Patterico's Pontifications

11/24/2014

Chuck Hagel Out

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:41 am



[guest post by Dana]

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has resigned been fired:

The officials described Mr. Obama’s decision to remove Mr. Hagel, 68, as a recognition that the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ. A Republican with military experience who was skeptical about the Iraq war, Mr. Hagel came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestration.

But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. He insisted that Mr. Hagel was not fired, saying that he initiated discussions about his future two weeks ago with the president, and that the two men mutually agreed that it was time for him to leave.

But Mr. Hagel’s aides had maintained in recent weeks that he expected to serve the full four years as defense secretary. His removal appears to be an effort by the White House to show that it is sensitive to critics who have pointed to stumbles in the government’s early response to several national security issues, including the Ebola crisis and the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Hagel disagreed publicly with the president over ISIS. He should have known better:

He raised the ire of the White House in August as the administration was ramping up its strategy to fight the Islamic State, directly contradicting the president, who months before had likened the Sunni militant group to a junior varsity basketball squad. Mr. Hagel, facing reporters in his now-familiar role next to General Dempsey, called the Islamic State an “imminent threat to every interest we have,” adding, “This is beyond anything that we’ve seen.” White House officials later said they viewed those comments as unhelpful, although the administration still appears to be struggling to define just how large is the threat posed by the Islamic State.

Added: President Obama on the 2013 confirmation of Republican Secretary of Defense Hagel:

I will be counting on Chuck’s judgment and counsel as we end the war in Afghanistan, bring our troops home, stay ready to meet the threats of our time and keep our military the finest fighting force in the world. Most of all, I am grateful to Chuck for reminding us that when it comes to our national defense, we are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans, and our greatest responsibility is the security of the American people.

–Dana

91 Responses to “Chuck Hagel Out”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (8e74ce)

  2. The surprises, going forward, will be felt entirely on the Liberal front.

    DNF (3b2963)

  3. O to Hagel;
    How dare you interrupt my dithering by fleshing out a national security position with regards to ISIS. Who do you think you are? Secretary of Defense?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  4. Wonder why. Is the Republicans’ fault too that the world is on fire?

    Patricia (5fc097)

  5. Yes, I believe the outlook is that it will perpetually be the Republicans’ fault. Even if we get another Democratic President for 2 more terms, it’ll be the GOP’s fault in 2023 too because Bush and Cheney haven’t been hung for war crimes.

    Dejectedhead (393701)

  6. Greetings:

    I’m surprised it wasn’t General Dempsey. Good-bye to Secretary Hagel to “encourage the other” ???

    11B40 (844d04)

  7. I am not a fan of Hagel. He was unimpressive in the confirmation hearings, I thought, and he was appointed to the cabinet for optics and to stick a finger in the eye of national security Republicans more than anything else. Hagel should not have taken the job. That said, if he uttered necessary words and did things at the pentagon that p*ssed off the president who has clearly shown he knows nothing about our military or the depth and breadth and capabilities of our enemies, then perhaps Hagel was more effective behind the scenes than I gave him credit for.

    elissa (926788)

  8. I bet they’re lining up to take this plum of a job in the last two years of this historic presidency. Plus the opportunity to work for Valerie Jarrett.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  9. Ha,Ha,Ha, The republicans will not fight the charge of being at fault.
    Keep on genuflecting to the King.

    mg (31009b)

  10. One question: What was Joe Biden doing at the press conference? Giving it gravitas? It must be horrible to be fired by Biden.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  11. Maybe they’ll give it to Tom Harkin. He’s unemployed and he flew all those combat missions over VietNam.

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  12. But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said…

    What, so the next couple of years the focus will be on something other than giving the new trainee SecDef OJT so he can learn how to tell the US military from a hot rock?

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/31/hagel-there-are-a-lot-of-things-i-dont-know-about-defense-department-issues/

    “A number of questions were asked of me today about specific programs: submarine programs, different areas of technology and acquisitions, and our superior technology,” he said during his confirmation hearing. “And I’ve said, I don’t know enough about it. I don’t. There are a lot of things I don’t know about. If confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do. I will have to.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/31/chuck-hagel-was-bad-and-it-doesnt-matter/

    Former Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel was, at turns, halting, befuddled and, often, just plain bad during his confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of Defense. And it almost certainly won’t keep him from becoming the next man to lead the Pentagon.

    Because that’s just how the Obama administration rolls. As Prom Queen demonstrated when he nominated Hagel, and then when he insisted that the Senate confirm him no matter how pathetically he performed in those hearings, Chuck Hagel represented exactly the kind of quality leader he thinks our men and women in uniform deserve.

    It’s laughable. The stink of it seems to be that Obama is trying to blame Hagel for the fact everything is blowing up in his face.

    He’s not blaming the guy he sees in the mirror, who invited everything to blow up in his face and demonstrated he couldn’t care less by putting a drooling idiot into the job of SecDef in the first place.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  13. 5. Yes, I believe the outlook is that it will perpetually be the Republicans’ fault. Even if we get another Democratic President for 2 more terms, it’ll be the GOP’s fault in 2023 too because Bush and Cheney haven’t been hung for war crimes.

    Dejectedhead (393701) — 11/24/2014 @ 8:43 am

    Why not? The Democrats are still blaming Detroit on the Republicans when the last one to run the place has been dead since 1987 and out of office since 1962.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  14. So, Obama’s ungrateful poodle barked when he should have rolled over and licked the hand that feeds him. Now, the disloyal little cur (no longer useful) gets the cold shoulder, which is exactly what he deserves, but not for the right reasons. If Hagel had any integrity or self-respect he would’ve resigned after Benghazi and exposed Obama’s criminal conspiracy. He didn’t stand up and act like a man when it counted, and now he’s nothing but a little whipped dog.

    ropelight (cfee3f)

  15. I thought when it was first mentioned on the other thread that then he really is like Harry S Truman’s 1949-50 Secretary of Defense, Louis A Johnson.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_A._Johnson

    Weekly Standard Jan 28, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 19 :

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/anti-defense-secretary_696377.html

    Would Chuck Hagel be the second coming of Louis Johnson?

    Now they say it is about ISIS. That doesn’t mean that Hagel wants to fight them more. That statement was from awhile ago. Very recently, Obama comitted more to it, and also Afghanistan.

    This could also mean that President Obama is reversing his decision to cut the military and/or get out of Afghanistan – and I had the thought this could have something to do with Iran, too.

    Today is the deadline.

    Or maybe not:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/24/surprise-negotiations-with-iran-extended-another-seven-months/

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  16. ropelight (cfee3f) — 11/24/2014 @ 9:54 am

    If Hagel had any integrity or self-respect he would’ve resigned after Benghazi

    He wasn’t even nominated till after that!

    and exposed Obama’s criminal conspiracy.

    The House Intelligence Committee just released a report saying that Administration officials did not attempt to mislead the American public, because they were relying on SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE:

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-report-cia-military-acted-properly-in-benghazi-attacks-1416616698

    The report Friday found that while public statements by Ms. Rice and other U.S. officials eventually were proven wrong, the inaccuracies stemmed from poor intelligence rather than manipulation of the information.

    We still await the conclusions of the Trey Goudy committee.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  17. Actually, Sammy, the report doesn’t say it was due to poor intelligence rather than manipulation. It says the information was wrong but doesn’t draw any conclusions as to why that was the story the Obama administration put out.

    As you observe, for that we await the conclusions of the select committee.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  18. David Petraeus

    Kevin M (d91a9f)

  19. Does this mean no trannies in the Airborne Rangers? Oh, man!

    nk (dbc370)

  20. chuck hagel goes down
    didn’t see that one coming!
    wheels of bus go ’round

    Colonel Haiku (2184e5)

  21. Hagel interview with Charlie Rose last week highly critical of the president prolly sealed the deal. Interesting. For all his legit concerns about might and readiness it’s too bad Hagel was so willing to help out with the social engineering stuff that is weakening the military, though.

