Obama advisor: Hagel will bring “huge cuts” to the military
But I think Brooks is right that Obama wants deep cuts to military spending and wants to use Chuck Hagel to give him political cover. The president has long spoken of the need to reduce defense spending, a position that grows not from his dedication to reducing the size of government but from his reluctance to use American power – both hard and soft. Even as top military leaders – uniformed and civilian – have warned about the potentially “catastrophic” consequences of the sequester cuts, the president has demonstrated little concern.
The Brooks theory on the Hagel pick was validated this morning with the words of a top Obama supporter. Bill Burton, former deputy White House press secretary and the man who ran Obama’s super PAC, explained the Hagel pick to Chuck Todd on The Daily Rundown.
“This is a guy who’s a decorated veteran, and when you’ve got a period of time when you’re going to have to make huge cuts to the Pentagon, he’s the sort of guy you want on your team doing it.”
So the president’s top advisers are touting Hagel as someone who makes “huge cuts to the Pentagon” a near certainty and easier to sell. There’s very little ambiguity about their intentions.









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
Something tells me this is not the nominee Obama wants for this position. This is just a hunch, but I think Obama wants this Hagel process to blow up with hopes of making an historic choice for SecDef…A woman! You notice how the MSM is putting out stories about how many “white males” Obama is nominating? I think mid-way through Hagel will pull out and Obama will appoint his “historic” choice. To be honest, nothing is making sense with this pick.
tdavisjr on January 9, 2013 at 12:26 AM
The problem with Hayes article is he thinks political job security means anything to Dems.
Rank-and-file Dems and the Dem voters are both afraid of upsetting Obama.
Only thing that stops Dems from voting ay, is if the local news lays out exactly how devastating the cuts will be to their town.
Not the state. To the individual towns.
So good luck with that.
budfox on January 9, 2013 at 1:06 AM
Utopias must be financed.
Suffer fools, suffer.
Schadenfreude on January 9, 2013 at 1:37 AM
Is Obama scared of the military?
And, if so, why?
OldEnglish on January 9, 2013 at 2:04 AM
This is awesome. Cut the beast.
libfreeordie on January 9, 2013 at 2:12 AM
We are quickly becoming a nation of defenseless vegetables.
steebo77 on January 9, 2013 at 2:15 AM
The young and stupid.
OldEnglish on January 9, 2013 at 2:20 AM
G’day, Rip Van Winkle.
OldEnglish on January 9, 2013 at 2:21 AM
We fund all of China’s military. We should cut that.
Mormontheman on January 9, 2013 at 3:35 AM
The abandonment of Israel will be “bipartisan” too.
forest on January 9, 2013 at 6:05 AM
Why not? People who are lazy and stupid enough to vote for Obama and his socialist entitlement state aren’t worth defending, anyway. They aren’t worth my blood -or your sons’ blood, either.
DRayRaven on January 9, 2013 at 6:13 AM
political cover…a RINO????
puhleeze
cmsinaz on January 9, 2013 at 6:30 AM
he could have picked a woman from the beginning…there is flourney already there
cmsinaz on January 9, 2013 at 6:31 AM
The beast?
Your military, is a beast?
So many things running through my mind to say that would ban me from commenting here again. I’ll just say that you’re a pathetic POS and as unAmerican as I have ever heard. The Beast? The military was a great thing and worthy of so much when you wanted DADT to be repealed.
hawkdriver on January 9, 2013 at 6:51 AM
The thing is, after they reduce the military to an incapable force, (which is their ultimate goal) the “buy America’s vote” leaders of the democrat party will not cut another single entitlement and the debt will balloon. Their go to excuse of this all being Bush’s fault and the media support of that notion will give them the impetus to just keep doing the same thing until we are utterly destroyed.
hawkdriver on January 9, 2013 at 7:08 AM
Cutting the Pentagon will make it easier to secede from libfreeordie when the time comes.
trigon on January 9, 2013 at 7:10 AM
They said Leon Panetta would be the one to slash and burn the Pentagon/military but, he has been one of the most vocal against sequestration to the budget. Maybe that is why he is out as well.
tjexcite on January 9, 2013 at 7:27 AM
I thought I’d read how Hagel has the support of the military? If there are huge cuts in the military there isn’t money for them in the service or out of it. Are they eager to come home to unemployment?
katiejane on January 9, 2013 at 7:49 AM
Trafalgar on January 9, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Yeah, of course – obama’s goal has always been to destroy America, and a weak military and weak national security are just a means to an end.
Pork-Chop on January 9, 2013 at 8:58 AM
You’re close. I’m betting that Obama likes his positions, but is using the fact that he is a Republican to spin things the way he likes them, like if the GOP soundly rejects Hagel, then the Democrat-media complex will cite it as prima facie evidence of the Republicans being so far to the right that won’t accept a “rational and moderate” member of their own party as the next SecDef. Obama doesn’t want this guy for the job, he just wants to bash the GOP over the head with him.
mintycrys on January 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM