Showing posts with label jim inhofe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jim inhofe. Show all posts

Friday, February 1, 2013

Chuck Hagel Vs. GOP Senators

Photobucket

I have one fundamental question that I asked myself on every vote I took, every decision made: Was the policy worthy of the men and women that we were sending into battle and surely to their deaths?
I saw it from the bottom. I saw what happens. I saw the consequences and the suffering and horror of war.
. . . I always ask the question: Is this going to be worth the sacrifice? Because there will be sacrifices.
~ Chuck Hagel, who served his country during Vietnam, and is now nominated for Secretary of Defense

~~~~~~~

Transcript of Chuck Hagel Confirmation Hearing for Secretary of Defense, via WSJ
SEN. MCCAIN: Will you please answer the question? Were you correct or incorrect when you said that the surge would
be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam? Were you correct or incorrect?

MR. HAGEL: My –

SEN. MCCAIN: Yes or no?

MR. HAGEL: My reference to the surge being both dangerous –

SEN. MCCAIN: Are you going to answer the question, Senator Hagel? The question is, were you right or wrong? That’s a
pretty straightforward question.

MR. HAGEL: Well –

SEN. MCCAIN: I will — I would like to answer whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to elaborate.

MR. HAGEL: Well, I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer on a lot of things today.

SEN. MCCAIN: Well, let the record show that you refused to answer that question.

Now please go ahead.

MR. HAGEL: Well, if you would like me to explain why –

SEN. MCCAIN: Oh, I actually would like an answer. Yes or no.

MR. HAGEL: Well, I’m not going to give you a yes or no.

SEN. MCCAIN: OK.

MR. HAGEL: I think it’s far more complicated than that. As I’ve already said, my answer is I’ll defer that judgment to history.
As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam — was about not just the surge but the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular decision that was made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam. Aside from the costs that occurred in this country to blood and treasure, aside what that did to take our focus off of Afghanistan, which in fact was the original and real focus of a national threat to this country — Iraq was not — I always tried to frame all the different issues before I made a decision on anything.
Now just as you said, Senator, we can have differences of opinion.

SEN. MCCAIN: But –

MR. HAGEL: That’s essentially why I took the position I did.

~~~~~~~

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SC: Explain this a bit. You said, ‘The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.’ ‘I’m not an Israeli senator; I’m a United States senator.’ ‘This pressure makes us do dumb things at times.’ Name one person in your opinion who’s intimidated by the Israeli lobby.

MR. HAGEL:: Well, uh, first …

SEN. GRAHAM: Name one.

