Cornyn: Count me as a “no” on Hagel

posted at 9:21 am on January 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Senator John Cornyn’s CNN column this morning doesn’t exactly come as a shock.  He’s been vocal about his opposition to former colleague Chuck Hagel’s nomination to Secretary of Defense ever since Barack Obama made it public.  Unlike most of the media attention on Hagel’s comments on other topics, though, Cornyn focuses on the key issue — Hagel’s seeming indifference to one of the most dangerous threats facing the US at the moment:

One of the biggest foreign-policy challenges of Obama’s second term is preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — which means we need a defense secretary who understands the nature and magnitude of the Iranian threat. Based on his record, Hagel does not.

In July 2001, 96 U.S. senators voted to extend sanctions against Iran. Chuck Hagel was one of only two senators who voted against sanctions. A year later, he urged the Bush administration to support Iranian membership in the World Trade Organization.

Even more disturbing, Hagel voted against a 2007 measure that called for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to be designated a terrorist group. (At the time, the IRGC was aiding and equipping Shiite militias that were murdering U.S. troops in Iraq.) A few weeks after this vote, Hagel sent a letter to President George W. Bush asking him to launch “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks” with the Iranian government, which the State Department has labeled a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1984. …

Finally, in his 2008 book, “America: Our Next Chapter,” Hagel appeared to suggest that the United States could live with a nuclear Iran, writing that “the genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.”

These comments and actions indicate that he does not fully appreciate the dangers of a nuclear Iran or the character of the Iranian regime. It is a regime that has effectively been at war with the United States since 1979 — a regime whose proxies (such as the terrorist group Hezbollah) have killed Americans in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. For that matter, Tehran was recently implicated in a plot to blow up a restaurant (and the Saudi ambassador) in our nation’s capital.

This is the argument I made in my column at The Week on Monday, too.  While Hagel’s comments on James Hormel in 1998 were intemperate and rude, and his remarks about “the Jewish lobby” and not being an “Israeli Senator” just plain weird, the real issue is whether Hagel represents either a consensus view on national security or even the professed Obama administration view.  In both cases, Hagel is way out on the fringe, especially on — but not limited to — Iran:

Hagel’s record on Iran may be even more suspect than in any other area. He has opposed sanctions on Iran since 2001, when he opposed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (which passed 96-2), intended to prevent funding for terrorism or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Five years later, with the Iranian nuclear program exposed, Hagel gave a speech in Pakistan declaring that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” On at least three subsequent occasions, Hagel voted against or blocked sanctions or terror designations on Iran, all of which enjoyed wide bipartisan support.

So the better question is why Obama chose Hagel, especially since Hagel’s statements on Iran contradict Obama’s — at least as President:

With that in mind, what kind of signal does a Hagel nomination as the steward of American military send? Supposedly, Obama had repented of his 2008 comment that Iran was “tiny” and didn’t pose a “serious threat” to the United States. He has tried to give the impression that he learned a lesson from the weak response to the Green Revolution in 2009, and that he supported tough sanctions and a strong effort to stop the Iranian nuclear program. By naming a sanctions skeptic who also opposes the only other option to stop Iran from developing weapons of mass destruction to run the Pentagon, the future of the U.S. effort to contain Iran looks very much in doubt.

That should have supporters of Israel more worried than a remark about a “Jewish lobby” and a gay ambassador. In fact, it should have all of us worried about more than just Chuck Hagel, too, and prompt questions about Barack Obama’s intentions on Iran and security in the Middle East.

Those are the questions Senators of both parties should raise during Hagel’s confirmation hearings — assuming he ever gets to that stage.  If he does manage to make it to a confirmation hearing, Politico’s Jonathan Allen and Darren Samuelsohn warn that Hagel’s lack of people skills during his two terms in the Senate may come back to bite him:

Policy aside, Hagel’s bedeviled by his own abrasive personality. In a chamber known for back-patting and elbow-rubbing, the former Nebraska senator mostly rubbed people the wrong way. Now, on his path to the Pentagon, he has to hope that irritation doesn’t come back to bite him.

“He was respected as a colleague in the normal Senate tradition but was somewhat of a lone wolf and did not forge the deep personal relationships with his fellow Republicans that would translate into a ready reservoir of support for his nomination,” said John Ullyot, a former Marine intelligence officer who was the spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee under Chairman John Warner from 2003 to 2007. “On top of that, his outspokenness and blunt criticism of several Republican priorities at a critical time, including Iraq and Iran, while sincere and heartfelt, have left him without a natural platform of enthusiasm for his confirmation.”

