PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Hagel for Sec Def?


TonyR
01-07-2013, 01:02 PM
What makes Hagel so important, and so threatening to the Republican foreign-policy elite, is that he is one of the few prominent Republican-aligned politicians and commentators (George Will and Francis ***uyama are others, but such voices are rare) who was intellectually changed by Iraq. And Hagel was changed, in large measure, because he bore within him intellectual (and physical) scar tissue from Vietnam. As my former colleague John Judis captured brilliantly in a 2007 New Republic profile, the Iraq War sparked something visceral in Hagel, as the former Vietnam rifleman realized that, once again, detached and self-interested elites were sending working-class kids like himself to die in a war they couldn’t honestly defend. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/why-hagel-matters.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Why isn't Obama replacing Panetta with a Democrat? Simple: Of all the possible candidates, he trusts Hagel. Hagel was the head of Obama's intelligence advisory board, and was a frequent informal "red cell" brain that Obama privately turned to when he wanted a second opinion. He has been picking Hagel's brain on subjects as diverse as Afghanistan, China, special operations force posture, and intelligence for several years now. (Hagel has all the required clearances.) http://theweek.com/article/index/238422/why-hagel

SoCalBronco
01-07-2013, 01:06 PM
Good choice. Levelheaded and reasonable on foreign issues. Don't know if he has the votes tho.

bronc_fan23
01-07-2013, 01:11 PM
Wonder how much of his hearing will be about his devotion to Israel.....Because everyone in DC knows you must bow down to Israel before you can do anything of value in DC.

mhgaffney
01-08-2013, 01:14 PM
Good choice. Levelheaded and reasonable on foreign issues. Don't know if he has the votes tho.

For once I agree with SoCal.

mhgaffney
01-08-2013, 01:15 PM
His appointment -- if he makes it -- will help slow the momentum to another Mideast war.

orinjkrush
01-08-2013, 01:43 PM
Good choice. someone who has served his country in the trenches.

not a pussy politician who talks big and carries a little dick. (see GWB and Bill Klintron)

cutthemdown
01-08-2013, 02:58 PM
It made Iran happy how could that be good?

cutthemdown
01-08-2013, 03:03 PM
Obama is picking people he knows will be a fight. His whole goal right now is to keep the public thinking Repubs just disagree with anything he does no matter what. Not a bad plan. Repubs should probably just let them through after a bit of wrangling in the hearings.

peacepipe
01-08-2013, 03:45 PM
Obama is picking people he knows will be a fight. His whole goal right now is to keep the public thinking Repubs just disagree with anything he does no matter what. Not a bad plan. Repubs should probably just let them through after a bit of wrangling in the hearings.

Lol rethugs have no one to blame but themselves for that.It's not Obama's fault rethugs are so shortsighted.

Rohirrim
01-08-2013, 04:12 PM
I was listening to a respected historian the other day who said the the attack on Iraq will turn out to be regarded as the greatest strategic blunder in American history to date.

orinjkrush
01-08-2013, 07:48 PM
i'm thinking Afghanistan is a bigger blunder.

those who don't learn from history are doomed....

nyuk nyuk
01-17-2013, 08:45 PM
I was listening to a respected historian the other day who said the the attack on Iraq will turn out to be regarded as the greatest strategic blunder in American history to date.

Who is this respected historian?

peacepipe
01-17-2013, 08:52 PM
Who is this respected historian?

Hate to break the news to you,but you don't need to be a respected historian to know the Iraq war was a colossal **** up.

lonestar
01-17-2013, 09:05 PM
Wonder how much of his hearing will be about his devotion to Israel.....Because everyone in DC knows you must bow down to Israel before you can do anything of value in DC.

Hagel is not pro Isreal in the slightest.

lonestar
01-17-2013, 09:06 PM
Who is this respected historian?

I suspect he is a Msnbc ANAList.

lonestar
01-17-2013, 09:08 PM
Lol rethugs have no one to blame but themselves for that.It's not Obama's fault rethugs are so shortsighted.

Wow once again if you can't refute them call them names, or change the subject. Typical far left tactic.

cutthemdown
01-19-2013, 01:17 AM
Good choice. Levelheaded and reasonable on foreign issues. Don't know if he has the votes tho.

It's pretty rare for the President to not get his top cabinet picks. Can anyone remember the last president to not get the def sec or sos he wanted?

cutthemdown
01-19-2013, 01:19 AM
Repubs would be smart to give him all his cabinet picks for the top spots but keep fighting the judges. Then cave on the debt limit like they are and save the big fight for a yr or so when the midterm election season starts to heat up. Then hit Obama and the dems on not doing any cuts, raising the debt limit, spending more and coming after your guns. Maybe Repubs can do well in the midterms and shut Obummer down for good.

Rohirrim
01-19-2013, 07:54 AM
Who is this respected historian?

Here: Google this, "irag biggest strategic blunder"

Take your pick. We've got historians, professors of political science, retired generals, whatever.

Rohirrim
01-19-2013, 07:55 AM
Wow once again if you can't refute them call them names, or change the subject. Typical far left tactic.

Latest tactic of the Right: Blame Obama because he makes them insane.

lonestar
01-19-2013, 03:36 PM
Latest tactic of the Right: Blame Obama because he DESERVES IT .

fixed that for you.

TonyR
02-06-2013, 10:56 AM
We won’t know what the final confirmation vote tally will be, but by my count there are at least 20 Republicans that will definitely vote against Hagel and there are only two definite Republican yeas. Even if all of the remaining Republicans voted to confirm, that would still mean that nearly half of the Senators from Hagel’s own party are voting the other way. It isn’t surprising when the president’s opposition votes in large numbers against a nominee from the president’s party, but in this case Republicans are going out of their way to repudiate one of their own mostly because he is not enough of a jingoist and saber-rattler. Hagel will almost certainly be confirmed, but along the way Senate Republicans are confirming everyone else’s worst fears about their foreign policy views. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/report-hagel-confirmation-all-but-certain/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=report-hagel-confirmation-all-but-certain

cutthemdown
02-06-2013, 01:46 PM
Hagel was against the surge and if we had not done the surge then Iraq would have been a mess. He is against sanctions on Iran. He's on tape agreeing the America is a bully and he is anti israel. Yeah great pick. Obama will get his man but Hagel won't be a good sec of defense for anything but watching it get dismantled....oh wait thats the plan.

TonyR
02-06-2013, 02:04 PM
...he is anti israel...

Sigh. With this one comment you prove that you have no understanding of the issue and have bought in to all the BS.

peacepipe
02-06-2013, 02:07 PM
http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/21/myths-and-troop-surges/


Myth 1: The security gains from the surge in Iraq caused the population to turn against the insurgents. The history of the Iraq war shows that the troop surge in Iraq followed the grass-roots uprising in Al-Anbar province of the Sunnis against al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). The uprising, also known as the Awakening movement, began in September 2006 with Sheik Sittar albu-Risha.

AQI had overplayed its hand with its heavy-handed imposition of Shariah law and mistreatment of the residents of that majority-Sunni province. Such mistreatment included the summary executions of tribal leaders who opposed AQI and the forced marriages of their daughters to AQI fighters. Sheik Sittar organized a resistance movement that spread across the province and became the Awakening.

Mr. Bush announced the troop surge from the Oval Office on Jan. 10, 2007. The surge involved sending five more Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and their associated support, along with about 4,000 Marines -nearly 30,000 troops in all. The additional five BCTs would make for 20 BCTs deployed in Iraq.

On Feb. 11, 2007, Gen. David H. Petraeus took command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq

deployed. The other four BCTs deployed over the next five months. By July, the full surge force was in-country. Insurgent activity began to decline shortly thereafter.

Had there been no Awakening in 2006, the surge might have played out differently in 2007. The violence might not have declined, and Mr. Obama might not have the option of being able to consider shifting troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

cutthemdown
02-06-2013, 09:06 PM
Hagel said it would be the biggest blunder in our history. He said that not about Iraq war which he initially agreed with but about the surge.

He was 100% wrong because at worst the surge wasn't as big of a success as it seems. Maybe Bush did just get lucky with the Awakening as you call it. Either way though Hagel wrong.

I also don't like how he comes off as America has been heavy handed, like we somehow deserve some of the anti america bs we put up with.

cutthemdown
02-06-2013, 09:33 PM
Sigh. With this one comment you prove that you have no understanding of the issue and have bought in to all the BS.

Ok i will admit that is a bit of rhetoric. How about I take it back and just say he isn't as pro israel as i would like. Also I hate how he was against sanctions on Iran, that is crazy to me. Whatever though its obvious you will support whoever Obama throws out. I loved his pick of Kerry he seems perfect for that job. But Lew for treasury sec? people realize he came up with sequester right? he took tarp money at citibank and paid himself a big fat salary to lose money.

I have serious questions with lew and hagel but love the Kerry for SOS.

Tell me why Lew and Hagel make such great choices taking into consideration the fact Hagel is against sanctions on Iran and Lew has his record at Citibank and with the idea of sequester.

Rohirrim
02-07-2013, 05:52 AM
Hagel said it would be the biggest blunder in our history. He said that not about Iraq war which he initially agreed with but about the surge.

He was 100% wrong because at worst the surge wasn't as big of a success as it seems. Maybe Bush did just get lucky with the Awakening as you call it. Either way though Hagel wrong.

I also don't like how he comes off as America has been heavy handed, like we somehow deserve some of the anti america bs we put up with.

You have your head so firmly planted in the sand, it's just remarkable.

cutthemdown
02-07-2013, 03:48 PM
You have your head so firmly planted in the sand, it's just remarkable.

Your head is so far up your ass you need a glass stomach to see where your goin.

He this is fun but nothing to do with the fact Hagel has said some troubling things. He will get endorsed by the Senate but really its just more crappy cabinet choices for Obama.

TonyR
02-15-2013, 09:27 AM
The impressive thing about the anti-Hagel effort is how politically tone-deaf it is. It’s not just that their opposition is misguided, but they stand to gain nothing from it. No one outside of a small core of hard-liners sympathizes with what Senate Republicans are doing. While they may not be losing any votes over this, they are making sure that all of the moderates, independents, and realists that they have alienated over the last ten years will keep running away from them. Except for dedicated partisans, no one can look at the display most Senate Republicans have put on over the last eight weeks and conclude that these people should be in the majority. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/senate-republicans-make-a-spectacle-of-themselves/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=senate-republicans-make-a-spectacle-of-themselves

BroncoBeavis
02-15-2013, 09:45 AM
You have your head so firmly planted in the sand, it's just remarkable.

http://freebeacon.com/arab-american-group-wont-release-hagel-tape/

Among the requested materials: the full text and details of several speeches Hagel failed to report to the Senate Armed Services Committee that have since been uncovered.

Fox News Channel on Tuesday reported on two speeches Hagel failed to disclose as requested, including one given in 2008 to the annual conference of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

The ADC is a controversial nonprofit whose conference last year featured speakers prominent in the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement targeting Israel. The 2012 conference also featured an award presentation celebrating an author whose essays include one titled, “Zionism is a form of racism.”

The ADC also has not disclosed the full video of Hagel’s 2008 speech, while refusing to release its tax records as required by federal law.

A reporter for the Free Beacon went to the ADC’s office on Tuesday to request the video, as well as the organization’s most recent Form 990, which lists financial and donor information and which nonprofits must present upon in-person request.

However, ADC Vice President Nabil Mohamad told the Free Beacon that the video was in an “archive” in Maryland and not available. He also declined to provide the group’s 990.

And as we've seen from that Tebow thread a speaker is directly responsible for the views of those he speaks to. LOL

cutthemdown
02-15-2013, 12:33 PM
Republicans won't actually hold this up forever. Hagel will be Def Sec because tradition dictates a president gets to choose his his cabinet. Only a small handfull have actually been denied.

This is more about freshman republicans making a point. At some point though I bet he goes through.

