He asked that specific question because he knew Hagel couldn't answer it. I find Graham, McCain, and the rest of their ilk to be disgusting.

How a former senator, and supposed friend, was treated by these petty little men was horrid.

prestige, if any, after these hearings. Time for both of them to retire.

How much lower can they go? Hell, snakes are looking down on them!

never admired McCain.

1. He's lost his ever-loving mind.

2. He really doesn't want the job--he's sabotaging his chances deliberately.

It's the pissy things he's done in the interim that are really telling. I think he has the idea that, since he's the only GOP-POTUS candidate in recent years who is still public life, that he is the standard bearer, the north star, of the GOP. He's not. He is just one jerk among many. McCain crabs about pork barrels, all his wingnut fatcat pals love them, while the Tea Partiers hate spending, except on things THEY love. He can't lead, any more than Turtleboy or Bonehead can.

But McCain is disappointing every one on both sides of the aisle, lately, with these immature shenanigans--those that respected his service despite his playboy ways and short temper and childishness; those that admired him as a member of the "loyal opposition" who would (once upon a time) behave honorably even through a disagreement; and the Tea Partiers, to whom no one is sufficiently pure.

He's a hot mess. Sometimes I wonder if he stays in the Senate because he's not terribly welcome at home...?

waited for him while he was in the prisoner camp and when he got back she had gotten into a bad car accident that left her with health issues. What did he do? He went and cheated on her leaving her for a younger woman whose family had money. He misused military planes that he caused to crash. Had it been any other pilot they would have kick him off of planes. But his daddy and granddaddy were generals. To me McCain was a nothing back then. The topper for me was picking Palin. I don't think he picked her for her brain. He thought (stupidly) that women would vote for him. He put the country in danger with that pick. Not a chance.

I believe?

they get more stars. I don't know how the Navy does it but maybe it is the same. Love the navy because I love the water.

She came out of an abusive relationship with an asshole first husband --McCain, for all his faults, was outraged at the way she was treated. Some think he liked the role of "Knight in Shining Armor."

When he married her he adopted the asshole ex's kids (the ex abandoned them, never paid a dime in support)--those are the "McCain sons" who were at the Academy and so prominent in his campaign--he had one daughter with Carol, before he went to Vietnam.

When he came home, she was fucked up from her accident (she lost several inches of height because her legs/pelvis got crushed--she was in a wheelchair for awhile, too), but so was he--he was on crutches with frozen shoulders from being hung off a meat hook and tortured in the Hanoi Hilton.

When he went to OLA and started horndogging around the Hill, it was already over. I have no doubt that she was terribly disappointed, but I think she wasn't at all surprised. He signed over his full retirement to her and the house(s) they owned. He also pays her alimony (he can afford to, natch).

I think now, through the clarifying lens of time, she doesn't feel victimized, she feels liberated. She got too used to being independent when she was running all over hell speaking on behalf of not just John, but all POW and MIA spouses and families. That whole experience really brought her out of her shell, she was kind of shy before then.

They are still parents to the children that she had with her first husband, and, like I said, she will never diss the guy. She got what she wanted when they agreed to divorce. She was not abused by McCain or treated callously (I think she is annoyed when she is portrayed this way). She took charge of her own life and followed her own path. You can't force people to want to stay together. She's not unhappy, not one whit. He was too much of a pain in the ass, he had too many PTSD issues, and she had grown up and learned to be an actualized, independent human being while he was a POW, while he was still working out his horny teen issues.


Now that the two of them aren't married, they get along just fine. I wouldn't be surprised if JM gets along better with Carol than he does with Cindy...


His daddy and granddaddy were Admirals--in fact his father was the SOPA (Senior Officer Present Afloat, i.e. the top dog in the regional chain) when his a/c was shot down. Many times the VC wanted to trade him alone for this or that, he refused to go without everyone. Say what you will about his post-Vietnam misadventures (and he screwed his way around Capitol Hill like a dog in season) but when it came to his conduct as a POW, I think he conducted himself admirably under extreme duress. He had more bones broken through torture than he did as a consequence of his ejection.