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/11/24/hagel-unchained-departing-defense-secretary-fire-parting-shots-in-interview-last-week/

    elissa (926788)

  22. Except the House Intelligence Committee didn’t release anything. It was 2 members authoring a CYA report to give Shrillary something to wave about and to give themselves cover for their piss-poor oversight.

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/11/22/the-motives-behind-the-november-rogersruppersberger-house-intelligence-panel-report-on-benghazi/

    Gazzer (cb9ee2)

  23. Obama will no doubt seek the advice of the titular head of the Democrat Party, Jon Stewart, on selecting a replacement for Hagel.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. As an aside, I love this reaction to that Benghazi report.

    Per Sammy @16:

    http://online.wsj.com/articles/house-report-cia-military-acted-properly-in-benghazi-attacks-1416616698

    The report Friday found that while public statements by Ms. Rice and other U.S. officials eventually were proven wrong, the inaccuracies stemmed from poor intelligence rather than manipulation of the information.

    And per CBS news:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/benghazi-probe-finds-no-evidence-of-intelligence-failure/

    Benghazi probe finds no evidence of intelligence failure

    Your tax dollars at work. The WSJ says we had poor intelligence. CBS news says that wasn’t an intelligence failure. Some people might consider poor intelligence evidence of an intelligence failure. Not the CIA. I guess poor intelligence is the goal.

    “Yeah, err, we meant to do that. Yup yup yo.”

    Now that government has gotten such smashing results with their intel gathering endeavors, on to Obamacare and here’s to another bang-up job with your health care!

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  25. daley @23, I’m thinking Bill Cosby. I understand he has lots of free time what with his TV show and a few of his stand-up gigs being cancelled for some reason.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  26. In hagel’s case, more like “treads of teh tank go ’round”

    Colonel Haiku (2184e5)

  27. Ramsey Clark is in the running!

    Colonel Haiku (2184e5)

  28. I am surprised there is still room for anyone else under the bus…

    WarEagle82 (b18ccf)

  29. Ramsey Clark? You have a call on the white curtsy phone…

    Colonel Haiku (2184e5)

  30. Since Hagel stays in place until his successor is confirmed it looks like the point of this is to remind the Pentagon brass and others who’s giving the orders here and who needs to sit down, shut up and get about the business of supporting the unsupportable.

    crazy (cde091)

  31. #16, Sammy, thanks for the correction, I appreciate it. Let me rephrase:

    If Hagel had any integrity or self-respect he never would’ve accepted Obama’s nomination. The disaster at Benghazi exposed Obama’s complicity in the deadly event and indicted him as the architect behind the ongoing criminal conspiracy to conceal his central involvement. Hagel voluntarily allied himself with the illegal deception rather than with the legitimate interests of the American people.

    ropelight (cfee3f)

  32. I wonder, did Senator Ted Cruz know about this, or its possibility, when he made an exception for national security positions in his idea for no nominations by Obama to be confirmed.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2014/11/23/sen-cruz-leads-charge-against-obamas-executive-action-rep-becerra-if-plan-can-fix-broken#p//v/3905964778001

    CRUZ: Chris, I’ve laid out a detailed, systematic plan for what Congress should do? We should use the constitutional checks and balances that we have to rein in the abuse of power of the executive.

    Step number one that I have called for is the incoming majority leader should announce if the president implements this lawless amnesty, that the Senate will not confirm any executive or judicial nominees, other than vital national security positions, for the next two years, unless and until the president ends this lawless amnesty.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  33. 30. must be the same people behind the LCS contract:

    narciso (ee1f88) — 11/24/2014 @ 11:20 am

    It’s got to be that Gruber guy.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  34. Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/24/2014 @ 10:13 am

    Actually, Sammy, the report doesn’t say it was due to poor intelligence rather than manipulation. It says the information was wrong but doesn’t draw any conclusions as to why that was the story the Obama administration put out.

    What it does say, is that the reason was NOT that they made it up in the White House.

    As you observe, for that we await the conclusions of the select committee.

    Trey Goudy asked a very good question when he started. How did a very implausible story (he used some other description) become the official U.S. government position?

