Karzai accuses U.S. and Taliban of conspiring to keep troops in Afghanistan

worldnews

Erin A. Kirk-Cuomo / Dept. of Defense via AFP - Getty Images

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel speaks with Afghan president Hamid Karzai during a private meeting in Kabul.

By Mirwais Harooni and Phil Stewart, Reuters

KABUL —Afghan President Hamid Karzai ratcheted up his criticism of the United States on Sunday, marring a debut visit by the new U.S. defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, and highlighting tensions that could undermine Washington's strategy to wind down the unpopular war.

A day after two Taliban bombings killed 17 people, Karzai accused the United States and the Taliban of colluding to convince Afghans that foreign forces were needed beyond 2014, when NATO is set to wrap up its combat mission and most troops withdraw.

"Those bombs that went off in Kabul and Khost were not a show of force to America. They were in service of America. It was in the service of the 2014 slogan to warn us if they (Americans) are not here then Taliban will come," Karzai said in a speech.

"In fact those bombs, set off yesterday in the name of the Taliban, were in the service of Americans to keep foreigners longer in Afghanistan."

It was one of several inflammatory comments by Karzai and his government on Sunday and follow weeks of efforts by the Afghan leader to curtail U.S. military activity in Afghanistan, including a call to kick American special forces out of an important province. U.S. commanders see special operations forces as key to the end-phase of the conflict.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel responds to Afghan President Hamid Karzai's statements in which Karzai accused the U.S. and Taliban with working together.

Hours after Karzai's speech, Hagel said he spoke "clearly and directly" about the comments during his first meeting with the Afghan leader since becoming U.S. defense secretary on February 27.

Hagel appeared at pains to be respectful of Karzai and avoid sharp criticism, but he told reporters that any collusion between the U.S. and the Taliban "wouldn't make a lot of sense."

The U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Joseph Dunford, was more categorical.

"We have fought too hard over the past 12 years, we have shed too much blood over the past 12 years, we have done too much to help the Afghan security forces grow over the last 12 years to ever think that violence or instability would be to our advantage," Dunford told reporters travelling with Hagel.

Of Karzai's remarks, he added: "I'll let others judge whether that's particularly helpful or not at the political level."

Still, politics will be key over the next several months, as the United States and NATO allies work to carry out their strategy of pulling out their troops and decide how large a residual force to leave behind after 2014.

NATO defense chiefs meeting in Brussels last month discussed keeping a combined U.S. and allied force of 8,000-12,000 in Afghanistan, focusing on training Afghan troops and countering the remnants of al Qaeda, the Pentagon has said.

Any deal for a follow-on force, which Washington says must include immunity for U.S. troops, would need Karzai's blessing.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

ABUSING STUDENTS? TALIBAN TALKS?

Karzai has a history of making incendiary statements that exasperate Washington but the nature and awkward timing of his latest remarks about the United States were exceptional.

He also alleged on Sunday that the Taliban and the United States had been holding talks in the Gulf Arab state of Qatar on a "daily basis," further fuelling his suggestion that Washington and the militants were working at common purposes.

"I told the president that it was not true," Hagel said. "The fact is any prospect for peace or political settlements - that has to be led by the Afghans."

The Taliban spokesman in Afghanistan, Zabihullah Mujahid, denied that negotiations with the United States had resumed.

Karzai's government also alleged that U.S.-led forces and Afghans working with them were abusing and arresting university students. Karzai issued an executive order banning foreign troops from entering all education institutions.

Hagel and Karzai were meant to have appeared together at a joint news conference on Sunday evening. But, in a reminder of the threats posed by the resilient insurgency, U.S. officials said it was canceled because of security concerns.

Hagel was about a kilometer away and within earshot of a Saturday morning suicide attack outside the defense ministry that killed nine people. He was meant to have met his Afghan counterpart there this weekend but the venue was later changed.

Hagel's visit coincided with the passing of a deadline imposed by Karzai for U.S. special forces to leave Wardak province accusing them of overseeing torture and killings.

U.S. forces have denied involvement in any abuses.

Hagel has sounded hopeful that a deal could be reached on their continued deployment but acknowledged no breakthroughs were made in his talks with Karzai.

