House GOP Budget Cuts are Obscene Starting with Defense Endangering our National Security

From National Security to funding programs for the poor, today's Republicans in Congress want to cut everything yet they call themselves Christians?  They don't care about a child who might be subject to lead paint -- it is not the responsibility of the Federal Government.  Guess they better go read the real version of the Preamble to the Constitution not the conservative one.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

National Security has always been a huge part of my adult life from the first day after the 4th of July when I went to work for the Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB.  Made lifelong friends over the years and with our family being moved around the Country by Air Force Materiel Command know people in various parts of the Country.  We all used to be Reagan conservatives and now we won't vote for a Republican today if they paid us after what they are doing to this Country by putting the wishes of the wealthy donors first.

There is no better example of the hard headed, stubborn, sold out to Koch Bros wing of GOP then the Defense budget from the worst House of Representatives in my lifetime and maybe ever.  Bunch of do-nothing primma donnas who have the backbone of a jellyfish.  Look at this defense budget and ask yourself who are those people who are willing to risk our national security?  The answer is simple with the Libertarian Koch Bros taking over the Republican Party and sending it harder right.  Libertarians are not big on defense as we have seen from Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the Senate.

No wonder that hard right anti-national security group didn't want Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense as he knows where the bodies are buried and not afraid to go toe to toe with the spineless GOP which he has repudiated for several years.

Senior Pentagon leaders offered a sober assessment Thursday of the impact of automatic spending cuts on the military, arguing that they are embarrassing and unsafe for the United States while imploring a stymied Congress to stop them. 

Defense hawks on the House Armed Services Committee joined in the hand-wringing over the reductions although many of the lawmakers voted two years ago for the budget law that set the cuts in motion and have consistently resisted Pentagon cost-saving proposals such as closing domestic military bases and raising health care fees. 

The hearing with Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Adm. James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represented a Washington version of "Groundhog Day" – defense officials sounding the alarm, lawmakers bemoaning the effect and nearly all agreeing that no resolution was in sight. 

"I would love to see it fixed, but I don't see it fixed. I don't see the will to get it fixed," Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., told reporters after the hearing. "I think it's a huge game of chicken with tremendous consequences." 

Across the Capitol, senators were even more blunt as they voted for a nearly $600 billion defense spending bill for fiscal year 2014 that ignores the limits of the spending cuts. 

"We screwed ourselves here," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. "And somebody in this body on the Republican and Democratic sides need to find a way to work with our president to undo this. Not just for sequestration sake, but for the long-term interests of the country."

Senator Graham (R-SC) is 100% correct.  He and John McCain are some of the few GOP left who believe both sides should work together for all Americans and stop this obstruction that is hurting our Country and its people.

As for Buck McKeon (R-CA),  Chairman of Armed Services,  Northrup-Grumman must not be taking any cuts on this defense budget since it is well known that he is not the most honest Chairman that has headed Armed Services.  It has been well known in defense circles that he is one of Northrup's 'boys' in the House.  How else can you account for Lockheed-Martin having to accept Northrup-Grumman on the F-35 when they bring nothing to the table.  Go way back with NG when they tried to bribe my husband years ago when we were in SoCal at Norton AFB to steer a contract their way -- he immediately resigned from Source Selection and told the Chair why so it wouldn't taint the choice.

On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel presented the worst-case scenario for the U.S. military if the Pentagon is forced to slash more than $50 billion from the 2014 budget and half a trillion over 10 years as a result of congressionally mandated cuts. 

The reductions would come on top of $487 billion that President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans agreed to in August 2011. 

Among the dire prospects, the Navy would drop from 11 carrier strike groups to eight or nine, the lowest number since World War II. The Army would be at levels not seen since 1940, with cuts of more than 100,000 additional soldiers. 

The service is already planning to go from a wartime high of about 570,000 to 490,000 soldiers by 2017. The current plan to reduce the size of the Marine Corps to 182,000 from a high of about 205,000 could also be changed, cutting it to as few as 150,000 Marines.
The Air Force could lose as many as five combat air squadrons as well as a number of other bomber and cargo aircraft. 

The old Republican Party would have stood up for the Defense Department and said enough is enough that DoD cannot sustain these types of cuts.  Today's Libertarian Republican Party which played so long to the hard right they are now in charge is all about making sure the wealthy donors get their demands met and screwing the rest of the Country.  Military, women, veterans, poor, senior citizens, minorities, etc. are all supposed to take the hit on funding while the wealthy get their breaks and keep their money rolling in they can put it off shore.

The perfect example of the convoluted GOP thinking in the House comes from the GOP Head of Appropriations, Hal Rogers (R-KY).  Would someone please tell me why a Congressman who knows full well a bill is bad for his district in Kentucky would still vote for that draconian bill?  Is it because he knows it is DOA.  How about getting some backbone and voting NO for a change and for the people of his district?  Tired of this lockstep voting by some GOP when they know the bills are bad.  Who are they taking the orders from today -- donors or constituents?  Looks to those of us on the outside it is the donors hands down.

The Koch Bros through their various arms plus the NRA and Chamber of Commerce who only speak for the wealthy and gun owners are hurting this Country on a daily basis by putting their agendas over the average American.  Rogers needs to grow a pair and stand up when it comes time to vote not just talk about how bad the budget bills are from the Republicans.  Tell leadership he is voting NO and see others who are not hard right join with him to start defeating the hard right agenda.  His constituents deserve a NO vote on the budget:

Even the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee thinks Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget goes too far. 

On Thursday night, Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) — who represents the second poorest Congressional district in the country — told a local Kentucky station that he will vote for the House Republican budget. But, he said, he will do so reluctantly, since he believes the proposal “cuts too much,” especially given how much Republicans have slashed discretionary spending in the last two years:

“I’ll be voting for it. It’s not exactly to my liking. There are a lot of things that I’m not happy with, including the overall big number,” he said. “It cuts too much spending, frankly, from the discretionary side of the budget. Most people don’t realize that we only appropriate 1/3 of federal spending … and we’ve cut that by $100 billion over the last two years.“

The Ryan budget certainly has a terrible effect for Rep. Rogers’ constituents living in poverty. It would make drastic changes to Medicaid, turning the program into a block grant system that wouldn’t keep up with growing healthcare costs or inflation. The plan similarly block grants food stamp spending, leading to cutbacks in the thousands for families that rely on nutrition assistance. Other safety net program would feel the brunt of the Ryan budget too, while corporations and the rich would enjoy huge tax breaks. 

And Rogers is right to break from the Republican narrative that ignores spending cuts that have already happened and are likely to hurt economic growth. Since the 2011 fight over the budget — and including the fiscal cliff and the debt ceiling debate — the US has cut nearly $1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade.

You want to know why Rogers said NO to the Ryan budget?  Read how they planned to cut programs and ask yourself how anyone could possibly vote for this group of Republicans who don't care about the poor and less fortunate.  Think Progress has put a list together of cuts that Hal Rogers and other Republicans couldn't stomach but yet are still voting for the entire bill.  Makes no sense when you read the cuts the the House GOP want:

1. Cut community development grants in half: The Community Development Block Grant program provides states and local communities with annual grants for a variety of purposes, such providing affordable housing, creating job programs, environmental clean up, and other community development needs. These grants were slated to be cut nearly in half, receiving less than $1.7 billion, which would have been a more than $1.4 billion cut. As Brian Beutler reported, such a cut “los[t] a lot of Republicans who care about their districts.” 

