GSO/Guilford Pols

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

« The show must go on | Main | Ukiyo-e »

Jan 07, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017c35689d36970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Peeance freeance:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

prell

Assuming he makes it to confirmation, it will be interesting, if not fascinating, to watch conservative Republicans eat one of their own on national television - a decorated combat veteran to boot.

justcorbly

Hagel's sin, in the eyes of Kristol, etc., is that he was less than 100 percent of a lip-syncing conservative drone on each and every day of his stay in the Senate. Independent thought threatens their orthodoxy. That, and the fact that the man they hate nominated him, is more than enough to stir their frigid little hearts.

They don't particularly care who runs DOD or CIA. They care that they've got themselves a new club to swing around.

David Wharton

There are plenty of good reasons not to like Hagel.

Hartzman

Why did Japan bomb Pearl Harbor?

Why did Hitler invade Russia?

Was Mohammad Mosaddeq overthrown in Iran for oil?

All the same thing only different.

bubba

"There are plenty of good reasons not to like Hagel."

....none of which really matters when it interrupts the favored selective narrative at this blog.

Roch

Bubba, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought your views on gays in the military aligned with Hagel's. No?

bubba

"Bubba, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought your views on gays in the military aligned with Hagel's. No?"

How is that relevant to the comment I made above, and the general topic of this thread?

Andrew Brod

Bubba doesn't seem to think that his opinion about Hagel is relevant to a thread about Hagel.

And I think most would agree with that.

bubba

"Bubba doesn't seem to think that his opinion about Hagel is relevant to a thread about Hagel."

Hagel's views on gays and the military have little to do with the likely impact a Hagel appointment to be Secretary of Defense would have on this nation. That's the reason for my reply to Roch.

The material presented in David Wharton's link does matter, but no one here (including you, apparently) seems to think any of those items listed in that article pose any impediment to Hagel's appointment.

As usual, there's no big surprise in understanding that.

bubba

In addition, Hagel's nomination stands a chance of dying in committee.

The comments to this entry are closed.