And not just from his Senate tenure, either.  Hagel endorsed Democrat Bob Kerrey in the Nebraska Senate race last year, but Kerrey’s opponent will be sitting on the Armed Services Committee instead, and Deb Fischer is looking forward to the meeting:

One vote that will be tough for Hagel to win: that of fellow Nebraska Republican Deb Fischer. Hagel crossed party lines to back Fischer’s Democratic opponent, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, in 2012. Now, Fischer sits in judgment of Hagel as a freshman member of the Armed Services Committee, the panel that will handle his confirmation hearing.

In a statement released Monday, Fischer hinted at what could be the ultimate spectacle of a Hagel confirmation hearing: her chance to question him directly from behind the dais.

“I plan to closely review Senator Hagel’s record and look forward to meeting with him to discuss his views on America’s role in an increasingly dangerous world. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will also have the opportunity to publicly question Senator Hagel during his confirmation hearing in the coming weeks,” she said. “This process will be thorough and fair, and I look forward to participating in it.”

She won’t be the only one looking forward to this Q&A session.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Hagel sounds like a jerk, according to a lot of people…

cane_loader on January 10, 2013 at 9:27 AM

Why do we care who heads the army? In a couple of trillion-dollar deficit years, we won’t have an army to speak of.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM

Cornyn is one of my senators, he usually votes for the big government BS. He voted to raise the debt ceiling, voted for the fiscal cliff crap, voted for the NDAA of 2012, voted for FISA, and he refuses to discuss his supposed support for the 2nd Amendment. I emailed him about my concern that the government will enact more anti 2nd Amendment laws. His reply was about the sadness of the Sandy Hook killings. Screw Cornyn.

MoreLiberty on January 10, 2013 at 9:30 AM

So the better question is why Obama chose Hagel

Two possibilities: Obama is an idiot and doesn’t know the foreign policy positions of his choices, or Obama’s choices reflect his own foreign policy positions irrespective of what he has said prior to getting the greater flexibility of reelection.

I vote for the latter.

ProfessorMiao on January 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

Two possibilities: Obama is an idiot and doesn’t know the foreign policy positions of his choices, or Obama’s choices reflect his own foreign policy positions irrespective of what he has said prior to getting the greater flexibility of reelection.

I vote for the latter.

ProfessorMiao on January 10, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I’d mark “both answers are correct” box.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 9:32 AM

He’d weaken America. Act open-minded and vote against him. Let your “No” be “NO” and move on.

ROCnPhilly on January 10, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Nail him gop

cmsinaz on January 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM

One of the biggest foreign-policy challenges of Obama’s second term is preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — which means we need a defense secretary who understands the nature and magnitude of the Iranian threat. Based on his record, Hagel does not.

So being insufficiently warlike is now a disqualification for Defense secretary.

Hagel’s record on Iran may be even more suspect than in any other area. He has opposed sanctions on Iran since 2001, when he opposed the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (which passed 96-2), intended to prevent funding for terrorism or acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. Five years later, with the Iranian nuclear program exposed, Hagel gave a speech in Pakistan declaring that “a military strike against Iran, a military option, is not a viable, feasible, responsible option.” On at least three subsequent occasions, Hagel voted against or blocked sanctions or terror designations on Iran, all of which enjoyed wide bipartisan support.

So not wanting to recklessly pledge this country into another Middle East war is considered to be “disturbing.” Note that the last Defense secretary said that anyone who initiates another ground war in the Middle East needs to have his head examined. Also, according to Cornyn, not voting to impose severe and cruel economic hardships on foreign people also makes Hagel a bad guy. It is Cornyn who is disturbing. The Republican Party truly is evil. I’m so thankful that Romney lost.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

He’d weaken America.

ROCnPhilly on January 10, 2013 at 9:33 AM

And therefore help to accomplish one of Obama’s major goals.

ProfessorMiao on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Also, according to Cornyn, not voting to impose severe and cruel economic hardships on foreign people also makes Hagel a bad guy. It is Cornyn who is disturbing. The Republican Party truly is evil. I’m so thankful that Romney lost.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

LOL!! Go join Iran’s Green revolutionaries in Evian prison.