MR. HAGEL: (SHRUGGING) “Uh, I don’t know.”


~~~~~~~


Fluster Chuck
Did anyone tell Chuck Hagel there would be questions?
~ Dave Weigel on Salon

This was maverick on maverick violence.
~ David Corn on MSNBC's Martin Bashir show

It's probably dawning on Sens. who didn't serve w/Hagel that he's just not very bright. Exchange w/McCain unresponsive & bumbling.
~ Brit Hume

. . . all the talk that the senators are shocked about how ill-prepared he is on some of the most basic controversial comments that he made that he and everyone knew were going to be coming at him from the likes of Senator John McCain and Lindsey Graham and others.
Even a Democrat who is on this committee who I spoke to who is supporting Hagel sort of shaking his head in disbelief saying he's surprised that he's not more forceful. And another undecided senator on this committee said that he had three different ways to answer the question on the surge, that he simply got into it on with John McCain.
~ CNN Reporter Dana Bash

The undercaffeinated Hagel was clearly over-rehearsed into a near stupor by his White House handlers. He was hardly impressive. But compared to his inquisitors, he was Churchill.
. . . So what if Hagel opposed the surge? The surge did not “win” the war as McCain would now have us believe; all the surge did was provide the cover that enabled us to pull out of the Iraq fiasco with some dignity intact and to spare Iraq hawks like McCain more humiliation. Hagel’s judgment on that war was far superior to most in his party, including McCain, and superior to that of some Democrats as well (including Hillary Clinton). I don’t agree with Hagel on everything, but I think he’s a good, hardheaded choice to run the Pentagon for Obama.
~ Frank Rich, NY Mag

To put it bluntly, Chuck Hagel did not acquit himself well. He was sluggish, tongue-tied and practically meek in the face of constant badgering by Republicans. He's far from the most dynamic speaker, stammers constantly and appears to agonize over every word he utters. This gave GOP Senators every opportunity to constantly interrupt him with even more leading and obnoxious questions.
. . . after a while, it was hard to figure out if Hagel was the nominee for secretary of defense or "Israel's new bestie", so obsessed were Republican Senators with how Hagel views the US-Israel relationship. It was a demoralizing spectacle.
~ Michael Cohen, Guardian UK

Hagel didn’t help himself with a confused, stumbling appearance yesterday in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Admittedly, the SFRC was infested with what seemed to rabid jackals, extreme-right Republicans like Ted Cruz of Texas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, along with John McCain of Arizona, still fighting the long-lost Iraq war.
But Hagel, rather than take any of them on, shucked and jived his way through the ordeal. It was the Apology Tour, during which Hagel alternately apologized for having semi-progressive views on issues such as Israel and Iran or, otherwise, denied he had them.
~ Robert Dreyfuss on The Nation























Though I respect Senator Hagel, his record to date demonstrates that he would be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of the president's first term, retreating from America's unique global leadership role and shrinking the military would not make America safer. On the contrary, it would embolden in our enemies, endanger our allies and provide opportunity for nations that do not share our interests to fill a global leadership vacuum we leave behind. It is for these reasons that I believe that he is the wrong person to lead the Pentagon at this perilous and consequential time.
~ Senator James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, Ranking Member of Armed Services Committee

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

















I'm all for asking Hagel, but I don't think it matters who the secretary of defense is, folks.
Look, I know a lot of people get caught up in this, but Obama is the secretary of defense. Obama is the secretary of commerce. Obama is the secretary of state. These people are the fall guys for when things go wrong. But Obama's running everything here. The reason Chuck Hagel's gonna be secretary of defense is when something goes wrong, he's gonna take the blame for it. He's the fall guy. It's the same thing with Kerry at secretary of state. That's all that's happening here.
. . . Chuck Hagel is being ripped to shreds. Senator McCain ripping him to shreds for his use of the term "the Jewish lobby." Hagel said, "I only said that once in my whole career." But a lot of people are dumping on Hagel. All I need to know, folks, is Marco Rubio just said he's voting against Hagel. So I would, too, then. If Rubio's against Hagel, I'm against Hagel. Ahem. (I'm winking here, folks. Don't tell anybody. This is just between us.) At any rate, Hagel is the placeholder. John Kerry is the placeholder.
~ Rush Limbaugh
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Anti-Feminist Wingnuts Mock Military Women in Combat

Photobucket





Photobucket




Photobucket






Photobucket

I want everyone to know that the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am the Ranking Member, will have a period to provide oversight and review. During that time, if necessary, we will be able to introduce legislation to stop any changes we believe to be detrimental to our fighting forces and their capabilities. I suspect there will be cases where legislation becomes necessary.
~ Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma

What kind of a society puts its women on the front lines to risk what only men should be called on to risk? In countries ravaged by war, we consider it a tragedy when the battle comes to the backyards of women and children. Why would we thrust our own wives and daughters into that horror? My own instinct is to keep them as far from it as possible. Perhaps this move makes sense with an all volunteer force, but what if the draft is ever reinstituted? Are we really going to be the kind of people who press our wives and daughters to fight in combat?
~ Denny Burk, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

Photobucket

This is not a quest for equal rights or opportunity, which is noble at its base; it is a campaign for sameness, an effort to craft a perverse worldview that manhood and womanhood are interchangeable-- in marriage, in parenthood, even in a foxhole.
God himself teaches otherwise.
. . . This does not require a Norman Rockwell portrait of the little ladies baking pies while the men-folk prop up their feet and watch sports (even though there is nothing wrong with that portrait).
~ Mark Davis on Townhall.com

The problem is to treat women equally, when they are not equipped the same as men to deal with what it means to be part of an infantry battalion -- to treat unequals equally -- is basically unfair.
It’s unfair to the women, it’s unfair to the men, it’s problematic for the readiness and efficiency and effectiveness of infantry battalions. It’s the policy makers who are to blame – not the women or the men. It’s the policy makers, people like Secretary Panetta. He makes a change like this and goes out to the West Coast. He doesn’t have to deal with the consequences.
~ Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat, absent any input from Congress.
~ Arnold Ahlert on Front Page Mag

Photobucket

Feminist ideologues have pooh-poohed the notion that sexual attraction is a major problem when you put young men and women together in close quarters for long periods of time under the stress of combat situations. They act as if both males and females will resist temptation and if they don't that there will be no significant consequences anyway.
. . . But the consequences for love affairs gone wrong, rivalry among suitors or even the distraction that sex can provide from other duties are very different in a college setting than they are in the middle of battle.
Unit cohesion is a major factor in the success of any military objective. Inject sexual rivalry and tension into a small group of soldiers whose decisions mean life and death, and you are likely to get more of the latter.
~ Linda Chavez on Townhall.com

Women in Combat a Dangerous Experiment
This combat environment -- now containing males and females -- will place a tremendous burden on combat commanders. Not only will they have to maintain their focus on defeating the enemy in battle, they will have to do so in an environment that combines life-threatening danger with underlying sexual tensions. This is a lot to ask of the young leaders, both men and women, who will have to juggle the need to join and separate the sexes within the context of quickly developing and deadly situations.
Is the experiment worth placing this burden on small unit leaders? I think it is asking too much.
~ Lt. General (Retired) and Vice President of the Family Research Council Jerry Boykin on CNN

Photobucket
Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, December 6, 2012

Tea Party Votes "Nay" on Disability Treaty, Citing U.N. Takeover of Homeschooling

Photobucket

New York Times Story
Former Senator Bob Dole of Kansas sat slightly slumped in his wheelchair on the Senate floor on Tuesday, staring intently as Senator John Kerry gave his most impassioned speech all year, in defense of a United Nations treaty that would ban discrimination against people with disabilities.
The measure, which required two-thirds support for approval, failed on a vote of 61 to 38.

Roll Call on Vote with List of Names

It's official. The Republicans hate the U.N. more than they like helping people in wheelchairs. How did this happen?
~ John Stewart on The Daily Show

. . . one of the saddest days I've seen in almost 28 years in the Senate and it needs to be a wake-up call about a broken institution that's letting down the American people.
~ Senator John Kerry D-MA

One of the things that I thought was most sad about yesterday was here’s a veteran of World War II (Bob Dole), grievously wounded in that war, who spent a lifetime proving to Americans that injuries didn’t need to stop you from living a completely fulfilled and productive life, who had to fight like crazy to come back from those wounds. And he’s on the floor, this man who defended American sovereignty, and yet people were there suggesting somehow that he was there less than to defend America’s sovereignty with this vote. To me, that was just such an amazing slap in the face and a contradiction.
~ Senator John Kerry, R-MA, on Andrea Mitchell Reports, MSNBC

It is a sad day when we cannot pass a treaty that simply brings the world up to the American standard for protecting people with disabilities because the Republican Party is in thrall to extremists and ideologues.
~ Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid D-NV

I am frankly upset that they have succeeded in scaring the parents who home school their children all over this country.
