Media Goes Wild Over Hagel Firing But Not Obama's Secret Afghanistan Reversal--"Mother Jones"

[KoKo]

Media Goes Wild Over Hagel Firing But Not Obama's Secret Afghanistan Reversal
Mon Nov. 24, 2014 11:03 AM EST

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/11/chuck-hagel-defense-pentagon-fired-afghanistan

There's little the Washington-centric political-media universe loves more than the story of a fallen star. The defenestration of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has reporters and pundits in a schadenfreude-driven tizzy. Was he fired? Was he in over his head? OMG, look at how the White House is dumping on him, as he departs! Who's passing nasty notes in class about him?

-----snip------

In case you missed it—the story was posted online on Friday but appeared in Saturday's dead-trees edition—the Times revealed that Obama, who last May said the United States would have no combat missions in Afghanistan in 2015 (and only train Afghan forces and hunt Al Qaeda "remnants&quot , had secretly authorized American forces

to carry out missions against the Taliban and other militant groups threatening American troops or the Afghan government, a broader mission than the president described to the public earlier this year, according to several administration, military and congressional officials with knowledge of the decision. The new authorization also allows American jets, bombers and drones to support Afghan troops on combat missions.

This is a quasi-BFD—and the result of what the Times called "a lengthy and heated debate that laid bare the tension inside the Obama administration between two often-competing imperatives: the promise Mr. Obama made to end the war in Afghanistan, versus the demands of the Pentagon that American troops be able to successfully fulfill their remaining missions in the country."

In other words, Obama, for good or bad, has decided to extend the war he said he was ending. This report did not produce a cable news frenzy or a storm of tweets. But it's just as important as who's going to be in charge of implementing this major change of plans—if not more so.

[fredamae]

1. What "they" would rather

have Us focused on, perhaps?

[TheNutcracker]

2. Hagel in over his head??? That man served in combat...Mr. President. Stop treating him like an idiot

[newfie11]

6. Your exactly right

Hagel is a good guy even if he's a repug.

[niyad]

10. you mean this guy? (and, by the way, it's "you're", not "your")

Senate voting record
Hagel's portrait as a senator.

According to David Boaz, during the Bush administration, Hagel maintained a "traditionally Republican" voting record, receiving "a lifetime rating of 84 percent from the American Conservative Union and consistent A and B grades from the National Taxpayers Union."[32] On the Issues describes Hagel as a "libertarian-leaning conservative."[33] According to Boaz, among his most notable votes, Hagel:

Voted for the Patriot Act;[34]
Voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts;[35][36]
Voted against No Child Left Behind;[37]
Voted against Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill;[38]
Voted against McCain-Feingold.[39

and let us not forget about his lovely little electronic voting systems--diebold isn't the only one with problems.

[merrily]

21. I would never have appointed him, but Obama did.

[niyad]

42. he would not have been on my list, either.

[Schema Thing]

7. do you have anything you could reference that would give me an idea of what

you speak of wrt Obama treating Hagel "like an idiot"?

[merrily]

3. Did Congress ever authorize a war on the Taliban?

We were told again and again that the Taliban is not Al Q'aeeda. Wasn't the Congressional authorization of over 13 years ago to fight those who attacked us on 911?

[KoKo]

15. According to this in the WaPo...the original AUMF did cover Taliban...

This was a quick search and didn't have time to read the whole article but, it seems to say Taliban was covered.

What I remember is that when Obama couldn't get Kharzi to agree to leaving fighting forces in Afghanistan that the "Taliban" was no longer considered a terrorist group. We were going to leave them there...until the War Mongers like McCain, Graham and Neocons decided that we couldn't leave Afghanistan and got the new head of Afghan Govt. now to let us back in using whatever we want...drones, airpower, troops on the ground.

That was the "Secret Order" he signed which now claims the Taliban needs to be contained. So my reading has led me to believe that when Kharzi wouldn't let us stay ...we covered our butt by saying the "Taliban" was no longer a threat since al Qaeda had been eradicated from Afghanistan.