ProfessorMiao on January 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM

Once again, if you don’t toe the line and repeat Party agitprop, you’re “fringe”.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:37 AM

So not wanting to recklessly pledge this country into another Middle East war is considered to be “disturbing.” Note that the last Defense secretary said that anyone who initiates another ground war in the Middle East needs to have his head examined. Also, according to Cornyn, not voting to impose severe and cruel economic hardships on foreign people also makes Hagel a bad guy. It is Cornyn who is disturbing. The Republican Party truly is evil. I’m so thankful that Romney lost.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Well said.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM

I’m so thankful that Romney lost.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Iran is actually a minor threat that can be easily and cheaply diffused by a few well-placed nuclear strikes. It is China that is a real, existential threat to the USA – much more so than the Soviet Union ever was. Romney’s strongest qualification for the Presidency was showing clear understanding of that simple fact.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 9:46 AM

So the better question is why Obama chose Hagel, especially since Hagel’s statements on Iran contradict Obama’s — at least as President:

rhetorical question that is

Cornyn in his 8 years has shown to be a squish. I will bet he backed Hagel over Fischer, like he did Crist over Rubio and so many others. I think he is honest but I also think he is very timid. That he was considered the more conservative of our senators shows just how liberal Kay Baiey was.

DanMan on January 10, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Obama likes racist old white guys

and eating dogs

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 9:51 AM

Iran is actually a minor threat that can be easily and cheaply diffused by a few well-placed nuclear strikes. It is China that is a real, existential threat to the USA – much more so than the Soviet Union ever was. Romney’s strongest qualification for the Presidency was showing clear understanding of that simple fact.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Iran is no threat to us at all.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Iran is no threat to us at all.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:52 AM

Says who? The wacko who runs the show in Tehran seems to disagree with you.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 9:54 AM

For all the peaceniks like antifederalist and Dante, keep one thing in mind:

If Chuck Hagel will do *anything* to avoid war, our enemies will be sure to see exactly how far *anything* goes. And every man has his limit. Which generally means we will be provoked into war.

A more “warlike” SecDef has a better chance of our enemies not trying his mettle.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Says who? The wacko who runs the show in Tehran seems to disagree with you.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Saber rattling?

Please.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

I’m so thankful that Romney lost.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM

As I’ll be thankful if Hagel is grilled and flushed.

ROCnPhilly on January 10, 2013 at 9:57 AM

With that in mind, what kind of signal does a Hagel nomination as the steward of American military send?

…same message that was sent… leaving your people to die in Bengahzi…it’s a recruitment tool for the armed services!

KOOLAID2 on January 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM

Iran is actually a minor threat that can be easily and cheaply diffused by a few well-placed nuclear strikes. It is China that is a real, existential threat to the USA – much more so than the Soviet Union ever was. Romney’s strongest qualification for the Presidency was showing clear understanding of that simple fact.
Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 9:46 AM

You really are sick. What has Iran done that makes you want to nuke them? Have they nuked us or anyone else? You need to ask yourself who is the real bad guy in this confrontation?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

So the better question is why Obama chose Hagel

1. If Hagel gets the nomination, Obama has a SoD who is hostile to Israel and sympathetic towards Islamists. That’s his kind of guy.

2. If Hagel doesn’t get the nomination, he can point to the GOP as a dysfunctional party who can’t even confirm one of their own.

3. Jewish voters have shown they are more interested in being liberal than Jewish, so it won’t cost Democrats much politically.

RadClown on January 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

. The Republican Party truly is evil. I’m so thankful that Romney lost.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Well said.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:38 AM

…Oh look!…two idiots… dryhumping each other on Hot Air!

KOOLAID2 on January 10, 2013 at 10:00 AM

For all the peaceniks like antifederalist and Dante, keep one thing in mind:

If Chuck Hagel will do *anything* to avoid war, our enemies will be sure to see exactly how far *anything* goes. And every man has his limit. Which generally means we will be provoked into war.

A more “warlike” SecDef has a better chance of our enemies not trying his mettle.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM

I think you should question the whole enemy business. They’re enemies because the State says they are. First, Saddam was a good buddy! Hey, we gave him aid, money, weapons in his struggle. Oh, but then he didn’t dance our puppet dance, so he became an “enemy”.

Wake up, man. Iran was an ally until we overthrew their leader in 1953 and installed a dictator in his place, then supported the dictator for the next 25 years. Then the sociopaths in government aided Iraq in her war against Iran – a war that had absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.

Wake up, man. This isn’t for freedom, or rights, or anything. It’s for resources and hegemony and wealth.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

…same message that was sent… leaving your people to die in Bengahzi…it’s a recruitment tool for the armed services!
KOOLAID2 on January 10, 2013 at 9:58 AM

What kind of message is sent to the military when they are sent to far away places to die, bleed, or get severely maimed not based on a real threat to the people within the US but based on false premises put forth by neoconservatives?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM

This ludicrous nomination is simply optics:
“See, President Obama really is interested in bi-partisanship”.
And that moron Hagel bought into it. THAT should say it all.
I can’t help but wonder just when Hagel made up his mind to join the Dark Side.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 10, 2013 at 10:03 AM

I think you should question the whole enemy business. They’re enemies because the State says they are. First, Saddam was a good buddy! Hey, we gave him aid, money, weapons in his struggle. Oh, but then he didn’t dance our puppet dance, so he became an “enemy”.

Wake up, man. Iran was an ally until we overthrew their leader in 1953 and installed a dictator in his place, then supported the dictator for the next 25 years. Then the sociopaths in government aided Iraq in her war against Iran – a war that had absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.

Wake up, man. This isn’t for freedom, or rights, or anything. It’s for resources and hegemony and wealth.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:01 AM

Oh yes, they just peacefully frolic through the forests, frolic, frolic, frolic. They don’t fund troublemakers, and their nuclear program is to power heaters in their fluffy bunny farms.//

I’d ask you to share what you are smoking, but it obviously causes brain damage.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2013 at 10:05 AM

1. If Hagel gets the nomination, Obama has a SoD who is hostile to Israel and sympathetic towards Islamists. That’s his kind of guy.

RadClown on January 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

How exactly has Hagel been hostile to Israel? Has he threatened to bomb or invade Israel? Has he threatened to impose economic sanctions or Israel? Has he threatened or attempted to assassinate any of Israel’s heads of state?

Next question. Do you think about what you say before opening you mouth?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Saber rattling? Please.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 9:56 AM

That is not an intelligent argument I would expect from you. If someone says “I’ll beat the living shit out of you as soon as I can”, and there is no credible reason to believe otherwise, you have to either act, or get beaten eventually. So please, point me to that credible reason.

You really are sick. What has Iran done that makes you want to nuke them? Have they nuked us or anyone else? You need to ask yourself who is the real bad guy in this confrontation?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Better sick than suicidal, you moron, and I don’t care who the “real bad guy” is as long as I and my country are the last men standing by the end of any potential conflict.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Oh yes, they just peacefully frolic through the forests, frolic, frolic, frolic. They don’t fund troublemakers, and their nuclear program is to power heaters in their fluffy bunny farms.//

I’d ask you to share what you are smoking, but it obviously causes brain damage.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Who cares what their nuclear program is for? They are a sovereign nation with every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry. And of course they want nuclear weapons. They have the world’s superpower with the largest military behind it openly talking of attacking and bombing her, not to mention the covert warfare already being waged against her. They saw what happened to Iraq, who didn’t even attack the U.S., yet still was invaded, overthrown, and occupied. Of course they want nukes as a deterrant.

Wake up, dude.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM

That is not an intelligent argument I would expect from you. If someone says “I’ll beat the living shit out of you as soon as I can”, and there is no credible reason to believe otherwise, you have to either act, or get beaten eventually. So please, point me to that credible reason.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM

No credible reason? Iran doesn’t have the means to even be a threat, even if they had nukes. Tiny country, tiny military an ocean away.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Of course they want nukes as a deterrant.

Wake up, dude.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM

tee hee

“deterrent” – is that what we call blowing Israel off the map these days?

I’ll agree with one of your points – Iran is no threat to the U.S. – which is why any nuclear arsenal they could build would deter us for precisely zero seconds.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM

If we screw our allies, and don’t protect our trading partners, we will run out of allies and trading partners rather quickly.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM

You really are sick. What has Iran done that makes you want to nuke them? Have they nuked us or anyone else? You need to ask yourself who is the real bad guy in this confrontation?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

We have been fighting Iran for the last ten years. Many of our brave men have died at their hands. What does it matter to you if we are at war, you will never fight. If it’s about the money, you commie libs have no right until the end of time to discuss responsible spending.

wheelgun on January 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Bully! Bully!

