Questions Galore

[Flanders]

George Will’s column offers 21 questions he thinks Hagel should be asked at his Senate confirmation hearing:

Some questions for Hagel
By George F. Will, Published: January 16

George F. Will: Some questions for Hagel - The Washington Post

Mr. Will’s questions are realistic to be sure, but not a one of them touches on the reason Hagel should NOT be confirmed. If the federal government wants to maintain the illusion of two political parties not one Republican should vote to confirm Hagel because of Hagel’s activities cited in Aaron Klein’s column.

It would be great if Mr. Will’s questions are put to Hagel —— greater still if a bunch of questions developed from Klein’s piece are also asked. It ain’t going to happen. No senator is going to ask Hagel, or anybody else, questions that call attention to the New World Order’s agenda. The fact that Biden’s Sock Puppet is involved in the Initiative for Global Development with Madame Short Legs and Colin Powell should be more than enough to disqualify Hagel:

Hagel, meanwhile, is also a board member of the Initiative for Global Development, which says it seeks to combat global poverty by advancing private and public investment in the developing world, largely in Africa. The group is chaired by Albright and Powell.

Americans are still fighting —— and losing —— LBJ’s War On Poverty. Hagel will be a secretary of defense who would widen a losing war. Only this time when the final political battle is lost there will be no helicopter evacuations for the American people. The defeat will be far more devastating than a defeat in a shooting war because a worldwide parasite class will rise from America’s ashes. If widening a losing political war ain’t treason it’s a pretty good substitute.

Let me close with a guide to Hagel’s priorities:

With Obama, Hagel co-sponsored the Global Poverty Act, which would have imposed a new “tax” on the U.S. requiring the country to add 0.7 percent of the gross national product to its overall spending on humanitarian aid.

For fiscal 2009, for example, the bill would have translated into as much as $98 billion in required new aid.

XXXXX​

With then-Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, Hagel sponsored the Social Investment and Economic Development for the Americas Act of 2007.

The act sought to establish a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to “reduce poverty, expand the middle class and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere.”

The estimated cost of the act would have been $50 million for fiscal year 2008; $75 million for fiscal year 2009; $100 million for fiscal year 2010; $125 million for fiscal year 2011; and $150 million for fiscal year 2012.

Together with Biden, Hagel in 2008 introduced S. 3169, a bill to authorize appropriations for the U.S. contribution to the 11th replenishment of the resources of the African Development Fund.

The bill sought an annual contribution of $468 million to the African fund.

With Biden again, Hagel sponsored the International Development Association Replenishment Act of 2008. The act authorized a U.S. contribution of $3.7 billion to the development association, subject to obtaining the necessary appropriations.

Hagel pushes wealth redistribution to Third World
Serves on globalist groups urging massive increases in U.S. funding
Published: 9 hours ago
by AARON KLEIN

Hagel pushes wealth redistribution to Third World

 

[jwoodie]

What ever happened to succinct posts?

 

[whitehall]

Democrats have always blindly followed the party line no matter what and if you dared to voice opinions that might be considered moderate like senator Joe Lieberman they kicked you out of the party. That type of skewed logic is the basis for the left's argument that republicans should agree to Hagle's nomination simply because of party loyalty.

 

[Flanders]

What ever happened to succinct posts?

To jwoodie: Nothing. They never were.

Chat rooms and bumper stickers should meet with your attention span.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

George Will’s column offers...

not much.

George lost his mojo after he became a media celebrity. Like him way back in late seventies The pursuit of happiness, and other sobering thoughts

he was right on Reagan in the 70s then he became a Reagan fan (mostly) ... he sold his soul for voodoo bs

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What ever happened to succinct posts?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democrats have always blindly followed the party line no matter what and if you dared to voice opinions that might be considered moderate like senator Joe Lieberman they kicked you out of the party. That type of skewed logic is the basis for the left's argument that republicans should agree to Hagle's nomination simply because of party loyalty.

Ted Kennedy challenged a sitting President of his own party. Conservative Democrats gave Reagan his legacy in passing bills ... Democrats backed Obama over the Clintons .. Clinton did not get full Democratic support like W Bush did with conservative Republicans who ran from con fiscal principles in favor of party unity...

 

[whitehall]

Democrats have always blindly followed the party line no matter what and if you dared to voice opinions that might be considered moderate like senator Joe Lieberman they kicked you out of the party. That type of skewed logic is the basis for the left's argument that republicans should agree to Hagle's nomination simply because of party loyalty.

Ted Kennedy challenged a sitting President of his own party. Conservative Democrats gave Reagan his legacy in passing bills ... Democrats backed Obama over the Clintons .. Clinton did not get full Democratic support like W Bush did with conservative Republicans who ran from con fiscal principles in favor of party unity...

What democrat president did Kennedy challenge? Grover Cleveland? Democrats voted for a couple of Reagan spending bills and slipped a little amendment into a Military appropriations bill that prevented the US from protecting Central America from the communist rabble. When Reagan violated the Boland amendment they pounced with the Iran Contra fiasco. Democrats not only supported the sleazebag-in-chief but they marched (in lockstep?) to the capital when the sleaze bag was impeached. Democrats voted for Boots on the ground in Iraq and then they spent the next several years undermining the mission and the republican administration. Harry Reid should have been dragged away in handcuffs when he tried to influence the morale of the Troops when he told them "the war is lost" just before the Troop surge. Remember "BETRAY-US"? Who paid for the $10,000 full page ad in the NY Times? What happened to Cindy Sheehan's nut case anti-war radicals? They only come out during a republican administration?