‘Death by a thousand cuts’ for Hagel nomination?
AP Photo
Note from Dan: Tom Callaghan is a lawyer, former semi-pro poker player and self-employed investor who was active in the movement to run Richard Nixon out of office back in the early 1970s. He lives in Washington, D.C., and he’s the brain behind the blog Wednesday Wars.
By Tom Callaghan
When Chuck Hagel walks through a metal detector at an airport, he sets it off. He carries shrapnel in his chest from wounds suffered from his service in Vietnam.
Now, multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson and the Right Wing of the Israel Lobby (RWIL), which he finances, are trying to defeat Hagel’s nomination to be Secretary of Defense by inflicting on him the slow death of a thousand cuts.
The RWIL does not have the votes in the Armed Services Committee or in the full Senate to defeat his nomination. Nor do they have the votes necessary to sustain a filibuster. Their only option is to prolong the process by having Republican members of the Armed Services Committee, hungry for Adelson cash, file requests for additional information. Information that has not been required of other nominees for Secretary of Defense.
The resulting delay gives the RWIL slime machine more time to throw as much of their product (outright lies, distortions, rumors and quotes from unnamed sources) against the wall to see if they can get any of it to stick.
It’s Washington at its absolute worst.
The problem the RWIL has with Hagel has nothing to do with the substantive votes he cast as a United States Senator from Nebraska. He consistently voted for the financial aid packages that enabled Israel to be the recipient of US taxpayer assistance, which exceeded all other countries … combined.
Hello?
READ THE REST OF THIS POST HERE.
February 11, 2013 - 6:00 AM
I just watched the first two episodes of “House of Cards”. The Hagel nomination maneuvering seems eerily similar to the show.
This is just despicable behavior and proves how low some partisans really are.
Nothing shows up the absolute venal hypocrisy of the GOP more than watching them pick apart one of their own. WTG, Republicans.
gee, i remember how the lib-dems treated Joe Lieberman not too long ago. I think “venal hypocrisy” is a cloak which both parties wear well.
I hope Hagel is not confirmed.
The party of `Tolerance` falters. T*^OL#ER+AN@C>E ..er HYP@OCR+I#TE@
Oh, also…real cute article on Wayne LaPierre. The people are just chomping at the bit to give up their guns now, I`m sure. Real News is everywhere but the RT just can`t seen to dig it up.
keep that slime machine slimy. a good coat of truth will help it stick!
Cute article? Seemed pretty balanced. Oh, wait, if it doesn’t portray him as a perfect infallible angel it’s biased.
Dick Cheney said “Obama’s picks for his cabinet are SECOND RATE PEOPLE – does any one remember SCOOTER LIBBY WHO WAS CONVICTED AND HAD TO PARDONED BY GEORGE “W” AS HE WAS LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE????? i HARDLY THINK SCOOTER LIBBY WAS A FIRST RATE CITIZEN!!!!
But it was OK to do it to Clarence Thomas. Right?
Sandi has obviously forgotten what happened to Clarence Thomas.
D’oh, that’s different when the dems are the ones doing it…..
This is simply tit for tat between Hagel and McCain. McCain is acting like the idiot he is, this is the guy who said Americans wouldn’t pick lettuce for $50 bucks an hour in his bid for the presidency and also responsible for picking a beauty queen pit bull for a running mate.
Oh yeah, let’s not forget his sky is falling panic by suggesting his presidential campaign be suspended when the economy burst during the last days of the Bush regime. Brilliant!
McCain needs to let go of his petty war against Hagel for supporting the obviously better candidate for president in ’08.
Obama deserves to have his cabinet. The GOP is determined to make sure they will never again win a national election with these partisan machinations. So be it.
