Why Chuck Hagel Is Really So Scary: He’s Typical of the Current Rulers
“Joab came to the king [David] in his quarters and said, ‘Today you have humiliated all your followers, who this day saved your life, and the lives of your sons and daughters … by showing love for those who hate you and hate for those who love you. For you have made clear today that the officers and men mean nothing to you.’” — II Samuel, 19: 6-7 If Chuck Hagel is so much dumber than you are, why is he the one being nominated by President Barack Obama to be secretary of defense? Answer: Hagel knows how to be dumb in the right way. He’s simultaneously even dumber than you think yet also, to use an old expression, dumb like a fox. In his public self-management and especially during his confirmation hearings, Hagel handled himself in a manner that showed he is incapable of fulfilling a cabinet-level position. Here’s the primary example — Hagel said: “I support the president’s strong position on containment.” Now, the truth is that there’s nothing wrong with that. He did not say the president’s position advocating containment of Iran. Contrary to the way that many writers are portraying it, what he said wasn’t incorrect, just ambiguous. He could easily have recovered. Then, some of his handlers asked him to clarify. What did he do?
I was just handed a note that I misspoke … that I said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say that we don’t have a position on containment.
Now this management alone is enough to bar him from handling one of the most important and complex jobs in the world. Let’s count the ways:
– Never admit that you’ve just been told you were wrong! He should have pocketed the note without mentioning it and simply added to his statement (see below). What he did instead is on the level of stupidity of a television host being shown a cue card reading: “Wrap up the show, moron!”, and then reading that aloud to the live audience. — He should have said something like this: “I do not want any ambiguity in my clear statements of support for the president and for a tough policy on Iran. I support the president’s position of asserting that containment is insufficient and that our goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, leaving all options open for doing so.”
He doesn’t just not know the facts, he doesn’t know how to be a high-level official. He doesn’t just not know the details of international affairs, his thought is simply not coherent. And unlike Obama and Kerry, he doesn’t know how to hide his radicalism behind smooth phrases.
– And then he makes it worse by saying that the administration doesn’t have a policy on containment!
Of course, the U.S. government does have a position on containment of Iran! It is, supposedly, against doing that. (Accepting that Iran has nuclear weapons and then trying to limit the damage by isolating Iran, surrounding it with forces, installing anti-missile and early-warning stations, etc.) President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and two ex-defense sectaries, along with tens of others, expressed it daily. (Of course — it is 99 percent likely that they will end up trying containment anyway.)
Imam Obama surrounds himself with Jews in prominent positions (to blame when things go bad) and Republicans – so when things go bad, he can blame and deflect.
A muslim, no doubt.
Obama is 100%bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia. He was one of a bunch of black Muslim students sponsored by the Saudi’s in a 1970′s program. Now it’s hands off because all of the American politicians are afraid of his handlers. Poor,, silly, narcissistic Barry -it never ends well for pawns like you. Silly Communist drone.
The scariest (and saddest) thing about all of this is that the “deep malady of ignorance” exists not only in the American foreign policy leadership, but in the American electorate. That’s how you end up getting morons like Hagel. Ignorant people elect ignorant leaders, who appoint ignorant cabinet members.
Ah, but ignorance is bliss. For proof of this simply look into the faces of the low info voters and the administration they elected, which shine with the light of blinding self-regard and a radiant narcissism.
How the 2012 Obama campaign fooled the low-info voters
Not that it was all that difficult.
All it took was money and a few IT experts who were willing to prostitute themselves.
Those who have spoken of the “deep malady of ignorance” have it right.. It is an affl;iction of most Obama voters,much of hia administration, and the media.that has to be the reason for their blind adoration of O.
Prof. Rubin – Your conclusion is a succinct analysis and description worthy of a Gibbon. Too bad we have to live through this Decline and Fall.
Politics is like football. However disappointed San Francisco fans are from losing to the Ravens last night, none are threatening gloom and doom to football as a whole. The pain of losing is outweighed by the hopes of winning. One side must win, and one side must lose, and everyone goes into the off-season to prepare for the next season. In the meantime, the public pays to participate, thus fueling the American economy. Today, Republicans and Democrats act like mom and dad going through a nasty divorce, when instead they could be like Jim and John Harbaugh, two leaders competing in a brotherly manner, temper tantrums and all.
In the last elections, the mass media portrayed Obama as a pop star. The Republicans misread the playing field and perceived Obama like a guaranteed pushover. Like Bibi in Israel’s elections, Obama never faced a serious challenge for the Presidency on the strategic level. Actually, Obama is an educated family man of mixed Anglo/African heritage, becoming an attorney while living the all-American lifestyle, and is an ex-lecturer on constitutional law to boot! Personally, I think Obama’s big secret is that he swore an oath to serve all three branches of government, as an attorney, then as a senator, and finally as President. That’s like swearing to be the best player in a different position every few seasons. Obama will never be the best, but he still won the political Super Bowl twice. Unlike football teams, who seek fresh players for competitive reasons (MVP Joe Flacco v. aging Tom Brady and Peyton Manning), the American political system generally favors stale old-timers who refuse to implement term limits in the House and Senate. Obama was fresh so he won his first term, and still fresh when he won his second term. In Israel, the exact same thing happened with newcomers Yair Lapid and Naftali Bennett.
Yes, Obama’s personal tastes are at times offensive. Yet he’s still a product of the American system, and he dared put himself and his family out in the public eye. As unsettling as his personal views may be, he hasn’t broken any law in the eyes of the American courts. Plus, who cares about his personal tastes when the Republican Party acts like it wants Obama to roll over and disgrace himself, in the same way that the Arab world wishes Israel would roll over and commit national suicide.
Presidential powers are granted by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is better understood as a rule book, which requires both professional training and sharp reflexes to fully master. President Obama will do whatever the hell he wants, regardless of how imperfect his skills are, because Romney and the Republican Party fumbled their argument for improved state’s rights and a diminished federal government. No one can reasonably advocate for controversial changes to the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause during an election cycle, and still expect to win. That’s like refusing to run the ball on 3rd and 1, and instead hoping for a 50 yard touchdown pass, all because Republicans refused to acknowledge Obama as a legitimate player in a timely manner. In hindsight, Romney and his campaign managers shouldn’t have taken such a massive risk, not when Obama was vulnerable on the economy issue.
If Obama ever acts out of line, and the courts catch him, the courts would call him out and penalize him until he acts lawfully. Issues like foreign, environmental, and economic policy aren’t his thing, so Obama appropriately delegated responsibility to his specialty teams, like Hillary, Robert Gates, Lisa Jackson, etc. Why blame “quarterback Obama” for “specialty team Hillary’s” failings? And why blame Obama for his discretion in judgment over the Hagel nomination when the Republican Party is taking it’s leadership cues from Israel’s left-wing obstructionist playbook? Who would have thought that Obama and Bibi have so much in common? In the end, it’s Obama’s call on how to throw the ball, and the Republican establishment’s defensive line fell apart.
Wow, those are a lot words about a Commander-in-Chief who’s clueless on matters of national security/foreign policy, and makes equally clueless appointments. Obama was (1) an assistant teaching associate in Constitutional Law (his knowledge of Constitutional Law is currently being litigated, eg, recess appointments to NLRB, etc.); (2) someone who never practiced law a day in his life; (3) served as a State Senator, who was notorious for his “Present” votes (his first term as a US Senator was devoted to campaigning for presidency); and (4) was a “community organizer” (whatever that is?!). The man never ran anything, never held a real job, and had zero accomplishments to his name. The audacity of such a person to run for President of the US is only surpassed by the stupidity of those who voted for him.
I intend to give a good-spirited argument in a constructive manner. I’m not amused, but responding to comments made to MY original, cool, and totally awesome football comparison with politics (with an Israeli twist for the author’s humor) had a lot more effort put into than R. Shalit’s creepy post. I called my Mom and she said I should give this guy a run for his money before going to bed. She also said it would improve my writing skills. I guess I’m supposed to defend my opinion to show that I care about my original post. Anyways, here is my response, point for point. I bet I can make a better argument than he can, any day. Here’s to American freedom of speech.
Issue #1: My generation is the generation of Nintendo, Power Rangers, Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys. That said, being an assistant teaching associate for Constitutional Law is a high achievement, and I’m not going to believe anyone who says otherwise. I’d never get a date if I did. The original article’s first theme concerned global politics, secretary appointments, the war on terror, and the entire defense industry. The second theme revolved around honesty and integrity of our government officials. Since this is all going to be paid for by my generation, this is now a generation conversation just as much as it is a political conversation.
Democrats and Republicans were caught furthering a controversy for far too long. Apparently, everything would be just fine if everyone took a deep breath and calmed down. But here comes in the media, and totally misrepresents what’s going on, because the price of commodities needs to remain stable. I say put all our elected officials through stricter screening procedures. Also, make them pass a competency exam before beginning their term, like the bar exam that President Obama needed to pass in order to become a licensed attorney
Issue #2: Does President Obama need to practice law for even a day? He obviously did something right. He’s a national hero to many, and he defeated two Republican candidates. Who wants to practice law when one can go into politics? Isn’t that what wealthy people do? Send their kids to fancy schools, and then pay for their political campaigns after graduation? Cat’s out of the bag, and President Obama probably just had a really good guidance counselor.
