In response to:

Hagel Nomination: Iranians Giddy

Anonymous908 Wrote: Jan 31, 2013 4:28 PM
- Hagel supports cuts to the defence budget. As he should. Any real conservative worth his marbles knows that we spend too much on maintaining our empire abroad. We have a military presence in 150 countries and military spending approximately equal the rest of the world's combined. You cannot call yourself a fiscal conservative and at the same time support this kind of spending. Not all of our military spending is directly linked to our national defence. - Hagel's support for a nuclear free world. I do not agree with Hagel on this point. - Hagel's hostility towards Israel. I've head many so called conservatives get their panties in a bunch over this one. Even still, nobody has actually explained how Hagel has been hostile towards Israel
Bondman60 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 10:34 AM
So Anonymous would ahve Hagel flying over to Tehran, to visit our good friends there, and announce that we were lifting all sanctions, reducing our own nuclear arsenal, and will do nothing to inhibit Iran's nuclear ambitions. Anonymous then supposes that the Iranians will immediately turn their hatred for us into love and respect. The we can all sing kumbaya together. The naivite of Anonymous is so far off the charts I don't know where to begin. We are setting the stage for our own destruction because we project on those that hate us our own feelings and values. We are fools to do so.

As the Senate prepares to hold a January 31 confirmation hearing for their former colleague Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense, an alarming paradox has emerged.  Iran – the "Death to America" Islamic regime – is effusive with praise, while a large group of retired U.S. military commanders have "deep concerns" and have taken a highly unusual public position in opposition to Hagel's nomination.  

The Washington Times cites an Iranian source that received the news of Hagel's nomination as "a message of peace from the Obama administration to the Islamic Republic of...