~ Senator Chris Coons, D-DE, who voted Yea on the bill

We were hopeful that with the election, the Republican Party would have reached out the disability constituency. Instead of broadening their base, they simply pandered to the extremist part of their party and it was a slap in the face for our constituency.
~ Bruce Darling, organizer for the Disability Group ADAPT

Wounded war veterans and disabled Americans had gathered just outside the Senate chamber expecting to celebrate a win, Foreign Policy magazine reported. ”That was one of most shameful moments I’ve witnessed during my time in Washington,” one longtime senior Senate aide told the magazine. “I thought it was utterly appalling.”
~ MSNBC

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will do everything I can to block its ratification, and I have secured the signatures of 36 Republican senators, all of whom have joined with me saying that we will oppose any ratification of any treaty during this lame-duck session.
~ Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, who voted against the Treaty

(The vote against the treaty) halted our possible descent down the rabbit hole of international ‘entitlement rights’—which could have serious consequences for domestic law.
~ Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, via MSNBC







. . . the Senate made the right decision by rejecting the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
. . . (One) example of this U.N. overreach is the treaty’s “best interests of the child” standard, which states in full: “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” This provision is lifted from the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was also not ratified by the United States Senate. This would put the state, under the direction of the U.N., in the position of determining what is in the best interest of a disabled child, replacing the parents who have that power under current U.S. law.
. . . We should be telling the U.N., not the other way around, how to ensure dignity and respect for the disabled.
~ Rick Santorum on Daily Beast

Rick Santorum was just not factual. Now what he did was he gave some people here an excuse to hide behind ... when they know that there are people who hate the United Nations, who don't want any United Nations treaty, and so they gave them a reason to be able to say, ‘this is why I'm voting against it.'
. . . He either simply hasn’t read the treaty or doesn't understand it or he was just not factual in what he said. because the United Nations has absolutely zero, zero, I mean zero ability to order or to tell or to even - I mean they can suggest - but they have no legal capacity to tell the United States to do anything under this treaty. Nothing.
~ Senator John Kerry D-MA on CNN

President-unelect Rick Santorum made his triumphant return to the Capitol on Monday afternoon and took up a brave new cause: He is opposing disabled people.
Specifically, Santorum, joined by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, declared his wish that the Senate reject the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities — a human rights treaty negotiated during George W. Bush’s administration and ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
. . . And although the number of senators who actually oppose the treaty — such as Lee, Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Jim DeMint (S.C.) — is probably quite small, Lee’s boast of 36 signatures means he has persuaded enough of his colleagues to block action, at least temporarily. (Treaties require a two-thirds vote in the Senate to pass.)
~ Dana Milbank in The Salt Lake Tribune









Santorum Strikes Again
. . . Since more than 125 countries have already signed onto the treaty, there will certainly be pressure to improve accessibility to buses, restrooms and public buildings around the globe. It would be nice if the United States was at the table, trying to make sure the international standards were compatible with the ones our disabled citizens learn to handle here at home.
But, no, the senators were worried about the home-school movement. Or a boilerplate mention in the treaty of economic, social and cultural rights that Senator Mike Lee of Utah claimed was “part of a march toward socialism.”
. . . The big worry was, of course, offending the Tea Party. The same Tea Party that pounded Mitt Romney into the presidential candidate we came to know and reject over the past election season. The same Tea Party that keeps threatening to wage primaries against incumbents who don’t do what they’re told. The Tea Party who made those threats work so well in the last election that Indiana now has a totally unforeseen Democratic senator.
The threat the Republicans need to worry about isn’t in the United Nations.
~ Gail Collins in The New York Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have heard from thousands of my constituents, especially parents who home school their children, who are concerned that the treaty will be used to interfere with the ability of parents with disabled children to decide what action is in the best interest of their children. Unelected, foreign bureaucrats, not parents, would decide what is in the best interests of the disabled child, even in the home. These are just some of the reasons why the Senate was right to reject yet another power-grab effort by the UN.
~ From the official website of Jim Inhofe R-OK, on why he wouldn't sign the Disability Treaty











Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)