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  35. Hagel was Scowcroft’s protege, at the Atlantic Council, which is in turn funded by our friends in the emirates, I imagine he turned out a dissapointment for them as well,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  36. Senator John McLame for SecDef…

    redc1c4 (a6e73d)

  37. Is it just me, or…

    The officials described Mr. Obama’s decision to remove Mr. Hagel, 68, as a recognition that the threat from the Islamic State would require a different kind of skills than those that Mr. Hagel was brought on to employ. A Republican with military experience who was skeptical about the Iraq war, Mr. Hagel came in to manage the Afghanistan combat withdrawal and the shrinking Pentagon budget in the era of budget sequestration.

    But now “the next couple of years will demand a different kind of focus,” one administration official said

    …wouldn’t a preezy who admitted they hired someone who didn’t have the skills to head the Department of Defense should the country need defending just have outed his own preezy @$$ as unfit to be Commander in Chief?

    Basically Prom Queen is admitting, in no uncertain terms, that he’s not competent to run anything. It’s not that he can’t run a large complex organization. He can’t run a small simple operation. For years the libs have been trying to excuse this guy by saying the country is just unmanageable. “Nobody can do this job, it’s just too big,” they kept saying.

    Yeah, who could possibly have predicted that the SecDef should have the kind of skillset that would be applicable to, you know, defending the country. Who could have predicted that a SecDef would need those kind of skills? Why if our super smart freshman dorm president and his ivy league model UN crew couldn’t predict that I guess no one could.

    Hey, I know who can possibly run the country. Someone who thinks a Secretary of Defense should have the “different kind of skills” you’d need to run the Department of Defense when it’s actually performing its mission statement. How hard is that?

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  38. Sammy @35, I think you need to read the article @ narciso’s link @30.

    You might need to understand there are problems with what this report does say. And what it doesn’t say.

    Let me ask you, if you believe as the WSJ claims that the report concludes that the administration’s story was due to poor intelligence, do you also believe the report when it finds no evidence of any intelligence failures?

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  39. about that House Intel Report

    it’s BS, designed to confuse people, which it did, and give cover to Obola & Shrillery, et al… which the MFM did immediately, seizing upon it as if it were the pure quill, and not just old stems & seeds.

    This is not a House Intelligence “Committee” report on Benghazi. This is only two committee members writing a report based on prior information.

    i will now patiently wait for the local Voxsplain franchise holder to try and spin this away, not that i read the drivel that spews from their keyboard anymore.

    redc1c4 (a6e73d)

  40. what should the new defense secretary

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  41. smell like

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  42. Napalm.

    nk (dbc370)

  43. It smells like … victory. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w

    nk (dbc370)

  44. OT: Ferguson GJ results due out later today…

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  45. Please listen to red (#40) and what I said in 22. IT WAS NOT A COMMITTEE REPORT.

    Gazzer (cb9ee2)

  46. we no longer have napalm in the DOD inventory mr feets.

    the last of it was stored in NWS Fallbrook, and the enviroweenies had a conniption fit when they wanted to ship it off for disposal… mid-80’s, IIRC.

    we use FAE’s these days, if we want similar effects.

    redc1c4 (b340a6)

  47. true, it was a report from two of the congressmen in on the supply operation to the Libyans from the get go, the names that come up in the course of the investigation, mostly were involved in the training and recruitment of the rebels,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  48. I was kidding about the Cos being the next SecDef. That would totally send the wrong message. Besides we need someone with the skills to fight ISIS. And because of his pro bono work at his old law firm Eric Holder is familiar with everyone who has those skills. Those patriotic undocumented future Americans, his old clients at GITMO. Say hello toour historic new illegal Imam American SecDef!

    Steve57 (fd0fc9)

  49. Good Riddance.
    Let DoD be run by another of the True Believers and stop with these False Flag ops.
    The American People deserve to see what results their foolish votes gather.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  50. 38-
    I’m sure the Campaign, or OFA, can supply a stamp-licker or limo-driver for this immense job of pissing on the men and women in uniform.
    The confirmation hearings, under the direction of Senate Armed Forces Cmte Chairman John McCain, should be an E-Ticket ride.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  51. How about that 25 year old slacker who tried to defect to the NORKs for SecDef? Maybe that’s why Prom Queen just had to get him back. He fired Hagel to make room for him in his freak show.

    Steve57 (fd0fc9)

  52. Bowe Bergdahl has extensive first hand knowledge of the enemy.

    Gazzer (cb9ee2)

  53. Good choice Gazzzer. I wouldn”t be surprised if the Blind Sheik is on the short list.

    Steve57 (fd0fc9)

  54. 54-
    Inappropriate, as he has twice the capability to think on his feet.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  55. How much worse can it get? Oh, just wait and see.

    htom (9b625a)

  56. “How much worse can it get?”

    htom – How about Medea Benjamin? She already knows most of the dictators and terrorist leaders in the Middle East and could institute wear a vagina to work Fridays at the Pentagon!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  57. Tommy ‘the Dude’ Vietor, why didn’t I think of that,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  58. 59. Tommy Vietor.

    I fopund this, noobody else noticed this in the released emails:

    http://i42.tinypic.com/2u8e98x.jpg

    Tommy Vietor e-mail, Friday, September 14, 2012 8:43 pm EST:

    There is massive disinformation out there, in particular with Congress. They all think it was premeditated based on inaccurate assumptions or briefings. So I think this is a response not only to a tasking from the house intel committee but also NSC guidance that we need to brief members/press and correct the record.

    Well, now, according to that just released House intel report, who is the one that had the disinformation, them or Tommy Vietor?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  59. And Benjamin J. Rhodes Friday, September 14, 2012 9:34 pm:

    http://i42.tinypic.com/2wflqn8.jpg

    There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise Intel or the Investigation We need to have the capability to correct the record as there are sigificant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

    Who is the one who had the mis-impression, Congress and the public, or Benjamin J. Rhodes?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  60. i nominate Senator John McLame for SecDef…

    plus it gets his senile old RINO a55 out of the Senate.

    redc1c4 (6d1848)

  61. red wins the thread!

    Gazzer (cb9ee2)

  62. Being held in contempt of Congress won’t get you fired, but disagreeing with Obama will.

    JD (a13448)

  63. Or maybe Israel is thinking of bombing Iran, and Hagel is okay with that.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  64. Notice how Hagel’s firing has overshadowed the inevitable failure of the Iranian nuclear talks? As Will noted, we are trying to negotiate a drawdown on a program that Iran will not even admit exists?

    JD (a13448)

  65. 61. … Who is the one who had the mis-impression, Congress and the public, or Benjamin J. Rhodes?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/24/2014 @ 2:38 pm

    Benjamin Rhodes, Sammy. Benjamin Rhodes, Tommy Vietor, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, and you. Everybody else figured it out. None of us fell for the “poor intelligence.”

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  66. 61. … Who is the one who had the mis-impression, Congress and the public, or Benjamin J. Rhodes?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 11/24/2014 @ 2:38 pm

    Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/24/2014 @ 4:40 pm

    Benjamin Rhodes, Sammy. Benjamin Rhodes, Tommy Vietor, Susan Rice, Barack Obama, and you. Everybody else figured it out. None of us fell for the “poor intelligence.”

    Not me. What I said was they fell for disinformation which came from the CIA and did not make it up. And I think I am vindicated in this respect.

    There really was SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE supporting the “spontaneous attack prompted by a video” story.

    You have so many “liberals” saying that the committee report vindicates them, because the way they perceive the accusation, is that the White House made up the video story – instead of, as the truth is, believing the “it was pre-meditated and the video sparked it “story.

    The Obama Administration publicized it because that was “good news” for them, but they didn’t invent it.

    Too many people can’t let go of that version of events – that the video story was made up for political reasons. It was actually disinformation aimed at President Obama to get him not to investigate more and to get him not to act.

    The last thing the CIA moles wanted was for Obama and company to make this all public and that have that story explode in their face. They wanted them to believe it, not to tell anyone and find out that that’s wrong.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  67. Correction:

    * instead of, as the truth is, believing the “it was NOT premeditated and the video sparked it “story.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  68. Patricia (5fc097) — 11/24/2014 @ 3:33 pm

    Or maybe Israel is thinking of bombing Iran, and Hagel is okay with that.