Also, one must not disregard the time, effort, and money required for a four year undergraduate degree and a three year law degree, all just to become an attorney. To me, that is significant.
He can’t practice law anymore – like his wife he’s had his law license removed, and not voluntarily. Word is for her that it was insurance fraud. God only knows what Barry got caught doing.
Assuming you are correct, conservative elements nevertheless were unable to capitalize on the story. They probably weren’t able to do so legally, so they set up a gossip mill instead. Literally, they needed credible evidence to act. Remember, both Obama and Romney had private documents that they choose not to disclose. The Democrats campaigned that the Republican Party was corrupt, and they won the election because they had enough evidence from Iraq and Afghanistan. The only significant defense the Republican party offered was that their policies under President Bush protected America’s overseas investments. Yet, this defense sparked a massive identity crisis within the Republican’s common membership, none of whom saw any of the wealth reported by the media.
At some point, the Republicans will pay a young, handsome man who wears a business suit well, to tell them this message: “If term limits are placed on Senators and Congressmen, then all corruption will be washed away by default withing a given time period.” This man will spark conservative elites into opening their wallets and buying this smart, intelligent, and god-fearing young man a seat in politics. Conservatives are deeply concerned how conservative money corrupted their own youth, and how voters now choose “hope and change” over traditional conservative work ethics. Mass media now dominates my generation’s mindset by default, and conservatives literally can’t find a suitable young candidate worthy of their dwindling cash flow. While conservatives fret, the Republican establishment turned to the Christian churches (conservative therapists with no exposure to left-wing academia) and are waiting with Christian piety for the second coming of Jesus Christ, since they have no clue how to fix themselves.
Issue #3: To my understanding, there is a Constitutional right against self-incrimination. Obama was teaching constitutional law. Did you think the sitting President of the United States doesn’t know his personal constitutional rights? If then-Senator Obama was committing acts of misconduct or during his Senate term, and no one said anything at the appropriate time, please explain how he is at fault. I’d rather President Obama seek professional help than plunge the country into anymore controversy. Our judicial system is underfunded anyways, thanks to Congress. Go read Chief Justice Robert’s report on the state of the Judicial Branch’s finances. It’s a publicly-available document.
Issue 4: There’s nothing wrong with being a community organizer, even a lousy one. Turn on the TV, and see the social unrest Chicago faces today. Chicago faces serious drug, crime, pollution, and unemployment issues. I think Chicago needs more community organizers, lots and lots of them, under the supervision of strict accounting supervision. Life in Chicago must be miserable, especially in the wrong neighborhood. There’s enough money for everything else except our poor, weak, and undefended?
As Secretary of State Hillary said, “Who cares?” I guess she’s not running for office in 2016. Is Hillary justified, when some voters believe Democratic party, led by Obama, is the signal for the end of times, because the Bible / Mayan Calendar / Hollywood said so? That’s what scary, and that’s what Barry Rubin’s article was all about.
It seems from here that your arguments all boil down to: Obama is wicked cool, and everyone loves a winner.
Not at all. Obama is a conformist. Conformists aren’t cool, they’re just good at conforming to a specific task, similar to divorce lawyers. Democrats hated Bush, so they picked a candidate that would torment the Republicans. Their plan worked, and Republicans self-destructed under Obama’s pressure. As president, Obama does his job well enough, but delegates all the important decisions away to the Democratic party. As a political leader, Obama is the ultimate Democratic champion, because Obama led the Bush-era ideology to its grave.
The liberal cult of cool rebelled against the conformity and unhipness of their parents. Eventually this evolved and was replaced with where we are today: pinioning anyone who is generally straight, white and male. Liberals who are straight, white and male pay penance and kowtow in elaborate bows and rituals that have replaced long hair and bell bottoms to show their loyalty and that they are true comrades of “the cause.”
Targets of liberal complaint most often don’t have names, just skin, gender and an assumption of privilege dealt out by dumb fate and not skill.
The reason names are hard to come by is that such gripes are largely divorced from reality, and one is forced to imagine a foe when none is actually present. The liberal cause is a war against reason, logic, morality and success. Like many depressed people, they don’t have the guts to commit suicide outright, or to even acknowledge they wish to, and they love the misery for company of those they imagine have slighted them. Therefore the West must sink and the meek of the Third World and history’s other failures must rise.