Does anyone doubt there is a reason he left 2 speaches to the most controversial audience out of it? He probably said something really inflamatory.

peacepipe
02-15-2013, 02:26 PM
Hagel getting filibustered is quite absurd,all cause rethugs wanna get even for hagel speaking out against GWB. Saying what everybody know,that GWB is the worst president since Hoover.
McCain admitted as much in an interview with fox.

BroncoBeavis
02-15-2013, 04:11 PM
Hagel getting filibustered is quite absurd,all cause rethugs wanna get even for hagel speaking out against GWB. Saying what everybody know,that GWB is the worst president since Hoover.
McCain admitted as much in an interview with fox.

Yeah, what happened to the good old days when a nominee could hop around on the Islamist speaking circuit, do a little innocent Jew baiting here and there, lie about it during Senate hearings and still cruise to easy nomination. LOL

peacepipe
02-15-2013, 07:23 PM
Yeah, what happened to the good old days when a nominee could hop around on the Islamist speaking circuit, do a little innocent Jew baiting here and there, lie about it during Senate hearings and still cruise to easy nomination. LOL

No surprise you're one of the dumb ones believing the BS about hagel.

cutthemdown
02-15-2013, 08:35 PM
Meanwhile Russian bombers armed with nukes buzzed Guam. Obama really needs to worry about his foreign police. Hagel IMO is a bad choice because he is too soft.

Seriously in the last 6 months N Korea launched a missle over 3000 miles, detonated a nuke and the Russians buzzed Guam with bombers most military experts agree are the ones they have carrying nukes. Obama better nut up and not go Jimmy Carter on us. Drones can't solve all his problems.

lonestar
02-15-2013, 10:04 PM
No surprise you're one of the dumb ones believing the BS about hagel.

No surprise that you do not.

Amazing concept that far left loons do not have a clue other than what their bullet points tell them.

The guy is on record, actual video of it and you call it BS.


Aahahahahahahahaha.

cutthemdown
02-15-2013, 11:58 PM
I'm sure Hagel a good American. Not like you have to love Israel to be that. He can probably do this job also it's just he said some stupid things you don't say if you want to be defense secretary but maybe he never considered he would be getting a job like that.

In any event not like he hasn't served his country his whole life.

Still i question the reason Obama picked him. Is it to be a whimp, let Iran get a nuke, placate and stall the American people caring about the issue. Or is hagel the walking softly with Iran and Obama will carry the big stick.

lonestar
02-16-2013, 01:22 AM
I'm sure Hagel a good American. Not like you have to love Israel to be that. He can probably do this job also it's just he said some stupid things you don't say if you want to be defense secretary but maybe he never considered he would be getting a job like that.

In any event not like he hasn't served his country his whole life.

Still i question the reason Obama picked him. Is it to be a whimp, let Iran get a nuke, placate and stall the American people caring about the issue. Or is hagel the walking softly with Iran and Obama will carry the big stick.

Hell the only stick carrying nobama is doing is at the Floridian with Tigers old coach. Wonder if his caddy will be white or black.

Hagel is a loser.

peacepipe
02-16-2013, 08:10 AM
No surprise that you do not.

Amazing concept that far left loons do not have a clue other than what their bullet points tell them.

The guy is on record, actual video of it and you call it BS.


Aahahahahahahahaha.

Please post it,the unedited versions. Hagel would've been McCain's sec. Of state if not for losing in 2008.
It's all BS,McCain came out yesterday & said it was all about hagel speaking out against GWB,the iraq war and bucking the rep party in previous years. The rep party is exercising personal vendetta.

elsid13
02-16-2013, 08:33 AM
Meanwhile Russian bombers armed with nukes buzzed Guam. Obama really needs to worry about his foreign police. Hagel IMO is a bad choice because he is too soft.

Seriously in the last 6 months N Korea launched a missle over 3000 miles, detonated a nuke and the Russians buzzed Guam with bombers most military experts agree are the ones they have carrying nukes. Obama better nut up and not go Jimmy Carter on us. Drones can't solve all his problems.

You do realize that Russian have been doing that since 2007? See link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/09/russia.sorties.reut/index.html

And buzzing Guam isn't a big deal, if it serious they would not be able to get close to island because we would shot them done.

elsid13
02-16-2013, 08:38 AM
I'm sure Hagel a good American. Not like you have to love Israel to be that. He can probably do this job also it's just he said some stupid things you don't say if you want to be defense secretary but maybe he never considered he would be getting a job like that.

In any event not like he hasn't served his country his whole life.

Still i question the reason Obama picked him. Is it to be a whimp, let Iran get a nuke, placate and stall the American people caring about the issue. Or is hagel the walking softly with Iran and Obama will carry the big stick.

Obama picked him because he trust his judgement and his advice. For the last 4 years he been serving as the chair of President's Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligent Oversight Board. Meaning he has helped shape US foreign policy and actions.

cutthemdown
02-16-2013, 11:27 AM
Obama picked him because he trust his judgement and his advice. For the last 4 years he been serving as the chair of President's Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligent Oversight Board. Meaning he has helped shape US foreign policy and actions.

Thats scary because Obamas foreign policy is a disaster IMO. Our relationship with Russia is at a low. Egypt a mess, Libya a mess, Syria a mess, Afghan surge a failure, no progress for Palestinians and Israel.

Whats his biggest foreign policy win? Leaving iraq I guess but that was all Bush jr and his sucessfull surge. A surge Hagel said would be a huge blunder and was against.

cutthemdown
02-16-2013, 11:29 AM
You do realize that Russian have been doing that since 2007? See link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/09/russia.sorties.reut/index.html

And buzzing Guam isn't a big deal, if it serious they would not be able to get close to island because we would shot them done.

Let me ask you this. Did N Korea have a sucessfull launch of a long range missile capable of hitting the USA under any President other then Obama?

peacepipe
02-16-2013, 01:17 PM
You do realize that Russian have been doing that since 2007? See link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/08/09/russia.sorties.reut/index.html

And buzzing Guam isn't a big deal, if it serious they would not be able to get close to island because we would shot them done.