But here's the article that says that both groups were considered terrorists in the original AUMF.

--------
Five principles that should govern any U.S. authorization of force

By Jack Goldsmith,, Ryan Goodman and Steve Vladeck November 14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-principles-that-should-govern-any-us-authorization-of-force/2014/11/14/6e278a2c-6c07-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

President Obama has stated that he wants “to begin engaging Congress” over a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against the Islamic State and also that he wants to “right-size and update” the 2001 AUMF “to suit the current fight, rather than previous fights.” It appears that Congress, too, is finally getting serious about putting U.S. counterterrorism operations on a contemporary and more rigorous statutory footing.

There are many politically contested questions about how the government should accomplish these goals — about, for example, whether U.S. ground troops should be banned from Syria and Iraq, how the fight against the Islamic State should be conducted consistent with U.S. policy against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and what rules should govern the targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad. There are also tricky questions of timing and form — whether, for example, Congress should take up an AUMF against the Islamic State separately from or in conjunction with the right-sizing of the 2001 AUMF against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and whether the lame-duck Congress or the new one should address these issues.We differ among ourselves on some questions. We nonetheless believe that, however they are resolved, an important foundational consensus can be reached — across branches and parties — on five core principles that should guide any new or revised authorization of force related to counterterrorism.

● Specify the enemy. A new AUMF should identify which groups the United States is fighting and specify the general objectives of the mission. At a minimum, the identified groups would include the Islamic State, as well as al-Qaeda and the Taliban if the 2001 authorization was updated in conjunction with a new authorization for the Islamic State.

More at......

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-principles-that-should-govern-any-us-authorization-of-force/2014/11/14/6e278a2c-6c07-11e4-a31c-77759fc1eacc_story.html

[merrily]

16. The orignal AUMF was about those who attacked us on 911. The Taliban never attacked us.

[KoKo]

20. All I know is that the WaPo article says that they were included...

They are supposed to be working on a new AUMF that the WaPo article was talking about but referred to the original one where they mention the Taliban was included.

[merrily]

22. I am not seeing that language.

The only things I am seeing at your link about the Taliban is WAPO proposing that the Taliban be mentioned in the new AUMF. The wiki on the AUMF does not mention the Taliban, either.

Could you quote the specific language from the WAPO article that says the original AUMF mentioned the Taliban?

[former9thward]

28. The language is there.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

The Taliban certainly aided and/or harbored the al Qaeda.

[merrily]

30. Not "certainly" at all. See Reply 25.

I'd love to know how you know that the Taliban "certainly" harbored Al Q'aeeda. And, how are you defining "harbored?"

Besides that, my post #22 to Koko to which you replied referred to language in the WAPO article, not language in the 2001 AUMF itself.

[former9thward]

31. Bin Laden and his group were in Afghanistan.

They planned the operation there and after 9/11 the U.S. asked the Taliban to turn them over. They refused and the U.S. invaded. That is called harboring in anyone's world.

[merrily]

32. I don't think anyone could know where they planned the attack. The US asked Afghanistan to turn

over Bin Laden, not the Taliban per se. And, IIRC, no one actually proved that Afghanistan or the Taliban actually had anyone or had the authority to turn over anyone. The Taliban did offer to turn over Osama if Bush tendered proof of Osama's guilt. However, that doesn't mean he was even in Afghanistan at the time. And, of course, as to all the above, everyone took Bushco's word for it.

Taliban offered Osama to US in 1999

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm

Taliban claims it offered Osama to the US before 911.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/09/20119115334167663.html

Bush rejects offer by Taliban offer to hand over Osama if Bush gives evidence of guilt

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80482

Again, though, Osama could have been in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or anywhere, when we were demanding that he be turned over. And there was a story at the time that troops thought he might have escaped Afghanistan dressed as a woman.

[former9thward]

33. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan.