2. Eliminate a program that funds infrastructure: The House appropriations bill would have completely eliminated Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grants, which are used to invest in road, rail, transit, and port projects. The program proved incredibly popular, receiving $9 billion in applications this year despite only having $474 million to dole out. It also comes at a time when the U.S. desperately needs to invest in infrastructure, as the country’s roads, bridges, and rail lines got a mere D+ grade from the American Society of Civil Engineers. Communities would have lost over $200 million they were expecting to receive come the fall. 

3. Slash spending on removing lead from homes: The House bill would have reduced the Healthy Homes & Lead Hazard Control program, which removes lead from homes and prevents children from poisonous exposure, by more than half compared to the decreased level it gets under sequestration. It would have only allocated $50 million to the program, compared to $114 million under the sequester. Half a million children have elevated levels of lead in the blood, which is linked to lower IQs and learning disabilities. Meanwhile, every dollar spent on controlling the exposure to lead returns anywhere from $17 to $221 in health and other societal benefits. 

4. Underfund homelessness assistance programs: The bill would have funded Homeless Assistance Grants at $2 billion, below both President Obama’s request and the Senate’s version. This level wouldn’t be enough to fund all of the Continuum of Care grant renewals this year, which help fund shelters for the homeless, youths, and domestic violence survivors. This would mean 25,000 people would likely be left homeless. 

5. Decrease spending on the Federal Aviation Administration: Congress will still remember when sequestration-related furloughs hampered air travel, leading to outrage and a scramble to action from policymakers to ease the cuts. Yet the House appropriations bill would spend $775 million less than the Senate’s version the agency, less than even sequestration levels, which could make it harder for it to keep up with increasing demand for air travel.

In one fell swoop this bunch of Republican scrooges want to cut services, cut benefits to the poor and homeless, cut jobs, and add in the FAA with more cuts which was allowed to move money for airline safety.  Since they don't care about removing lead paint that could hurt children, why would they care about air travel being safe?

Chuck Hagel is Sworn in as Secretary of Defense

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Addresses the Military and Civilians of the Department of Defense this Morning: The speech given by Secretary of Defense Hagel left no doubt about the direction of the Pentagon under his watch (see transcript below).  Terrific speech by the new Secretary of Defense who is going to put the men and women of our military first along with their families.

