Troops not an option says Obama

Defense Secretary Could Consider Recommendation For More Ground Troops In Iraq

[…But Obama could not]
Hunter Walker | Business Insider

In his interview with CNN, Hagel said he did not “foresee a circumstance when it would be in our interest to take this fight on ourselves with a large military contingent.”

“If we get to any other variation of recommendations from General Dempsey, we will deal with it, but we are not there yet,” said Hagel.

At the G20 Summit, Obama would not completely rule out the possibility of using combat troops to fight ISIS. However, he suggested it would require a rather extreme turn of events.

“There are always circumstances, in which the United States might need to deploy ground troops,” Obama said. “If we discovered that ISIL had gotten possession of a nuclear weapon, and we had to run an operation to get it out of their hands, then yes, you can anticipate that not only would Chairman Dempsey recommend me sending U.S. ground troops to get that weapon out of their hands, but I would order it.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-may-consider-recommendation-for-iraq-ground-troops-2014-11#ixzz3JLnrfV00

 
Only if ISIS were to get hold of a nuclear weapon, would Obama send ground [combat] troops into Iraq. This is a war of ideology —  ISIS’ verses Obama’s. He not only took troops off the table but he took the ‘threat of troops’ off the table.

He can use executive power to grant amnesty for illegal aliens, and stop deportations but he cannot use it to deploy troops in Iraq. He also has no problem threatening unilateral action here for any reason, but cannot threaten a cult of evil ravaging across the Middle East.

On the other hand, he will not take action to prevent Iraq from building a nuclear weapon. Why would IS need a nuclear weapon with Obama in the White House? He’s following the same formula on Iran: not only taking action off the table but taking the ‘threat of action’ off the table.

RightRing | Bullright

Gitmo-gate in full swing

Under Pressure, Hagel Promises to Act on Guantánamo Transfers


By CHARLIE SAVAGE and HELENE COOPER MAY 29, 2014 | NYT

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who is under pressure from within the Obama administration to step up his pace in approving the transfer of low-level Guantánamo Bay detainees, has told reporters that he would decide soon whether to accept a months-old offer to resettle six prisoners in Uruguay.

But Mr. Hagel, in his most expansive public comments about detainee transfers, acknowledged that he has been in no rush to sign off on them. He cited the burden and responsibility of being the one official who, under a legal obligation imposed by Congress, must personally determine that releasing a detainee makes sense.

“My name is going on that document. That’s a big responsibility,” Mr. Hagel said, adding: “What I’m doing is, I am taking my time. I owe that to the American people, to ensure that any decision I make is, in my mind, responsible.”

Mr. Hagel made his remarks in response to questions by a reporter accompanying him on a flight to Alaska late on Wednesday.

They came less than a week after Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser, sent a three-page memo to Mr. Hagel requiring him to “provide an update on progress on detainee transfers every two weeks until further notice,” according to an official who read passages of the memo to a reporter.

Mr. Obama has sought to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, since taking office in 2009. Congress gave the secretary of defense the final say over approving transfers. He must determine that a transfer is in the national-security interest and that steps have been taken to “substantially mitigate” the risk that a detainee could pose a future threat to the United States or its allies.

Ms. Rice’s May 24 memo includes a record of Mr. Obama’s guidance on how much risk to accept when transferring detainees, including saying that it is “not a zero-risk standard,” and that the risk must be balanced against the harm to the United States caused by the continued operation of the facility.

The memo is said to define “substantially mitigate” as meaning that “steps have been or will be taken that would materially lessen the risk that detainee, post transfer, will engage or re-engage in any terrorist or other hostile activity that specifically threatens the United States or U.S. persons or interests.”

There were no transfers of low-level detainees under Mr. Hagel’s predecessor, Leon E. Panetta, who ran the Pentagon from July 2011 to February 2013. But Mr. Hagel has approved 11 transfers of low-level detainees, plus another who served out a sentence. Just one of those — an Algerian repatriated in March — came this year. Several officials said that more than a dozen detainees are the subject of proposed deals, and that there are serious talks with specific countries about taking in several dozen more.

In an interview with NPR on Thursday, Mr. Obama reiterated his desire to close Guantánamo. “We cannot in good conscience maintain a system of indefinite detention in which individuals who have not been tried and convicted are held permanently in this legal limbo outside of this country,” he said. He made a similar comment in his speech at West Point the day before.

In one respect, Mr. Obama’s negative portrayal of indefinite detention clashed with a key aspect of the approach to closing Guantánamo that he has advocated: He wants to bring several dozen detainees — who are deemed too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release — to a prison inside the United States for continued detention without trial.

Mr. Obama also said he keeps “chipping away” at the problem. /…

More: New York Times

 

The “pressure” he’s under is from Obama, let’s be clear about that. And Susan Rice is right in there. All in an attempt to pander for votes. One might even wonder if the detainees vote or something?