As for the ring-knocker club (USNA) and the "Do you know who I AMMMMMMM?" club (Congressmen's/Senators' kids, for example) they are everywhere in Service. I've had to work with a few of 'em, and oftentimes, it's Fuck Up, Move Up. The system isn't always fair, but it never has been. If you have a connection to a flag or general officer, it IS helpful--after all, they are the people who chair promotion boards, and make up the membership once you hit 0-6.

That said, I'm not feeling John McCain one bit for the shit he did after he got home--and I am not talking about his personal life; I'm talking about his shitty leadership at OLA and his high-handed attitude towards his subordinates. I think we have to take Carol at her word, that she's doing fine, thanks for caring; and we really can't worry about Cindy and her issues, (or the onerous pre-nup she made John Boy sign) either.

I can also take issue with how he conducts himself in the Senate, and whatever legacy he had in terms of comity and reaching across the aisle and veteran's issues and the whole POW/MIA thing he did with John Kerry, well, he's pissing that away by acting like a boneheaded asshole, trying to pander to the Teaparty in AZ, when they're not enamoured of him no matter what he does.

He's acting the fool lately. He's writing his last chapters and painting himself as a petty little clown. He needs to step back and get correct. IMO, anyway.

crap. I just don't have the respect for him.

I think it was perfectly acceptable to ask who he was talking about. That Hagel was too much of a coward to answer it isn't Graham's problem (and for the record, I do think Graham is dispicable - just not for this. Hagel should have been prepared to answer it.

Unfortunately, he needs four cons to vote for him.

Stating that the right-wing Israeli lobbyists have undue influence in Washington would have given them all license to vote no.

Hagel has shown more bravery than most though, recall he quit the Reagan admin over treatment of vets.

This was not the battle to fall on his own sword.

Can't a simple majority get the job done?

New York and California are particularly vulnerable on that issue. Swallow hard and keep your mouth shut was probably the best thing to do.

that Hagel's original answer was suspect...and he had been asked to explain it, and he did. Maybe the answer was not satisfactory, and I think his explanation was a bit weak. My point is that Graham's question was not designed to elicit the truth...it was designed to do as much harm as possible.

All these confirmation hearings are proving to me that the republicans shouldn't be in the position of any power. They're obnoxiously sore losers.

Graham has a lot of anger issues doesn't he? If you have any relationship with a D he hates you.

They'd love to rewrite history such that the Iraq war was a great idea and not the huge debacle it actually was.

Having Hagel at Defense will be a nagging reminder of how wrong they were AND of how wrong they continue to be.

That would have been hilarious if he said this to his face.

although you have to imagine that thought bubble was in his head. Say it and never get confirmed or sit here and take it and eventually they will likely confirm me.

Did Hagel use the term "Jewish Lobby" first?

the majority of Congress actually believes that Israel deserves our support. It couldn't possibly be that the vast majority of American citizens also believe that - except that they do. This board represents the very loud vocal minority that believes otherwise.

Mideast policy. Many U.S. Jews and even many Israelis are not comfortable with the influence of AIPAC and conservative evangelical Christians on U.S. Mideast policy.

I'm no supporter of AIPAC and am quite aware of why the evangelicals support Israel (the land, not the Jews) but they by no means direct our foreign policy. Congress represents their constituents - if they weren't voting and supporting what they support, they would get rid of them. Do you perhaps have an example of when our foreign policy was good for Israel but detrimental to the US and was voted on and passed due to nefarious Israeli influence?

Destruction of Palestinian houses with bulldozers, etc. Inaction can speak as loudly as action sometimes.

Pres Obama has - more than once - commented on the settlements - condemning them. What exactly are you looking for?

The fact that I don't accept your method of measuring the influence on U.S. Mideast policy does not mean you win the argument. And Obama's condemnations of settlements have been toothless, to say the least.

there were no votes in Congress you could point to to prove your point so I moved onto the executive branch. As far as the American public, polls have always indicated very strong support for Israel so it seems our government is representing their people just fine in that regard. I ask again, what exactly are you looking for?