Hagel Takes Office as 24th Defense Secretary By Cheryl Pellerin American Forces Press Service  WASHINGTON, Feb. 27, 2013 – Just before his private swearing-in ceremony as the 24th secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel and his wife, Lilibet, arrived at the Pentagon this morning and were greeted by Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Thomas D. Waldhauser, military assistant to the secretary of defense. Hagel said hello to waiting members of the Pentagon press corps as he hurried up the steps of the Pentagon’s river entrance. From there, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little and other defense officials accompanied him into the building.  Family members and his immediate office staff attended the ceremony, during which Hagel was sworn in by Director of Administration and Management Michael L. Rhodes.  Hagel then hosted the daily senior staff update meeting attended by DOD civilian and military leaders.  In a statement released after Hagel’s Senate confirmation yesterday, Little said the new secretary received congratulatory phone calls from his predecessor, Leon E. Panetta, congressional leaders, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki. In his conversation with Secretary Shinseki, Little added, Hagel “indicated his desire to meet as soon as possible to continue and deepen the strong partnership between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs on common priorities for serving our troops, veterans and military families."  After the staff meeting, Hagel will speak to service members and civilian Defense Department employees in the Pentagon Auditorium. The address will be covered live on the Pentagon Channel. It’s scheduled to start at 10:30 a.m. EST.  This afternoon, Hagel will meet with the service secretaries and attend meetings at the White House.  Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden said in a statement that he’d traveled across the world with Hagel and has seen him in action in the U.S. Senate.  “Wherever he is, his talent and dedication to our country are clear. He feels a deep commitment to our men and women in uniform, and as the head of the Pentagon, I know their interests will always be close to his heart,” Biden said.  “Most importantly,” he added, “I know the president will be able to rely on Chuck’s sound, unvarnished judgment on any issue where our troops are involved. For that and many more reasons, I’m looking forward to working with Secretary Hagel.” Transcript of Secretary of Defense Hagel Speech this Morning from Defense.gov: Pentagon All-Hands Meeting As Delivered by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, The Pentagon, Wednesday, February 27, 2013 Sergeant Wirth, thank you.  I am honored to be introduced by anyone today but I'm particularly honored to be introduced by Sergeant First Class Wirth.  He’s a typical Nebraskan:  good looking, smart, great patriot, many other virtues.  My warmest regards to Shannon and your mother in Vermillion, South Dakota.  She deserves all of the credit for producing a family like yours:  patriots, people who give to their country selflessly.  Everyone in this audience and people around the world are doing that, have done that, and will continue to do that…  Gordon, Nebraska, is where Sergeant First Class Wirth is from.  It's a little town up in the northwestern part of the state.  My family and I lived in that county, Sheridan County, for five years.  My brother, Tom, and I, who were in Vietnam together, served side-by-side, actually, for 10 months of our 12-month tours, we had our tonsils out together back in the '50s, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth.  And I don't know if it was a two-for-one deal, but it was the only hospital in three counties, Gordon, Nebraska.  So I wouldn't say I have fond memories of Gordon, but nonetheless, thank you.  And thank you all for what you are doing and have done, will continue to do for our country.  And I also want to address, of course, the people all over the world who continue to help make our country safe, keep it strong, and make America the great nation and the tremendous force for good that America is.  I want to also acknowledge much of our leadership in this institution who are here today. Specifically, we have the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, who was here, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.  We've got the Chief of Staff of the Army.  He makes me shake a little, being an old Army Sergeant.  But the Sergeant Major of the Army scares the hell out of me, but I think he does the General, too, actually.  And all of you who are so important to our country, thank you.  A couple of hours ago, I took the oath of office to become the 24th Secretary of Defense.  It's a great honor.  It's a privilege.  Yes, for me, my family, but to be part of your team, who you are is the honor.  That's the great privilege.  You're not joining my team;  I'm joining your team.  And I want you to know how proud I am of the opportunity the President of the United States has given me and the Congress of the United States has given me.  And I will tell you what I told the President, as I told the Congress, that I will do everything in my power to be the kind of leader that you expect and you deserve, also, the kind of leader the country expects and deserves.  We are living in a very defining time in the world.  You all know that.  It's a difficult time.  It's a time of tremendous challenge.  But there are opportunities.  And I think it's important that we all stay focused, obviously, on our jobs, on our responsibilities, which are immense, but not lose sight of the possibilities for a better world.  If there's one thing America has stood for more than any one thing, is that we are a force for good.  We make mistakes.  We've made mistakes.  We'll continue to make mistakes.  But we are a force for good.  And we should never, ever forget that, and we should always keep that out in front as much as any one thing that drives us every day. As difficult as our jobs are with the budget and sequestration -- I don't need to dwell on all the good news there -- that's a reality.  We need to figure this out.  You are doing that.  You have been doing that.  We need to deal with this reality.  We've got ahead of us a lot of challenges.  They are going to define much of who we are, not this institution only, but our country, what kind of a world our children are going to inherit.  I mean, that's the big challenge that we have.  That's the bigger picture of the objective for all of us.  Yes, it's difficult.  But it's also pretty special.  I mean, when you think about generations and how many generations have had an opportunity to be part of something great, as difficult as this is, with everything, challenges coming at us, different kinds of challenges, cyber issues, you know all of them.  But we can really do something pretty special for our country.  I've said to the Congress, the President, as Secretary of Defense, I will do everything I can to ensure the safety, the well-being, and the future of you and your families. And I want to mention for a moment families.  I think the families are always in a difficult spot, maybe the most difficult spot, because they are left behind.  They're dealing with a lot of uncontrollable s   And we are doing our job, and that consumes us, and that's good.  But the families have a tough time.  And it's also important for you to know that I'm committed to -- and I've told the president this, the Congress -- to assuring that every person in the Department of Defense, associated with the Department of Defense, civilian or military, is absolutely treated fairly, honestly, equal benefits, everything that each of you do should be dealt with on a fair and equal basis, no discrimination anywhere in any way.  I've always believed that America's role in the world is one that -- and we've had variations of this throughout history -- has been one that should engage the world.  We can't dictate to the world, but we must engage in the world.  We must lead with our allies.  Allies are -- as everyone in this room knows -- particularly important.  No nation -- as great as America is -- can do any of this alone.  And we need to continue to build on the strong relationships that we have built.  I think what my friends and my predecessors, Bob Gates, Leon Panetta, have done, build on that foundation, not just within our institutions here about teamwork, which I have noted, but teamwork with allies.  We renew old alliances.  We reach out and find new alliances based on the common interests of people.  There will be differences.  And we have great power, and how we apply our power is particularly important.  That engagement in the world should be done wisely.  And the resources that we employ on behalf of our country and our allies should always be applied wisely.  The world looks to America for leadership.  You know, it's interesting, when you look at the turbulent times that we are going through in this country, the one institution that still maintains astounding credibility and confidence and trust in this country is this institution, the military and all those associated with it.  Gallup runs polls every year, and they take the 15 largest institutions in America.  The military's way up here.  Well, there's a reason for that.  The reason is, essentially, what you have done.  You earn confidence.  You earn trust.  It isn't given away, nor should it ever be given away.  You've done that through your sacrifices.  And we don't want to squander that.  And we can use that to rebuild all the necessary institutions we have to deal with here in our country and the world.  The world can look to this institution as an institution they can have confidence in and trust.  I will do everything within my power to continue to build on to what Secretaries Panetta and Gates have begun to build and what you all are beginning to build. As I said earlier in another meeting, leadership is a team business.  It isn't about the leaders.  It's about the team.  It is about the team.  Everybody plays a role in that.  This morning, after I was sworn in, I went over and spent a little time at the 9/11 Memorial in the park, the chapel, and reflected a bit on what happened on that day in 2001.  I was on Capitol Hill at the time.  Everyone in this room remembers where you were at 9:37 in the morning on September 11th, 2001.  And I surely remember exactly where I was.  But in Churchill's words long ago, that was a “jarring gong,” the event, that set in motion dynamics that we are living with today.  You go back almost 22 years ago -- as Chairman Dempsey noted this morning in a meeting, 22 years ago tomorrow, in 1991, February 28th, the end of Desert Storm.  If you take those two events and start charting this, not unlike history, you start to see a picture emerge of different kinds of threats, new threats, and there will be more new threats.  And it gives you some dimension when you back up a little bit and understand this, not that any of us, I don't think, are smart enough to know it all or figure it all out, but it gives us some dimension of what's going on in the world.  The world is at such an uncertain time.  Our budget problems here, meaning -- if nothing else, what we're dealing with, what you're dealing with, what we're all dealing with is, yes, dollars coming down, but it's the uncertainty of the planning, it's the uncertainty of the commitments, the uncertainty of what's ahead. People are always the most important resource of any institution.  You all know that.  You always take care of your people, always take care of your people first.  And you all have done a tremendous job of that, partly one of the reasons why this institution is so highly valued, trusted by the American people, because you take care of your people.  And, again, I say to you, I will do everything within my power as Secretary of Defense to be worthy of you and to be worthy of this country and to do everything I can to make sure our people are taken care of, their families, our veterans.  One of the proudest times in my 12 years in the United States Senate is when friend, former Vietnam veteran Jim Webb, who's spent a little time in this building over the years, he and I co-authored the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.  I was very proud of that, having nothing to do with me.  I was proud of that because we were able to get two World War II veterans, John Warner and Frank Lautenberg, Democrat, Republican, Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, two Vietnam veterans, Democrat, Republican, we got together, and we got the votes, and we passed the bill. Now, that's the way things should work for our country, because the objective was not to give Jim Webb or Chuck Hagel or anybody any credit or a party, but the objective was to do something for the country, to do something for the people who sacrifice and who serve and who deserve this kind of attention and this kind of recognition.  And I say that because much of my life has been about doing everything I could in some way to help veterans and their families, whether it was chairing the Agent Orange payment program, whatever it was, and I'm proud of that.  I'm more proud of that than any businesses or anything else I've been involved in.  And I'm proud of my background.  I'm proud of my career, like you all are.  But nothing makes me prouder, has ever made me prouder than my association with the military and the veterans.  Well, again, to you, each of you in this room, those of you who are watching this around the world, I say to you:  Thank you.  Again, I say thank you to you for your service, your sacrifices, and I will do everything I can to be worthy of Sergeant First Class Wirth and his family and everybody in this building.  I look forward to working with you.  You'll always know that you have a Secretary of Defense that will deal straight with you, I'll be honest, I'll be direct, I'll expect the same from you.  I'll never ask anyone to do anything I wouldn't do.  I'll never ask anybody to do more than I would do.  That's the story of your lives.  I wouldn't be worthy if that was not the case.  Again, thank you for this tremendous opportunity.  I am very proud to be on your team. Now I've got to go to work.  Thank you.  The tone has been set at the Department of Defense with the new Secretary of Defense Hagel who has the support of former Secretary of Defense Panetta and Gates, Generals, Secretary of States and the men and women of our military along with veterans. Even today, Senator Lindsey Graham had to make a snarky remark: Republicans had opposed their onetime colleague, casting him as unqualified for the job, hostile toward Israel and soft on Iran. The objections remained strong well after the vote.  "I continue to have serious questions about whether Chuck Hagel is up to the job of being our secretary of defense," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement. "I hope, for the sake of our own national security, he exceeds expectations." Senators Graham, Inhofe, and Cruz lost a lot of credibility with the Hagel nomination substituting innuendos for facts and even outright lies out of Cruz.  What bothers me the most about Graham is that he is a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve so he is talking about his boss.  Time for him to retire with the attitude he has against the new Defense Secretary who is now his Commander in Chief.   During the hearing Graham acted very demeaning/condescending towards Hagel who was an infantryman in Vietnam. Is Graham saying with his venom a former enlisted should never be Secretary of Defense? There are so many people I know who believed that Chuck Hagel is the right man to be Secretary of Defense.  Their take was the Senators opposing him are still mad that Obama was reelected and has the right to choose his own cabinet.  That anger/hate at Obama for beating Romney may be the real story of today's obstructionist Republicans in the House and Senate who are putting Party and wealthy donors/corporations over what is good for the American people.  A lot of today's Republicans in Congress have so much hate toward the President they don't care if they tank our economy but naively think the American people will support them.  We won't! Key question is what did Romney promise Inhofe and Graham for them to act like spoiled brats who didn't get their way?  Winner of this fight was Chuck Hagel and the men and women of the Department of Defense - Losers are the Republican Senators, Big Defense, and Israeli Americans who lobby the Senate on behalf of Israel.

Inhofe Leads "Filibuster" Against Secretary of Defense Hagel - Cloture Vote on Friday Morning

"It is tragic that they have decided to filibuster this qualified nominee," said Reid. "It is really unfortunate."