In cuts mind everything started when Obama got elected. NK didn't start there nuclear program until Jan. 21 2009,it's Obama's fault the people of Egypt rose up against a dictator.

Cuts problem is his hero GWB is easily the worst president when it came to domestic & foreign policy. He talks about the surge in Iraq as if it was the entire war,when all the surge was was a attempt by GWB administration to fix the COLLOSAL **** UP that was the Iraq war.

lonestar
02-17-2013, 12:50 AM
Obama picked him because he trust his judgement and his advice. For the last 4 years he been serving as the chair of President's Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligent Oversight Board. Meaning he has helped shape US foreign policy and actions.

Considering the hilited area that in its self is enough to disqualify him.

Our foreign policy has been going into the crapper more ever day since nobama has been in charge.

And RINO is is name.

lonestar
02-17-2013, 12:53 AM
Thats scary because Obamas foreign policy is a disaster IMO. Our relationship with Russia is at a low. Egypt a mess, Libya a mess, Syria a mess, Afghan surge a failure, no progress for Palestinians and Israel.

Whats his biggest foreign policy win? Leaving iraq I guess but that was all Bush jr and his sucessfull surge. A surge Hagel said would be a huge blunder and was against.

:thumbs:

Your pissing into the tide with the far left loonies.

I had not seen this post when I said much the same thing. Again :thumbs:

elsid13
02-18-2013, 10:21 AM
Let me ask you this. Did N Korea have a sucessfull launch of a long range missile capable of hitting the USA under any President other then Obama?

They haven't proven they have the capability yet. Yes they have the lift technology (like most modern countries do) but there to more creating offense ballistic system then that.

cutthemdown
02-18-2013, 12:09 PM
They haven't proven they have the capability yet. Yes they have the lift technology (like most modern countries do) but there to more creating offense ballistic system then that.

Like most modern countries do? No most countries can not launch a missile 3000 plus miles. Also N Korea no modern they are a military dictatorship stuck in the past.

They are getting close and Obama needs to do something about it. They have 1 step left Elsid. The time of saying oh they are so far away has come and gone.

W*GS
02-18-2013, 12:36 PM
They are getting close and Obama needs to do something about it. They have 1 step left Elsid. The time of saying oh they are so far away has come and gone.

What does Obama do, then?

Nuclear attack?

cutthemdown
02-18-2013, 01:23 PM
What does Obama do, then?

Nuclear attack?

I'm waiting for our president to tell me what he is going to do. Mongo only pawn in game of life. Are you telling me a nuclear attack is the only think you see as possibly working?

cutthemdown
02-18-2013, 01:24 PM
So you can see how N Korea such a mess. Let Iran test a nuke and now you have same situation in the Persian Gulf. Obama better make some hard decisions. Worry about gay marraige, preschool, immigration and get some short term wins, or worry about the future of the world and make some tough decisions.

peacepipe
02-18-2013, 01:30 PM
So you can see how N Korea such a mess. Let Iran test a nuke and now you have same situation in the Persian Gulf. Obama better make some hard decisions. Worry about gay marraige, preschool, immigration and get some short term wins, or worry about the future of the world and make some tough decisions.

If only gwb had taken your advice & had dealt with NK,instead of BSing us into the iraq war.You act as if NK started there nuclear program just last week.

W*GS
02-18-2013, 02:20 PM
I'm waiting for our president to tell me what he is going to do. Mongo only pawn in game of life.

Write him and tell him what you think he ought to do. Quit being so passive.

Are you telling me a nuclear attack is the only think you see as possibly working?

You tell me what Obama ought to do.

cutthemdown
02-18-2013, 10:38 PM
Write him and tell him what you think he ought to do. Quit being so passive.



You tell me what Obama ought to do.

You tell me what he should do you voted for him.

cutthemdown
02-18-2013, 10:40 PM
If only gwb had taken your advice & had dealt with NK,instead of BSing us into the iraq war.You act as if NK started there nuclear program just last week.

And Clinton and Bush JR. You are right presidents have ben passing the buck on this. Now we have Obama who can either let Iran join the club, do nothing about N Korea, or he can formulate some sort of plan.

Instead he talks about gay marraige. He's the QB now. Thats like blaming Griese for Manning not getting it done.

W*GS
02-19-2013, 10:01 AM
You tell me what he should do you voted for him.

He's still your President even if you didn't vote for him.

You're just chickening out.

peacepipe
02-19-2013, 11:29 AM
And Clinton and Bush JR. You are right presidents have ben passing the buck on this. Now we have Obama who can either let Iran join the club, do nothing about N Korea, or he can formulate some sort of plan.

Instead he talks about gay marraige. He's the QB now. Thats like blaming Griese for Manning not getting it done.
There's more to do than just deal with Iran & NK. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Just cause he isn't out there giving NK all his attention publicly,doesn't mean nothing is getting done behind the scenes.
Clinton got the ball rolling with dealing with NK,GWB ignored the problem,and now Obama is dealing with it.

mhgaffney
02-19-2013, 03:30 PM
America Shamed Again: A Colonized People

By Paul Craig Roberts

February 18, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - Americans have been shamed many times by their elected representatives who cravenly bow to vested interests and betray the American people. But no previous disgraceful behavior can match the public shame brought to Americans by the behavior of the Senate Republicans in the confirmation hearing of Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense.

Forty Senate Republicans made it clear that not only do they refuse to put their service to America ahead of their service to Israel, but also that they will not even put their service to America on a par with their service to Israel. To every American’s shame, the Republicans demonstrated for all the world to see that they are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Israel Lobby. (The Israel Lobby is not their only master. They are also owned by other powerful interest groups, such as Wall Street and the Military/Security Complex.)

The most embarrassing behavior of all came from the craven Lindsay Graham, who, while in the act of demonstrating his complete subservience by crawling on his belly before the Israel Lobby, dared Hagel to name one single person in the US Congress who is afraid of the Israel Lobby.

If I had been Hagel, I would have written off the nomination and answered: “You, Senator Graham, and your 40 craven colleagues.”

