• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Defense Secretary Hagel reported to step down as early as today

MMC said:
Seems they have had one round from the Clinton days. How that happened.....only the Neo Cons know.

220px-Michele_Flournoy_official_portrait.jpg


Michèle Angelique Flournoy
Click to expand...


Meet the Insurgency: Inside the Liberal Take-Over of U.S. National Security

>" Long before John Kerry’s Election Day defeat in 2004, his supporters had grown tired of seeing Democrats labeled the weaker party on national security. A few of them pledged never again to be branded as soft on defense. But the problem was that these inspired wonks didn’t know how to get into government, much less steer American national security and change the minds of the electorate. There is no local recruitment office for Middle East policy intellectuals like there is for the Marine Corps. The policy world seemed almost impenetrable to all but a handful of the most determined and connected.

So they drafted a plan..."<

continue -> Meet the Insurgency: Inside the Liberal Take-Over of U.S. National Security - Defense One
 
MMC said:
Seems they have had one round from the Clinton days. How that happened.....only the Neo Cons know.

220px-Michele_Flournoy_official_portrait.jpg


Michèle Angelique Flournoy (born December 14, 1960) is the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the third-ranking official in the U.S. Department of Defense, and in that role served as principal advisor to U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta from February 2009 to February 2012. When the U.S. Senate confirmed her nomination on February 9, 2009, she was at the time the highest-ranking woman at the Pentagon in the department's history. She currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the Boston Consulting Group and as a Senior Fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. She also serves on the Board of Directors of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), which she co-founded in 2007.

Flournoy attended Beverly Hills High School in Los Angeles, California, and has a bachelor of arts degree in social studies from Harvard University. She received an M.Litt. in international relations in 1983 from Oxford University, where she was a Newton-Tatum scholar at Balliol College

Flournoy served as a political appointee under the Clinton administration in the U.S. Department of Defense, where she was dual-hatted as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy. In that capacity, she was responsible for three policy offices in the Office of the Secretary of Defense:.....snip~

Michèle Flournoy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

I guess everyone with military experience isn't available at this time. Who's more qualified for the job than someone with a BA in social studies?

I can't imagine even Obama being that stupid to appoint this Beverly Hills High grad.
 
APACHERAT said:

Meet the Insurgency: Inside the Liberal Take-Over of U.S. National Security

>" Long before John Kerry’s Election Day defeat in 2004, his supporters had grown tired of seeing Democrats labeled the weaker party on national security. A few of them pledged never again to be branded as soft on defense. But the problem was that these inspired wonks didn’t know how to get into government, much less steer American national security and change the minds of the electorate. There is no local recruitment office for Middle East policy intellectuals like there is for the Marine Corps. The policy world seemed almost impenetrable to all but a handful of the most determined and connected.

So they drafted a plan..."<

continue -> Meet the Insurgency: Inside the Liberal Take-Over of U.S. National Security - Defense One
Click to expand...



Then there is Susan Rice.....BO's National Security Advisor. Which why laughable in itself.....has made us look like a joke on the World Stage.

Now this one wants greater latitude while seeking assurances from BO peep.




Flournoy is said to be interested in the top Pentagon job but seeking assurances from the White House that she would be given greater latitude in policymaking than Hagel. Flournoy is also considered a possible defense secretary for Hillary Rodham Clinton if Clinton should win the presidency in 2016.

Rep. Buck McKeon, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, suggested Obama consider his own role in his administration's foreign policy struggles rather than seeking another changeover at the Pentagon. "When the president goes through three secretaries, he should ask, 'Is it them or is it me?'" said McKeon, R-Calif.

Hagel has had his own frustrations with the White House. In recent weeks, he sent a letter to National Security Adviser Susan Rice in which he said Obama needed to articulate a clearer view of the administration's approach to dealing with Syrian President Bashar Assad. The letter is said to have angered White House officials. "The White House picked him because they wanted somebody they could control and would be a policy nonentity and they got a policy nonentity," said Rosa Brooks, who served at the Pentagon during Obama's first term. "It seems unfair to make him a fall guy for White House policy failures.".....snip~

AP Source: Hagel resigning as Defense secretary
 
tres borrachos said:
I guess everyone with military experience isn't available at this time. Who's more qualified for the job than someone with a BA in social studies?

I can't imagine even Obama being that stupid to appoint this Beverly Hills High grad.
Click to expand...


Heya TB.
hat.gif
I am still wondering how Bush Junior and his Team never got rid of her or sent her back out to pasture.
hmmm.gif
 
MMC said:
"When the president goes through three secretaries, he should ask, 'Is it them or is it me?'" said McKeon, R-Calif.
Click to expand...

>" When the president goes through three secretaries, he should ask, 'Is it them or is it me ? "<

Who ever Obama's next nomination for Secretary of Defense will be, it will be an affirmative action nomination.

I couldn't have said it better than myself.

>" Look. Right now, the White House should be racing–racing–to fill open appointee slots at the Pentagon. Every single open post should have a name attached to it by now. Instead, the White House….is operating in slow motion. It takes a year to nominate somebody, then it accepts Congressional slow-rolling of the nominee, and then lets folks sorta…fester in nominee limbo. That’s not right for the nominee

It’s also not good for the Democratic Party. And, frankly, the Nation.

The Democratic Defense community is starved of voices, and the Democratic Party–for it’s own long-term health–needs a wider set of views than are available from the two somewhat warring (Frienemy-esque?) camps of Democratic Defense Expertise–the Camp Obama Pragmatists and the Hillary Clinton enthusiasts of the Samantha Power “Responsibility To Protect” school or the understated Michele Flournoy “My Mission is the QDR” uh, movement.

The Democratic Party needs more adherents with solid Defense experience, and you sure as heck don’t build that body of experience by letting open political appointee slots go unfilled– because somebody at the White House–like Valerie Jarett–is pushing the President’s mandate to grow the ranks of female Defense appointees in an unhealthy, unsustainable fashion..."<
 
APACHERAT said:
>" When the president goes through three secretaries, he should ask, 'Is it them or is it me ? "<

Who ever Obama's next nomination for Secretary of Defense will be, it will be an affirmative action nomination.

I couldn't have said it better than myself.

>" Look. Right now, the White House should be racing–racing–to fill open appointee slots at the Pentagon. Every single open post should have a name attached to it by now. Instead, the White House….is operating in slow motion. It takes a year to nominate somebody, then it accepts Congressional slow-rolling of the nominee, and then lets folks sorta…fester in nominee limbo. That’s not right for the nominee

It’s also not good for the Democratic Party. And, frankly, the Nation.

The Democratic Defense community is starved of voices, and the Democratic Party–for it’s own long-term health–needs a wider set of views than are available from the two somewhat warring (Frienemy-esque?) camps of Democratic Defense Expertise–the Camp Obama Pragmatists and the Hillary Clinton enthusiasts of the Samantha Power “Responsibility To Protect” school or the understated Michele Flournoy “My Mission is the QDR” uh, movement.

The Democratic Party needs more adherents with solid Defense experience, and you sure as heck don’t build that body of experience by letting open political appointee slots go unfilled– because somebody at the White House–like Valerie Jarett–is pushing the President’s mandate to grow the ranks of female Defense appointees in an unhealthy, unsustainable fashion..."<
Click to expand...



Well with the Republican Senate.....if BO nominates her. Its not going anywhere. So she can play like the second string she is and take up that bench.
 
MMC said:
Well with the Republican Senate.....if BO nominates her. Its not going anywhere. So she can play like the second string she is and take up that bench.
Click to expand...

If she's not approved, that will delay the formation of Obama's Dykes on Bikes Motor Cycle Combat Brigade.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm no fan of Obama's, but that would be utterly foolish. The President, any President, should have whomever he/she wants in any cabinet position failing the nominee has serious criminal and/or personal/psychiatric disqualifiers. Judges - that's a whole other story.
Click to expand...

You may be right, and that's certainly been the custom--but nothing says it has to be that way. A Supreme Court justice, who may serve for life and whose vote weighs in decisions that may affect the lives of tens of millions of people, is vastly more important than a cabinet secretary. So are judges in lower federal courts, for that matter. If it's all right to go all out block the appointment even of an eminently qualified nominee to the Supreme Court, as the Democrats established when they savaged Robert Bork, and repeated by defaming Clarence Thomas, then I don't see why it should just be assumed that a President can appoint anyone he wants to his cabinet.

In fact it was a dispute over a cabinet official, Secretary of War Stanton, that got President Andrew Johnson impeached and very nearly convicted. Stanton's views on blacks and Reconstruction were at odds with Johnson's, and the President wanted to replace him. But Stanton's powerful abolitionist allies in Congress had reasons for wanting to keep him right where he was--and for getting rid of Johnson, whom they despised. Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, which required Johnson to get its permission to remove Stanton, and when Johnson defied that law, that violation became the ground for impeaching him.
 
APACHERAT said:
If she's not approved, that will delay the formation of Obama's Dykes on Bikes Motor Cycle Combat Brigade.
Click to expand...

Seems Hagel had to put up with all the talking behind his back too.

Its like BOs Inner circle doesn't care who they talk **** about.....other than the Iranians.
 
MMC said:
Seems Hagel had to put up with all the talking behind his back too.

Its like BOs Inner circle doesn't care who they talk **** about.....other than the Iranians.
Click to expand...

I hope Hagel does what the last two Obama's Secretary of Defense did, write a book exposing how incompetent Obama is and how Obama is a national security risk.
 
APACHERAT said:
I hope Hagel does what the last two Obama's Secretary of Defense did, write a book exposing how incompetent Obama is and how Obama is a national security risk.
Click to expand...