There is no better example of Republicans in the Senate putting Party over Country then the fact at noon tomorrow, Secretary of Defense Panetta officially leaves office which means the Department of Defense will not have a permanent Secretary of Defense, but acting.  Republicans should be ashamed with their attacks on Hagel especially on Benghazi which he had nothing to do with but they are trying to score political points against President Obama.  This group of cowards who are afraid of a Tea Party primary challenge don't deserve to be reelected to the Senate ever again if they vote to continue the filibuster when you read the following:

NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

A meeting of NATO on Afghanistan and we have no permanent Secretary of Defense thanks to the obstructionist Republicans who keep opposing Obama on everything.  This is one more obstruction in a long list that has a lot of Republicans saying they will not support or vote for a Republican in 2014 including this one.

Majority Leader Reid weighs in on the GOP Filibuster of Chuck Hagel showing the hypocrisy of Senate Republicans once again:

Senate Majority Leader Says ‘It’s Tragic’ GOP Is Filibustering Hagel

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he has scheduled a cloture vote for Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary for Friday morning. 

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, Reid lambasted Republicans for their “unprecedented” obstruction on Hagel (this is the first time in the history of the United States that a president’s nominee for Defense Secretary has been filibustered). “It’s shocking,” Reid said, “that my Republican colleagues would leave the country without a fully empowered Secretary of Defense during all the things that we have going on in the world including a war”: 

REID: I have heard speeches from the other side a lot saying, “you know the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants.” He has the support of this body, a majority vote in this body in this democracy. We are a nation, Mr. President, at war. We are whether we like it or not the world’s indispensable leader. We’re it. For the sake of our national security it’s time to put aside this political theatre and that’s what it is. 

People are worried about primary elections. We know how the Tea Party goes after Republicans when they aren’t conservative enough. Is that something they need to have on their resume? “I filibustered one of the president’s nominees.” Is that what they want? The filibuster of Senator Hagel’s confirmation is unprecedented. I repeat. Not a single nominee for Secretary of Defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered. Never, ever!

“We need a Secretary of Defense,” Reid said later. “It’s tragic that they’ve decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. It is really unfortunate.” Watch the clip: 

Senate Democratic aides are reportedly saying they may not have enough votes to break the filibuster while some are reporting that there are enough votes for cloture, but the actual vote on Hagel’s nomination won’t take place until after the recess.

However, NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan. “We need our new defense secretary to be there,” a White House spokesperson said today, calling the GOP obstruction “unconscionable” and adding, “It does not send a favorable signal for the Republicans of the U.S. senate to delay a vote. …It’s difficult to explain to our allies why that’s happening.”

Congress is going on a week's recess next week for President's Day which is one day.  They have been back in DC for six weeks and already need a week off?  Sequestration coming up on March 1st and they take next week off?  The 112th Congress was the most do nothing Congress in modern times but the 113th is starting out worse.  The House GOP may be the laziest group of Representatives ever as they were on vacation last year more than they worked.  Guess a week's recess is more important then confirming a Secretary of Defense or working to avoid Sequestration?

Why are GOP Senators filibustering Chuck Hagel when it makes the Republican Party look nastier and spoiled sports after they lost the election.  The way this group of GOP in the Senate is going, they will never win the White House unless they move back to the center right after all of their lies and innuendos against President Obama and now his cabinet picks.  Inhofe has gone so far as to say he doesn't think Obama should be picking the Defense Secretary.  Talk about stupid - it sounded like he was inferring that Obama was not smart enough to pick his own cabinet.  Obama won the Presidency by 5 million votes but Republicans refuse to acknowledge with winning elections comes being able to choose your own people which Inhofe and other Republicans refuse to acknowledge.

Majority Leader Reid weighs in on the GOP Filibuster of Chuck Hagel showing the hypocrisy of Republicans once again:

Senate Majority Leader Says ‘It’s Tragic’ GOP Is Filibustering Hagel

By Ben Armbruster on Feb 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that he has scheduled a cloture vote for Chuck Hagel’s nomination as Defense Secretary for Friday morning. 

In an impassioned speech on the Senate floor, Reid lambasted Republicans for their “unprecedented” obstruction on Hagel (this is the first time in the history of the United States that a president’s nominee for Defense Secretary has been filibustered). “It’s shocking,” Reid said, “that my Republican colleagues would leave the country without a fully empowered Secretary of Defense during all the things that we have going on in the world including a war”: 

REID: I have heard speeches from the other side a lot saying, “you know the president should have the right to choose whoever he wants.” He has the support of this body, a majority vote in this body in this democracy. We are a nation, Mr. President, at war. We are whether we like it or not the world’s indispensable leader. We’re it. For the sake of our national security it’s time to put aside this political theatre and that’s what it is. 

People are worried about primary elections. We know how the Tea Party goes after Republicans when they aren’t conservative enough. Is that something they need to have on their resume? “I filibustered one of the president’s nominees.” Is that what they want? The filibuster of Senator Hagel’s confirmation is unprecedented. I repeat. Not a single nominee for Secretary of Defense ever in the history of our country has been filibustered. Never, ever!

“We need a Secretary of Defense,” Reid said later. “It’s tragic that they’ve decided to filibuster this qualified nominee. It is really unfortunate.” Watch the clip: 

Senate Democratic aides are reportedly saying they may not have enough votes to break the filibuster while some are reporting that there are enough votes for cloture, but the actual vote on Hagel’s nomination won’t take place until after the recess.

However, NATO is hosting Defense Minister meetings next week in Brussels where the allies will discuss the ongoing war in Afghanistan. “We need our new defense secretary to be there,” a White House spokesperson said today, calling the GOP obstruction “unconscionable” and adding, “It does not send a favorable signal for the Republicans of the U.S. senate to delay a vote. …It’s difficult to explain to our allies why that’s happening.”

From James Fallows at The Atlantic comes more information about the filibuster of Chuck Hagel:

As has been evident for some time, Hagel has majority support in the Senate for his confirmation as secretary of defense. As has become increasingly evident these past few days, much of the opposition to Hagel has become a parody of itself. Former Republican Senator and foreign-policy grandee Richard Lugar, himself the victim of a Tea Party challenge, said yesterday that the attack on Hagel was "unfortunate and unfair." Meanwhile the publisher of the Omaha World Herald answered allegations that Hagel (who represented Nebraska) was anti-Semitic with an article headlined, "Impressive Omaha Jewish Support for Chuck Hagel," and Aryeh Azriel, the rabbi at Temple Israel in Omaha, said that accusations that Hagel was anti-Israel were "extremely stupid." 

The new development is reported by Josh Rogin on Foreign Policy's The Cable blog, which says that several Republicans intend to filibuster Hagel's nomination -- but are looking for some way to weasel around the word "filibuster." They don't like that word (a) because they have tried to normalize the idea that a 60-vote super-majority threshold, which is the margin required to break a filibuster, should be seen as the routine requirement for Senate action of any sort; (b) because several prominent Republicans, including John McCain, have already said that they don't want to filibuster Hagel; and (c) because in the long history of Cabinet-level nominations, outright filibusters are either unknown or exceedingly rare. You can get all the details on their extreme rarity from the Congressional Research Service.

Rogin points out the machinations through which the Republican opponents of Hagel (a Republican) are trying to insist on a 60-vote threshold without calling it a filibuster. For instance, he quotes our old friend Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, plus Sen. John Cornyn of Texas:

Inhofe's demand for 60 votes is related to his overall objection to Hagel becoming defense secretary, which is based on Hagel's past record on issues ranging from Iran, Israel, Hamas, and cuts to the defense budget. Inhofe also wants Hagel to further disclose financial records related to his past speeches.

