Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Hagel stories

January 30, 2013

Great choice of experts to pick to argue why Chuck Hagel should not be Defense Secretary.What makes these two people experts on the military or on our defense? Mr. Krauthammer did not serve in the U....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

CHayes

Jan-30-13 6:39 AM

Great letter, the only word missing from it is "chickenhawks".

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-30-13 6:45 AM

I suppose the letter writers point is that certain people commenting Congressman Hagel's position on defense, is as odd as the way Fox "News" tracked down Dick Cheney over the weekend to ask him about gun control. Considering Dick Cheney once shot another man in the face, then got the guy to go on TV and essentially apologize for blocking his shot with his face.

2 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Jan-30-13 8:08 AM

Oh where to begin...

"I'm sure that every veteran will agree with Mr. Hagel that the military is too fat."

I(as a combat veteran of OIF/OEF, will not agree with this. As well as many others with which I have served. You would be better off not trying to serve as spokesman for all veterans.

LTE-"I'm betting he never served at all."

we have yet to see your DD214 sir.

LTE_"Mr. Krauthammer did not serve in the U.S. military as he was conveniently going to college in Canada"

The man was RAISED in Montreal, Quebec. how convenient, right. Once again, we have yet to see your DD214.

LTE-"I expect Mr. Hagel knows just how much we need B1 Bombers and 35,000 nuclear weapons to fight the Taliban."

The United States has 2,150 active warheads, but hey what are facts good for anyways, right?

11 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Jan-30-13 8:28 AM

Hazy: "Great letter, the only word missing from it is "chickenhawks"." Also missing was a lot of truth as pointed out by Josh, but don't let a little truth get in the way. Also, the current White House doesn't have a lot of folks working there with military experience.

9 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-30-13 8:44 AM

"Just who are we planning to fight when we spend more on weapons than all of the rest of the world combined?" - Al Sever

*

More-often-than-not, it's the American tax-payers...unless, of course, it's possible to maintain "adequate"-enough scare-tactics (coupled with questioning their "patriotism") to extort MORE "defense"-buck$ from them.

3 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jan-30-13 8:46 AM

Hagel will get the post. The people who post here are always indicative of what will happen. If we are 3 to 1 against something or someone they or it will succeed. Like it or not, this area is out of touch with the broader national sentiment.

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-30-13 8:55 AM

"Oh where to begin...

"I'm sure that every veteran will agree with Mr. Hagel that the military is too fat."

I(as a combat veteran of OIF/OEF, will not agree with this. As well as many others with which I have served. You would be better off not trying to serve as spokesman for all veterans." - Josh84

*

You're THAT heavily-inve$ted in our "defen$e-indu$try"????

2 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

philunderwood

Jan-30-13 9:16 AM

Our military should be as strong and equipped as necessary to provide for the defense of the country, not for policing the world or nation building that has proven to be costly in terms of deaths and injuries, with results that are questionable at best. Whether Hagel is the person to accomplish this remains to be seen.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-30-13 9:22 AM

"Like it or not, this area is out of touch with the broader national sentiment." - spike2

*

...Specifically, those States ladened with defen$e-contractor$...who are MUCH-more concerned with their local-economy, than they are with the national-defense.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-30-13 10:03 AM

Here we go again.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-30-13 10:19 AM

" Also, the current White House doesn't have a lot of folks working there with military experience."

So the right wing response is to oppose two appointees, with 5 Purple Hearts, 1 Bronze Star, and one Silver Star between them? I'm sure that makes perfect sense, somewhere, though I'm not sure where that would be.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SteelerFan

Jan-30-13 1:37 PM

I don't recall a lot of opposition to Kerry and I'm sure Hagel will make it. I'm not opposed to either one. Barry can pick his own poison.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jan-30-13 8:17 PM

Military service by itself does not guarantee somebody is ready to be Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State but it is helpful. The nominee's record and his or her philosophy is and should be examined. That is the reason for Advise and Consent and three branches of government. It should never be assumed that somebody is qualified just because the President nominated them, no matter which party is in office.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jan-30-13 8:20 PM

Is there fat that can be trimmed from the Defense budget? Yes. Is there fat that can be trimmed from the rest of the federal budget? Yes. We should be doing both, mindful that providing for the common defense is a primary tenet of the federal government. We must insure that we have the strongest, best trained and best equipped military in the world. If you truly support the troops, you cannot believe otherwise. They are alwasy the ones to suffer first and the most when budget cuts come to town.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jan-30-13 8:21 PM

Is Shaman an annoying idiot? I think we all know the answer to that question.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Jan-30-13 9:47 PM

@Josh84

What the source of your nuclear weapons statistics?

The Brookings institute says there are 10600. That at the peak there were 35000 and 70000 made in total since inception.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-30-13 10:20 PM

Mr. Sever.....me thinks thou doth protest too much.

You certainly have your biases against otherwise conservative voices.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Jan-30-13 10:27 PM

"Mr. Krauthammer did not serve in the U.S. military as he was conveniently going to college in Canada during the Vietnam conflict."

Krauthammer was RAISED in Montreal. He has been paralyzed and in a wheelchair since his first year at Harvard.

His contribution to the field of psychiatry is worth noting.

His contribution as a fighter for the rights of Americans and the U.S. Constitution is phenominal.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rmiller

Jan-30-13 10:40 PM

USA,

Mr. Krauthammer" as you rightly point out is a brilliant man with much insight.

He has, from my understanding, a tube in his throat, which would account for his speaking with the raising of his chest with every breath.

Did Obama serve anytime in our services, outside of viewing them die on his watch?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-31-13 8:02 AM

"Did Obama serve anytime in our services, outside of viewing them die on his watch?"

Regale us with stories of your time in the military auntie Chickenhawk.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CHayes

Jan-31-13 8:10 AM

"Krauthammer was RAISED in Montreal. He has been paralyzed and in a wheelchair since his first year at Harvard."

Krauthammer was born in NY City, and thus is an American citizen. In 1968, at the height of the Viet Nam war, he was 18 years old, and eligible for service in the US military.

He went to grad school at Harvard, which meant he had been ducking service for quite some time by staying in college.

An individual can drive from Montreal to Plattsburgh, VT in under an hour and a half, and Krauthammer COULD HAVE done this at any time after reaching the age of 18, to enlist. He CHOSE not to.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jan-31-13 8:38 AM

Love how the right displays respect for those who serve over those who don't and can spit on anyone who did serve and is a member of the Democratic party or appointed to an office under a Democratic President. The right does not have respect for the military they only unabashedly use it.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-31-13 8:57 AM

"It should never be assumed that somebody is qualified just because the President nominated them, no matter which party is in office." - msgjsheets

*

...And, what BETTER example than Flight-Instructor Rumsfeld??

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrShaman

Jan-31-13 9:12 AM

"Love how the right displays respect for those who serve over those who don't and can spit on anyone who did serve and is a member of the Democratic party or appointed to an office under a Democratic President. The right does not have respect for the military they only unabashedly use it." - CMReeder

*

See:

Who Served? (c/o awolbush)

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Josh84

Jan-31-13 10:23 AM

CHayes Jan-31-13 8:10 AM****"He went to grad school at Harvard, which meant he had been ducking service for quite some time by staying in college."

Hughes, Regale us with stories of your time in the military Uncle Chickenhawk.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web