Comments on: Do Yourself A Favor

By: Pseudoplotinus

Pseudoplotinus — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:51:40 +0000

Here’s an entertainingly paranoid interpretation from TNR about why Reps are so high on Flournoy. Based on the profile they give of her she appears to fulfill Pete’s desire for a thoroughly qualified SecDef and my concerns that a more capable Obama candidate will only be harder to confront when the fiscal scissors start cutting the national defense down to size.

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111354/why-the-gop-loves-michele-flournoy-hint-shes-not-chuck-hagel

By: Raymond Takashi Swenson

Raymond Takashi Swenson — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:03:18 +0000

If an intelligent person is made SecDef, even if he is implementing Obama’s policies, he or she will do it in a way that does the least harm, purely as a matter of professional pride and integrity. Having a doofus like Hagel in the post will simply create chaos and an inability to make decisions, neutering the DOD at the top. Obama is already a doofus on defense matters, as he demonstrated that he could not make decision on a surge in Afghanistan for six months. We need to put somebody in the chain of command who can at least make an intelligent decision, and not be immobilized by indecision and fear of screwing up (the basic reason for the Benghazi debacle).

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:54:11 +0000

Pseudoplotinus, I’ll be more restrained if and when the situation calls for it. I imagine there will be times when I have reason to be critical.

By: Pseudoplotinus

Pseudoplotinus — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:10:16 +0000

DJF, agreed with your assessment. My impression of the president at this point is of someone having succumbed entirely to classic hubris. As a rule, that sort of thing doesn’t typically bode well for ones fate. But we will see.

Pete. Quit ‘gushing’ about Senator Cruz!

By: Ted Cruz: More Embarrassment for Texas

Ted Cruz: More Embarrassment for Texas — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:41:04 +0000

[...] Erickson. “Cruz showed what happens when preparation, talent, and discipline come together,” gushed Pete Spiliakos at the theoconservative journal First Things. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin enthused [...]

By: djf

djf — Mon, 04 Feb 2013 05:41:30 +0000

@Pseudoplotinus

“The story gets ever more interesting and revealing about the qualities of our Commander in Chief.”

Or, revealing of the LACK of quality of our Commander in Chief.

His need to show contempt, not just to his actual opponents, but to those whom he despises for some reason even though they are trying to get along with him (in the case of the Hagel appointment, the US military brass, mainstream pro-Israel US politicians and organizations like AIPAC, and centrist Israeli politicians who want to reactivate Oslo) is extraordinary. In view of Hagel’s lack of qualification for such an important job, his appointment can only be interpreted as a calculated insult.

By: Pseudoplotinus

Pseudoplotinus — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:38:31 +0000

So, thanks to the power of podcast, I’ve listened to a couple of interesting interviews while tending the homestead that are relevant to this discussion thread.

Over at AEI’s podcast program Banter:

http://media.aei.org/tag/dany-pletka/

Dany Pletka, AEI’s director of foreign affairs is extensively interviewed on the Hagel matter and she offers to very interesting observations.

1. Apparently Hagel’s appointment was NOT supported by the White House staff but by Obama himself despite his staff’s council.

2. Pletka’s opinion is that Obama’s insistence on Hagel despite the obvious arguments against him is that in Hagel he has someone who almost completely agrees with his own views on the role of the US in the world, and the place of the military in that equation. In other words if you want to know what Obama’s real view on the matter of national defense is, Hagel apparently is the perfect decoder ring. Comforting eh?

And over at Ricochet:

http://ricochet.com/podcasts/goldberg-long-podhoretz/Trillion-Dollar-Coins

John Podhoretz, late in the podcast mentions Michele Flournoy, who DJF mentioned in his recent post above. According to Podhoretz, Flournoy is well known and well regarded on both sides of the isle and would have given Obama both an extremely credible candidate as well as the first woman SecDef in history (for those on the left who put stock in such things), yet Podhoretz continues, Obama reached out to Hagel in stead.

Taken together my interpretation is that Flournoy would have probably been the best qualified candidate, but, again supporting DJF’s reasoning above, in Hagel Obama would have had a reliable appendage to his own world view governing the DOD.

The story gets ever more interesting and revealing about the qualities of our Commander in Chief.

By: VIEWPOINT: How A Very Smart Senator Showed Us Everything Wrong With The Modern GOP In One Week | News Talk One

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 22:26:09 +0000

By: Clifford Bates

Clifford Bates — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 13:08:54 +0000

All of this reminds me of that Otto Preminger classic Advise and Consent…. check it out… only if there were some more “Seeb” in the Senate….

By: Pete Spiliakos

Pete Spiliakos — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 15:24:56 +0000

John, binders full of advisors is hilarious. I don’t think the GOP pays any electoral price for opposing Hagel.

Pseudoplotinus, I don’t doubt that there are patriotic, liberal, well meaning Democrats who would serve at defense. I’m not worried about Hagel carrying out the policies that Obama knows he wants regarding spending levels or whatever. Obama won and his Secretary of Defense is going to go along with Obama’s priorities. I’m worried about Hagel responding badly to situations that come up.

DJF, I looked those two up a couple of days ago, but it isn’t like what I saw on the internet tells me much and I wouldn’t have been able to pick them out of a lineup this time last week. That’s okay. That’s part of what the confirmation process is about. Maybe there are reasons why this or that Panetta aide shouldn’t be Secretary, but I’m not worried about Obama’s ability (s distinct from his inclination) to find someone better than Hagel.