So when the U.S. asked Afghanistan they were asking the Taliban. Of course they had the authority. Who else would have. They were the government. He certainly was in Afghanistan. He lived in a compound in Kandahar. In fact I took a picture of it in late 2001 after we bombed it. Of course he had fled by then.




All your links prove they harbored him. Nobody can be offered up if he is not there...

[merrily]

35. The links proved repeated offers to give him over.

Clinton did not accept the offer and Bush's demands were unreasonable.

And, yes, the Taliban could offer him up if he was not in the country. They may have believed they could get him.

And, of course, all of the above depends on taking the government's word, which I do not necessarily do.

[merrily]

25. I guess you could have a theory that the Taliban "harbored" Al Q'aeeda, but we've

been told again and again in the last few years that the Taliban had nothing to do with Al Q'aeeda or the attack on the WTC.

[KoKo]

36. Merrily I explained that the "Message Changed" when Kharzi Refused

to allow Ground Troops and War Actions to continue in Afghanistan and once Kharzi was removed and the new regime came in we are NOW allowed (in an agreement with Obama's "Secret Agreement" with new Regime) to bring in more troops, do Drones and Military Air Power to clean up Afghanistan to "try" to rid them of Taliban.

I don't know why we are talking at Cross Purposes with each other over this. I'm only trying to give you what I've read in answer to questions you ask... ????

[merrily]

37. I didn't know we were talking at cross purposes?

When I say , "I guess you could have a theory," I don't mean "you" personally. I mean "one could have a theory," meaning anyone.

As far as the message from the government changing, yes, that's my problem.

[KoKo]

38. Agree.."..the message changing from the Government"....is what I have

a problem with, also.

[merrily]

39. Thing is, it's either a constitutional issue or a deception issue and both suck.

If we had no reason to fight the Taliban, as the government was saying a year or two ago, then the AUMF does not cover war against the Taliban. And, if the AUMF doesn't cover war against the Taliban, then we should not be fighting them, unless and until Congress takes a vote.

On other hand, if we do have reason to fight the Taliban, then the AUMF does cover it, but our government was lying to us.

[tularetom]

4. I knew the new Obama was too good to last

The good vibes from his immigration speech lulled me into a false sense of security, but I see he's back to the same old bullshit of not doing what the people who elected him want.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. I hadn't considered what I'm about to write until I read your post just now --

Was immigration reform the smoke and mirrors to distract us from the expanding Afghanistan mission?

[merrily]

17. I don't think so. He had promised to so something about immigration months ago, but

delayed until after the election. When he delayed, he promised to do it right after the returns came in, but it took him slightly longer than that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. It would also take months to decide on a new Afghanistan policy.

Not a solid tin-foil hat moment, but it's plausible.

[merrily]

26. I don't think so.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/how-obama-got-here-113077.html

I don't know why it would have to take months to change policy in Afghanistan, either. (Under my tin foil hat, it says we always wanted to stay anyway, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. All else was show business.)

[KoKo]

12. A bone thrown to appease those of us in the "Out of the ME" wing of

of the Dem Party who would be very upset with this war escalation?

He waited until after the election when he could have helped get the hispanic vote out if he'd announced this before. And, his negotiations with Hagel are said to have been ongoing for weeks which could mean he signed this order on Afghanistan before the election and perhaps Hagel wasn't onboard with the escalation and that was the conflict.

Will have to wait and see when more is revealed about Hagel's resignation from sources that are hopefully unbiased.

[ucrdem]

5. Apparently it's Hagel who wants more war, not Obama. Thus the parting.

He wanted to hit ISIS harder and he wants to take out Assad, and Obama doesn't want either. Neither do I.

[newfie11]

8. Where did you see that? Nt

[ucrdem]

9. This morning's NPR report:

Hagel disagreed with the White House because he wanted to take a harder line against the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria. But the White House was resistant to that kind of strategy.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/24/366310360/defense-secretary-hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down

Apparently Hagel also complained to McCain that we don't have a "strategy" for fighting ISIS, per McCain:

"I just talked to him," said McCain. "They're gonna say, well, it was time for a change. Well, let me tell you. He was in my office last week. He was very frustrated. We have no strategy."

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-24/john-mccain-chuck-hagel-was-up-to-the-job

[merrily]

29. Those quotes can be interpreted in more than one way.

Harder line against Assad could mean isolation and sanctions.

And complaining that the Obama admin. has no strategy at all for defeating ISIS does not equal the US going to war in Syria.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/hagel-assad-isis-regime-change-syria.html

[Ykcutnek]

14. But I read on another thread the exact opposite.

Of course they had no links to back up their claims. You do.

[merrily]

19. ....

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/11/hagel-assad-isis-regime-change-syria.html

[merrily]

18. No, Hagel talked about isolating Assad and imposing sanctions.

[Ykcutnek]

13. He knows more about the situation on the ground than either I or Mother Jones.

He has been a measured commander-in-chief thus far. No reason to doubt that now.

[Octafish]

24. Seems the Doves are getting rolled on over.

It's beginning to look like World War III. Thanks for the heads-up, KoKo!

[KoKo]

40. Notice the SILENCE....from many of the "Liberal/Activist Sites" that want our Money

& E-Mail Addresses.

I will exclude "Common Dreams & Democracy Now" and a few Bloggers like "Tom Dispatch" and our usual voices like Chris Hedges.

But, all those whoopie Progressive Organizations that want our money and support.....

Maybe they don't have folks who post on DU Any More.....???

And, just try posting anything from any "Anti-War Vets" sites on DU....and the push back will be immediate that they are not "Approved Sites" and therefore just aren't accepted.

Even Media Push Back from other countries is "frowned upon."

So ....that's where it is.

I often worry we have become "The Good Germans." But, perhaps, that's a step too far.

We still must have HOPE...for awhile longer.

[Octafish]

44. Money IS Speech means that the People -- and TRUTH -- without cash up front are S.O.L.

At least we can talk about Hagel on the Internets:

Hagel Resigning

Pushed to Curb

by Gordon Duff
Veterans Today, Nov. 24, 2014

It was never going to work, Chuck Hagel with Obama and Dempsey fighting ISIS on one side and John McCain, “founding father” of ISIS, ties to organized crime and a long record of treason during and after the Vietnam War as Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Today, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, is resigning. The reasons given, as usual, are silly, “personal issues.” In a day or two, a rumor will come out, it usually does, often however, it is just as false. We wanted Hagel to stay but we also wanted him to go much further than Obama would allow.

Still, there have been mass firings, removing much of the incompetence and treason within the military but those who have worked in and around the Pentagon know how thoroughly Bush cleansed America’s defense community of the capable and trustworthy.

SNIP...

The real job, when elected, was to arrest Bush and Cheney, release the 2003 real D.O.E. 9/11 Report and take on the job of dismembering the Federal Reserve.
Without those tasks, the real “mission accomplished,” there is little hope.

CONTINUED...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/24/hagel-resigning-pushed-to-the-curb/

Seems the rightwing folks have noticed what we've been saying about the BFEE -- or, more likely -- BFEE criminality really stands out and some people don't care what their politics are as long as the truth comes out and justice prevails.

[Blue_Tires]

27. FWIW, this happens fairly regularly

I can name a bunch of instances where the media (and DU for that matter) is in a frenzy over issue '1A' while ignoring '1B'

[arcane1]

34. The "Taliban" is still a threat after 12 fucking years of war.

It seems to me that either they use "Taliban" as a generic term for anyone who points a gun the wrong way, or they don't really want to get rid of them.

[RiverLover]

41. This is shameful. For the president, for us. It will never end at this rate...

Wonder what the end goal is, and how we are to know when we've gotten there?

[nationalize the fed]

43. Joe "Drug Czar" Biden knows