I’m about to be 78 and perhaps my memory is not FIRST CLASS so when I heard DICK CHENEY’S COMMENT – OBAMA’S CABINET PICKS ARE SECOND CLASS – I REALLY ALMOST LOST IT. IF MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT THE GENEVA CONVENTION STATES THAT IF A COUNTRY ATTACKS A COUNTY THE ATTACKED COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO RETALIATE – SO I THINK (ALMOST SURE) THAT 17 OF THE HI-JACKERS ON 9/11 WHEN PLANES RAN INTO BUILDINGS WERE FROM SAUDI ARABIA – YET DICK CHENEY AND GEORGE W. BUSH MADE UP LIES ABOUT IRAQ AND INSTEAD OF ATTACKING SAUDI ARABIA ATTACKED IRAQ. MANY YOUNG AMERICAN SOLDIERS LOST THEIR LIVES AND SO DID MANY INNOCENT IRAQ PEOPLE. SOMEHOW THIS ACTION DOES NOT MAKE ME THINK THAT BUSH/CHENEY TEAM WERE “FIRST CLASS” POLITICANS.
“Dick Cheney said “Obama’s picks for his cabinet are SECOND RATE PEOPLE – does any one remember SCOOTER LIBBY WHO WAS CONVICTED AND HAD TO PARDONED BY GEORGE “W” AS HE WAS LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE????? i HARDLY THINK SCOOTER LIBBY WAS A FIRST RATE CITIZEN!!!!”
Cheney’s acting like Donald Trump, obviously desperate for attention.
Btw, he is a third-rater in the arena of gun safety. Just ask the hunting pal he shot up.
Terps, have you noticed that no person has come forward on Hagel, alleging that he has bragged about watching Long Dog Silver movies or erupting about pubic hairs on soda cans?
For what it’s worth, I don’t consider the Hagel brouhaha any kind of high-tech lynching (nor do I conclude that Thomas got one). It’s just more right-wing nonsense, and another example of Republicans eating their own.
Comparing Thomas to Hagel is desperation to the max. Thomas had a credible woman come forward and level charges, was Congress just supposed to look the other way? You people are unbelievable! In more ways than one.
Calling Bushs administration “second rate” would be kind.
Comparing Thomas to Hagel is desperation to the max. Thomas had a credible woman come forward and level charges, was Congress just supposed to look the other way? You people are unbelievable! In more ways than one.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 11, 2013 @ 4:01 pm
Sandi, I hope you are not in favor of making fidelity a requirement for politicians….or other high ranking officials. If so, we wouldn’t have had JFK, Bill Clinton or John Edwards…plus many from both sides of the aisle. We probably couldn’t fill the House and Senate.
From what I read, Hagel was quite unprepared and appeared uninformed. John Brennan was neither. He was very prepared, as I was able to see some of his testimony. That doesn’t guarantee his confirmation, but he was very well informed.
I heard the hearings, listened to the tortuous answers and “clarifications’” (not to mention the ad nausea “speeches” from senators (on both sides).
This is obama’s “leadership” choice, it’s his to make, and represents his beliefs. It is not like it is a SCOTUS nomination that lasts a lifetime; the most this can last is 4 years (I am guessing less). Any president making these “leadership” choices should be given pretty broad latitude.
“Comparing Thomas to Hagel is desperation to the max.” Not to mention a SCOTUS justice will serve on for possibly decades after the president leaves office. Comparing a cabinet appointment who will serve only during the presidents term to a SCOTUS justice who sits for life is just partisan and dumb.
16.Comparing Thomas to Hagel is desperation to the max. Thomas had a credible woman come forward and level charges, was Congress just supposed to look the other way? You people are unbelievable! In more ways than one.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 11, 2013 @ 4:01 pm
To add to that, there is no comparison between a lifetime appointee to the Supreme Court and a Presidential cabinet appointee whose time is limited, who serves at the pleasure of the President, and is responsible for carrying out policies in a manner prescribed by the President.
“Sandi, I hope you are not in favor of making fidelity a requirement for politicians….or other high ranking officials. If so, we wouldn’t have had JFK, Bill Clinton or John Edwards…plus many from both sides of the aisle. We probably couldn’t fill the House and Senate.
From what I read, Hagel was quite unprepared and appeared uninformed. John Brennan was neither. He was very prepared, as I was able to see some of his testimony. That doesn’t guarantee his confirmation, but he was very well informed.”
–Another Chuck
AC, fidelity was never the issue in the Thomas case. It’s a straw man to suggest that it was, unless you’re unaware of what transpired. It that case it is simple unawareness.