Qatar is Sunni and Wahhabi. They are neither pro-Iran nor pro-Muslim Brotherhood. With millions of American dollars in commercial and military investment it is hard to imagine how they are anti-American. Absolute monarchies are pragmatists, not ideologues – they must be. Without America Qatar would be an Iranian province, so would Bahrain.
Obama’s a genius. He figures something bad is going to happen during the next 3.9 years (i.e. Iran sucker-punches a carrier). In Hagel, he has his fall guy, already warming up in the bull pen.
And we will look back on Benghazi as the beginning of something truly treasonous.
The Mondoweiss and J Street crowd is ecstatic!
Hagel is not dumb, but he must be wondering why he was coached for his confirmation hearing to hold his temper at all costs, including the price of his own credibility. I assume he was also trying really hard to not say “Oops”
You really don’t get it? Obama made his US Senate friends in 2006, seized on nuclear non-proliferation as an issue, and thus found himself with Nunn, Lugar, Hagel, and Susan Eisenhower as allies and friends.
The dilemma now is, if Hagel can not control his temper AND speak clearly at the same time when John McCain is actively trying to push that anger button, how can anyone have confidence in Hagel v anyone.
Actually, Hagel is pretty dumb.
Apparently too dumb to pass the test for OCS when he was in the Army.
Hagel will be sworn in and then the GOPers can start bitching and moaning about something else. The whining never stops!
When will they ever learn to just shut up and bow to the King?
Chucky and JFKerry are there to provide “deniability” for the Man in the White House, the fall guys, no more and no less. They may as well be SpongeBob and SquarePants, “what difference does it make?”
Hagel is supposed to be the Republican who gets the blame for the gutting of the military that is coming very soon, because of sequestration.
Personally I don’t really care that someone like Hagel is being nominated, I mean did we really expect anything else from Obama? If he wants to surround himself with incompetent tools and communist weasels like he’s been doing from day one, the let him. There’s not much the Republicans can do to keep him from screwing up foreign policy, so their best shot is just to stand back, wait for the predictable to happen, and hang the Democrats with it later. The problem I have with Hagel is that as others have pointed out above, he makes an extremely convenient fall guy. As long as there’s a token RINO somewhere in the administration to blame the results of their bungling on then it will allow them to shift all culpability on to the Republicans in the eyes of the media and a lot of people. Instead of just trying to block Hagel, the Republicans would do well to find a way to cut him loose and minimize the scapegoat effect. There has to be a way to kick someone out of the party right? I mean if a prominent Republican started calling for gun control we’d have to boot him to show that we won’t tolerate that sh*t. We may not be able to stop all of Obama’s disastrous policies, but what we can do is prevent them from having the veneer of bipartisanship needed to blame us when things inevitably go wrong. Obamacare was a success in this regard. If even one Republican member of congress could’ve been bribed enough into voting for it we’d never hear the end of how “bipartisan” it is. Instead now the Democrats own it and that fact will hopefully give them shivers and second thoughts as its raping of the economy accelerates. Hagel is the obvious fall guy for the effects of the defense cuts, the guy who resigns in disgrace and gets all the press coverage when Iran goes nuclear or a major terrorist attack happens. The important thing is not so much to block his nomination as it is to strip the (R) from behind his name to throw a preemptive wrench into their narrative.
Dumb? Obama, Kerry, & Hagel, the three stooges. Leftist intelligence and sophistication on parade, supported, created, by a media as dumb and narrow as they are.
They are not alone, we do have a few on our side as well. But if you have to be dumb at least don’t be a socialist thug.
What scared me most about Hagel was that there wasn’t any THERE there. Think about it. Forget about foreign policy or current events, let’s just talk about the Pentagon. I didn’t hear anything about what this moron’s opnion was regarding some of the most important weapons systems that are now either in production or are about to be put into production.
For example, what are his views regarding the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), a warship that was supposed to be a small, inexpensive, vessel to fight in enemy coastal waters and cost about $200, but is now costing about $550 million a ship and considered by a lot of military analysts to be the white elephant of the fleet? We are going to build about 50 of these warships (in two versions, no less), so it would be nice to know if they work and if they’re worth the money. What does Hagel think about this?
Or how about the future of US aircraft carriers? Do we still want to build gigantic naval aviation platforms like this that cost billions of dollars, or do we want to go back and build smaller, more technologically advanced carriers that rely on missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)?
What do we want the Army of the 21st century to look like? Will we be relying more on technology and, if so, where are we going to get the people to build and maintain all of this new equipment? How much is it going to cost and will we be able to afford enough planes, ships, tanks and other military vehicles without going broke? What will the main battle tank of 2100 look like? Will we even NEED a main battle tank for future wars?
These are just SOME of the questions I wanted answered and Hagel looked like an Alzheimer’s patient rather than the next leader at the Pentagon. And let’s not forget that it takes many, many, years to research and develop a new weapons system. It is not uncommon now that a warship is researched and developed for more than 10 years before the first hull hits the water. The same can certainly be said for fighter aircraft. And let’s not even talk about how long it takes to actually BUILD a modern warship or fighter jet. So whatever we plan for, budget for, and decide to build within the next four years will take maybe a decade of development before the weapon is produced. Will a flyweight like Hagel KNOW what the Pentagon needs 50 years from now and will he fight for the funding for that in Congress?
Hagel looked like many things, but a master strategist and nimble bureaucrat certainly was not one of them. If Hagel gets the job, the Pentagon is in deep, deep, trouble.
Hello Mr Libertyship, you still have illusions about the next US army nature and role ? The next US army will be devoted to ” community organization ” .It will help the american deprived poor people to improve their environnement, their daily ife.With a few spades , the US army will show how to dig a deepper sewer, the engineers corps will show how to build a bridge from chopped wood, the US airforce will show how to extinguish forest fire , the armored corps will provide merry-go-round for the distraction of the kids.And BHO will receive a 2nd Nobel peace prize.
Mr Rubin, your description of Hagel brings us to the very core issue on Israel’s security.The Obama administration is at best INDIFFERENT to Israel.So the one and only question is how quick and decisive Israel can be to ” neutralize ” Iran’s murderous masterplan : I like ” neutralize ” a nice word wich fits the neo-coool- appeasement speech, and does not sound ominous as ” destroy “…The ball is in Israel’s side.
Dear Comrade Rubin: “Hagel’s brain is the mass market version of Kerry’s, and Kerry’s is the collector’s edition of Obama.” I love the metric, the rubric, the diagnostic value of this ideation. George F Babbitt and Gideon Planish; Hagel and Kerry.
What is most striking about Hagel’s nomination is that he seems to have been chosen by Obama DESPITE is obvious lack of qualifications.
I guess Obama couldn’t find anybody with something resembling minimal qualifications for the job, while at the same time, being as anti-Israel as Hagel.
Obama is nothing more than a far-left liberal academia twit, with a healthy dollop of “f*** you whitey” thrown in for spice courtesy Rev. Wrong, among others. Beyond that, he is a Saudi lobby-supported and cultivated anti-Israel political cruise missile. His PRIMARY purpose for being installed as president, is to undermine Israel.
Obama has two main missions with respect to foreign policy:
1. Force a Saudi-style “peace” [read: surrender] plan down Israel’s throat.
2. Failing #1 above, isolate Israel in the manner of Rhodesia during the 70s, as a “racist, apartheid” state, so as to ensure her strangulation via economic and political boycotts as a pariah state.
What I’ve described above is the main reason Obama is president. The rest is mere detail.
Now that Obama doesn’t have to worry about re-election, he’s going to carry out a full court press against Israel. Hagel makes s very good henchman for this enterprise.
As long as Iran can be decisively dealt with – the big “if” here for Israel, particularly if this has to be done despite the lack of cooperation from the U.S. – Israel will be OK in spite of Obama. However, I expect that in the course of the next four years, Israel will be driven into the arms of China.
Many thoroughly anti-Obama, pro-Israel people with whom I communicate dismiss my predictions in this regard. I admit that there certainly are problems and risks for Israel if they align with China at the expense of the U.S.
But I would ask such people: In 1964, when the last Mirage III fighters were being delivered from France, who would have predicted then that in less than three years from that point in time, France would completely abandon Israel?
I give the U.S.-Israeli alliance less than a 40% chance of surviving the next four years.
As to Hagel, even if he doesn’t get in, remember that the real problem is not the nominee, it is the nominator. If Hagel is shot down, Obama will then proceed to nominate someone approximately as bad. He wants someone who agrees with him, and who does not represent any intellectual challenge to him (Hagel is perfect in this context, obviously).
Hagel has all the earmarks of a country bumpkin. Obama must be convinced that Hagel will function as a dutiful puppet when Obama pulls the strings. Hagel isn’t frightening. Obama is the frightening one. But most frightening is the American voter who brought Obama in – and if that isn’t quite correct; if the true numbers (which we never saw) indicate that he never really won, then we can add to the frightening aspect the Republicans for letting it happen.
Filthy fucking rat jews are satan in human form and you all will go down like the sub human cockroaches you are!