"We're going to require a 60-vote threshold," Inhofe told The Cable. 

Cornyn told The Cable, "There is a 60-vote threshold for every nomination." 

Cornyn may think that, but it is not so. As a matter of history, it has obviously not been the case for Cabinet nominations; and as a matter of legality, it is true only if the opposition is willing to transform the balance of American politics by filibustering every nominee. 

Turn to Rogin for more, including curlicues like this (emphasis added):

Inhofe insisted that his demand for a 60-vote threshold is not a "filibuster." Inhofe said he will object to unanimous consent for a simple majority vote, which will prevent Reid from bringing the Hagel nomination to the floor without first filing for cloture, which requires 60 votes to proceed to a final vote.

"It's not a filibuster. I don't want to use that word," Inhofe said. 

(snip)

But I am anything but agnostic about the tactics being used against Hagel. They started with personal smears, and they've led to this new version of Congressional obstructionism. It will be a shame all around if these tactics "work." This is a fight the administration should take on, and be sure it wins.

Read More at The Atlantic

Now Inhofe doesn't want to use the word filibuster but wants to require sixty votes when only 51 votes are required?

This is it for me when it comes to the Republican Party unless there is a huge change in the future.  For 2014 and 2016, I wouldn't vote for any Republican for Congress or President after what we have been witnessing.  These Senators are so afraid of being primaried they won't stand up to the Tea Party or should we say Koch Brothers?  How about grow a spine and do what is best for the Country and not worry if you are going to be primaried.  Selling out the Country to keep a job as a member of Congress shows a great lack of integrity and a willingness to see the Country go down because some Republican doesn't want to be tea partied in the primary.  Vote 'em out in '14!

Time for term limits?

Question of the Day: Does the F-35 have the Same Problems as the F-22 that are being Ignored by Lockheed and the Air Force?

Center for Public Integrity:  Defense Officials Call AF F-22 Probe Sloppy and Inadequate

Why are people in the aerospace community not surprised that the Air Force seems to have covered up for Lockheed on the F-22 accident report?  Is it because the problems with Lockheed being behind schedule and over budget sometimes ignoring safety goes back years as Air Force Plant Representative Office (AFPRO) located at Air Force plants looked the other way for Lockheed?

Anyone who knows anything about the C-5 and Lockheed knows the cover-ups on C-5 over the years by Lockheed.  C-5 still has problems today - Lockheed never seems to be able to fix a weapon system so the Government keeps pouring money back into the company for fixes.  According to Defense Industry Daily there is another fix in progress in an effort to save the C-5's which are needed for heavy airlift.

Is that one reason Lockheed and other major contractors don't want Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense because he will put the men and women of our military first over big defense contractors?  Is it possible that he could lead an effort to make large defense contractors pay for their mistakes?  My money is on Hagel who looks to have the votes for confirmation in spite of Senators Inhofe and Graham who have jumped the shark on Obama nominees.

Today the C-5 still has problems along with the F-22 with problems so why wouldn't someone suspect that  the F-35 has similar problems to the the F-22.  How can a company like Lockheed never seem to be able to fix their problems with weapons systems?  Is it a ploy by Lockheed to keep maintenance in-house and charge the DoD big bucks for fixes?  Is Lockheed trustworthy?  Not on your life - my husband was involved with C-5 upgrades along with C-141 stretch as the System Control Officer for AFMC (then AFLC before merger).  Lockheed was a total pain in the neck with lack of honesty on what was happening with the C-5 and C-141 so why would anyone think they would be different today.  Lockheed has huge overhead costs as they pay millions to their senior leaders each year in salary and then bonuses so every dollar they can get from the Government helps pay overhead costs while their employees get small raises..

Cannot believe that the Air Force awarded both F-22 and F-35 to Lockheed.  IMHO, they should have split the award between two companies.  Even more important is why did the Air Force need two new fighters when only the F-15 needs replaced.  F-16 is going strong with being our most popular fighter for foreign military sales (FMS).  BTW, F-16 is a General Dynamics plane which Lockheed now owns when they took over General Dynamics in Fort Worth.  F-16 with relative few problems over the years was not designed by Lockheed.

This loss of computer systems with the F-22 jumps out in the article and should have gotten people fired:

On its first overseas deployment, for example, a squad of F-22’s lost all their computer systems in flight and had to be led back to base by mid-air tankers, a retired Air Force general said. 

Without our tankers, we could have lost a squadron of F-22's.  Those same tankers that have needed replaced for years but Senator McCain put a hold on replacement of the Air Force's fleet of Eisenhower-era airborne tankers in 2001. His hold was due to scandal at Boeing which thwarted a shoe-in contract because of an ethics scandal during a decade-long saga.  McCain came up with some really dumb ideas during the ten years including a much smaller tanker without giving thought to the wide bodied aircraft that get refueled.

Finally McCain released his hold and a solicitation was released for aerospace companies to bid.  After a 2007 solicitation and award of the contract to Northrup Grumman/EADS, Boeing protested and won in irregularities leading to the firing of some high ranking Air Force officials.  Finally in 2011 a contract was awarded to Boeing to replace the Eisenhower era tankers which are a tribute to the Air Logistics Center at Tinker AFB, OK, for keeping them flying all these years.

Looks like Secretary of Defense should have fired the Air Force people responsible for the Accident Report on an F-22 crash:

Defense officials call Air Force F-22 probe sloppy and inadequate
Critics of the Air Force's decision to blame a costly F-22 crash on its pilot have some ammunition 

By Douglas Birch12 hours, 35 minutes ago Updated: 2 hours, 3 minutes ago 

 F-22 Raptors fly above Andersen Air Force Base, Guam. The Associated Press

When Air Force Capt. Jeff Haney’s F-22 fighter crashed in Nov. 2010, while he was gasping for oxygen in the cockpit, the Air Force surprisingly blamed it on him – not the plane.

In a controversial Accident Investigation Board report released a year after the accident, Air Force officials cited three “human factors” as causing the crash: Haney’s “channelized attention” to restoring air flow to his oxygen mask; his failure to keep an eye on his instruments and surroundings; and his “unrecognized spatial disorientation” while plummeting to earth. 

The Air Force’s critics, as well as Haney’s family, immediately alleged that the service had sacrificed the reputation of one of its pilots to hide a defect in the $412 million advanced fighter jets so it could preserve political and financial support for them. The Air Force denied it. But now the critics suddenly have some new ammunition. 

In a report released Feb. 6, the Department of Defense’s Deputy Inspector General Randolph R. Stone accused the Air Force of conducting a sloppy, inadequate probe of Haney’s deadly crash in the wintry Alaska wilderness. 

Stone wrote that the Air Force’s conclusions were “not supported by the facts” presented and didn’t exhaust all investigative leads. He said the three human factors cited by the board were “separate, distinct and conflicting,” and concluded that the Air Force did not explain how they all could have worked together to cause the crash. 

The report’s errors and omissions called into question the Air Force board’s conclusions, Stone and his colleagues said. The Air Force, in its response, conceded its account of the accident “could have been more clearly written,” but insisted that findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the board had exhausted all available investigative leads. 

The auditors said they weren’t buying it, however, partly because they found the board had failed to analyze how factors such as hypoxia, loss of consciousness due to high g-forces and sudden incapacitation may have affected the pilot. Neither did the board adequately explain how it decided Haney’s mask was in the full-up position as the plane sank – a conclusion that ruled out several other areas of investigation, including the possibility that Haney had removed his mask because the oxygen flow was too weak. 