You apparently are either very ill informed or willfully ignorant. The following is from a Journalism website:

Israel is currently the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since World War II. Although aid to Israel began in 1949 with a $100 million bank loan, large-scale U.S. assistance for Israel increased dramatically throughout the several Arab-Israeli wars in the 1960s and 1970s.

A 2012 report by the Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” characterizes the historical financial relationship, types of military spending and current trends.

Among the highlights of the report are:

To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance. It is currently the second largest recipient of aid worldwide, with Afghanistan now first.

The fiscal year 2013 budget request “includes $3.1 billion in Foreign Military Financing [FMF] for Israel and $15 million for refugee resettlement. Within the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s FY2013 budget request includes $99.8 million in joint U.S.-Israeli co-development for missile defense.”

snip

“The United States and Israel announced in 2010 that Israel will purchase 19 F-35s, the fifth generation stealth aircraft considered to be the most technologically advanced fighter jet ever made, at a cost of $2.75 billion. They will be paid for entirely using FMF grants…. As part of the F-35 deal, the United States agreed to make reciprocal purchases of equipment from Israel’s defense industries estimated at $4 billion.”

In 2012 Israel’s portion of the total FMF account of the U.S. was 60%. Sixteen separate annual FMF grants to Israel represent 18-22% of the overall Israeli defense budget.

The value of the U.S. materiel stored in Israel increased to $800 million in 2010 and is expected to rise to $1.2 billion. By agreement, Israel may ask for permission to use these arms and equipment, and the country drew on these reserves in its 2006 conflict with Hezbollah.
snip


http://journalistsresource.org/studies/international/conflicts/u-s-foreign-aid-to-israel-2012-congressional-report

you object to. Certainly a valid objection if you think it's a detrimental thing. Since the vast majority of that money comes right back into the pockets of Americans because it's slated for buying American weapons, that argument really doesn't do it for me.

Look, I detest the settlement policy of Israel, I'm a firm supporter of a sustainable Palestinian state alongside Israel. What I'm not a believer in is rewarding bad behavior - the Palestinians of Gaza voted a terrorist organization as their government. I'm not for rewarding that and fully support making sure our ally has what it needs (including our vocal support) in that arena. Bibi lost support in the recent election and I'm thrilled about that and I'm hoping it leads to a coalition that can actually accomplish something.

So I'm in agreement that Bibi basically sucks and has not been helpful in forwarding relations in the mideast. That doesn't mean I'm willing to throw Israel under a bus. And you have to accept (if you want to live in the real world) that our President, our congress and the majority of Americans don't agree with you on this issue. You can't possibly believe that this board represents anything other than a vocal minority on this issue...not if you're as well informed as you claim.

he was given cooked evidence, his staffer Wilkerson (I think that was his name) saying the same would be all the evidence anyone would need that we were lied into war. Wilkerson even admitted it under oath in front of Congress.

You seem to think we went into Iraq at the behest of Israel...even though the evidence is there that Bush intended to hit Iraq from the minute he walked into the oval office. Polls show that Americans support the aid going to Israel so I would hardly call that evidence of something detrimental (even though it chaps your ass). How was it that Bibi is responsible for that embarassing display in front of Congress you refer to? I'm not sure what your point is with that lunatic Ben Smith's column. He's an opinion writer and so fucking what? My perception of your problem here is that the President, the congress and the majority of Americans don't agree with you about Israel and therefore they're wrong and you're right. Good luck with that.

I support my daughters, but if they decide they want to do something stupid, I'm not going to join them just because they are my daughters.

I support Israel, but there is no way in hell they should be striking Iran, regardless of their nuclear status, especially if the US disagrees.

I support Israel, but I think their de facto annexation of the West Bank is illegal, and a violation of the Geneva conventions.

Frankly, I think the majority of Americans and probably a lot of people in Congress agree with my positions on those two things, but Congress is afraid of AIPAC.

After all, it appears that Senator Milksop can be intimidated by ANYTHING!