Indeed, Hagel could have answered: The entire US Congress, including Rand Paul who pretends to be different but isn’t.

The real question is: Who in the Congress is not afraid of the Israel Lobby?

The hatchet job on Hagel is driven by fear of the Israel Lobby.

Perhaps the worst affront Israel’s American representatives ever inflicted on the US military was the coverup of the Israeli air and torpedo boat attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. The Israeli attack failed to sink the Liberty but killed and wounded most of the crew. The survivors were ordered to silence, and it was 12 years before one of them spoke up and revealed what had happened (James Ennes, Assault On The Liberty). Not even Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could get Washington to own up to the facts.

The facts are now well known, but as far as Washington is concerned they are dead letter facts. The entire event has been moved to some parallel universe.

Why are the Senate Republicans out to destroy Hagel for Israel?

The answer is, first, back when Hagel was a US Senator he refused to be intimidated by the Israel Lobby and declared, “I am a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator.” In other words, Hagel did the impermissible. He said he represented US interests, not Israel’s interests. Hagel’s position implies that the interests of the two countries are not identical, which is a heresy.

The second part of the answer is that Hagel doesn’t think that it is a good idea for the US to start a war with Iran or for the US to permit Israel to do so.

But a US war with Iran is what the Israeli government and its neoconservative agents have been trying to impose on the Obama regime. Israel wants to get rid of Iran, because Iran supports Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon, thus preventing Israel from annexing that territory and its water resources, and because Iran supports Hamas, the only Palestinian organization that tries to oppose Israel’s total theft of Palestine, although Iran has never supplied Hamas with effective weapons.

The two organizations that oppose Israel’s territorial expansion, Hizbollah and Hamas, represent large numbers of Arab peoples. Nevertheless, both are declared, on Israel’s orders, to be “terrorist organizations” by the servile US Department of State, which in all reality should be called the Israeli Department of State, as it never puts US interests before Israel’s.

In other words, Hagel did not grovel. He did not say how much he loved Israel and how it would be his great honor to sacrifice all other interests to Israel’s, how he has waited his entire life for the chance to serve Israel as the US Secretary of Defense.

Hagel is not an opponent of Israel. He merely said, “First, I am an American.” His lack of craven subservience is unacceptable to the Israel Lobby, which has branded him an “anti-semite.”

Lindsay Graham, in contrast, has what it takes to be Israel’s perfect choice for US Secretary of Defense.

Graham will go out of his way to please the Israel Lobby. He will pull out all stops and behave with maximum servility to a foreign power in his effort to embarrass the President of the United States and his nominee, a war veteran and former US Senator who simply thinks that the US Congress and the executive branch should put American interests first.

Senate Majority Leader Reid has used Senate rules to keep Hagel’s nomination alive.
If Lindsay Graham succeeds in doing the Israel Lobby’s dirty work, he will have handed a defeat of the US President to the Israeli Prime Minister, who has demeaned the President of the United States for not doing Israel’s bidding and attacking Iran.

Americans are a colonized people. Their government represents the colonizing powers: Wall Street, the Israel Lobby, the Military/Security Complex, Agribusiness, Pharmaceuticals, Energy, Mining, and Timber interests.

Two elected representatives who tried to represent the American people--Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich--found representative government to be an inhospitable place for those few who attempt to represent the interests of the American people.

Like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Gerald Celente, I stand with our Founding Fathers who opposed America’s entanglement in foreign wars. In an effort to prevent entanglements, the Founding Fathers gave the power to declare war to Congress. Over the years Congress has gradually ceded this power to the President to the extent that it no longer exists as a power of Congress. The President can start a war anywhere at any time simply by declaring that the war is not a war but a “time-limited, scope-limited, kinetic military action.” Or he can use some other nonsensical collection of words.

In the first few years of the 21st century, the executive branch has invaded two countries, violated the sovereignty of five others with military operations, and has established military bases in Africa in order to counteract China’s economic penetration of the continent and to secure the resources for US and European corporations, thus enlarging the prospects for future wars. If the Republicans succeed in blocking Hagel’s confirmation, the prospect of war with Iran will be boosted.

By abdicating its war power, Congress lost its control of the purse. As the executive branch withholds more and more information from Congressional oversight committees, Congress is becoming increasingly powerless. As Washington’s war debts mount, Washington’s attack on the social safety net will become more intense. Governmental institutions that provide services to Americans will wither as more tax revenues are directed to the coffers of special interests and foreign entanglements.

The tenuous connection between the US government and the interests of citizens is on its way to being severed entirely.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following.

mhgaffney
02-19-2013, 03:34 PM
Lindsey Graham's performance really was disgraceful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1xSY-g0Ghk&feature=player_embedded

To answer his question -- the US has done many "dumb things" at the behest of the Israeli lobby: attacking Iraq in 2002 is an obvious example.

W*GS
02-19-2013, 03:43 PM
Yep, gaffe - them damn Jews is the cause of all our problems.

cutthemdown
02-19-2013, 10:36 PM
Now Obama trying to make it seem like sequester was the repubs idea. Ooops had to admit when pressed no that idea came from the White House.

The real problem is Dems only really willing to raise taxes. They have no intention of cutting any spending. They don't even have the will to cut defense as much as the sequester calls for. Dems trying to pass this off as anything but a failure of Obama to lead is just election type partisan BS. Meanwhile in the real world you won but don't seem to really want to tackle the big problems. Liberals are great for getting ******s into the foxholes though.

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 08:39 AM
Yep, gaffe - them damn Jews is the cause of all our problems.

Well, he and Chuck appear to be of one mind on ze problem of ze Joos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/19/hagel-israel-heading-toward-apartheid/

peacepipe
02-20-2013, 10:02 AM
Well, he and Chuck appear to be of one mind on ze problem of ze Joos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2013/02/19/hagel-israel-heading-toward-apartheid/

So let's get this straight,Jennifer Ruben,a right-wing con.,writing a story based on baseless innuendo out of free bacon. The crap that the right considers news these day is Hilarious!

peacepipe
02-20-2013, 10:09 AM
Now Obama trying to make it seem like sequester was the repubs idea. Ooops had to admit when pressed no that idea came from the White House.