It was unclear how Hagel's trip would be viewed by U.S. Republicans who bitterly fought his nomination to become defense chief, portraying him as soft on Iran and questioning his judgment.

Hagel at times appeared sympathetic to the stresses of political life that Karzai must endure.

"I know these are difficult issues for President Karzai and the Afghan people. And I was once a politician," Hagel said. "So I can understand the kind of pressures - especially leaders of countries - are always under." 

On the Record: Senator Hagel on Cuba Policy

capitolhillcubans

Who Is Chuck Hagel?

In the Congressional Record from former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel's (R-Neb.) confirmation hearing for U.S. Secretary of Defense:

Question from U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.):

Senator Hagel, in 2002 you referred to Fidel Castro as a “toothless old dinosaur” and praised former President Jimmy Carter’s recommended policy of relaxed sanctions and diplomatic engagement as “exactly right.”  In 2008, you were a signatory to a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging the U.S. relax sanctions and engage Cuba due to Castro’s “imminent departure.”  As of February 1, 2013, the Castros have not departed Cuba or shown any indication that additional concessions from the United States would modify their repressive regime.  An American contractor, Alan Gross, languishes in a Cuban prison.  Do you still believe Mr. Carter’s recommended policy towards Cuba is “exactly right?”  Would relaxing sanctions and engaging with the Castros be the hallmarks of your policy towards Cuba should you be confirmed?

Answer from U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.):

I support President Obama's Cuba policy which is focused on supporting the Cuban people’s desire to freely determine their future, reducing their dependence on the Cuban state, and pursuing the widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the universal human rights of all its citizens.  The President’s actions to facilitate family travel, people to people travel, the flow of remittances into private hands, and information to, from, and within Cuba have contributed to this objective.  I share the President’s view that the Cuban government must change its outdated political model to reflect the commitments undertaken by other governments in the Hemisphere to promote and defend representative democracy.  Policy matters and other diplomatic issues involving Cuba are led by the State Department.

SECRET HAGEL DONOR?: WHITE HOUSE SPOX DUCKS QUESTION ON 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS'

breitbart
By Ben Shapiro

On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.”

Yesterday, 25 senators sent a letter to Hagel demanding information on his foreign funding. Hagel has refused all such requests, prompting the senators to state, “in the judgment of the undersigned, a Committee vote on your nomination should not occur unless and until you provide the requested information.”

Called for comment and reached via telephone, Associate Communications Director at the White House Eric Schultz identified himself, heard the question, was silent for several seconds, and then hung up the phone immediately without comment. Called back via the White House switchboard, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine. Called on his cell phone, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine.

Hagel on Cuba

nationalreview

By Jay Nordlinger

After a hearing, senators have a chance to question a nominee in what are called QFRs — Questions for the Record. These are written Q&As.

So, Senator Cruz asked Chuck Hagel about Cuba. Hagel has praised Jimmy Carter’s recommended approach to Cuba. To call it soft would be a little generous. In his answer to Cruz, Hagel was vague and dodgy. I noted something interesting, however. Hagel said, “I share the President’s view that the Cuban government must change its outdated political model to reflect the commitments undertaken by other governments in the Hemisphere to promote and defend representative democracy.”

Very nice, I guess. But “outdated political model”? When is totalitarian dictatorship in date, or up to date, or in style? Is it like chiffon?

Cripe. Nice going, American people: Your decision on November 6 was . . . just super.

Hagel endorsed by Communist Party USA

WND.com

After reportedly receiving support from Iran, Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s defense secretary nominee, has yet another endorsement to add to his resume, this one coming from the Communist Party USA.

People’s World, the Communist Party USA’s official magazine, touted Hagel as “represent[ing] the more sober elements who have called in our national discourse for rejection of the old cold war tactics, the unilateralism and the continual push for wars all over the world.”

The magazine’s labor editor, John Wojcik, slammed the ”neocon” U.S. Senate for trying to “force Hagel to disavow his opposition to what they call the ‘successful’ surges in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

A People’s World blast email further lamented Hagel “is still the subject of controversy due to some mild criticism he made of the State of Israel.”

Wojcik contended “it was the U.S. Senate, not President Obama’s nominee, Chuck Hagel, that fell down on the job at the hearings.”

“It was allowed to become a place for right-wing grandstanding and unacceptable efforts to rewrite history,” he continued.

Wojcik conceded that Hagel “does not have the kind of record that progressives conclude will make him a Secretary of Defense who would chart the entirely new foreign policy direction the times require.”

Last week Hagel took heat from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oka., who asked during the Senate hearings why Iran supports Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary.

As a senator, Hagel opposed sanctions on Iran, instead calling for “direct, unconditional talks.” He was one of only 12 senators who refused to sign a letter asking the European Union to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

WND reported Hagel went on the Middle East satellite network Al Jazeera in 2009 to argue that before dealing with the nuclear arsenals of rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea, the U.S. and Russia must first lead the effort by phasing out their own nuclear weapons.

WND also reported Hagel serves on the board of the Ploughshares Fund, a George Soros-funded group that advocates a nuclear-free world.

The Ploughshares Fund has a long history of anti-war advocacy and is a partner of the Marxist-oriented Institute for Policy Studies, which has urged the defunding of the Pentagon and massive decreases in U.S. defense capabilities, including slashing the American nuclear arsenal to 292 deployed weapons.

Hagel’s thesis on minimizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal was reiterated in a 2012 report he co-authored titled “Global Zero: U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission.”

The report called for an 80-percent reduction in U.S. nuclear weapons to about 900, with only half of those being deployed. It further called for the eventual phasing out of short-range nuclear weapons and the elimination of ICBMs and B-52 bombers.

The report was the initiative of the Global Zero advocacy group, which works for a nuclear-free world.

Hagel co-authored the commission report with former U.S. diplomat Thomas Pickering, who reportedly previously held clandestine meetings with Hamas aiming to open U.S. dialogue with the terrorist group.

Iran is arguably the largest state sponsor of terrorism.

Regarding his views on jihad, WND exposed that in unreported remarks during a 2007 Senate hearing, Hagel posited that terrorism does not arise from religious beliefs but instead is a response to despair and a lack of hope.

The Communist Party USA may ideologically support some of Hagel’s ties.

WND reported Hagel sits on the board of a fund that serves as the main financial backer of a group urging the U.S. to join the U.N.’s International Criminal Court, which could prosecute American citizens and soldiers for “war crimes” and other offenses.

Opposes U.S. missile defense

Ploughshares, meanwhile, opposes America’s development of a missile defense system and contributes to scores of anti-war groups highly critical of U.S. foreign policy and military expansion.

Ploughshares is directed by Joseph Cirincione, who served as an adviser on nuclear issues to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Cirincione also was director of nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress.

Among the groups to which Ploughshares donates are the anti-Israel Americans for Peace Now, the Arms Control Association, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Center for Policy Alternatives, the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity, the radical Citizen Action, Citizens for Environmental Justice, the Coalition for New Priorities and the radical Institute for Policy Studies.

More grantees include the New America Foundation, the Nonviolent Peaceforce, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, the Nuclear Freeze Foundation, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, Peace Action, the Peace Studies Association, Physicians for Human Rights and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Ploughshares has also funded the Soros-financed Connect US Fund, which urges more U.N. helmets on U.S. troops, as well as the Center for American Progress, which has strong influence on White House policy.

Also on the list of Ploughshares grantees is The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which has long petitioned for the U.S. to reduce its nuclear stockpiles. According to Pavel Sudoplatov, a former major-general in Soviet intelligence, the work by the magazine editors was for the benefit of the Soviet Union.

Two of the magazine’s founding sponsors, Leo Szilard and Robert Oppenheimer, were accused of passing information from the Manhattan Project to the Soviets. Both were also key initiators of the Manhattan Project.

Ploughshares funds the International Crisis Group, a small organization that boasts Soros on its board and is a key promoter of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine used to justify the NATO airstrikes in Libya last year.

Massive defense slashes

Another Ploughshares grantee is the Institute for Policy Studies.

Ploughshares is listed on the institute’s website as a partner organization.

The institute works with the Center for American Progress to release an annual “Unified Security Budget,” which reportedly has influenced White House military policy. Previous recommendations from the two groups’ yearly Unified Security Budgets have been adapted by the Obama administration.

The 2012 budget, reviewed in full by WND, called on Obama to use the U.S. Armed Forces in part to combat “global warming,” fight global poverty, remedy “injustice,” bolster the United Nations and increase “peacekeeping” forces worldwide.

The budget called for massive, second-term slashes to the military budget. The savings are to be used to invest in “sustainable energy” and in fighting worldwide climate change.

The report makes clear the stated objective of transforming the U.S. Armed Forces to stress conflict resolution and diplomacy.

The report takes issue with the use of forces on the ground in various countries to secure or influence the longer-term strategic position of other nations.

It recommends scaling back all U.S. ground forces by 20 percent and reducing the Navy’s surface fleet by 20 percent, including two carriers and carrier combat air wings. It also calls for reducing the Air Force by two combat air wings while cutting standing peacetime overseas deployments in Europe and East Asia by up to 50,000 troops at a time.

The budget’s authors strongly argue for the reduction of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to no more than 292 deployed nuclear weapons and the complete elimination of the Trident II nuclear missile. It’s a process Obama already initiated in April 2010 when he signed a deal with Russia reducing stocks of weapons-grade plutonium.

The accord with Russia was signed at a nuclear summit in Washington arranged by Obama at which leaders of 47 nations committed to reducing the world’s nuclear stockpiles. One week earlier, Russian president Dmitry Medvedev and Obama signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, committing both countries to reducing their deployed nuclear arsenals.

Obama had broadly proclaimed his disarmament intentions during a 2007 campaign speech.

“Here’s what I’ll say as president: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,” Obama said.

By 2010, as president, he was arguing: “We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union – a country that doesn’t exist.”

Obama’s declaration came just as Russia signed a major arms deal with Syria and began to revive its Cold War-era naval bases in the Middle East, including in the Syrian ports of Tartus and Latakia on the Mediterranean.

The joint CAP and IPS report, meanwhile, recommends the U.S. cease all further development of missile defenses.

The report pushes for all current missile defense programs to be cut, including Ground-based Midcourse Defense, Airborne Laser and Kinetic Energy Interceptors.

“It is unwise to fund more advanced systems for missile defense while current ones have yet to be proven effective against their targeted threats,” complains the report.

The military’s vital Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation program is to be cut by $10 billion across the board.

Next on the chopping block: the complete cancellation of the second SSN-744 Virginia Class submarine. While the Unified Security Budget describes the new model as “unnecessary to address any of the threats facing the United States today” and “a weapon looking for an enemy,” the SSN-774 is designed for covert collection of intelligence, transportation of special operations teams and launching of tactical Tomahawk missiles – flexible capabilities tailored to rapid responses required by the 21st-century’s conflicts with irregular combatants.

Similarly targeted for cancellation are the V-22 Osprey helicopter and the Navy and Marine Corps versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Combating ‘global warming’

The 2012 Unified report sets the tone of its lofty agenda by demanding immediate reductions in the military’s already heavily slashed budget. But there is one exception requiring massive increases in funding – any spending that funds “alternative energy” or focuses Defense Department resources on combating “climate change as a security threat.”

The report authors recommend investing “the lion’s share” of the few allotted military increases in addressing the so-called “threat” of climate change.

The report wants Obama to take billions of dollars from the U.S. military and instead use them for a “green stimulus.”

These groups also envision the military as a tool to fight so-called global warming. In 2011, IPS released a 40-page CAP-endorsed report titled “The Green Dividend,” a term IPS defines as “a major shift of resources from the military budget to sustainable energy.”

The IPS research paper identifies the Pentagon as the “largest institutional energy user – and greenhouse gas emitter – on the planet,” arguing that if it undertook a “crash program” to convert to renewable energy sources and clean vehicles, it could make a significant impact on global emissions.

IPS calls on the Pentagon to contribute to a green world “by simply getting out of the way, by handing over unneeded military installations to be converted into green job incubators.”

The report lauds Obama’s first-ever U.S. Global Development Policy, which was issued in September 2010 and declares that the primary purpose of development aid is to pursue broad-based economic growth as the means to fight global poverty.

The report goes on to recommend that massive funds be sent to combat global woes, including an increase of $3.5 billion to “Global Health” investment and $2.14 billion to support United Nations peacekeeping and ensure that the United States does not fall behind in U.N. payments.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/hagel-endorsed-by-communist-party-usa/#PzLGytvKLQc7GpBb.99

Chuck Hagel’s Trust in Fidel Castro

frontpagemag

By Humberto Fontova 

 

“Elian is now where he belongs.” (Senator Chuck Hagel after Elian Gonzalez was shanghaied at U.S. gunpoint from his American family at Fidel Castro’s command and without a warrant.)

“To me,” wrote Hagel in a New York Times Op-Ed just after the armed raid on the Gonzalez family’s Miami home, “this case has always been fundamentally about a father-son relationship. … the point of the raid — to reunite Elián with his father when those housing him had repeatedly refused to hand him over….The boy is where he belongs.” 

Why did this Republican senator accept the word of a Stalinist dictator whose lifelong dream was to nuke Hagel’s homeland over that of the most loyal Republicans in modern U.S. history (i.e. Americans of Cuban heritage)?

Some background:

During the dawn of April 22, 2000 on the orders of Janet Reno — acting on the orders of her Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton, acting under the threat of blackmail by Stalinist dictator Fidel Castro—armed INS agents maced, kicked, and gun-butted their way into Lazaro Gonzalez’s Miami home, wrenched a bawling 6-year-old child from his American family at (genuine) assault weapon-point and bundled him off to Castro’s Stalinist fiefdom, leaving 102 people injured, some seriously.

Thanks to the ritual media-Democratic-Castroite collusion, most people forget (or missed) the crucial legal and ethical details of this circus/tragedy — which were mostly established during the first week after Elian’s rescue at sea, after his heroic mother’s drowning. The “son-belongs-with-his-father” crowd, for instance, “missed” that Elian’s father was initially delighted that his motherless son was in the U.S. and in the loving arms of his uncles and cousins.

The evidence —  frantically buried by the media-Democratic-Castroite complex — was overwhelming. Mauricio Vicent, a reporter for Madrid newspaper El Pais, wrote that during that first week he’d visited Elian’s hometown of Cardenas and talked with Elian’s father, Juan Miguel, along with other family members and friends. All confirmed that Juan Miguel had always longed for his son Elian to flee to the United State. Shortly after Elian’s rescue, his father had even applied for a U.S. visa.

Elian’s Miami uncle, Lazaro, explained it repeatedly and best: “I always said I would turn over Elian to his father, when Juan Miguel would come here and claim him. But I (along with practically everyone with experience under communism from Cambodians to Hungarians and from Lithuanians to Cubans) knew such a thing was impossible. He couldn’t do that. I knew it wasn’t Juan Miguel requesting Elian– it was Fidel.”

The legal-weasels forgot (or missed) that on Dec. 1, 1999 the INS asserted that Miami-based uncle Lazaro was indeed Elian’s legal custodian and Florida’s family court was indeed the place to arbitrate further issues.

Then on Dec 5th, 1999, Castro clapped his hands and his U.S. media minions along with the Clinton administration snapped to attention.

“Bill Clinton was terrified of Castro,” later explained Dick Morris. “Clinton looked over his shoulder for rafters the way Castro is always looking over his shoulder expecting an invasion of marines.”

The Mariel exodus of Cubans in 1980, you see, had cost Bill Clinton the only electoral loss of his life. Some of the Cuban criminals Castro sent over (a small portion of the refugees, actually) had been held in Fort Chafee Arkansas, as agreed by Governor Clinton acting on Jimmy Carter’s request.  Shortly the criminals rioted, many horrified Arkansans blamed the governor, and Bill Clinton lost the next elections.

The point is, the Clinton team who ordered the Elian raid knew exactly what was going on behind the scenes and were simply reacting to Castro’s blackmail. They knew Elian’s father wanted Elian to remain in the U.S. They knew Juan Miguel would have defected to the U.S. in a nanosecond if given half the chance. They knew Castro held a gun to Juan Miguel’s head. How could they not?  Bill Clinton’s lawyer and chum Gregory Craig, who had sprung him from the Lewinsky rap, now represented Elian’s father (i.e. Fidel Castro behind the façade). Craig even traveled to Cuba and met with the Stalinist dictator himself to batten down the details of his (Potemkin) client’s visit to the U.S.