    More likely, Obama is okay with that, and Hagel is not. Continuing on with negotiations, sort of, is not inconsistent with accepting the idea of bombing Iran.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  69. Gazzer (cb9ee2) — 11/24/2014 @ 12:36 pm <blockquote. IT WAS NOT A COMMITTEE REPORT.

    This:

    http://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

    …is not a committee report?

    It was released by the Chairman and ranking minority member. Is it the equivalent of a subcommittee report, then?

    Actually that might be a significant distinction.

    Only two members had a chance to way in on the text, and it was almost certainly almost entirely written by staff, and as “Mollie” points out (narciso link @30) in her second of the 20 ways the media completely misread the report:

    One of the most common criticisms levied against the intelligence oversight committees is that they’re far too approving and accepting of what the intelligence community wants.

    That is indeed, very true. (and she goes to cite several examples of very carefully written language)

    But that means they were protecting the CIA, not the White House.

    Earlier the CIA had been protected, in part, by making accusations against the White House and the State Department.

    Here they admit the CIA got things wrong.

    It’s just that nobody fell down on the job, or – as I think must be the case for some people – was a foreign intelligence mole.

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  70. The CBS Evening News reported that Hagel met three times with Obama to discuss his role in the next two years, but Obama never asked him to stay. Finally, Hagel got the message.

    Nobody ever gets fired n the Obama Administration

    (except for political reasons, and then usually not really)

    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991)

  71. Hagel fired ’cause of Ebola or Oil on the way to free?

    All the stimulus, all $50 trillion or so globally, has been thrown into the fire, and look at where we are. There’s nothing left, and there won’t be another $50 trillion. Sure, stock markets set records. But who cares with oil at $40?

    Calling for more QE, from Japan and/or Europe or even grandma Yellen, is either entirely useless or will work only to prop up stock markets for a very short time. Diminishing returns.

    The one word that comes to mind here is bloodbath. Well, unless China miraculously recovers. But who believes in that?

    DNF (3b2963)

  72. I’ve been wondering what Queen Elizabeth had to do with our economy for a while, and I finally looked it up. How is quantitative easing different from currency devaluation?

    nk (dbc370)

  73. More syllables?

    ropelight (4712a0)

  74. 73.

    One of the most common criticisms levied against the intelligence oversight committees is that they’re far too approving and accepting of what the intelligence community wants.

    That is indeed, very true. (and she goes to cite several examples of very carefully written language)

    But that means they were protecting the CIA, not the White House.

    Earlier the CIA had been protected, in part, by making accusations against the White House and the State Department.

    Here they admit the CIA got things wrong.

    It’s just that nobody fell down on the job, or – as I think must be the case for some people – was a foreign intelligence mole.
    Sammy Finkelman (8f1991) — 11/25/2014 @ 1:16 am

    Sammy, I don’t know how this slipped by you, but members of the House Intelligence committee issued this report. So they couldn’t protect the WH, or the DoD, or DoS, because they didn’t investigate them. They’re outside the committee’s jurisdiction.

    Perhaps it did slip by you, because for some reason you think this report exonerates Susan Rice and the rest of Obama’s minions.

    You have so many “liberals” saying that the committee report vindicates them, because the way they perceive the accusation, is that the White House made up the video story – instead of, as the truth is, believing the “it was pre-meditated and the video sparked it “story.

    That was outside the scope of the House Intelligence committee’s authority to investigate. The report doesn’t go into that. Which is why I find so many “liberals” amusing. Are they really that dense? Don’t they know what the House Intel committee was reporting on? Apparently not, because they think that if the House intel committee didn’t conclude the WH, which is NOT an intel agency, made up the story that “vindicates” the WH.

    The Obama Administration publicized it because that was “good news” for them, but they didn’t invent it.

    That’s still an open question. Well, not for me. They made up the entire story. But it’s up to Trey Gowdy to prove it to everyone else’s satisfaction.

