Will Obama cave on Chuck Hagel?

[Byng]

"The president said he was making good on his 2008 campaign pledge to end a war that has divided the nation.."

That is not my fact.

This "made-up" fact from your post 210 is the total fabrication I was referring to Flyboy!

"Iraq was willing to negotiate the number of troops that would stay in return for authorization of immunity for the troops. As usual Obama had no interest in negotiating and instead pulled out of Iraq."

[flyboy56]

This "made-up" fact from your post 210 is the total fabrication I was referring to Flyboy!

"Iraq was willing to negotiate the number of troops that would stay in return for authorization of immunity for the troops. As usual Obama had no interest in negotiating and instead pulled out of Iraq."

"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."

"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...l_negotiations

[bmore_ken]

Honestly, it doesn't matter whether Hagel agrees or disagrees with Obama's policies. The fact that the President chooses people who aren't from his party and don't always agree with him is a GOOD thing.

Hagel has chosen to work for Obama therefore he must implement Obama's policies.

I have yet to see any good reasons for Hagel not to be confirmed...

I agree. I agree with very little Obama does, but his nominations are solid

[Byng]

"It was clear from the beginning that Maliki wasn't going to make a move without the support of the other parties behind him," Sullivan explained, adding that the Obama administration focused on Maliki and neglected other actors, such as Allawi. "There was a misunderstanding of how negotiations were unfolding in Iraq. The negotiations got started in earnest far too late."

"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan. "It's in the administration's interest to make this look not like they failed to reach an agreement and that they fulfilled a campaign promise. But it was very clear that Panetta and [former Defense Secretary Robert] Gates wanted an agreement.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...l_negotiations

Google the 1st. Rule of Holes, my friend!

[flyboy56]

Google the 1st. Rule of Holes, my friend!

"From the beginning, the talks unfolded in a way where they largely driven by domestic political concerns, both in Washington and Baghdad. Both sides let politics drive the process, rather than security concerns," said Sullivan.

The article is full of oxymorons. If Obama truly wanted to keep the troops there, then why does the article say both sides focused on each others domestic concerns?

[flyboy56]

"Administration sources and Hill staffers also tell The Cable that the demand that the troop immunity go through the Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy's diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.

"An obvious fix for troop immunity is to put them all on the diplomatic list; that's done by notification to the Iraqi foreign ministry," said one former senior Hill staffer. "If State says that this requires a treaty or a specific agreement by the Iraqi parliament as opposed to a statement by the Iraqi foreign ministry, it has its head up its ***." Same article.

Obama could have secured immunity for the troops but chose not to. Again, the article is full of oxymorons by saying the Administration wanted to stay in Iraq but could not due to immunity issues, but Sullivan points out a flaw in this argument. Why?

[rgh]

How does one define necessary v. unnecessary war in regards to the underlying predicates upon which such a judgement is cast?

I define necessary war as one in which someone attacks the US. I do not care about Israel, Europe, Asia or anywhere else. And before your talk about 911, North Korea's nukes or anything think about this. If we stayed out of their affairs would these nations really want to attack us. We have the fortunate position to be able to be self supporting in the US in terms of resources, farmable land, manpower to do work and everything else that is needed for a nation to thrive. Maybe it is time we take a more isolationist approach to the rest of the world.

[flyboy56]

I define necessary war as one in which someone attacks the US. I do not care about Israel, Europe, Asia or anywhere else. And before your talk about 911, North Korea's nukes or anything think about this. If we stayed out of their affairs would these nations really want to attack us. We have the fortunate position to be able to be self supporting in the US in terms of resources, farmable land, manpower to do work and everything else that is needed for a nation to thrive. Maybe it is time we take a more isolationist approach to the rest of the world.

The isolationist approach sounds in theory the perfect solution for Americans to live a free and peaceful existence.

[flyboy56]

"The actions don't match the words here," said Sullivan.

A red flag when determining whether or not someone can be trusted.

[Omaha Beach]

We have discussed this before. The "surge" in Iraq did not work. Petraeus and the CIA ran around with piles of money paying the Sunnies to shoot at the Shias and anybody but US Troops while we crawled out via the back-door. We didn't fight our way out we bribed our way out of Iraq.

I dont give a dam how it worked if it did. As you admit the, Iraqis were shooting and killing each other instead of Americans as we drew down and that to me is a big *** victory.

[kudzu]

Absolutely there is. The UK is not trying to to drag the US into another Middle East War.

The UK is still smarting from the fact that they went from the most powerful country in the world to something like the 9th or 10th in VERY short order.

There's a massively bruised ego at work on the island.

[flyboy56]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/14/op...ss_igoogle_cnn

(CNN) -- Four years ago, John Brennan withdrew from consideration for C.I.A. director because of his leadership role there while serious human rights violations were occurring, including waterboarding and secret detention. Mr. Brennan has said he regrets these practices. Yet he moved from the CIA to the White House, where he began to support a practice many consider worse than torture: targeted killing.

Brennan has been a champion and defender of attacks by C.I.A. drones that have killed thousands of people, including hundreds of children, far from any battlefield. These killings have occurred in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has recently said the killing is likely to expand to Libya, Mali and Nigeria.

Panetta, Brennan and others in the Obama administration defended these lawless killings the same way the Bush administration justified the unlawful treatment of detainees. Officials in both administrations have sought to win public support and overcome opposition by repeatedly asserting that what they are doing is effective and lawful. The tactical parallels are striking.

[ms maggie]

Last cabinet nominee rejected by a Senate vote? John Tower back in 1989.

The last presidential nominee to be rejected by a vote of the Senate was John Tower, George H. W. Bush’s choice to lead the Pentagon in 1989. As the Los Angeles Times reported at the time, Tower was tarnished by allegations of being “guilty of drunkenness, womanizing and sharing secret insights into U.S.-Soviet arms negotiations with defense contractors.” The Democratic-led Senate rejected him by a narrow 53-47 margin.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...arely-fail.php