noted for the story of troops being secretly put into Iraq is PRESS TV. It's also what most anti-Obama right-wing groups are citing regarding this story.
PRESS TV is based in Iran.
Maybe that's why T6 isn't too eager for you to know his source. How stupid would it look to accuse our President of something based solely on a propaganda story from our sworn enemy, the Iranian government? Kind of like stepping into old horse droppings and proclaiming that you have gold dust all over your boots.
Maybe T6 will start channeling Osama for his next revelation....
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 27, 2012 at 9:44 a.m.
Hey JakeT must not have be inconsequential since the Pentagon responded to the PressTV claims. Most right wing groups? How about Russian media, Iraq media? NZmedia? Islamic media?
If we waited for the Obmao National Media to print the truth hell would freeze over! Ain't gonna happen!
thehill. com/blogs/defcon-hill/operations/272049-dod-denies-deployments-of-us-forces-back-to-iraq-
Like I said we know Obmao and the Pentagon has LIED about ALL troops leaving Iraq. They wouldn't lie to us NAW! Do you honestly think Obama is going to tell us he's going back into Iraq when we just got out. Obmoa and you Democrats have carried on about Bush's illegal war in Iraq(democRats words), now he's going back in. How many Muslim countries are we in now? Most people don't know Obama is arming all Muslim countries at our expense.
You should read the article at the website below about the SOFA agreement between the US and Iraq. It gives the US authority to put troops back into Iraq.
uruknet. info/?p=93393
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 27, 2012 at 11 a.m.
T6 -- you have no proof. Ergo: you are repeating lies. Ergo: you are a liar. When you present valid proof (other than your circular reasoning), then the assertion of your mendaciousness stands.
Again, you have no proof. You merely repeat what an Iranian news agency says. Therefore you are in support of our enemies and possibly engaging in treasonous comments.
Or else you're one paranoid and delusional jerk.
Right now, you are a traitor in my book. You and Benedict will have a lot in common and to talk about when you both are roasting in Hell together.
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... December 27, 2012 at 11:48 a.m.
Presidents and Defense Secretaries NEED to be opposed to war. War is bad.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 27, 2012 at 12:02 p.m.
JakeT.... YOU have NO proof they aren't being deployed, DO YOU?
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 27, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.
You just broke one of the cardinal rules of debate and argument T6 and you just lost because of it. (And you're still a traitor and a coward to boot.) You stand in league with the Muslim terrorists and their propaganda and have the gall to claim to be anti-Islam.
Even Benedict wasn't that stupid. Alex White, however, is. I intend to let the boys at the VFW know that you support Iran. They'll be mighty intrigued if they ever meet you.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 27, 2012 at 12:29 p.m.
JakeT...And YOU sir have NO proof it hasn't happened because WE know your media outlets don't report. They like you think that IF they don't print it IT DOESN'T happen. You sir are one stupid individual. YOUR President is arming Al Qaeda with weapons used against our soldiers and you have the audacity to call me a traitor. YOU support a President that should be charged with treason and high crimes and put in Gitmo or worse. YOU are the traitor to your country electing this Communist in the People's house. Oh and I'm not worried about going to hell but if I go I'm sure I'll see YOU there.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 27, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
Learn how to debate, mate. Like I said, you just violated one of the cardinal rules.
Let's reverse the situation so you can understand. I can say that you only get sexual fulfillment when making love to a prostitute who looks like Osama. Now, according to your "logic," it's not up to me to prove that. It's up to you to disprove it with evidence to the contrary. It's why debate rules require the person who makes an assertion of fact then is the one who must offer proof. If you don't ever provide that proof, then there is no validity to your statement.
Good luck. And, that's why such a method is in violation of debate decorum. Am headed to VFW tomorrow night. Your feeble rationale will make an interesting topic of discussion. Probably will get a lot of laughs, too.
It is a fact that the source for your news is an Iranian press release. And you, by your own admission, find them believable over our own people.
Again, learn to debate. You've wasted enough of my time and that of many others in your illogical and rabid attempt to sow discord and disinformation for the sake of our enemy, the Iranian government.
Sie haben nicht die leiseste Ahnung von etwas!
Ich bin auf der Reise -- Jake
P.S. -- Sind Sie dribbeln oder haben Sie Tollwut?
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... December 27, 2012 at 1:36 p.m.