The real problem is Dems only really willing to raise taxes. They have no intention of cutting any spending. They don't even have the will to cut defense as much as the sequester calls for. Dems trying to pass this off as anything but a failure of Obama to lead is just election type partisan BS. Meanwhile in the real world you won but don't seem to really want to tackle the big problems. Liberals are great for getting ******s into the foxholes though.

LOL, yes a sequester that was forced by reps taking the debt ceiling hostage.

BTW,Republican house leader john boehner said this about the sequester: "I got 98% of what I wanted in the sequester" a sequester that 173 house reps voted for.

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 10:32 AM
So let's get this straight,Jennifer Ruben,a right-wing con.,writing a story based on baseless innuendo out of free bacon. The crap that the right considers news these day is Hilarious!

Written long before Chuck was ever nominated, so why would it be made up? We all know if this were a GW nominee, the press would be scouring the planet for more evidence (like this) of a nominee's borderline-antisemitism. Since their guy's in though, they're covering their heads, hoping nothing more comes out that they might be forced to cover.

Needless to say, the important stuff is all in broad daylight. Anyone who expects Israel to negotiate peace with Hamas is likely either an idiot or anti-Israel (or both) No sanctions on Iran? Chuck doubled down on insanity.

peacepipe
02-20-2013, 10:40 AM
Written long before Chuck was ever nominated, so why would it be made up? We all know if this were a GW nominee, the press would be scouring the planet for more evidence (like this) of a nominee's borderline-antisemitism. Since their guy's in though, they're covering their heads, hoping nothing more comes out that they might be forced to cover.

Needless to say, the important stuff is all in broad daylight. Anyone who expects Israel to negotiate peace with Hamas is likely either an idiot or anti-Israel (or both) No sanctions on Iran? Chuck doubled down on insanity.
If all this innuendo had any real truth to it hagel wouldn't be getting the votes necessary to become sec. of def. It's all a smear campaign based on rethugs getting their feelings hurt.
McCain & others have all said that hagel will get voted in.

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 10:45 AM
LOL, yes a sequester that was forced by reps taking the debt ceiling hostage.

BTW,Republican house leader john boehner said this about the sequester: "I got 98% of what I wanted in the sequester" a sequester that 173 house reps voted for.

Please. Obama volunteered a deadline on the next round of kick the can. At some point, someone had to stop the game when it costs a trillion bucks a kick. If not now, when?

cutthemdown
02-20-2013, 10:46 AM
LOL, yes a sequester that was forced by reps taking the debt ceiling hostage.

BTW,Republican house leader john boehner said this about the sequester: "I got 98% of what I wanted in the sequester" a sequester that 173 house reps voted for.

What happened in the real world was this. Obama would not make any cuts to spending and wanted to raise taxes. A bipartisan commission was created to look for ways to cut spending and raise revenue. They could not come to an agreement because repubs would not raise taxes without spending cuts. While dems would gladly raise taxes without spending cuts.

So the whitehouse realizing that the liberals would not agree to cut any spending floated the idea of sequester. Repubs saw it as finally something that in the end will lead to cuts in spending. Either through an agreement or through the sequester.

If Obama gets a budget through with spending cuts then sequester is averted. If not then sequester happens. The liberals though are still refusing to make any cuts they have to take responsibility for.

Even though dems in power they still refuse to accept the mantle of leadership when it comes to the budget. They have taken the lead on social issues but that is it.

So here we are facing sequester. It was Obamas idea and his leadership has failed the country.

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 10:53 AM
If all this innuendo had any real truth to it hagel wouldn't be getting the votes necessary to become sec. of def. It's all a smear campaign based on rethugs getting their feelings hurt.
McCain & others have all said that hagel will get voted in.

Oh he'll probably get in. But he wouldn't if he'd been nominated by GWB. The Jewish Lobby/State Department stuff would've been the end. And it would've been media driven.

peacepipe
02-20-2013, 11:06 AM
What happened in the real world was this. Obama would not make any cuts to spending and wanted to raise taxes. A bipartisan commission was created to look for ways to cut spending and raise revenue. They could not come to an agreement because repubs would not raise taxes without spending cuts. While dems would gladly raise taxes without spending cuts.

So the whitehouse realizing that the liberals would not agree to cut any spending floated the idea of sequester. Repubs saw it as finally something that in the end will lead to cuts in spending. Either through an agreement or through the sequester.

If Obama gets a budget through with spending cuts then sequester is averted. If not then sequester happens. The liberals though are still refusing to make any cuts they have to take responsibility for.

Even though dems in power they still refuse to accept the mantle of leadership when it comes to the budget. They have taken the lead on social issues but that is it.

So here we are facing sequester. It was Obamas idea and his leadership has failed the country.

Dems have no issues with having some spending cuts,but any deal is going to have to include revenue.

cutthemdown
02-20-2013, 11:19 AM
Dems have no issues with having some spending cuts,but any deal is going to have to include revenue.

You just raised taxes and repubs went along with it. How many times do you have to raise tax? And why do you want loopholes closed for oil who actually do something for the country but have no problem with facebook paying 0 tax and getting loopholes up the ass?

You just raised payroll tax and income tax on rich families. Revenue has been increased. And you got a debt limit raise also in there for a bit of time. Now its time to make some cuts and come through with your end of it.

Then after the dust settles maybe some more deals can be made on certain loopholes in the tax code, the corp tax being lowered, a territorial tax being considered etc.

Ridiculous Peace be reasonable and say he repubs caved on some taxes, lets give them some cuts and avoid sequester.

Then when the next battle looms both sides try and get something again.

cutthemdown
02-20-2013, 11:23 AM
whats funny is things i have been talking about. A territorial corp tax system was talked about by Obama a bit in State of the Union. Really its a huge huge issue and at the root of our biggest problem. How to react to this new economy where the world is the stage. Our companies are making money overseas, paying tax overseas, using loopholes and exemptions to then leave the money overseas.