    And how many times do I have to tell you? If the CIA got things wrong, that means they fell down on the job. Unless you have a copy of the statutes establishing the agency and authorizing their activities in which Congress directed that the purpose of the CIA was to get things wrong.

    Steve57 (c4b0b3)

  75. 78. On a tangent, re: Hagel, he was dumped because he actually has America’s defense as a ‘nice to have’.

    Whereas the Son of Lies is pushing full throttle for ME Iranian, Saudi, Turkish nuclear powers to threaten the West and each other and to wipe the Jooos from the Earth.

    Mouthings to the contrary, the Mahdi must be revealed.

    DNF (3b2963)

  76. Steve57 (c4b0b3) — 11/25/2014 @ 7:33 am

    Sammy, I don’t know how this slipped by you, but members of the House Intelligence committee issued this report. So they couldn’t protect the WH, or the DoD, or DoS, because they didn’t investigate them. They’re outside the committee’s jurisdiction.

    The standard conservative accusation was that the idea that the attack was spontaneous came from the White House and was done for political reasons.

    The committee had no motive to debunk that idea. Perhaps it did slip by you, because for some reason you think this report exonerates Susan Rice and the rest of Obama’s minions. Yes, it does, of course, according to “Mollie”

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/24/20-ways-media-completely-misread-congress-weak-sauce-benghazi-report/

    Anyway, this report then claims, more or less completely implausibly, that Rice couldn’t have really known until afterwards that her assessments were incorrect. Um, OK. But maybe when you’re, I don’t know, trying to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy” because you’re focusing on campaigning more than truth-telling, you end up underscoring something that isn’t true. I don’t care if we have some difficult-to-swallow bureaucratic BS explanation that avoids tough questions and instead pats Susan Rice on the head as if she couldn’t be expected to do better.

    “Molle” definitely thinks the report exonerates Susan Rice.

    What it also does it say the CIA made no mistakes hat should have been avoided.

    Sammy Finkelman (f0d6ed)

  77. SF: You have so many “liberals” saying that the committee report vindicates them, because the way they perceive the accusation, is that the White House made up the video story – instead of, as the truth is, believing the “it was pre-meditated and the video sparked it“ story.

    That was outside the scope of the House Intelligence committee’s authority to investigate. The report doesn’t go into that.

    The report had to say where the CIA came up with the claim that the attack was spontaneous. It does NOT blame the White House, but blames what can only be called….SOOPER SEKRIT INTELLIGENCE.

    …because they think that if the House intel committee didn’t conclude the WH, which is NOT an intel agency, made up the story that “vindicates” the WH.

    It vindicates the White House by ascribing the origin of that claim to some place other than the White House!

    Instead it ascribes it to “intelligence”

    Although Mollie Hemingway still can’t get away from the idea that the wrong story had a political motivation.

    Sammy Finkelman (f0d6ed)

  78. “…they’re far too approving and accepting of what the intelligence community wants…”

    It’s called Regulatory Capture, and is endemic throughout the Regulatory State.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  79. SF: The Obama Administration publicized it because that was “good news” for them, but they didn’t invent it.

    That’s still an open question. Well, not for me. They made up the entire story. But it’s up to Trey Gowdy to prove it to everyone else’s satisfaction.

    All the evidence indicates that it really didn’t come FROM the White House but came TO the White House.

    See this is what I am saying that this report exonerates the CIA. What it does is say? The CIA is not at fault for getting this wrong.

    And how many times do I have to tell you? If the CIA got things wrong, that means they fell down on the job. Unless you have a copy of the statutes establishing the agency and authorizing their activities in which Congress directed that the purpose of the CIA was to get things wrong.

    Do I disagree with that?

    Mollie Hemingway says the same thing you do:

    Guess what page “mistakes were made” appears in the explosive Benghazi report that supposedly exonerates everybody in the intelligence community that was within 3,000 miles of the deadly attack? Did you guess page one of the executive summary? Congratulations. You win….

    ….Now, the report whitewashes, excuses or glosses over almost all of this and fails completely to get at any of the deeper and troubling questions about what’s wrong with our intel community.