So he’s been hard at work on this release program, demanding reports every 2 weeks, but on the VA he was completely AWOL and ignorant about the corruption or scandal. No wonder, all his attention is on securing the release of terrorists from Gitmo. It is no surprise all his staff are involved, too. ‘All hands on deck’. But the massive VA-gate, not so much.

Concern now is that Obama intends to empty Guatanamo in months. He’s right up to speed and briefed on that. The US is what’s under pressure.

Then, right on the heels of his West Point speech, up pops the trade of one questionable prisoner of the Taliban for 5 upper echelons of the Taliban. (not 3 or 4, but 5) You guessed it, sounds like a deal US couldn’t refuse.

And right on cue, out pops Susan “the video” Rice, talking points in hand, saying Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.” I wonder what the next deal will be, since we are out of our prisoners held by the enemy to negotiate.

Weasel Zippers

He didn’t tell Congress about the Bergdahl trade beforehand, because he knew some members opposed making a deal which had been on the table for years. As we noted, the regime had previously assured everyone that no deal would go through without Congress being informed beforehand. So that was obviously another lie. At what point does Congress take back their Constitutional obligation, which Obama is eviscerating, right and left?

Part of the deal on the table had also been giving the Taliban a million dollars. Did Obama give them the money too?

RightRing | Bullright

Bye bye, Chuck

Chuck Hagel needs to go. (Last week was too late) That is about all I can say.

He was a piss-poor person for the job in the first place, and this is the way he proves himself?

The story media pushes is that it was a poorly worded law that left in question whether our fallen should be paid. What utterly unbelievable nonsense. Lawmakers and others thought and intended it to include the fallen.

Is common sense completely absent in Washington? I guess so. It was only the first time Hagel greeted the returning soldiers. Oh, then they tried to tell us it had nothing to do with politics over the shutdown debacle.

You are a small, small man Chuck!

I must go looking for a new puke meter, because mine is busted.

Realted: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/10/09/should-defense-secretary-chuck-hagel-resign-over-military-benefits-scandal

What Iran and Communist Party USA have in common: Chuck Hagel

Thanks to MJ for pointing out this article.

Hagel endorsed by Communist Party USA

Obama’s defense nominee previously earned Iran’s blessing

byAaron Klein WND 2/5/13

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.”

communist-party-obama-logo-275x275(communist-party-obama-logo / *WND)

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

Much more at: http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/hagel-endorsed-by-communist-party-usa/#evwOsIf48jZpOVSj.99

Obama and Hagel head into the bunker

Initially, I thought Chuck Hagel’s nomination was a joke or possibly a diversion for another. But no, Obama is set on it. Of course, its another divisive nomination. What other kind does he make?

He already has him on his team behind the scenes, which should not surprise anyone. Anyone with radical views will curry Obama’s favor. The more rad the better. We’ve already got a good strong whiff of Obama’s foreign policies.

But even fellow left-wing radical, Chucky Cheese Schumer, has reservations about Hagel’s foreign policy and anti-Israel stands. Wow, are there some “deeply held views” in his own party that Schumer cannot accept?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/01/obama-to-nominate-virulently-anti-israel-chuck-hagel-for-defense-secretary.html

In The Telegragh:

Ted Cruz, a newly elected senator for Texas and a favourite of the Right-wing Tea Party movement, said that he too was “concerned” about Mr Hagel’s past statements. He accused Mr Obama of being “high on re-election”.

Being high on re-election is one way to put it. Maybe this will make the anti-Israel Democrats happy — then he only has to pacify the anti-God crowd. Anything that delights the anti-Israel crowd and Iranians is bound to please Obama.
 

Wewaselzippers reports:

Iranian State Press Gushes Over Likely Obama Defense Nominee Chuck Hagel As “Anti-Israel,” “Outspoken Critic Of Zionist Lobby”

Via Weekly Standard:

Iranian state press, Press TV, is praising President Barack Obama’s likely defense nominee as “anti-Israel,” according to a piece published on the propaganda outlet’s website. The piece is titled, “Obama expected to nominate anti-Israel Hagel as secretary of defense.”

The piece begins, “US President Barack Obama is expected to nominate former Senator Chuck Hagel, an outspoken critic of Israel, as the next Pentagon chief.” Hagel has not yet been officially nominated for the defense secretary position, but all indicators suggest he’s at the top of President Obama’s list.

And, with apparent glee, the piece points out, “Some in the Israeli lobby have reportedly reacted with alarm to reports of Hagel’s nomination as he is known as an outspoken critic of the Zionist lobby in Washington.”

continue

National Journal

Schumer isn’t the only Democrat to watch as the confirmation battle begins. New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, the expected chair of the Foreign Relations Committee in the next Congress, is a leading Democratic hawk on Iran whose views on the subject are at odds with Hagel’s. Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, representing a swing state where Jewish voters are a key constituency, is another stalwart ally of Israel who is likely to be under pressure to oppose Hagel. And the minyan of Jewish Democratic senators, particularly Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Michigan Sen. Carl Levin and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, will be worth watching closely.