Shy Guy on January 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Who cares what their nuclear program is for? They are a sovereign nation with every right to pursue nuclear energy and weaponry. And of course they want nuclear weapons.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Then they shouldn’t be surprised to find our nuclear sausage up their wazoo. We are, after all, also a sovereign nation (at least for now), and can pursue war options as much as the other guy.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:15 AM

No credible reason? Iran doesn’t have the means to even be a threat, even if they had nukes. Tiny country, tiny military an ocean away.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM

In the era of ballistic missiles, ocean isn’t much of a barrier. As for size, Iran is just a spearhead of the Shiite world. Remove the spearhead, and they are back to sticks & stones.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM

For all the peaceniks like antifederalist and Dante, keep one thing in mind:
If Chuck Hagel will do *anything* to avoid war, our enemies will be sure to see exactly how far *anything* goes. And every man has his limit. Which generally means we will be provoked into war.
A more “warlike” SecDef has a better chance of our enemies not trying his mettle.
Sekhmet on January 10, 2013 at 9:55 AM

Do you ever gauge what kind of military threat actually is? Iran is a 3rd world country with a 3rd rate military. How many ICBMs do they have? How many warships, bombers, fighter planes, nuclear subs do they as compared to the US? Very few. Iran has been built up in the feeble minds of Hot Airheads as a dominant offensive military power when in reality they are not.what was the last country that they actually invaded? They fought an 8 year war with Iraq that ended stalemate. This is the same Iraq military that was overrun by the US in a few days. You have no sense of proportion. By the way, the political establishment have been crying wolf about a nuclear Iran for the last 15 to 20 years. When will you Hot Airheads quit listening to the neoconservative propaganda and finally call bravo sierra on these claims?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:19 AM

Cornyn was opposed to Hillary until she got in his face on inauguration day four years ago. He then folded like a cheap suit. He has no back bone and has proven it over and over.

RickinNH on January 10, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Better sick than suicidal, you moron, and I don’t care who the “real bad guy” is as long as I and my country are the last men standing by the end of any potential conflict.
Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Suicidal? Tell me, who is threatening to kill you little boy?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

No credible reason? Iran doesn’t have the means to even be a threat, even if they had nukes. Tiny country, tiny military an ocean away.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:11 AM

then how do they credibly “deter” anyone with anything? I’m sorry, I just hate contradictory arguments. Can they realistically ever deter someone, or is their nuclear program toward different ends – like blowing the sh!t outta Israel?

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

In the era of ballistic missiles, ocean isn’t much of a barrier. As for size, Iran is just a spearhead of the Shiite world. Remove the spearhead, and they are back to sticks & stones.
Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:18 AM

So Iran plans to attack the US by launching their non existent ICBMs tipped with their non existent nuclear warheads? Yep, that makes a lot of sense.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Suicidal? Tell me, who is threatening to kill you little boy?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

that seems a little racist

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

“the genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.”

Or al qaeda, for that matter. At best, Hagel has a defective brain.

Buddahpundit on January 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

that seems a little racist
Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Then you need thicker skin Jesse Jackson.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Stop allowing Dante and now antifederalist to highjack the thread.
This thread is about Cornyn being against Hagel for SecDef. Please stop allowing Dante to suck you into a yet another isolationist argument. Ignore the SOB, he ruins enough threads as it is.

D-fusit on January 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM

oh, I much fancy myself a Rev. Sharpton

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM

“deterrent” – is that what we call blowing Israel off the map these days?

I’ll agree with one of your points – Iran is no threat to the U.S. – which is why any nuclear arsenal they could build would deter us for precisely zero seconds.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:12 AM

That phrase doesn’t exist in Iranian. It was a poor translation. And even if Iran had nukes, they wouldn’t attack Israel with them. They’re not stupid.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM

We have been fighting Iran for the last ten years. Many of our brave men have died at their hands. What does it matter to you if we are at war, you will never fight. If it’s about the money, you commie libs have no right until the end of time to discuss responsible spending.

wheelgun on January 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Ten years? We’ve been aggressor against Iran since the 1950s.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:30 AM

D-fusit on January 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Remember everyone, ignorance is strength!!!!

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM

then how do they credibly “deter” anyone with anything? I’m sorry, I just hate contradictory arguments. Can they realistically ever deter someone, or is their nuclear program toward different ends – like blowing the sh!t outta Israel?

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:22 AM

North Korea, for example. Things changed pretty quickly once they got nukes. The U.S. won’t be brazen in saying, “all options are on the table,” and won’t be so quick to invade and won’t be so quick to war. Pretty simple.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM

“the genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.”

Same as: “the genie of guns in the US is already out of the bottle, no matter what some clinically insane person who publicly pledges to shoot-up classrooms of children does”. I wonder if Hagel would be so nonchalant towards the latter.