How do we get some of that revenue back to the USA, some of it into th govt tax coffers, without making it impossible for our corporations to compete with China and Europe. The election is over its time to come back to sanity and find points from both sides to make deals and move forward. Obama not really doing that he decided he wants to cash in political capital and go for the throat with his left wing agenda.

He's no Bill Clinton, Reagan, or even Bush SR or JR when it comes to compromise and doing whats right for our economy. He pushes ideology over economic progress.

cutthemdown
02-20-2013, 11:25 AM
Dems have no issues with having some spending cuts,but any deal is going to have to include revenue.

Seriously in CA we had sales tax go up, a millionaires tax, then also all Obamas tax raising. We seriously can't survive anymore taxing.

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 11:33 AM
Dems have no issues with having some spending cuts,but any deal is going to have to include revenue.

They already did revenue (taxes) with 0 cuts attached. The sequester was put in place as a compromise to balance the increases that already happened.

Last time, Obama essentially said, "we'll put a deadline on making future cuts so you guys can agree to these tax increases now. Then we'll figure out how to make cuts before the sequester deadline."

Now he wants to ignore the deadline he set to pretend like he's starting all over again with the first round of tax increases off the table. It can't work that way. Either Obama can propose or support a plan to replace the cuts he already agreed to, or he can watch them take effect.

And they're really not all that significant anyway.

peacepipe
02-20-2013, 11:45 AM
They already did revenue (taxes) with 0 cuts attached. The sequester was put in place as a compromise to balance the increases that already happened.

Last time, Obama essentially said, "we'll put a deadline on making future cuts so you guys can agree to these tax increases now. Then we'll figure out how to make cuts before the sequester deadline."

Now he wants to ignore the deadline he set to pretend like he's starting all over again with the first round of tax increases off the table. It can't work that way. Either Obama can propose or support a plan to replace the cuts he already agreed to, or he can watch them take effect.

And they're really not all that significant anyway.
Whatever dude,revenue is going to have to be a part of the deal,all rethugs agreed to last time was not to let all the gwb tax cuts to expire.

cutthemdown
02-20-2013, 11:53 AM
They already did revenue (taxes) with 0 cuts attached. The sequester was put in place as a compromise to balance the increases that already happened.

Last time, Obama essentially said, "we'll put a deadline on making future cuts so you guys can agree to these tax increases now. Then we'll figure out how to make cuts before the sequester deadline."

Now he wants to ignore the deadline he set to pretend like he's starting all over again with the first round of tax increases off the table. It can't work that way. Either Obama can propose or support a plan to replace the cuts he already agreed to, or he can watch them take effect.

And they're really not all that significant anyway.


Yeah Obama just needs something to blame the **** economy on. Bush is getting old, Congress getting old, he will now blame the sequester.

LOL he got his tax raise and still he's not happy.

peacepipe
02-20-2013, 11:58 AM
All that is going on here is that rethugs know they'll get the blame when the sequester goes into affect. They are in the weaker position & are trying to navigate their way out of it by trying put all the blame on Obama.
Let's not forget on 03/27/13 rethugs are going to try to use the threat of a gov. Shut down to get what they want. After that it's the debt ceiling all over again. Rethugs will get the blame for it, whether it be the shut down,sequester or debt ceiling. The sequester is probably the least damaging of the three cause it will take roughly a month to feel the affects of the sequester.
At the end of the day,Rethugs will cave. Likely just before the 27th.

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 02:12 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57329146-503544/obama-pledges-to-veto-effort-to-undo-automatic-spending-cuts/

"Already some in Congress are trying to undo these automatic spending cuts. My message to them is simple: No," Mr. Obama said from the White House briefing room Monday evening. "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending."

From November, 2011. So we have the President going from threatening to Veto any REMOVAL of the sequester during negotiations, to now blaming Republicans for what'll happen if they take effect.

What a shell game.

TonyR
02-20-2013, 02:31 PM
...he will now blame the sequester.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/20/the-powerpoint-that-proves-it-s-not-obama-s-sequester-after-all.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-gops-astonishingly-bad-message-on-sequester-cuts/article/2522040

BroncoBeavis
02-20-2013, 03:05 PM
2011 Obama: "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending.""

2013 Obama
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-sequester-consequences-20130219,0,5234924.story

Emergency responders such as police and firefighters would see their disaster response degraded, he said. Border patrol agents would have their hours reduced.

FBI agents will be furloughed and federal prosecutors “will have to close cases and let criminals go,” Obama said, while teachers are laid off and many Americans lose access to preventive care including cancer screenings.

Should we have believed him in 2011, or yesterday?

cutthemdown
02-20-2013, 06:50 PM
Peace Obama got his raised taxes and now has to come through on some cuts. Besides liberals should want the sequester you finally get defense spending cut which you all blame for the poor economy.

Whats the problem? You got taxes raised, you got defense cut, you got the wars ended, you should be really happy right now.

TonyR
02-28-2013, 11:33 AM
The right’s core problem with Hagel wasn’t his alleged anti-Semitism. From Jerry Falwell to Glenn Beck to Rupert Murdoch, conservatives have overlooked far more egregiously anti-Jewish statements when their purveyors subscribed to a hawkish foreign-policy line. The right’s core problem with Hagel was that he had challenged the Bush doctrine. Against a Republican foreign-policy class that generally minimizes the dangers of war with Iran, Hagel had insisted that the lesson of Iraq is that preventive wars are dangerous, uncontrollable things. “Once you start,” he warned in 2010, “you’d better be prepared to find 100,000 troops.”

The point isn’t that Hagel “favors” containment and deterrence. Like virtually everyone else, he’d much rather Iran not get a bomb. But by reminding Americans of the potential costs of preventive war, Hagel was implying that containment and deterrence might be preferable. He was suggesting that if the U.S. can’t stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons short of war, it should make the same tradeoff that Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy made when they allowed the Soviet Union and China to get the bomb. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/27/what-the-hagel-fight-was-all-about.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

peacepipe
02-28-2013, 12:11 PM
Peace Obama got his raised taxes and now has to come through on some cuts. Besides liberals should want the sequester you finally get defense spending cut which you all blame for the poor economy.