The accident occurred on a flight out of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson near Anchorage. The Air Force board said that Haney failed to pull out of a dive, causing him to slam into the ground near a stream in the Talkeetna Mountains. Haney’s widow, Anna Haney, alleged to the contrary that the plane was “dangerous and defective” in a lawsuit against the plane’s builders, Lockheed Martin, Boeing Co., Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney. She reached a confidential settlement with the contractors last year, according to the Air Force Times. 

The crash focused new concerns on the oxygen systems originally installed in the Air Force’s state-of-the-art F-22’s, which have been criticized by some as models of costly, goldplated weapons systems that are hard to maintain and ill-suited to fulfill present-day needs. 

The Obama administration decided to stop buying the planes in 2009, but at the time of the accident, the plane’s advocates were trying to keep open the option of restarting its assembly line. “The Air Force has always circled the wagons around that airplane,” said Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the nonprofit watchdog group, Project on Government Oversight. 

Two pilots appeared on the CBS television network’s “60 Minutes” program last year saying they had suffered hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation, during flights and as a result they had taken out extra life insurance. 

A Nov. 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service report states that the Air Force has records of at least 25 incidents where F-22 pilots reported hypoxia-like symptoms in flight, possibly due to oxygen deprivation. Hypoxia can cause nausea, headaches, fatigue or blackouts. 

As the Center for Public Integrity has previously reported, the aircraft’s problems with its oxygen system are not the only ones it has faced. Since the first F-22 rolled off the assembly line in 2003, it has suffered at least six accidents costing over $1 million each while experiencing mechanical breakdowns that could require another decade of redesign and repairs. 

On its first overseas deployment, for example, a squad of F-22’s lost all their computer systems in flight and had to be led back to base by mid-air tankers, a retired Air Force general said. 

The fleet was grounded in 2010 because of rusted ejection-seat parts. The planes were grounded again in 2011 following complaints about the oxygen system and Haney’s fatal crash. 

For its part, the Air Force has promised to give the Inspector General’s office a more detailed analysis of the “non-causal” factors, such as hypoxia, and details of how it reached its conclusions regarding the emergency oxygen activation system and blood oxygen levels. The inspector general’s office asked that the work be done by the end of this month.

Rusted ejection-seat parts?  Give me a break.  Is Lockheed saying that they could not use non corrosion  material for parts of the ejection seat?  How much has Lockheed ripped off the Government for using inferior parts and then having to fix them with more Government money?


Someone wants to do some investigative reporting should be looking at the number of contracts Lockheed has received over the years that come in way over budget, way behind schedule and still have major problems when the planes are delivered.  F-35 today has few spares as Lockheed spent the money on Aero in Fort Worth which has put flight testing way behind schedule not to mention all the problems that need fixed.  Now Lockheed/Air Force is extending flight testing out to 2018 costing more money while their CEO received a $2M raise last year and makes over $25M.  If you think that is bad then you will love this:

Carter said that during the last decade, the F-35’s per-aircraft cost "has doubled in real terms." That has happened, in part, because as the nation was fighting two wars at once, money was flowing to the Pentagon, and there was "an erosion of focus on affordability," he admitted.

Your tax dollars at work.  First thing to do when Lockheed promises something or gives figures is to automatically suspect they may not be telling the truth.


Lockheed needs to be split back out in two or three companies IMHO.  The very idea by Republicans that big defense contractors were better then having some mid size companies like Martin-Marietta were dead wrong in the early 90's and then delayed the mergers to blame it on Clinton.  The fact that under Lockheed, Aero took money for logistics which led to few spares shows they should be separate companies because the powers at be have been raiding other parts of Lockheed for money to fix their mess in Aero which puts the F-35 way behind schedule and way over budget.

Just remember that Republicans will tell you that the Defense Department cannot be cut.  What has happened with Lockheed and other major defense companies say otherwise.

GOP Senators Despicable Antics at Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense Hearings

Latest from The Hill on the Hagel nomination -- they anticipate that he will be confirmed because he has more than 50 votes and do not expect a filibuster from Republicans even though some have said they might filibuster but that would set a bad precedent that a President cannot appoint who he wants to his cabinet.

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Friday that there was "no question" the White House had secured more than 50 votes to support former Sen. Chuck Hagel's (R-Neb.) nomination to head the Defense Department. 

"We're very confident of that," Pfeiffer told Bloomberg TV. "There's no question that there will be more than 50 votes to confirm Sen. Hagel." 

Hagel struggled through a contentious confirmation hearing Thursday, often having to correct statements or apologize for past comments. But White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday that he believed Hagel "did fine" and helped secure votes necessary for his confirmation.
"We expect the Senate to confirm Sen. Hagel to the position of secretary of Defense," Carney said. "By my estimates and reading of press reports, there has been a net increase in the number of confirmed 'yes' votes for Sen. Hagel's confirmation since the hearing ended." 

Pfeiffer also said he did not expect Republicans to filibuster Hagel's nomination, which would increase the threshold required for Hagel's confirmation to 60 votes. 

"I would be disappointed and surprised if the Republicans were willing to filibuster one of their former colleagues for the secretary of Defense," he said.

That was good news this afternoon after what Senator Hagel endured yesterday at the Committee hearing of Armed Services.

Started supporting former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel as soon as I heard there was a chance he would be announced by President Obama as the next Secretary of State.  He knows the Defense Department and unlike most Republicans in Congress today, he is part of a small group of GOP Senators and former Senators who cannot be bought by lobbyists.

Most likely the reason the defense industry lined up against him along with Neocons as Hagel would not recommend us going into a war that is unnecessary to the protection of this Country.  The Neocons seem to have never met a war they didn't like, yet very of them have ever served.  Chuck Hagel not only served as an enlisted man in Vietnam but was wounded.  Would say he has a different perspective on what war means.

Senator Hagel has been criticized for his reaction to the Republicans Senators as being unprepared.  I have another take asking how could anyone have been prepared for the attacks by his fellow Republicans yesterday where the most important topic was Israel.  That blew my mind.  After Senator Inhofe's insulting opening remarks, anyone would have been off their game trying not to lose their cool.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who opened by arguing that Chuck Hagel’s views are far outside the mainstream, questioned the former Nebraska senator aggressively on Iran, Israel and nuclear weapons at the Senate confirmation hearing for Hagel as defense secretary.

My Senator calling anyone far outside the mainstream has to be the biggest joke of the day.  Inhofe is not mainstream by any shape or form and in many instances is too hard right.  Who is far outside the mainstream today are Republicans in Congress and they go farther right by the day it seems.

This except from the London Guardian sums up the hearing by Republicans who acted like they were picking a Secretary of Defense for Israel not the United States:

• "Is Israel a great country, or is it the greatest? And if it's the former, can you explain your lack of support for America's most important ally?"
• "Why don't you think Iran is crazy, unbalanced and a military competitor of the United States, as I do?"
• "Let me tell you more about the vital national security rule played by the weapons system or military base located in my home state." 

I'm not really exaggerating when I say these three themes accounted for practically 80% of the questions asked of Hagel, particularly by Republicans. In fact, according to a tweet from Washington Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran that made the rounds yesterday evening, Israel was mentioned 136 times in the hearing and Iran 135 times.

Even though the defense secretary nominee said repeatedly that he supports Israel, that he considers Iran a state sponsor of terrorism and that he wouldn't take military force off the table in dealing with its potential nuclear program, Republicans mined practically every statement ever made by Hagel (and often taken out of context) in an effort to assert that he doesn't hold as uncompromising a position on these issues as they do.