Buddahpundit on January 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM

This thread is about Cornyn being against Hagel for SecDef. Please stop allowing Dante to suck you into a yet another isolationist argument. Ignore the SOB, he ruins enough threads as it is.

D-fusit on January 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM

This thread is about the reasons for the opposition to Hagel, as well as Ed’s establishment-supporting reasons, and Ed labeling anyone who dares step outside the media- and establishment-approved spectrum of thought and opinion as “fringe”.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Once again, “conservatives” are skeptical of government policy in all domestic matters, but when it comes to foreign policy, they are lockstep with government, because in their mind, criticizing foreign policy is criticizing the ideal of America as everything-that-is-right-in-the-world and criticizing the military.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM

You need to ask yourself who is the real bad guy in this confrontation?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Hagel, you, Dante and other naïve people like you.

Vince on January 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM

yawn…another thread hijacked by our favorite purest Dante. Ron Paul still didn’t win Dante. Next.

DanMan on January 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM

So Iran plans to attack the US by launching their non existent ICBMs tipped with their non existent nuclear warheads? Yep, that makes a lot of sense.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Should we patiently wait until they have all these?

That phrase doesn’t exist in Iranian. It was a poor translation. And even if Iran had nukes, they wouldn’t attack Israel with them. They’re not stupid.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM

First, Iranian language exists on the same planet with Austrian; Obama is a goddamn moron but I expected better of you. Second, the excuse of “poor translation” is about as worn out as Dems’ race card. And third, “they are not stupid” is a VERY generous assumption.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM

That phrase doesn’t exist in Iranian. It was a poor translation.
Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:29 AM

So then tell me the ACTUAL LITERAL TRANSLATION of what they said.

nobar on January 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM

North Korea, for example. Things changed pretty quickly once they got nukes. The U.S. won’t be brazen in saying, “all options are on the table,” and won’t be so quick to invade and won’t be so quick to war. Pretty simple.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM

well, I don’t think one nuke and a cap gun is gonna deter us very much. Especially since they don’t even have ballistic missiles.

North Korea can’t launch a satellite past the top of the Space Needle. I figured we don’t attack them cause they’ll starve eventually.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Hagel, you, Dante and other naïve people like you.
Vince on January 10, 2013 at 10:36 AM

With your twisted mind and logic, I can understand why you feel this way.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:38 AM

yawn…another thread hijacked by our favorite purest Dante. Ron Paul still didn’t win Dante. Next.

DanMan on January 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Oh c’mon! Some threads are so lame, they literally deserve to be hijacked.

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Should we patiently wait until they have all these?

Is it just to kill people who don’t possess nor have ever used these weapons?

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM

HAHA

hi JACK this Thread! It Sucks!

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM

How did this discussion get needlessly narrowed down to Iran and focused on minutiae? Such tactics are usually used by attorneys who cannot win on fact and logic.

Seems to be happening in alot of threads lately. I wonder if there are any commonalities to be found in the threads themselves or in the members who participate in those threads?

ROCnPhilly on January 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Seems to be happening in alot of threads lately. I wonder if there are any commonalities to be found in the threads themselves or in the members who participate in those threads?

ROCnPhilly on January 10, 2013 at 10:41 AM

that’s one too many five syllable words

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:44 AM

well, I don’t think one nuke and a cap gun is gonna deter us very much. Especially since they don’t even have ballistic missiles.

North Korea can’t launch a satellite past the top of the Space Needle. I figured we don’t attack them cause they’ll starve eventually.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Then you agree they’re not a threat.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Then you agree they’re not a threat.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:45 AM

not to us

we do have allies however. Israel is surrounded by enemies, spearheaded by a nefarious Iranian regime.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

With your twisted mind and logic, I can understand why you feel this way.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 10:38 AM

Have we met? I’m sure we haven’t because I am picky about the company I keep. Why do you say that my mind is twisted and my logic is twisted when you don’t know me?

Vince on January 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM

not to us

we do have allies however. Israel is surrounded by enemies, spearheaded by a nefarious Iranian regime.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

That’s Israel’s business, not ours.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM

I once a great secretary that was married to guy who could not keep a job. He tried everything to no avail. His problem was he was well versed in the bible and declared he was born again at every turn AND he was always trying to get that Amway empire off the ground.

So every conversation you had with the guy had to go through the bible and end with a hard sell Amway pitch. That probably derailed every other endeavor he tried.

Dante, the born again Amway salesman in the form of a Ron Paul syncophant.