I don't know about traitor but we all have known for a long time she is a liar.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 27, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.
T6............A few more verses that seem to apply or not apply to you.
1 Timothy 5:13 – “Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to.”
Deuteronomy 13:14 – “Then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly.”
Psalms 101:7, "He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight."
Proverbs 12:22, "Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are his delight."
*
Now just provide your source of "Obama putting troops back into Iraq, and suppling Al Qaeda with weapons" to prove to us that the above verses do not apply to you. Without reliable sources we have to believe you have no understanding of Deuteronomy 13:14.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 27, 2012 at 8:50 p.m.
"On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux." Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... December 27, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.
Let us not forget that the darling of the Republican Faithful, a guy named Romney, promised in his campaign to INCREASE Military spending by Two Trillion Dollars. And he said he would pay for that extra two trillion by changing Social Security and Medicare. Changing means destroying it.
In other words he would likely start more wars and pay for them by sending Grandpa and Grandma to the poor house. But then there would be those pesky entitlements - thus the phrase "Let them eat cake".
The "little people" of American dodged a bullet in this last election. And possibly every Republican Shill on here would have suffered along with the rest of us while they were cursing that "Obommer".
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... December 27, 2012 at 10:52 p.m.
Jake
If you can possibly get T6 to read the story, then you will have hopefully "Tamed" him.
( permalink | suggest removal )
T6 says... December 27, 2012 at 11:03 p.m.
JakeT..... So in your view if news is not reported on by the MSM it didn't happen?
We know the MSM reports with slanted bias, omits important details, and suppresses stories if the are unfavorable to Obama. There are stories not reported on by left wing rags.
1. Benghazi
2. Ambassador Chris Stevens Funerals held on October 16, 2012, nothing in the media
3.Federal Building-local Social Security Administration bombed in Casa Grande, Arizona, by an Iraqi refugee.
4. Media reported 24/7 on George Bush's war in Iraq and Afghanistan but not on Obama's Kill list or Disposition Matrix, or Obama's ever expanding global war on terror and nation building with borrowed money.
5. Obama's FEMA Failure on the East Coast
There are many more but you get the point. BS..... You quoting the Bible is laughable!!!
This would apply to you:
So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” Matthew 23:28
( permalink | suggest removal )
TimberTopper says... December 28, 2012 at 4:37 a.m.
So Cotton is an elected official. That doesn't keep him from being a damn fool!
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 28, 2012 at 6:28 a.m.
CC -- Alex White's rant reminds me of that person mentioned by Shakespeare, the one whose tale was full of sound and fury. His love of the Iranians and their news agency plus his overwrought fantasies about secrets in the government (which somehow are not secret to him!) plus his inordinately unskillful debate tactics -- well, I'm too old to be wasting my time with such.
Bill -- some people use the scripture for hatred, some for love. Thanks for showing us that it can serve love and respect for each other. Maybe someday Alex's inner demons will depart and then he can see the world and himself better.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... December 28, 2012 at 10:57 a.m.
How amazing it is that the sticking point concerning the "Fiscal Cliff" from the GOP perspective, is concern for the cost to the Richest and most powerful among us. But no concern for the multitudes of people who would be hurt the most.
Jake, I see you like to read maybe especially those writings concerning inner meanings or an inner theme about humanity. If you haven't read the short story by Ursula Le Guin " The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas", a story about a utopian Society dependent on a very dark inhuman behavior, try it. It is less than a ten minute read but its powerful message might possibly stay with you much longer than you might desire. Just google it and one of the links will have the full text that you can read online or print for re-reading or sharing.
( permalink | suggest removal )
HotSpringsLawyer says... December 28, 2012 at 12:13 p.m.
Great literary reference.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... December 28, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
I still haven't heard either side say the word balance when describing the budget. So just spin those wheels. Where did this term "fiscal cliff" come from anyways? Go over it, still won't balance the budget. Still will waste money. People like Trouble will still think they are poor little victims of this mean old society. When they get to balanced budget talks wake me up.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BillSmith says... December 28, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
T6.........A person can be righteous with out being religious, as in Christain, Muslim, Mormon, Baptist or whatever religion, denomination, tribe, sect etc you choose to use.
Synonyms: all right, decent, ethical, honest, honorable, just, moral, nice, right, good, right-minded, straight, true, upright, virtuous.