Whats the problem? You got taxes raised, you got defense cut, you got the wars ended, you should be really happy right now.
What Obama got was a permanent tax cut for 98% of the country. This country can't afford
To continue with bogus loopholes in our tax code for the one percenters.

mhgaffney
02-28-2013, 12:41 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/27/what-the-hagel-fight-was-all-about.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

Hagel is not anti semitic --

The issue is that he opposes a war with Iran -- which is blasphemy to the Zionists and Israel lobby.

It's why they attacked him and opposed his nomination to be Sec of Defense.

MHG

TonyR
02-28-2013, 12:43 PM
The issue is that he opposes a war with Iran --

Yes, and this was exactly the point of what I posted.

cutthemdown
02-28-2013, 02:29 PM
What Obama got was a permanent tax cut for 98% of the country. This country can't afford
To continue with bogus loopholes in our tax code for the one percenters.

Don't give me that socialist BS 1% crap. The problem is the corp rate needs a territorial system so corporations like the oil companies, like GE, the few big ones that reap the rewards of the loopholes will have a better incentive to bring offshore profits home to the USA.

You just don't get it because you are wrapped up in thinking Obama is telling you the truth that rich people are the problem. The problem is the president and his anti-energy, anti-corp, anti-rich, anti-small govt agenda.

peacepipe
02-28-2013, 02:49 PM
Don't give me that socialist BS 1% crap. The problem is the corp rate needs a territorial system so corporations like the oil companies, like GE, the few big ones that reap the rewards of the loopholes will have a better incentive to bring offshore profits home to the USA.

You just don't get it because you are wrapped up in thinking Obama is telling you the truth that rich people are the problem. The problem is the president and his anti-energy, anti-corp, anti-rich, anti-small govt agenda.
Dumbass , they go over seas cause they want to pay a poor sap in china $2 a week. The gwb tax cuts were in place 10 ****ing yrs & corp. Shipped jobs overseas by the thousands during that time. Why the **** would you want to reward a corp. For shipping jobs overseas.

mhgaffney
03-01-2013, 05:19 PM
What The Hagel Victory Means

By Stephen M. Walt

March 01, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - "Foreign Policy" - I suspect a lot of people would like to believe Chuck Hagel's confirmation as secretary of defense shows that Obama has broken the back of the Israel lobby and will now move U.S. Middle East policy in a direction that would be better for us, better for Israel, better for the Palestinians, and maybe even better for the entire region.

Don't count on it.

It is of course a very good thing that the Senate confirmed Hagel. He had excellent credentials for the job, had done nothing to disqualify himself, and to have been denied the post on the basis of the lobby's slander would have been truly disheartening. And there's no question that the antics of the Emergency Committee for Israel (note: for Israel, not the U.S.), the Washington Free Beacon, Elliot Abrams, Ted Cruz, Jennifer Rubin, et al. ultimately did more harm to themselves than to Hagel. They revealed both their preference for innuendo over facts and their belief that support for Israel matters more than any other aspect of U.S. defense policy. As I've noted before, their behavior merely confirmed what some of us have been saying for a very long time, and they did so center-stage with the spotlight on. Very gratifying indeed.

But it would be a huge mistake to conclude that the lobby's clout has been broken and that Obama will now be free to chart a new course. For starters, the behavior of several senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee shows that they are still mightily beholden to groups like AIPAC and extremist Christian Zionists, not to mention some unrepentant neoconservatives. Chuck Hagel was about as bulletproof a candidate as one could ask for (decorated war hero, defense and intelligence expert, successful businessman, respected ex-senator, etc.) and that didn't stop these zealots from unloading the SIOP against him. The fact that they ultimately failed is important, but so is the fact that they could even make an issue of it. The lobby failed to stop Ronald Reagan from selling AWACs to Saudi Arabia in 1981, but they made him work really, really hard to get the deal through and he never took them on again.

One should also remember that Obama has basically been caving in to the lobby ever since 2009, which tells you something about its clout. It's true that he doesn't have to run for reelection again. But most of those Congressmen do, and they aren't going to back him up if he tries to play hardball with Netanyahu. The annual aid package to Israel will be approved like clockwork, which means Obama won't have many levers to use if he needs to push both sides toward a peace deal.

And that's why I previously argued that you aren't going to see a big Middle East peace push during the second term. Sure, Obama might let John Kerry see what he can accomplish. But Netanyahu will just stiff him, and Obama won't do anything about it. The Palestinians are still divided and too weak to negotiate a fair deal, and conditions throughout the region are hardly propitious for compromise. If Obama is looking for a legacy, in short, the Middle East is not the place to find it. And I suspect he knows that.

Which is not to say that there isn't good news here. The pro-peace, pro-two state lobby J Street's support for Hagel was vindicated, and that's likely to win them greater access going forward. (I mean, who really wants to be in the company of the smear artists who went after Hagel?) Hagel's confirmation and the lobby's defeat diminishes the push for war with Iran -- which is a good thing -- and might encourage the administration to formulate a negotiating strategy toward Tehran that has some prospect of success (as opposed to the dead-on-arrival offers we've been making so far). And it certainly doesn't hurt for politicians in Washington to be reminded that the lobby doesn't win every time.

But the bottom line is that no powerful interest group disappears after a single defeat. Even when a lobby doesn't get its way, it can gain a partial victory by making the winning side pay a price, and by reminding everyone that it can still make trouble. And that was the lobby's real strategy here. They probably knew that Hagel was likely to be confirmed, for the simple reason that he was a well-qualifed candidate whose patriotism was beyond question. Their aim instead was to deter future administration from nominating people who weren't lobby-certified, and to discourage ambitious young foreign policy professionals from doing or saying anything that might put the lobby's crosshairs on them.

In short, so long as opportunistic rabble-rousers like Ted Cruz believe that pandering to the lobby is the smart political play, Capitol Hill will remain supine, the executive branch will be constrained, and U.S. Middle East policy will be about as successful as its been for the last couple of decades.

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.