Chuck Hagel Resigns
Chuck Hagel Resigns
NYT - Hagel Said to Be Stepping Down Under Pressure
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us...=top-news&_r=0
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel was asked to resign his post, officials said, as President Obama’s national security team has struggled to stay ahead of an onslaught of global crises.
So when did politicians become specialists in specific areas of conflict?
Just what is it that Chuck did which nobody else would know to do? Don't they all work in cohesion with the senior commanders of the armed forces heads of intelligence etc, and work from there. Surely any radically different approach to such matters would be on policy based on the kind of politician the Defence/se Secretary is or what kind of Government or President is in office?
FB
Just what is it that Chuck did which nobody else would know to do? Don't they all work in cohesion with the senior commanders of the armed forces heads of intelligence etc, and work from there. Surely any radically different approach to such matters would be on policy based on the kind of politician the Defence/se Secretary is or what kind of Government or President is in office?
FB
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
The truth might lie somewhere near here ...
"Someone who just says 'Yes, Mr President' ... until he stopped doing it"?
As the US turns gently from a democracy to a totalitarian state, where the President calls ALL the shots and defies Congress and [marginally] the Constitution, I could imagine anyone wanting to bail out [or be sacked for not bending the knee to POTUS].
Mr. Hagel, they said, in many ways was exactly the kind of defense secretary whom the president, after battling the military during his first term, wanted.
As the US turns gently from a democracy to a totalitarian state, where the President calls ALL the shots and defies Congress and [marginally] the Constitution, I could imagine anyone wanting to bail out [or be sacked for not bending the knee to POTUS].
I understand that the president has been accused of "acting like a king"
The thing is, in this country where we do have a monarch, she (or he) would be entirely unable to make decisions like, indeed they can do nothing without the support of their government.
I did ask, on another thread, how the US would work in the present situation it finds itself at present, with a president on one side of the political fence, and senate and congress on the other. It was politely explained to me that in such a situation president and government were constitutionally obliged to find compromises.
This does not appear to be working. So I repeat my earlier question - what is the point of having a president in a constitutional democracy when he appears to be able to exercise powers not available to a monarch in this country since the time of King John?
The thing is, in this country where we do have a monarch, she (or he) would be entirely unable to make decisions like, indeed they can do nothing without the support of their government.
I did ask, on another thread, how the US would work in the present situation it finds itself at present, with a president on one side of the political fence, and senate and congress on the other. It was politely explained to me that in such a situation president and government were constitutionally obliged to find compromises.
This does not appear to be working. So I repeat my earlier question - what is the point of having a president in a constitutional democracy when he appears to be able to exercise powers not available to a monarch in this country since the time of King John?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear we are to found the answer to that question; if not in this administration than within the next few as each builds upon the precedents set.
As to Hagel, no great loss and he was acceptable loss for the current U.S. administration.
As to Hagel, no great loss and he was acceptable loss for the current U.S. administration.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hagel had at least one unique quality that no other SecDef has ever had - he served in combat as an enlisted soldier, receiving two Purple Heart medals while an infantry squad leader in Vietnam.
Points against him were: the only Republican in Obama's cabinet; he had reportedly "gotten tired of Obama's micromanaging of military operations".
The second point invites comparisons with Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President of the US, 1963-68) - who famously bragged “Those boys can’t hit an outhouse without my permission”.
Points against him were: the only Republican in Obama's cabinet; he had reportedly "gotten tired of Obama's micromanaging of military operations".
The second point invites comparisons with Lyndon B. Johnson (36th President of the US, 1963-68) - who famously bragged “Those boys can’t hit an outhouse without my permission”.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreeing with the President is not the criteria which determines whether he is a Despot.
Whether he lives up to his Oath to defend and support the Constitution and faithfully execute the Laws of the Land....is the criteria.
We have a Despot on our Hands currently.
Whether he lives up to his Oath to defend and support the Constitution and faithfully execute the Laws of the Land....is the criteria.
We have a Despot on our Hands currently.
I suppose your last resort is impeachment (less messy than our solution of beheading, although that hasnt been done since 1649).
Still, proving that introducing legislation that you don't approve of amounts to "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" might be problematical.
Any other ways of getting rid of an incumbent, or do you have to just sit it out and grit your teeth?
Still, proving that introducing legislation that you don't approve of amounts to "treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors" might be problematical.
Any other ways of getting rid of an incumbent, or do you have to just sit it out and grit your teeth?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternatives include the judicial branch weighing in to break the logjam between legislative and executive.
Alternatives include the legislative exercising the ultimate control - that of the purse.
The first is painfully slow.
The second is politically suicidal in today's climate.
Beheading, you say?
Hmmm.....
*note to the NSA: I am kidding/joking/not serious/exercising satire and in no way, shape, or form condone violence.
No, really...
Alternatives include the legislative exercising the ultimate control - that of the purse.
The first is painfully slow.
The second is politically suicidal in today's climate.
Beheading, you say?
Hmmm.....
*note to the NSA: I am kidding/joking/not serious/exercising satire and in no way, shape, or form condone violence.
No, really...
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
It all gets a bit tricky when the US Supreme Court are "almost" political appointees, and serve forever!!
The Separation of Powers doesn't work quite as well as the Founding Fathers imagined it would go.
The Separation of Powers doesn't work quite as well as the Founding Fathers imagined it would go.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Fox News now also suggesting that GITMO will be closed by Presidential Decree, since Congress won't agree with Him after 6 years of negotiation.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naw, the real reason Hagel resigned was that it was just now that President Obama discovered that Hagel is a Republican. 
!
note to the NSA: I am kidding/joking/not serious/exercising satire and in no way, shape, or form condone violence.
Somewhat puzzled for a minute or two. Must get new specs!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So I repeat my earlier question - what is the point of having a president in a constitutional democracy when he appears to be able to exercise powers not available to a monarch in this country since the time of King John?
The current British Monarch is only the Head of State, a figure head position with essentially no power. The US President is Head of State AND Head of Government AND Commander in Chief. So yeah, POTUS has considerably more power than the current British Monarch. But the British Head of Government, the Prime Minister, has far far more power than POTUS because the PM heads the legislative branch, the executive branch AND the treasury, and Britain has no judicial branch.
As for the King John comparison, I challenge that. King George, who lived centuries after John, had far greater power than POTUS ever had, which excess of power resulted in a certain rebellion in the late 18th century.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fox News now also suggesting that GITMO will be closed by Presidential Decree, since Congress won't agree with Him after 6 years of negotiation.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Ken,
I think it is a fair point that the incumbent President is taking the piss.
Congress to Obama - "Shove your immigration policy until you can sort out the abortion known as "Affordable Care Act" that you inflicted on us for vote-winning reasons".
Obama to Congress - "No, and furthermore, here it is imposed by Presidential decree".
Voters to Obama - "Your party has made a pig's ear of the last 6 years. You now have a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House to block your cretinous policies.
Obama "Oh, and here's another one - Gitmo's closing, on my orders before I lose my job"
On the night this selfish moron got elected, I was in the Hilton Baltimore. A very large atrium. You could have heard a pin drop when John McCain came on the TV to concede. Lots and lots of businessmen with their heads held low, knowing what was coming.
Still, only 2 more years to push, so chin-chin.
I think it is a fair point that the incumbent President is taking the piss.
Congress to Obama - "Shove your immigration policy until you can sort out the abortion known as "Affordable Care Act" that you inflicted on us for vote-winning reasons".
Obama to Congress - "No, and furthermore, here it is imposed by Presidential decree".
Voters to Obama - "Your party has made a pig's ear of the last 6 years. You now have a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled House to block your cretinous policies.
Obama "Oh, and here's another one - Gitmo's closing, on my orders before I lose my job"
On the night this selfish moron got elected, I was in the Hilton Baltimore. A very large atrium. You could have heard a pin drop when John McCain came on the TV to concede. Lots and lots of businessmen with their heads held low, knowing what was coming.
Still, only 2 more years to push, so chin-chin.
Ken V - you are quite correct, I dont really understand the US system of government which is why I have quite often asked serious questions about it on here. My remarks about "acting like a king" were prompted by a US acquaintance seriously asking me whether it was correct that The Queen ruled the United Kingdom (she probably said England but I'll let that pass) and that we all had to do what she said!
My serious question in this instance was the news that the President had apparently enacted a law concerning the status of immigrants that was opposed to the wishes of the majority in both the Senate and Congress. It appeared that in spite of the checks and balances which you explain in your post, in this instance the President was able to act as a de facto dictator and there was nothing the legislature could do about it.
So tell me, in spite of all these checks and balances, if Obama says (for example) that from tomorrow everybody has to paint their face bright blue, will you all be walking about blue-faced next week?
(Oh ok, I'll give you George III, btw, - but he was a nutcase!)
My serious question in this instance was the news that the President had apparently enacted a law concerning the status of immigrants that was opposed to the wishes of the majority in both the Senate and Congress. It appeared that in spite of the checks and balances which you explain in your post, in this instance the President was able to act as a de facto dictator and there was nothing the legislature could do about it.
So tell me, in spite of all these checks and balances, if Obama says (for example) that from tomorrow everybody has to paint their face bright blue, will you all be walking about blue-faced next week?
(Oh ok, I'll give you George III, btw, - but he was a nutcase!)