Well I suggest that BO take his whole Team with him out to pasture. As Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett will be forced back to the Original roles in life. Uselessness!

Which there will be many out to make sure that all of BO's people will be driven out of anything to do with Government.....and especially the Military!
 
jonny5 said:
Im ok with this. He didnt really have much qualifications for the job. Hopefully Obama will appoint someone more like Gates next, but I suspect we'll get another politician or bureaucrat instead.
Click to expand...

If he did not have much qualifications, how the hell did he get the job? Was he a political appointee?

I heard Hagel is a poor and ineffective manager, having had a number of failures. But is he not being used as the sacrificial lamb? The greater failure has been with the WH who seems to not be interested with what the military and CIA have to say. The WH is making foreign policy and with the same people such as Susan Rice. How many foreign policy failures does O now have? Ukraine, ISIS, Egypt, Iran.
 
Glowpun said:
If he did not have much qualifications, how the hell did he get the job? Was he a political appointee?

I heard Hagel is a poor and ineffective manager, having had a number of failures. But is he not being used as the sacrificial lamb? The greater failure has been with the WH who seems to not be interested with what the military and CIA have to say. The WH is making foreign policy and with the same people such as Susan Rice. How many foreign policy failures does O now have? Ukraine, ISIS, Egypt, Iran.
Click to expand...

You for got Libya. What the ****, the entire Middle East and North Africa.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm no fan of Obama's, but that would be utterly foolish. The President, any President, should have whomever he/she wants in any cabinet position failing the nominee has serious criminal and/or personal/psychiatric disqualifiers. Judges - that's a whole other story.
Click to expand...

No, he should have whoever the Senate agrees with. Thats how the system is designed. Congress ultimately runs things, and the President executes the will of congress.
 
Glowpun said:
If he did not have much qualifications, how the hell did he get the job? Was he a political appointee?

I heard Hagel is a poor and ineffective manager, having had a number of failures. But is he not being used as the sacrificial lamb? The greater failure has been with the WH who seems to not be interested with what the military and CIA have to say. The WH is making foreign policy and with the same people such as Susan Rice. How many foreign policy failures does O now have? Ukraine, ISIS, Egypt, Iran.
Click to expand...

Hes a Republican. I imagine someone in the White House wanted a token in office to make it look like they werent totally depending on Bill Clintons people to run things.
 
jonny5 said:
No, he should have whoever the Senate agrees with. Thats how the system is designed. Congress ultimately runs things, and the President executes the will of congress.
Click to expand...

I said it's foolish to pick a fight with the President over a cabinet appointment unless the nominee is somehow disqualified, and that doesn't mean that he/she has policy positions contrary to yours. I stand by that. I could be wrong, but Congress does not rule the Presidency and does not dictate how a President's cabinet officers manage their portfolios. Congress legislates and funds, the executive executes.
 
MMC said:
Well Pero, :2wave: Since BO peep is talking about how Hagel doesn't have the skills or that BO requires a different set of skills. Shouldn't BO Peep tender his resignation. Its not like BO has anything he can fall back on. Skills of a Putz doesn't count here. Also have you noticed how BO has lost his bass in his voice when talking with those overseas. Kind of hard to talk tuff when one is viewed as a wimp.....huh?


While one administration official insists he was not "fired," per se, another says that President Obama asked him to step down from his post. From the New York Times:

The president, who is expected to announce Mr. Hagel’s resignation in a Rose Garden appearance on Monday, made the decision to ask his defense secretary — the sole Republican on his national security team — to step down last Friday after a series of meetings over the past two weeks, senior administration officials said.

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.....snip~


BREAKING: Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel Reportedly Stepping Down - Christine Rousselle
Click to expand...

Maybe Hagel isn't as good an asskisser as he needs to be. :lol:
 
American said:
Maybe Hagel isn't as good an asskisser as he needs to be. :lol:
Click to expand...

Or maybe the white house is intolerant of cabinet secretaries who think for themselves.
 
tres borrachos said:
I guess I'm not surprised. I'm more surprised he lasted this long given his contentious relationship with the WH.
Click to expand...

This is what happens when your not on board with being a 'yes man' to Obama.
 
Obama needs to somehow get Wesley Clark into the Cabinet position. He's the kinda guy who will listen to Obama.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I said it's foolish to pick a fight with the President over a cabinet appointment unless the nominee is somehow disqualified, and that doesn't mean that he/she has policy positions contrary to yours. I stand by that. I could be wrong, but Congress does not rule the Presidency and does not dictate how a President's cabinet officers manage their portfolios. Congress legislates and funds, the executive executes.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the executive executes, the laws the congress, the will of congress. As designed the Presidency is a administrator, not a policy maker. Which is why his cabinet picks have to be approved by congress. Of course, this doesnt work today with the political nature of the Presidency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom