CNN - Latest Comments in GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

justice — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 02:39:11 -0000

Bruce A. Harrell communist party on 23rd Union Seattle Washington.Bruce A.Harrell has this extraordinary abuse abusive hate for black vets and veterans in the CD.this is why he let the Seattle Police Department do another Rodney King beating by and asians not even from native Land. Since at the time of war in 2008 Obama let millions of illegal immigrants over here on native Land.Openly violation of Article 111 Section 3 Treason against native Land.Aand Professor in Constitutional Law Professor in 2008 at time of war in 2008.Because in 2008 he stated he was going to burn up the Constitution in 2008.But I did in fact OBJECT TO OBAMA IMPOSTER FROM. BURNING UP THE CONSTITUTION.BECAUSE I KNEW HE WANTED TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.BECAUSE HE LET MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ON NATIVE LATndTURN THE CONSTITUTION INTO. COMMUNIST PARTY CONSTITUTION

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

justice — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 02:00:59 -0000

QPresident Barry Soetoro imposter born in Coast Province General Hospital Mombasa,British protectorate of Kenya.Certificate of Birth NO:32018.Barack Hussein Obama 11 /M.Full name of Mother Stanley Ann Obama Dunham Date of birth 11/29/1942. Full name of Father Barack Hussein Obama Date of birth 1936.on this 4Th day of August,1961 at 7:24pm 7pounds 1 ounce 18 inches 6 inches shoulders.Resident of Mother Honolulu Hawaii,United States.Birth place of Mother Wichita,Kansas,United States.Birth place of FatherKanyadhiang village,Nyanza,Father student Mother student.Name of attending Doctor James O.W. ANG'AWA 8/8/1961.Supervisor John KWAME ODONGO.HCR-107 IMPEACH NOW.INDICTMENT ASIANS JUDGES AND LAWYERS IN 2008.IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 111 SECTION 3 TREASON AGAINST NATIVE LAND.BECAUSE OF THE RECESSION.CAUSE BY CONGRESS.NOT WE THE BLACK PEOPLE OF AMERICA.IMPOSTER MAKING ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.BORN IN MOMBASA KENYA. 18 USCA 2381 TREASON.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

marsilius — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 21:49:32 -0000

"Israel had no reason to be an aggressor"? Sorry, but that statement of yours seems utterly ridiculous, in the light of Israel's conduct in 1967, and of Israel's conduct ever since then. Israel wanted to gain territory for herself, and Israel wanted to weaken the country (Egypt) that constituted the strongest threat to interfere with Israel's plans to expel as many Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza as possible, and to subject the rest of the Palestinians there to Israel's own military rule of those territories. Israel desired this largely so that her expansionist plans for Israeli Jewish settlements in those areas could be implemented. As for the data you present, I don't see how they show that the U.S. was dominating Middle Eastern economies at that time. It seems to me you are making the wrong comparisons.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

jherling — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:01:13 -0000

Israel did cooperate ("collude" if you like) with GB and France in attacking Egypt, but for Israel, it was a war of defense rather than aggression. Israel had no reason to be an aggressor. As for U.S. economic domination in the Middle East, this is from Wikipedia's article on Aramco (Arabian American Oil Company): Timeline

* 1932 Oil is discovered in Bahrain. Socal begins a year-long series of negotiations with the Saudi government. * 1933 Saudi Arabia grants oil concession to California Arabian Standard Oil Company (Casoc), affiliate of Standard Oil of California (Socal, today's Chevron). Oil prospecting begins on Kingdom's east coast. * 1936 Texas Oil Company (which became Texaco, now part of
Chevron) acquires 50% interest in Socal's concession. The joint venture became known as the California Texas Oil Company, or Caltex.
* 1938 Kingdom's first commercial oil field discovered at Dhahran. Crude is exported by barge to Bahrain. * 1939 First tanker load of petroleum is exported. (Socal’s D.G. Scofield) * 1944 Casoc changes its name to Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco). * 1945 Ras Tanura Refinery begins operations (eventually becomes the largest oil-refinery in the world). * 1948 Standard Oil of New Jersey (which became Exxon and now ExxonMobil) and Socony-Vacuum Oil (which became Mobil and now ExxonMobil) join Socal (now Chevron) and Texaco (now Chevron) as owners of Aramco.
* 1950 1,700 km Trans-Arabian Pipe Line (Tapline) is completed, linking Eastern Province oil fields to Lebanon and the Mediterranean. * 1950 The US government bestows upon the US member companies a tax break equivalent to 50% of oil profits, a deal known as the Golden gimmick. * 1956 Aramco confirms scale of Ghawar and Safaniya, the largest onshore and the largest offshore field in the world, respectively. * 1961 Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) - propane and butane — is first processed at Ras Tanura and shipped to customers. * 1966 Tankers begin calling at "Sea Island", new offshore crude oil loading platform off Ras Tanura. * 1973 Saudi Government acquires 25 percent interest in Aramco.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

just_a_moderate — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:00:49 -0000

That's so strange considering how Jewish Americans vote.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

marsilius — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:27:52 -0000

There were very concrete collusive three-way military plans for an aggressive attack upon Egypt that had been drawn up ahead of time, in secret, by Israel, France, and Britain. The fedayeen raids were just an excuse used by the Israeli government for propaganda purposes. And I didn't know that U.S. corporations "were dominating" Middle East economies at that time. U.S. oil companies alone were insufficient to do that. Many of the oil company interests in the Middle East at that time were British, Dutch, and, to a lesser extent, French. And I do believe the U.S. policy of that time largely was indeed anti-imperialist, if, by that designation, what is meant is just "anti-colonialist." (The U.S. conveniently made an exception, of course, regarding its own colonial control of Puerto Rico.) The U.S. foreign policy elite of that time believed mere corporate involvement in Third World countries, and U.S. government support for military dictatorships there, constituted fair game, just so long as the foreign country or countries seeking influence over a Third World country, from outside, didn't have actual outright political control over the Third World country in question. Nevertheless I believe you are correct about many points.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

jherling — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:59:05 -0000

Nasser began the hostilities in 1956 by sending "fedayeen" (commandos) across the border to attack targets in Israel, including civilian settlements. That constituted acts of war, to which Israel responded with overwhelming force. At the same time the U.S. was playing "anti-imperialist", American corporations were dominating Latin American and Middle Eastern economies and the US. government was providing support to military dictators in those regions. The show didn't fool anyone. Anti-American feeling ran high in the third world.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

marsilius — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 00:35:23 -0000

Sorry, but it appears you need to brush up on your history. The Suez War of 1956 was NOT at all a "war of aggression" by Egypt against Israel. It was a war of aggression by Israel against Egypt! Israel's ground war of aggression against Egypt was backed up by bombing raids on Cairo made by the two former imperialist powers of that region-- Britain and France. And British and French forces were poised for further action against Egypt. Furthermore, the Suez War of 1956 was certainly NOT "[of] no concern to the United States." Britain and France were fellow NATO powers to the U.S., and the U.S. had wanted it understood in the NATO alliance that this kind of neo-imperialist venture by Western European former colonial powers was, generally speaking, no longer appropriate for the West in the post-WW2 world (largely because such action would usually play into the hands of the Soviet Union). The United States needed to show the emerging "Third World" countries around the world that the Western alliance was NOT going to be aimed against them, which is how the Israel-Britain-France aggression against Egypt was being widely interpreted, in newly emerging countries around the world-- as a Western precedent for Allied action against Third World countries. The aggression against Egypt was "of... concern" to the U.S. largely because it was feared that this Western aggression in the Middle East would cause some emerging Middle East countries to turn to alliance with the Soviet Union, and that worry did then turn out to be well-founded, for such countries as Iraq and Syria did, shortly thereafter, turn toward Soviet regional sponsorship, in military and economic terms. Egypt itself turned much more strongly toward alliance, militarily and economically speaking, with the Soviet Union as well. (Contrary to what you claim, Eisenhower did NOT "restore" Nasser "to power," for Nasser had never lost power during the Suez Crisis of 1956. In fact, the Egyptian people and military had rallied behind Nasser in the face of the attack from three foreign countries.) The turning against the West by some Middle Eastern countries, after the Israel-Britain-France aggression against Egypt in the Suez War of 1956, probably would have been much more acute and widespread had Eisenhower NOT intervened, diplomatically speaking (he did NOT intervene militarily), as he had done. The British and French governments both later admitted, eventually, that their aggression against Egypt in the Suez War of 1956 had been very foolish. Nevertheless, if your overall point is that the historic difference between U.S. "Wilsonian foreign policy," and the Eisenhower-type foreign policy for the United States, seems to be greatly and inaccurately exaggerated, by a couple of commenters (to one of whom you were replying) who have posted above, I agree with you completely. [By the way, as a matter of slightly earlier history, Mr. Mossadegh was elected in *Iran*, not in Iraq. And if you believe that the U.S.-sponsored overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran, in 1953 (i.e., earlier in the Eisenhower administration), had been monumentally unjust, I agree with you completely.]

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

jherling — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:30:29 -0000

Eisenhower was guilty of intervening in an international fracas that was no concern of the United States, and, incidentally, restoring to power a military dictator - Nasser - who had launched a war of aggression against Israel.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

marsilius — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:49:55 -0000

How was Eisenhower's effective diplomatic pressuring of Britain and France to withdraw from their aggression against Egypt, in 1956, an example of U.S. interventionism? If you aren't talking about *military* interventionism, when you speak of interventionism, and just mean to count diplomacy as interventionism, then I don't see what is wrong with it. Was Eisenhower guilty of the crime of peacemaking?

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

marsilius — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:42:44 -0000

There weren't any free black soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. There were a few blacks attached to the Confederate Army who had *non-fighting* roles.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

marsilius — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:39:08 -0000

Democrats don't support other forms of wasteful spending, either. That's just a Fox News-fostered myth. And our military budget is indeed bloated with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

jsf12 — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:12:44 -0000

There are unfortunately a significant number of very intolerant people in this country. The media constantly tells us that the Republican party is the party for such people, and those people have believed that message and form almost half the Republican party. Hagel succeeded in the Republican party because his message of intolerance resonated with those people.
There is also in this country a significant minority of people who are smart enough to understand the need for sane fiscal policies, sane foreign policies and less government corruption. While the Republican party has never been a consistent nor strong supporter of those things, the Republican party has been the only choice for such people, because the Democrat party has been a consistent supporter of insane fiscal and foreign policies and ever greater government corruption. Hagel has never been that kind of Republican. He has always sided with the Democrats on those issues where intelligent people must oppose the Democrats.
Hagel is very much an opportunist. His hatred of gays might have been an act to appeal to his base. But his hatred of Jews shows through in his unguarded statements. Obama clearly shares that attitude, but the media has been much more careful to avoid broadcasting Obama's unguarded statements.
Ultimately, whoever is secretary of defense, the policy choices will be Obama's, so Israel can expect another four very painful years. But Hagel is also lacking in any of the management skills needed for the job. So the security of this country will also suffer.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

jsf12 — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 14:52:04 -0000

Obama is still ignoring the needs of the country to play political games. Hagel would be a terrible secretary of defense, but the Republicans will look bad for opposing him. That represents the entire reason Obama has for the nomination. Blaming the Republicans is Obama's primary goal. Doing what is right, so that he could be grabbing credit, rather than throwing blame, never even occurs to him.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

x x — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 13:04:55 -0000

well they put forth Ronald Reagan & George W Bush, didn't they? Reagan, a liberal governor from California who signed the most liberal abortion law (to that time). And yet Conservative prostrate themselves before his alter. W, an MBA who was part owner of a legalized monopoly and the great state of Texas and yet ran the US into the iceberg in 8 short years - budget surplus into deficit, record employment gains to record employment losses.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

AngryPeasant — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 03:52:59 -0000

Is it not better to have a highly placed civilian that is an actual vet having something to do with our military apparatus rather than the draft-dodging chickenhawks that have been running things for over 20 years?

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

jherling — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:52:11 -0000

The Eisenhower Administration, with John Foster Dulles as Secretary of State, was staunchly, even obsessively anti-Communist. Our involvement in Vietnam started when Dulles backed the politically corrupt new South Vietnamese regime instead of accepting the results of the fair democratic election that should have made Ho Chi Minh the president of a united Vietnam. U.S. interventionism included the CIA's overthrow of Mossadegh in Iraq, U.S. troops sent to Lebanon, and the U.S. pressuring Israel, GB, and France to withdraw their troops from Egypt.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

johnltinkham — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 09:05:52 -0000

I don't believe Hagel hates Israel but is wise enough to know how easily the USA could be drawn into a fruitless war. Israel is like a brother that wants his bigger brother to fight his battles that sometimes he initiates. Shooting from the hip as President Bush did in Iraq is not a direction I wish for this country. We all realize the danger of nuclear weapons in the wrong hands e.g. North Korea but only fools rush in with a paranoid fit.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

ruemorgue — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:14:13 -0000

GOP just wants a fight everwhere, no matter if it makes any sense or hurts the USA. The GOP, Grand Ole Pukes, aren't worth shiite in their Depends.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

pburkart — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:27:21 -0000

So your suggestion is for Republican politicians to lie about how they really think, because that will hurt them in their next election.

If they are going to have a stance that is going to cause them to lose, lie. Like the Governor of Michigan I suppose.
Politicians should be telling the truth about their beliefs. So people can get what they voted for. Not, the opposite.
I guess if Republican policians follow your logic, the public should follow the following logic:
Take the opposite of what a "Republican" politican says as what they believe, then make your choice!

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

Attila — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:20:54 -0000

And someone who hates Jews, Israel and America is called a Democrat.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

Ari Walker — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:31:46 -0000

Anti-semites are against Arabs

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

Ari Walker — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:30:08 -0000

An anti-semite is someone who doesn't like Arabs.

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

Ari Walker — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 13:29:32 -0000

I have a couple of challenges for you...

Do you want the one where I checkmate you in 7 Moves while showing you how you are wrong, one where we see how science minded people can understand Jesus better religious lunatics, or the one where you get to figure out the law better than many lawyers including many from Israel?

What's it going to be?

Re: GOP, don't fight the Hagel nomination

Lasse Hansson — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 11:27:01 -0000

Just saw a report from SACC. Swedish American Chamber of Commerce. Swedish companies in the US employs 250.000 people, not including sub-contractors. Pretty damn good for a country with 9 million people.