Some of these details were uncovered during the U.S. visit by an alarmed Pedro Porro during the taping of Juan Miguel’s 60 Minutes “interview” with Gregory Craig’s other chum, Dan Rather.

“Juan Miguel Gonzalez was surrounded by Castro security agents the entire time he was in the studio with Rather.” This is an eye-witness account from Pedro Porro, who served as Dan Rather’s translator during the famous 60 Minutes interview. Dan Rather would ask the question in English into Porro’s earpiece whereupon Porro would translate it into Spanish for Elian’s heavily-guarded father.

“Juan Miguel was never completely alone,” says Porro. “He never smiled. His eyes kept shifting back and forth. It was obvious to me that he was under heavy coercion. I probably should have walked out. But I’d been hired by CBS in good faith and I didn’t know exactly how the interview would be edited – how it would come across on the screen.

“The questions Dan Rather was asking Elian’s father during that 60 Minutes interview were being handed to him by attorney Gregory Craig,” continues Pedro Porro. “It was obvious that Craig and Rather where on very friendly terms. They were joshing and bantering back and forth, as Juan Miguel sat there petrified. Craig was stage managing the whole thing – almost like a movie director.”

So whatever else can be said, the Clintons weren’t ignorant. They were cowing to Castroite blackmail. So let’s call them something else; perhaps “ethically-challenged” and/or “cowardly.”

But how can a Republican who came of political age during the Cold War, and who actually fought Communists in Viet-Nam, have been unaware that Communist regimes can apply unseen pressure to their inmates? Can a prospective U.S. Secretary of Defense have taken at face value the word of the same Stalinist dictator who declared:

“Again I stress I am not a communist. And Communists have absolutely no influence in my nation!” (Fidel Castro, April 1959)

“Political power does interest me in the least! And I will never assume such power!” (Fidel Castro, April 1959)

“What!” Nikita Khrushchev gasped, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he (Fidel Castro) proposing that we start a nuclear war? That we launch missiles from Cuba?”

“Of course I knew the missiles were nuclear- armed,” responded Fidel Castro to Robert McNamara during a meeting in 1992. “That’s precisely WHY I urged Khrushchev to launch them.”

But it appears that we’ll soon entrust our nation’s security to a U.S. Secretary of Defense who wholeheartedly trusted Fidel Castro.

Cuban descent Ted Cruz On Fire! “Slaughters” Chuck Hagel, During Defense Sec. Confirmation Hearings

New Zeal Blog

Chuck Hagel, Ted Cruz

Texas junior Senator Ted Cruz “slaughters” far leftist former GOP Senator Chuck Hagel, during Defense Secretary confirmation hearings.

If Mitt Romney had gone after Barack Obama like this, he’d be POTUS today.

Perhaps one day Ted Cruz will be.

This is what we need to see from the GOP!!!!!!!!!!

Hagel: I Told Obama I Wasn’t Qualified To Be Defense Secretary

patdollard

Lindsey Graham Just Crushed Chuck Hagel On The 'Jewish Lobby' Question

businessinsider

Grace Wyler 

It's been a rough morning for former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who is testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing as President Obama's next Defense Secretary. 

So far, Hagel has struggled in sparring with his former Republican colleagues, stumbling over answers defending his controversial past statements on Israel, Iran, and the U.S. nuclear program. 

But the most uncomfortable moment was definitely when Sen. Lindsey Graham grilled Hagel over a 2006 interview in which he said that the "pro-Israel lobby intimidates a lot of people" in Congress. 

"Name one person here who's been intimidated by the Jewish lobby," Graham demanded. "Name one dumb thing we've been goaded into doing due to pressure by the Israeli or Jewish lobby."

"I don't know," Hagel replied. "I didn't have a specific person in mind." 

"So you agree that it was a dumb thing to say?"

"Yes," Hagel admitted. "I've already said that." 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chuck-hagel-lindsey-graham-jewish-lobby-2013-1#ixzz2Jalu9es8

Rubio: I Cannot Support Hagel's Confirmation

SEN. MARCO RUBIO ON FOX'S 'HAPPENING NOW: Well, let me begin by saying that Chuck Hagel’s service to our country, particularly in Vietnam is something all of us admire and I don’t think you will find any debate about that but he is being nominated for one of the most important cabinet positions in our country, the secretary of defense. And I’ve stated long ago I’ve been deeply disturbed by his previous comments and positions in regards to sanctions on Iran and in regards to direct negotiations with North Korea. Obviously, statements he’s made about Israel. These are not the kind of statements and kind of positions I want to see our secretary of defense have and these are big, big problems. And so, for those reasons I just don’t believe I will be able to support his nomination especially after his testimony in the last hour here, he’s really not said anything that addresses those concerns to my satisfaction.

Talking Points From Havana

capitolhillcubans

Last week, the Castro regime's leading columnist, Nicanor Leon Cotayo, wrote an official editorial in Cuban state media praising President Obama's nominees for Secretary of State, U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Secretary of Defense, former U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.).

Leon Cotayo (channeling Castro) writes:

"Chuck Hagel has no problem with Cuba. To the contrary, he has demonstrated common sense to do away with one of the White House's most anachronistic foreign policies."

He then nudges the Obama Administration to ignore Congress and U.S. law, and exercise "real and legal options to maneuver and diminish tension in bilateral relations."

In other words, to keep providing them unilateral concessions (while they keep intensifying their repression of peaceful opponents).

Sure sounds like some of the "think-tank" policy papers floating around town, not to mention some of the recent analysis by Cuba "experts" in the U.S. media.

Now remember, according to these Cuba "experts", this is all a "Jedi mind trick" because despite all of the lobbying and the billions of dollars spent by Castro to have sanctions lifted, they really don't want them lifted -- for they need to have an excuse for their failures that Cubans don't believe.  Got it?

As for Castro's American hostage, Alan Gross, Leon Cotayo (channeling Castro) reiterated the regime's position that they will only discuss the issue pursuant to two conditions: "mutual respect and reciprocity."

In other words, blackmail and ransom. 

Hagel's Cuba problem

washingtonpost 

By Jennifer Rubin
Much of the focus on Chuck Hagel’s record has been on his views on Israel, Iran and sequestration. Equally troubling to those who have taken a forceful stand against Castro’s dictatorship in Cuba, however, has been his dismissive attitude toward the Castros  and his enthusiasm to end the U.S. embargo with no quid pro quo.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has already expressed serious concerns about Hagel’s views on Cuba. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), former chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee and  now chairman of the Middle East and North Africa subcommittee, put out a statement objecting to Hagel and citing his views on Iran, Israel and Cuba:

During his time in Congress, Senator Hagel supported legislation that would have provided a lifeline to the decrepit Castro regime that for the last half a century has exploited the Cuban people and posed a severe security threat to the U.S. . . . In a time of regional turmoil and rogue regimes, our Secretary of Defense must remain strong on sanctions against Iran, never abandon our allies, like Israel, and stand up to dictators like the Castro brothers who seek to oppress the voices of democracy and freedom

At times Hagel has seemed entirely clueless about Fidel Castro’s role in the region. Frank Calzon, who head the Center for a Free Cuba, told me in a telephone interview on Friday afternoon, “I respect him like any other senator. But apparently he is not very well informed. To the extent he has been aware, he has underestimated the Cuba situation.”

In 2002 the Omaha World Herald reported: “Otto Reich, the State Department’s assistant secretary for the Western Hemisphere, last week laid out a case against overtures to Cuba and its longtime president, Fidel Castro. ‘Castro has supported terrorist groups in every country in this hemisphere except Mexico,’ Reich told reporters Thursday. ‘So he is a terrorist.’ Sen. Chuck Hagel, a main sponsor of Senate legislation to lift economic sanctions on Cuba, countered Reich on Friday, saying that to term Castro a threat is ‘just goofy.’ ‘This is a toothless old dinosaur,’ the Nebraska Republican added.”

Hagel has worked assiduously in favor of lifting the trade embargo, calling the policy “outdated, unrealistic, irrelevant policy.” And he was instrumental in blocking legislation to grant Elian Gonzales citizenship.

The Castro regime, of course, has grown increasingly close to the Iranian regime and has allied itself with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In seizing and imprisoning an American, Alan Gross, it has advocated a swap with the so-called Cuban five spies (a position strenuously opposed by the U.S. Senate).