The day reached its point of high comedy when Senator Lindsey Graham began interrogating Hagel on whether he believes – as he allegedly said several years ago – that the so-called "Jewish lobby" causes US senators to occasionally do dumb things that harm US foreign policy. Hagel hemmed and hawed on the question when, in an ideal world, he should have said, "Yes, and this hearing is example A." 

In fact, after a while, it was hard to figure out if Hagel was the nominee for secretary of defense or "Israel's new bestie", so obsessed were Republican Senators with how Hagel views the US-Israel relationship. It was a demoralizing spectacle.

As we saw during the GOP primaries last year, the new apparent litmus test for being a foreign policy-maker in the US government appears to be the extent to which you offer unconditional support for basically everything that Israel does (even when it goes against stated US policy). 

That a hearing on the fitness of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense was dominated by a discussion of a country that is not even a military ally of the United States – and which, in the just the last three months, has take actions on settlement construction that run precisely counter to US policy – offered compelling evidence of the disproportionate and unhealthy role that Israel plays in US foreign policy debates.

Israel is the same country that sold some of our military weapon systems secrets to China.

One good reason why Israel should not receive billions of dollars in military assistance annually is its espionage against the United States. Israel, a Socialist country where government and business work hand in hand, systematically steals American technology with both military and civilian applications. The Israelis then reverse engineer this US-developed technology and use it in their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs.

This is an example of the Country of Israel that Republicans in the Congress hold in such high esteem.  Do any of them get kickbacks from Israel is a question that needs answered.

Almost as depressing was the panel's discussion of Iran. It was bad enough that New York Democratic Kirsten Gillibrand called Iran an "existential threat" to the United States, or that senators kept referring to an Iranian nuclear weapons program that, according the IAEA and America's own intelligence agencies, doesn't actually exist.

But from listening to the questions, one might not know that there are currently 66,000 US troops fighting a war in Afghanistan. It was barely touched on – mentioned only a handful of times in the day's proceeding. 

Al-Qaida: that got mentioned twice. China: hardly came up. Payroll and healthcare issues, which are a huge part of the Pentagon budget: barely referenced. The growing epidemic of military suicides and sexual assault: each were raised once.

Instead, when given the chance, senators were far more interested in referencing the military spending in their own states that is, oh, so vital to national security. Thus, we were presented with Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut talking about the importance of submarines to the US fleet – subs that just happen to be built in Groton Connnecticut; or Jeanne Shaheen and Angus King inquiring about naval building – for example, at the shipyards in their home states of New Hampshire and Maine; Tim Kaine of Virginia, which is home to a huge military and contracting footprint, warning about the dangers of sequestration military cuts; and Deb Fischer, inquiring about the (false) claim that Hagel supports unilateral reductions in nuclear weapons, which, of course, coincidentally touches on the presence of the United States strategic command (USSC) in her home state of Nebraska.

It's almost as if the nation's actual wars, actual troops and actual national security challenges were of little concern to the assembled senators. 

One must be careful about romanticizing the past glories of the Senate and the armed services committee, but still, there did used to be a time when there were senators who approached national security concerns and issues related to the military with some level of seriousness and sobriety. Such attributes were in meager presence on Thursday.

A little background on that explains even when he was young, he was given anything he wanted whether qualified or not which has led to a perception you don't cross John McCain or he pays you back which is what I see was on display yesterday - pay back for not supporting Sarah Palin as VP.  Hagel wasn't alone as a lot of us didn't support her.  

John McCain graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy as the son of an Admiral.  Anyone who knows the academies know that pilot training goes to those closer to the top of their class, but when you are the son of an Admiral, you get special privileges so off to pilot training he went.  He crashed more planes then most of us could have imagined but he graduated from pilot training and then was assigned to a carrier group in SEA where he was shot down and became a POW.  Will not go into his TV appearance, etc., but will state that when the POW's were released and flown back to the states McCain's Father met him at the plane and whisked him away.

One of the big problems I have with with his Father is that McCain is that when he was returned from North Vietnam as a former prisoner of war, McCain never went through debriefing or any other medical tests that other POW's went through.  My boss at the time of the POW release was named by the AF Surgeon General as he representative for returning POWs as USAF Medical Center Wright-Patterson AFB was one of the centers where POW's were returned.  The information on McCain is not second hand but first hand from the message I delivered to my boss from the Command Post.

Have I calmed down at Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee?  Not even close.  Thought Senator James Inhofe of OK would do a good job as the ranking Republican on Armed Services but I was 100% wrong if yesterday was an example.  As for John McCain I have to wonder why he is still in the Senate after his antics in the last few months starting with Benghazim as he has turned into a bitter old man part of which could go back to the fact he never received the medical treatment like other returning POW's and in some way he may also have regrets about some of his actions.

This exchange with McCain was like a 2-year old throwing a tantrum because the question could not and should not have been answered with a YES or NO and McCain knew it -- bitter to the end.  Guess he hasn't gotten over Romney losing and him not being named Secretary of Defense which would have set off a rash of retirements by senior officers.

The nominee's fiercest exchange came with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a fellow Vietnam veteran and onetime close friend. Politics and Hagel's evolving opposition to the Iraq war caused a split between the two men that was on full display. 

McCain suggested that Hagel and his critics were not quibbling over small matters.
"They are not reasonable people disagreeing; they are fundamental disagreements. Our concerns pertain to the quality of your professional judgment and your worldview on critical areas of national security," he said.   

McCain pressed Hagel on whether he was right or wrong about his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 at a point when the war seemed in danger of being lost. Hagel, who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, later opposed the conflict, comparing it to Vietnam and arguing that it shifted the focus from Afghanistan. 

"Were you right? Were you correct in your assessment?" McCain asked 

"I would defer to the judgment of history to sort that out," Hagel said as the two men talked over each other. 

"The committee deserves your judgment as to whether you were right or wrong about the surge," McCain insisted. 

Unable to elicit a simple response, McCain said the record should show that Hagel refused to answer. And he made it clear that he would have the final word – with his vote, which he said would be influenced by Hagel's refusal to answer yes or no. 

"I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you're on the wrong side of it," he said.

This is just more proof that McCain should step down as a Senator and allow someone who has a more even demeanor/temperament to represent Arizona.  His attacks on UN Ambassador Susan Rice on Benghazi were also over the top.

Then you have the new Texas Senator Ted Cruz who never should have been elected.  He is coming across as a good old boy Tea Party but his wife is a VP at Goldman Sachs.  His questions to Chuck Hagel yesterday were an insult to every person who wears the uniform which Cruz did not by taking his comments out of context which is a typical Tea Party ploy.

During Republican Chuck Hagel's defense secretary confirmation hearing on Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) chose to use a large portion of his five minutes of questioning to play a YouTube video of Hagel in an Al Jazeera interview from 2009. 

Hagel's original statement at a Senate session held on July 31, 2006 described the conflict in Israel as "a sickening slaughter on both sides" that Hagel said "must end." However, Cruz highlighted Hagel's "sickening slaughter" remark and his agreement with a caller who referenced "war crimes."

From Crooks and Liars -- Fox's Hannity Lauds Sen. Cruz' Deceptive Attack On Chuck Hagel:

Color me not shocked that Fox is carrying water for wingnut Sen. Ted Cruz and his dishonest attack on former Sen. Chuck Hagel during yesterday's confirmation hearing for Secretary of Defense. Sean Hannity opened up his show by replaying part of Cruz' cheap shot at Hagel earlier that day.