    It only “debunks” claims if you think that bureaucratic ass-covering and rather strained justifications of what I would hope all Americans would agree was a clear intelligence failure count as “debunking.” …

    ….“There is no evidence of an intelligence failure,” the report says. But by that it simply means that nobody had given the CIA blueprints for an attack….

    … “One of the first questions [the committee] pursued is whether the U.S. government had or should have had intelligence that could have prevented or disrupted the attacks, and thus whether there was an intelligence failure.” This is idiotic. I mean, you might explain why we had an intel failure but there’s no question that we failed. By definition we failed. We have a dead ambassador, three other dead Americans and 10 severely wounded. All because of a surprise attack we were unprepared for. That’s a failure of the intelligence community.

    But instead the report says the Committee “found no evidence of an intelligence failure, and an internal CIA analytic review provided to the Committee on January 4, 2013, corroborates the Committee’s findings.”

    ….13. Explanations aren’t eviscerations

    Similarly, Finding #9 explains “The Tripoli Team’s decision not to move to the hospital to retrieve Ambassador Stevens was based on the best intelligence at the time.”

    And yes, this report says, that intelligence turned out to be completely inaccurate. (But remember, there were no intelligence failures, just inaccurate or insufficient intelligence that turned out to be disastrous.) But if the claim is that nobody moved to the hospital to help Stevens, explaining why no one moved isn’t the same thing as “debunking” the claim.

    Sammy Finkelman (f0d6ed)

  80. I probably won’t order Chuck Hegel’s soon-to-be-written tell-all autobiography.

    My Kindle e-reader doesn’t do a very good job at displaying pages written in crayon.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  81. Seriously, anyone masquerading as a teacher, who gave SF a passing grade in English was a fraud.

    He simply has not mastered spelling, syntax, comprehension, figures of speech, usage,.., nada.

    DNF (3b2963)

  82. But he’s a master with the paste-pot.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  83. hey now Beldar!

    most of us blue cord wearing SP-4s are brighter than he is.

    😎

    redc1c4 (269d8e)

  84. DNF (3b2963) — 11/25/2014 @ 2:03 pm

    Seriously, anyone masquerading as a teacher, who gave SF a passing grade in English was a fraud.

    He simply has not mastered spelling, syntax, comprehension, figures of speech, usage,.., nada

    It’s not spelling. I’m not good at typing. The errors you see are usually typing errors, not spelling errors. I’ve been typing online for 24 years and almost 8 months and my typing has not improved that much.

    Syntax: And I’m also not that good at essay writing. That’s my weakness.

    I also have very good reading comprehension, at least when I actually read something through.

    I am familiar with idioms – what do you mean?

    I know how things are supposed to read. I got a very high SAT verbal score.

    anyone masquerading as a teacher, who gave SF a passing grade in English was a fraud.

    There was no teacher! I got college credit in English through multiple choice CLEP tests. For English Composition I took a test in which I also had to write an essay. I got a 586. (scaled score 200 to 800)

    I also got 6 credits for Analysis and Interpretation of Literature, which is very much like a SAT test, except you get two courses worth of college credit for it. (if it still exists)

    Sammy Finkelman (f0d6ed)

  85. “…I also have very good reading comprehension, at least when I actually read something through…”

    LOL. Again with the high irony diet this morning. Good Lord above.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  86. Story of the false prosecution (and vindication) of military officers in Turkey

    https://www.sss.ias.edu/files/pdfs/Rodrik/Commentary/Plot-Against-the-Generals.pdf

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  87. The forgers had taken care to save the documents they had created with versions of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint that existed back in 2003. Superficially, there was nothing in the technical properties of the documents that gave them away. But what they had apparently overlooked was that Microsoft 2007 makes certain changes in the binary file that are retained even when a document is subsequently saved in an earlier format. These Office 2007-specific references are not visible to the naked eye, but can be seen using a forensic tool or a Hex editor, which reveal the raw information on the file. The most striking among these changes were recurring references to the Calibri font. Calibri was a new font, created specifically as the default font for Office 2007. It was first released to the public in mid-2006.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4621 secs.