Calzon pointed out, “Jimmy Carter like Hagel felt it was for lack of trying that relations were so dismal.” But of course, this ignores outreach efforts under the Ford, Carter, Clinton and Bush administrations. Each solicitation has been met with aggressive action. Although President Carter set up a large interests section in Cuba, Castro responded by unleashing the Mariel boatlift. Cuban troops were also dispatched to Angola in one of the Cold War’s most prominent standoffs. President Obama relaxed travel and remittance restrictions, only to see Alan Gross be tried and imprisoned.

Calzon told me, “I don’t have a crystal ball. But in general I expect [Hagel] would continue to subscribe to the views he has held for years.” He contends that Hagel “will not present different views” to President Obama, who has already been inclined to follow the Carter approach to Cuba. Calzon is quite certain, having studied Cuba for decades, how the Castro regime will respond. “The Cubans will celebrate having Hagel in the Pentagon, ” he told me. ” Not only will they see that as a sign of weakness but as an invitation to push the envelope. Instead of reducing the chance of conflict, the opposite is true.”

Hagel’s views on Cuba put Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the most ardent opponents of lifting the trade embargo, in a tough spot. Last June at a hearing he grilled the administration’s assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, saying, “The Cuban people are no less deserving of America’s support than the millions who were imprisoned and forgotten in Soviet gulags. I am compelled to ask again today — as I have before — why is there such an obvious double standard when it comes to Cuba?” He has repeatedly vowed to block measures to lift the travel and trade bans. (In 2010, he declared: “Repression is repression and dictatorships are dictatorships, no matter where they are located or whether you want to use their resorts.”) Now he will be faced with a nominee who not only has worked strenuously for those positions, but seems to be willfully dismissive of the nature of the Castro regime.

Menendez, who also has been a robust supporter of sanctions on Iran, would have to sublimate his views on Israel, Iran and especially Cuba and cede his role as a Democratic Senate leader for a tough-minded national security policy if he rolls over for the president’s nominee. Aside from boosting a lame-duck president, why would he want to do that? We’ll find out soon.

Hagel: U.S. should give up nukes before rogue nations

Read at wnd >>

Hagel To Al Jazeera: America 'World's Bully'

Hagel: Jimmy Carter 'Exactly Right' on Fidel Castro, Cuba

www.breitbart.com

In 2002, then-Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel was the only member of the United States Congress to receive a special invitation from former President Jimmy Carter to join him on a trip to Cuba.  Mr. Hagel chose not to go, citing scheduling conflicts and concerns over the optics of such a trip. 

frontpagemag.com

But according to a 2002 article Breitbart News obtained through the Omaha World Herald’s archives, Mr. Hagel went on to say this:  "What Jimmy Carter's saying ... is exactly right: Our 40-year policy toward Cuba is senseless," Hagel said. "It's outdated, it's irrelevant and it just doesn't fit. We should be wise and be trying to enhance America's position with peoples of the world."

In addition to support for Mr. Carter’s Cuba policy, Mr. Hagel said that the way to undercut Cuban dictator Fidel Castro was to lend him access to the world’s largest market, the United States:  “If you start opening trade with Castro and opening a dialogue and a relationship, I think that cuts directly against his interests," said Mr. Hagel.  Asked whether such a move would merely strengthen the power of Castro’s regime, Mr. Hagel replied: "That's just not true," he said. "That's the same tired argument that everybody uses."

As Brandon Darby of Breitbart News reported on Sunday, President Barack Obama’s historic easing of sanctions against Cuba have coincided with a dramatic spike in political repressions and confirmed detentions of political dissidents by the Cuban regime:

Both Reuters and the Miami Herald report that Cuban Security agents broke their previous records of government political repression in 2012 with 6,602 confirmed detentions of political dissidents. In 2011 there were 4,123 confirmed political arrests which was even higher than the 2,704 arrests from 2010. Both Reuters and the Miami Herald based their data on a 2012 year-end report from the Cuban Committee for Human Rights and National Reconciliation.

While Mr. Hagel chose not to accept Mr. Carter’s travel invitation, critics of the Hagel nomination for Defense Secretary say the two men share similar views on things other than Cuba policy.  “Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the American Jewish community’s friends of Israel,” says Anti-Defamation League head Abe Foxman.  “The sentiments he’s expressed about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.”