Hannity and Cheney called Hagel about every name in the book and implied that he was feckless after hearing his testimony today. That's pretty rich coming from Bush administration cheerleader Hannity and the daughter of someone who likely qualifies as one of, if not the worst Vice Presidents -- someone who dishonored the office in which he served. Both of them actually believe that Donald Rumsfeld did a good job as Secretary of Defense

If that wasn't enough on Cruz here is more from the London Guardian:

Ted Cruz tried to link Hagel to a speech given by Chas Freeman, a former US diplomat who has been publicly critical of American support for the Jewish state, and in particular, the domestic lobbyists that defend Israel. 

When Cruz could not identify an obvious link between the two men, he backed off. But the moment was chilling because the implications of Cruz's questioning wasn't hard to deduce: simply having a relationship with Freeman and his controversial views on Israel would have been enough to indict Hagel.

This is quite frankly modern-day McCarthyism: guilt by association with those who hold differing views. It was the low point of the day in which the depths of practically every valley of squalid foreign policy discourse was plumbed

Cruz is showing himself to be a grandstander and a unethical Senator and only in his first month, but then he comes from the Tea Party which should be a warning to voters not to support any Tea Party candidates for any position.


Cannot leave out NH's  Kelly Ayote who is  the puppet of McCain and Graham showing off her stupidity and why she should not be on Armed Services.  More from the perspective of

My (Michael Cohen)  personal lowlight came when Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire pushed Hagel to answer why he thought a nuclear Iran might be containable or even worth talking to, considering that, in her words, the country's leaders are not "sane". Consider the implications of such a comment. If Iran is not sane, not containable and not able to be reason with, then we might as well bomb and invade them tomorrow because, clearly, there is no negotiating with "crazy" people. Ladies and gentlemen; your United States Senate.

I want to know how McConnell assigned committees to some of these people because Cruz and Ayote don't belong on Armed Services.  Did he choose people he knew would be puppets to what Defense Contractors wanted.

The Republican Senators I have seen for two days, first on gun control and then on the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense are bitter, whiney, and full of themselves like they are in charge because they won the election -- delusional and failure to face reality are bad signs.  Majority Leader Reid should be ashamed for giving into this bunch.  People I once admired, I wouldn't give you two cents for after what I witnessed with my own eyes.

The first question that pops in your mind is how much money are these Senators being paid not only above the table but under the table because they don't normally act like what I have seen.  Know Hagel couldn't do it, but I would have loved to see him tell McCain to his face that he was a bitter old man who needed to sit down and shut up.  With the attacks on his character and statements, I thought Hagel did pretty good because the Republicans were so far out of line, they don't belong in the Senate.  May not vote for a Republican for anything for a long time after what I am seeing out of the jerks in Congress.  They don't seem to care about the American people and the Country by putting Party and donors over Country day in and day out.

There is a whole list including former Secretary of Defense/State like current Sec Def Panetta, former Sec Def Gates, General Colin Powell, former Sec of State George Schultz and Henry Kissinger, and the list goes on who support Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense which far outweigh the GOP spoiled brats in the Senate where Hagel served and was friends with a lot of them.  Their reason for the attacks seems to be that Hagel dared accept an appointment from President Obama plus he stood up that the Iraq surge and the War in Iraq after finding out the facts they were given on Iraq were wrong.  He is right -- he was lied to like others in order to go into Iraq.

Excerpts from the Huffington Post on the Hagel hearing:

WASHINGTON — Bruised and battered, Chuck Hagel emerged from his grueling confirmation hearing with solid Democratic support for his nomination to be President Barack Obama's next defense secretary and increasing Republican opposition to a former GOP colleague. 

Mathematically, Hagel has the edge as he looks to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as the nation's 24th Pentagon chief, with Democrats holding a 14-12 advantage on the Senate Armed Services Committee. 

That vote, which could come as early as next Thursday, looks increasingly like a straight party-line count as committee member and Republican Sen. Roy Blunt said Friday he will oppose the nomination.

"Senator Hagel's answers before the committee were simply too inconsistent, particularly as they related to Iran and Israel," said the Missouri lawmaker. "The idea that we can contain a nuclear Iran and his view that we should not have unilateral sanctions are just wrong and are too dangerous for us to try." 

In fact, Hagel corrected his statement about containment of Iran and said all options, including military action, should be on the table to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. 

While Blunt announced his opposition, he signaled he would not support any effort to block the nomination, a looming question as Democrats have the votes to confirm Hagel in the full Senate but would need five GOP senators to end a filibuster. 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., expressed optimism about Hagel's prospects after nearly eight hours of testimony Thursday. 

"I think his answers were honest and forthright and he did very well," Levin told reporters. "I hope that there will be some, who maybe were skeptical but who are undecided before this hearing, will maybe now look at him in a more favorable light. But I think there are a whole lot of folks who basically decided before the hearing that they were going to vote against him." 

Hagel struggled at times as GOP senators hammered him on issues ranging from his support for Israel, opposition to Iran, stand on Hamas and Hezbollah and his backing for a group that advocates the elimination of nuclear weapons. 

They repeatedly pressed him on past statements, votes and even letters he declined to sign. Refusing to show any frustration or anger, Hagel defended his record. 

The former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska described his views as mainstream and closely aligned with those of Obama, the Democrat who nominated him. But several GOP members of the committee sought to portray him as radical and unsteady. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., called his ideas "extreme" and "far to the left" of Obama.  (My NOTE:  Fisher is the most hard right person elected from NE to be a Senator and was not supported in the primary by NRSC because she was so hard right - she is Tea Party all the way) 

Hagel said he believes America "must engage – not retreat – in the world" and insisted that his record is consistent on that point. 

He pointed to Iran and its nuclear ambitions as an example of an urgent national security threat that should be addressed first by attempting to establish dialogue with Iranian rulers, although he said he would not rule out using military force. 

"I think we're always on higher ground in every way – international law, domestic law, people of the world, people of the region to be with us on this – if we have ... gone through every possibility to resolve this in a responsible, peaceful way, rather than going to war," he said.
He pushed back on the notion – first raised by one of his harshest Republican critics, Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma – that he favors a policy of appeasement.  (My NOTE:  A man who was wounded in Vietnam was attacked by Sen Inhofe as favoring appeasement which Hagel has never done.  Another Senator who could not be honest who has let his hatred of Obama cloud his judgment IMHO) 

"I think engagement is clearly in our interest," Hagel told Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who denounced the idea of negotiating with a "terrorist state."  (My NOTE:  Obviously Chambliss has a comprehension problem as engagement is not negotion or appeasement or surrender)

"That's not negotiation," Hagel said. "Engagement is not appeasement. Engagement is not surrender."  

(snip)

Hagel, 66, would be the lone Republican in Obama's Cabinet, the first Vietnam veteran to be defense secretary and the first enlisted man to take the post.

In my analysis of reading stories around the internet about how nasty the Republican Senators were towards Hagel yesterday have made me more convinced than ever that the real reason for the hatred is that Chuck did have the nerve to accept an appointment from the President to be Secretary of Defense.  He was roundly criticized earlier when he accepted an appointment as co-chairman of Obama's President's Intelligence Advisory Board.  He was heavily criticized for taking that post.  Republicans have so much hate for this President that it has totally clouded their judgement in Congress and has been hurtful to the Country IMO.

At the end of the day, looks like Hagel can be confirmed and the Republican Senators can then focus on how they are going to derail other parts of the Obama agenda no matter who it hurts.