I am not trying to appear righteous, just trying to talk to you in a fashion that you may understand. All we are talking about here is spreading rumors and lies, when you can't back up anything you have said in your prior comments with sources and fact.
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... December 28, 2012 at 1:34 p.m.
Wasn't the last balanced budget under Clinton? Or was it Eisenhower?
Balancing the Budget is a very desirable action from my viewpoint, however I don't believe that the Fiscal Cliff has anything to do with balancing the budget.
I had some lengthy discussions with, I believe his name was David Schoen, who was with MSNBC back during the Bush Administration. I don't know if he is still there or not, doesn't matter. What we discussed was the Financial future of America. This was back before the crash, but after a warning from Comptroller General David Walker's analysis of where the Country was headed.
Walker tried to get the Bush Administration to take action to stop the Congress from freeing the Financial Sector from any regulations, etc. Walker had predicted that our Nation was headed for a Financial Meltdown if Bush didn't get control of the Wall Street Bandits.
Bush refused and Walker resigned. After that Annual report, future Comptroller General reports stopped making an assessment of America's Financial future.
The Crash materialized in 2008.
We need Financial regulations, we need a Balanced Budget, we need to close tax avoidance loopholes available for the rich, and we the people need to take control of our Government by imposing Term limits. Forget the Supreme Court, they can't make you vote for anyone going for a third term. Can you see how easy it would be without the powerful Political Parties?
Rodney Wimberly once called me and asked what I thought was the most dangerous threat to America.
I told him Political Party loyalty. He seemed stunned at the answer.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 28, 2012 at 3:05 p.m.
CC -- was a LeGuin fan long time ago and seem to rec all reading the Omelas tale. I'll try the online first. Or, next time I'm at the library, I'll look through the SF section and see if I can find a copy of the story and peruse it once again.
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... December 28, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
We have 535 morons and a president who all focus on a goal that is this: let's make the other side look like they are at fault. Obama is a gutless leader (like Bush) who cannot get them together to take care of our country. I never voted for Clinton but he could solve this problem real fast; he was a leader whether some like it or not
( permalink | suggest removal )
Packman says... December 28, 2012 at 4:05 p.m.
"Imagine my surprise at the senator’s assertions, having just returned that week from combat in Baghdad as an infantry platoon leader with the 101st Airborne Division," Thanks, Mr. Cotton, for your service to our country. You have more than earned the right to comment on Hagel's appointment. Please pay no attention to the ungratefuls such as those posting on this thread. If it were up to them, I would now be typing in German.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 28, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.
One more reminder: The leading conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, supports Hagel's nomination. Here is Chris Preble writing for Cato:
The rumors that President Obama will nominate Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense should be welcomed by anyone frustrated by years of war and foreign meddling, and out-of-control spending at the Pentagon. Which is to say, nearly everyone. I hope the reports are true.
The biggest boosters of the Iraq war, the Afghan war, the Libyan war, and possible war with Syria and Iran, are apoplectic. And they should be. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, understands war, and doesn’t take it lightly.
Although the president will obviously make the decisions, I expect that Hagel will generally advise against sending U.S. troops on quixotic nation-building missions. We might even see a resurrection of another Republican SecDef’s criteria for restraining Washington’s interventionist tendencies. At a minimum, Hagel will reflect Colin Powell’s view that “American GIs [are] not toy soldiers to be moved around on some sort of global game board.”
Hagel’s speech earlier this week to the Atlantic Council encapsulated many of the views that he has articulated throughout his career: he favors active engagement with the outside world, wants America’s allies to contribute more to global security and to cooperate with the United States in addressing common challenges, and is a consistent advocate for free trade.
I don’t put much stock in the neoconservative echo chamber’s claim that Hagel will have a tough time being confirmed. As David Boaz pointed out in 2010, Hagel’s other views should put him squarely in the conservative Republican camp. Aside from the small (and shrinking) Interventionist Caucus in the Senate, on what grounds would other Republicans oppose his nomination? Because he learned the error of his ways in initially supporting the Iraq war, and many of them never did? If more Republicans had come to their senses sooner, they would likely be the majority party in the Senate, and Hagel could just as easily have been nominated by a Republican president.
I had the pleasure of introducing then-Senator Hagel at a Cato event on Capitol Hill in 2007. We welcomed him to Cato to talk about his book in 2008. He is a serious and thoughtful individual who has served this country well, and will do so again. I sincerely hope that President Obama chooses him to be the next Secretary of Defense.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 28, 2012 at 5:33 p.m.
Cato Institute's Josh Logan, director of foreign policy studies:
When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, call your opponent an anti-Semite.
Such is the neoconservative approach to the marketplace of ideas.
Beltway elites are currently carrying on a kabuki debate over whether Chuck Hagel, a two-term U.S. senator, is an anti-Semite. Stop and ponder this for a second. You’re being asked to believe that an anti-Semite has been hiding in plain sight, for 12 years at the senate and afterward heading the Atlantic Council, an establishmentarian think tank, and teaching at Georgetown. An anti-Semite.
The entire charade is absurd, but the good news is that if the Obama people are smart, they can cut the neocons down to size, and prevent this sort of thing from poisoning our politics, at least for a while.
With the anti-Semitism charge out of the way, you have to wonder what’s really driving the opposition to Hagel. By all lights, Hagel does not seem excited about another U.S. war in the Middle East, be it with Syria or with Iran. This view is very much in keeping with the view of the American people.
.... the neocons are not only counting on no one paying too close attention, they’re also counting on Obama to fold up like a cheap lawn chair. There’s every indication that if Obama nominates Hagel, he’ll be confirmed. In the words of Sen. Carl Levin, “If he’s nominated, he’d be fine. We all know him up here. He’ll be fine.” So the neocons are counting on frightening Obama into pulling back the nomination.
The important thing for Obama and his people to keep in mind here is that the bark of the neocons is a lot worse than their bite. They tried to paint Obama as a mullah-loving peacenik in the 2012 campaign,and failed miserably. We hear a lot from the neocons here in Washington, partly because the Republicans have been too foolish to marginalize them in the wake of Iraq, and partly because they are supported by lavish sinecures at think tanks and ideological magazines. As Kristol himself remarked in 2005, we were fast approaching a point where “there are going to be more neoconservative magazines than there are neoconservatives.”
If Obama stands up to them over Hagel, he’ll remind everybody in Washington what the rest of the country knows well enough: There’s no reason to care what Bill Kristol thinks.
( permalink | suggest removal )
JakeTidmore says... December 28, 2012 at 5:47 p.m.
Hagel is for the warrior; Cotton is for war. Aa a veteran, I know who has my vote.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Jjackk says... December 29, 2012 at 1:10 p.m.
But Pack boy, he isn't in the military anymore, he's in politics. You know and I do that is the only reason he enlisted. He thinks he's on a fast track. I just want to see him with a girl. What are you going to think about him when the rumors about him are true?
( permalink | suggest removal )
BarichMilhusseinObamaNixonPOTUS says... December 29, 2012 at 3:27 p.m.
jjack ddoes tthat mmean rainbowharold and djigoo will vote for him?
( permalink | suggest removal )
cliffcarson says... December 29, 2012 at 5:53 p.m.
Thanks Jake
Here is the statement from 2006 that Hagel spoke, the reason that the GOP is calling him an anti-Semite:
"I'm a United States Senator . I support Israel,” he said in the 2006 interview. “But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."
Those Israeli Quislings who say's he doesn't support Israel enough are not my idea of what we need in Washington. But I do think his retort is on target. This is a promise every leader of the United States should make to the people.
His personal feelings for Israel is not what he was elected for and he states this in plain english. He didn't say he would serve Israel First over the United States. That's what they wanted to hear instead of what he said.
I need to admit that I personally do not support the atrocities that Israel commits with impunity. In fact if I could wave a magic wand and make something happen, I would make it unconstitutional to allow a Dual Citizen to be elected to serve in our Government. I think an American Citizen should be an American Citizen and beholden to none other.
I obviously do not support dual citizenship at all, and I do think the Israeli Lobby is too involved in running our Government.
That said, I support Hagel.
( permalink | suggest removal )
inquire says... December 30, 2012 at 1:11 p.m.
I'm going from no representation by Womack in the third district to even worse representation in the fourth district. Tom Cotton is bought and paid for by outside special interests and a blind man can see that the fourth district is just an inconsequential stepping stone for him. He gives me the creeps because his only goal is moving up, or pleasing those who paid for him.
( permalink | suggest removal )
To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.