The issue was sexual harassment. Or perhaps “perceived” sexual harassment. Anita Hill had been Thomas’ underling in a federal agency. And her complaints basically amounted to the charge that he was creepy, trying to engage her in conversations about watching porn, and public hairs on coke cans.
I reckon that anyone who routinely engages colleagues about the satisfaction they derive from watching porn wouldn’t understand Hill’s beef. (Mind you, I’m not saying this is you). But most of the rest of us could.
And by the way, I’m kind of glossing over her complaints:
“According to Hill, during her two years of employment as Thomas’s assistant, Thomas had asked her out socially many times,[7] and after she refused, he used work situations to discuss sexual subjects.[5][7] “He spoke about…such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes” she said, adding that on several occasions Thomas graphically described “his own sexual prowess” and the details of his anatomy.[5] Hill also recounted an instance in which Thomas examined a can of Coke on his desk and asked, “Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?”[5]
Four female witnesses waited in the wings to reportedly support Hill’s credibility, but they were not called,[13][14] due to what the Los Angeles Times described as private, compromise deal between “aggressive, gloves-off” Republicans and the Senate Judiciary Committee Chair, Democrat Joe Biden.[15] According to Time magazine, one of the witnesses, Angela Wright, may not have been considered credible on the issue of sexual harassment because she had been fired from the EEOC by Thomas.[14]
Hill agreed to take a polygraph test. The results supported the veracity of her statements;[16] Thomas declined the test. He made a vehement and complete denial, saying that he was being subjected to a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks” by white liberals who were seeking to block a black conservative from taking a seat on the Supreme Court.[17][18] After extensive debate, the U.S. Senate confirmed Thomas to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52–48; the narrowest margin since the 19th century.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill#Clarence_Thomas_controversy
Sandi, yes, it’s be a long time since the CT hearings and I have forgotten all the details. I get the feeling that Clinton probably tweaked a few fannies around Washington in his day:)
Geez, the social injustice crowd still cannot get over black conservative Justice Thomas being on the Supreme Court. Stop posting the links and ignorant protests. Get over it, he’s a supeme court justice.
Bill Clinton, still the presumed titular head of the democrtatic party has already demonstrated that infedlity , sexual harassment, or tainted clothing and false truths are all okay.
As for Hagel,to all progressives alarmed and concerned, he is one of yours, not and never the conservatives fair haired boy, a true RINO. Continue fact checking his record, or perhaps you can cut and paste some links for our viewing pleasure.
Death by a thousand cuts ?? Was that a Nugent song??
I’d say we got over Thomas about as well as you folks are over Clinton. But your words could just be misleading. That happens a lot.
Mike3, lame post beginning to end. Fail.
Hey Sandi, for your edification, I am not a “folks”, I am simply an individual expressing my views on a blog. Last time I checked, you were not the moderator and quite possibly the least qualified person to call someone misleading.
I’d say we got over Thomas about as well as you folks are over Clinton. But your words could just be misleading. That happens a lot.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — February 11, 2013 @ 9:57 pm
Sandi, how were the words of Mike3 “misleading”? He didn’t stutter while typing, he expressed an opinion backed up by actual events and reality Have you considered that your words could be misleading? Sandi, despite your desires, this is not a liberal only blog. Furthermore, the continual belittling of people that disagree with you is sad.
Mike3,
Your post is misleading because it posits that “the social injustice” crowd cannot get over Clarence Thomas being on the Supreme Court, based upon things they posted about Thomas here.
Those were facts, and they were posted in response to non-facts. The nonfacts were either deliberate lies or careless inaccuracies by misinformed persons trying to equate the trouble Obama’s having with the Hagel nomination with the Clarence Thomas affair.
One poster, Another Chuck, suggested Thomas’ nomination problems had something to do with alleged adultery/infidelity, and, come on, aren’t we past that yet?
At the risk of sounding like a big, bad, old meanie, I would point out: That suggestion is absolutely contrary to the record. NONE, ZERO, NADA of Thomas’ problems had ANYTHING to do with alleged adultery or infidelity. The record is clear on this. They were ALL about alleged sexual harassment of subordinates, in particular, Anita Hill. I should note that it is unclear whether AC was deliberately altering history, or he was “misremembering” by accident. Either way, his suggestion is absolutely false.
It’s weird for you to suggest that rebutting a falsity = liberal angst over Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Seat more than 20 years after the fact.
If I wrote on here that a Tea Partyer shot Ronald Reagan (he was not shot by a Tper, btw) I would expect the RWers here to jump all over me for that. The libs would, too — not because it’s a wrong OPINION but because it’s obviously false and anyone with half a brain knows it.
Hey Sandi, looks like Dan thinks he’s still got your back but I will continue viewing your posts and responding to you and your liege that this is a blog and not your personal liberal sounding board. Way to go Dan, Keep defending your posse.
Dan,
Do you have a link to the corroboration of Anita Hill’s testimony against Clarence Thomas?
Why would anyone, Dem or Repub, want Hagel as Sec of Defense……someone who took his confirmation hearing so lightly and was so poorly prepared?
Hey, that you believe your lies is your problem. We are under no obligation to respect your falsehoods and disproved opinions. Calling the crap most of you post “misleading” was being kind.
Dan, did your read my follow up post to Sandi’s original comment:
Sandi, yes, it’s be a long time since the CT hearings and I have forgotten all the details. I get the feeling that Clinton probably tweaked a few fannies around Washington in his day:)
Comment by Another Chuck — February 11, 2013 @ 5:51 pm
That was an admission that I had forgotten the details regarding CT. So, everything you stated regarding me being misleading in the response to Mike3 was meaningless. It would be refreshing to see you, Sandi et al occasionally admit when you have misspoken!
Mike3 obviously had not read your comment, AC.
My comment was addressed to him, fyi. Not you.
Personally Phil, I think Hagel gave the hearings and the Senators all the due deference and effort they deserve.
Didn’t think you had any link to coroborate Anita Hill’s testimony.
Wrong as usual Bob H.
http://pittsburghurbanmedia.com/Clarence-Thomas-Ex-Expounds-on-Steamy-Memoir-Vindicating-Anita-Hill–Lillian-McEwen-The-DC-Unmasked–Undressed-Interview–with-Kam-Williams-/
If there was nothing to Anita Hill’s testimony, does anyone really believe that 20 years later, Thomas’s wife would be drunk-dialing her? As Alinsky tells us, hell hath no fury like a wife whose husband got called out on national tv for his suave attempts to seduce a co-worker.
Pittsburgh urban media ???? Are you kidding us ? That is the biggest crock of biased lying crap there is…even more so than the Huffington garbage, but guess who takes it in, hook, line, and sinker ? Well, if it ain`t Saunders…toting the Democratic wheelbarrow of lies and distortions…Maybe you could go to work for Wasserman-Shultz..you certainly having the lying down-pat.
Oh, and another juicy little fact. Since obama came into office, 65 MILLION + new firearms have been purchased. 65M MILLION +. Don`t beleive it ? Good.
Considering the “wheelbarrow” you are pushing applewood, I can see why you need to hide in anonymity and why you don’t know any better. Again attacking the source which was a simple Q&A interview and the book is still available is telling. The person lying would be the one you see in your mirror and the one who does not own his own insults, neither is me.
Did Pittsburgh urban media write the book, awood?
“Oh, and another juicy little fact. Since obama came into office, 65 MILLION + new firearms have been purchased. 65M MILLION +. Don`t beleive it ? Good.”
Applewood has a well-known problem with facts, but let’s assume in this case the number is true. This is “proof” that Obama is against guns, and wants to take them away? Ha! It sounds more like “proof” that he’s for them.
I push a wheelbarrow for NO-BODY ! Its because I beleive in a free market and not G`ment assistance. Thats the difference between us, Sandi. My thoughts are my own, not something I`m told to say by a particuler party. You are so deeply ensconced into the endoctrination that you don`t even know you are doing it. A mere puppet. You belong to `them`.You are their property to do with as they please, only to cast you aside when they gain the power they so richly desire. A stepping stone to their power and control…how must that make you feel ?
#44…Who cares what obama is for or against ? I`m merely stating a fact. I don`t care whether you believe it or not.
#46 “Who cares what obama is for or against ?” You certainly do, for one.
Try a little self-awareness awood, it would work wonders.