DanMan on January 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

That’s Israel’s business, not ours.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM

hahaha

I get it. The difference between you and me is I stand up for my friends.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Have we met? I’m sure we haven’t because I am picky about the company I keep. Why do you say that my mind is twisted and my logic is twisted when you don’t know me?

Vince on January 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM

I never knew Josef Stalin, but I’d say his mind was twisted. I’ve never met Ben Bernake, but I’d say his logic is twisted. You’ve presented arguments and words to the public; therefore, one can make judgments on your logic, or lack thereof, in your arguments and words without needing to know you.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I get it. The difference between you and me is I stand up for my friends.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:51 AM

By calling for the force of government to seize the wealth of your neighbors to hand it over to a foreign nation, and by calling for the force of government to send your neighbors to die for a foreign people and nation.

You’re not standing up for your friends. You’re using the force of government to force others to do it. The U.S. government is not “you”. Israel is a nation; it is not “your” friend, just as Iran is not “your” enemy.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM

I hate the word “therefore”

Why not use thus? It’s more succinct.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Why not use thus? It’s more succinct.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM

How about ergo? Or so? So is much more succint, don’t you think?

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Stop allowing Dante and now antifederalist to highjack the thread.
This thread is about Cornyn being against Hagel for SecDef. Please stop allowing Dante to suck you into a yet another isolationist argument. Ignore the SOB, he ruins enough threads as it is.

D-fusit on January 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM

^^^^
THIS
They’re as bad as the liberals who come here and vomit everywhere.

22044 on January 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

You’re not standing up for your friends. You’re using the force of government to force others to do it. The U.S. government is not “you”. Israel is a nation; it is not “your” friend, just as Iran is not “your” enemy.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:55 AM

What is wrong with wanting my government to fulfill its Constitutional role and blast its foreign enemies into Stone Age?

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I never knew Josef Stalin, but I’d say his mind was twisted. I’ve never met Ben Bernake, but I’d say his logic is twisted. You’ve presented arguments and words to the public; therefore, one can make judgments on your logic, or lack thereof, in your arguments and words without needing to know you.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I didn’t ask you the question but ok, you’re a moron.

Vince on January 10, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Don’t discount the personal politics here. Cornyn faces a potential challenge from the right in 2 years- after seeing Dewhurst slaughtered in this last election- and needs to brush up his conservative credentials.

michaelo on January 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM

By the way, you have never answered a question I put directly to you. Who are your role models?

Vince on January 10, 2013 at 11:06 AM

we do have allies however. Israel is surrounded by enemies, spearheaded by a nefarious Iranian regime.
Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 10:48 AM

I don’t know what you’re talking about “we” however a worthwhile alliance should have some benefit to the people in this country. Why is the US required to have a military alliance with Israel or any other country? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with having them as a trading partner. But I fail to see why the US is required to have a military alliance with them. The US is more than capable of defending itself. The US doesn’t need for Israel or any other country to defend it. In fact, there are far more costs with being Israel’s ally than there are benefits. Being Israel’s ally means that the US will be permanently drawn into their fight with the Arab world. The US in knee deep in debt and can no longer afford maintain the military presence in the ME. Even if the US could afford it, it is unjust to force citizens to pay high taxes to provide for the security of a foreign country.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

How about ergo? Or so? So is much more succint, don’t you think?

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM

yeah, it doesn’t sound fancy though. Fancy, less syllables. That’s the way to good writing.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

What is wrong with wanting my government to fulfill its Constitutional role and blast its foreign enemies into Stone Age?

Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Constitutional role?

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM

What is wrong with wanting my government to fulfill its Constitutional role and blast its foreign enemies into Stone Age?
Archivarix on January 10, 2013 at 11:00 AM

There is no Constitutional role for the Federal government to preemptively attack a country that has not attacked it. Also, there is no Constitutional role for the Federal government to provide for the defense of another country.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

The US in knee deep in debt and can no longer afford maintain the military presence in the ME. Even if the US could afford it, it is unjust to force citizens to pay high taxes to provide for the security of a foreign country.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

I don’t necessarily disagree. Friendships IMHO though, don’t depend on mutual benefit. Or else I’d have zero d@mn friends.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

I don’t necessarily disagree. Friendships IMHO though, don’t depend on mutual benefit. Or else I’d have zero d@mn friends.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

The U.S. does not have a “friendship” with Israel. They are a nation in good standing. That is, government maintains diplomatic relations and diplomatic missions, as well as trade. Alliance, allies, are military in nature.

Once again you are confusing individual relationships with relationships between nations. They are not analagous.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I don’t necessarily disagree. Friendships IMHO though, don’t depend on mutual benefit. Or else I’d have zero d@mn friends.
Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Without knowing your personal situation my guess is that there are benefits associated with your friendships even if you don’t realize it. Even if it is nothing more than knowing that people care about you, that is a benefiting having them as friends.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Once again you are confusing individual relationships with relationships between nations. They are not analagous.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:16 AM

that’s analogous

I’d think since we were principle in creating the Israeli state, we have some military obligation to protect it.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM

But if he wants to run for Senate again, you’ll support him to the hilt in the primary, right Johnny Boy?

besser tot als rot on January 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM

that’s analogous
I’d think since we were principle in creating the Israeli state, we have some military obligation to protect it.
Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM

I don’t this “we” had a role in creating country but the US did formally recognize it. Note that Palestine was also formed as part of the UN charter. In any case, there is no requirement for the US to provide for the defense of a country it recognized more than 66 years ago.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM

^^^^
this = think

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:29 AM

In any case, there is no requirement for the US to provide for the defense of a country it recognized more than 66 years ago.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:28 AM

There’s no requirement I back up my pal in a fight, but it feels right. That’s why I wake up with a black eye and the warm glow of righteousness.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

I’d think since we were principle in creating the Israeli state, we have some military obligation to protect it.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:20 AM

“We”? You mean “they”. Not only do you need to rethink the whole enemy thing, you should reexamine your use of “we” when referring to government and the political class. If you are arrested or fined, do you say, “well, I arrested myself. we arrested me and we fined me.”

Ridiculous.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Ridiculous.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM

oh, christonacross

It baffles me when otherwise intelligent libertarians get all jacked up arguing what “we” means

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM

There’s no requirement I back up my pal in a fight, but it feels right. That’s why I wake up with a black eye and the warm glow of righteousness.
Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:32 AM

You are free to back up your pals as much as you like. If you feel that you have a personal friendship with the nation-state Israel, you are free to commit as much of your own money along with your life, and the life of your children, grandchildren to its preservation. However, as a matter of national policy, the US should stay out of Israel’s disputes with its neighbors.

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 11:40 AM

oh, christonacross

It baffles me when otherwise intelligent libertarians get all jacked up arguing what “we” means

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 11:38 AM

I’m sure it does, but when (if ever) you get to the point where you are skeptical of foreign policy, then you’ll correctly distance yourself from the actions of the sociopaths. I take no responsibility for the immoral actions of others; they are their actions alone. I didn’t murder civilians with drone strikes. I didn’t deny a population food and medicine through sanctions. I didn’t tell my fellow citizens to remove their shoes and enter full body scanners. They did.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I take no responsibility for the immoral actions of others; they are their actions alone. I didn’t murder civilians with drone strikes. I didn’t deny a population food and medicine through sanctions. I didn’t tell my fellow citizens to remove their shoes and enter full body scanners. They did.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM

fine, if that’s what you wanna do. We the People did do those things if we elected the government, which presumably we did. Obviously we didn’t do them personally, and won’t be judged for them in any cosmic Judge Judy scenario. Still, when I refer to the US, I usually say we – as I’ve helped democratically elect our government.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM

fine, if that’s what you wanna do. We the People did do those things if we elected the government, which presumably we did. Obviously we didn’t do them personally, and won’t be judged for them in any cosmic Judge Judy scenario. Still, when I refer to the US, I usually say we – as I’ve helped democratically elect our government.

Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM

“We the People” did not do those things. They – the sociopaths running the government and directing the foreign policy – did those things.

Dante on January 10, 2013 at 12:17 PM

fine, if that’s what you wanna do. We the People did do those things if we elected the government, which presumably we did. Obviously we didn’t do them personally, and won’t be judged for them in any cosmic Judge Judy scenario. Still, when I refer to the US, I usually say we – as I’ve helped democratically elect our government.
Slade73 on January 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Using your logic, since “We the People” democratically elected Obama and overwhelming Democratic majorities to the House and Senate, “We the People” voted for and endorsed Obamacare. Therefore, regardless of its Constitutionality and the resultant loss of freedom, “We the People” should not protest or complain because Obama, Pelosi, and Reid implemented what “We the People” democratically voted for.

By the way, for the record I don’t vote because participating on voting legitimizes numerous policies that I oppose. Therefore I am not a part of We the People.”

antifederalist on January 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2