Some Hegseth Clips
Steven L. Taylor
·
Wednesday, November 13, 2024
·
36 comments
For your consideration.
Bonus clip,
So, yes, the cartels are full of awful people. But treating them as terrorist organizations and unleashing US special forces has some pretty significant implications.
We are in for four years of a blustering, simplistic approach to national security policy.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
You know, this Hegseth history is the reason for not allowing recess appointments like Trump is demanding. The immediate fight should be to put pressure on the Senate to hold full hearings on some of these candidates. The Republican vote for Senate Majority Leader to be held today is incredibly important. It will tell us whether the Senate stays an independent power or just another Trump subsidiary.
And the thing is, unlike the inflation / supply chain chaos that will happen if/when the tariffs or immigration crackdown happens, the fallout from this sort of stupidity will probably be very quiet, and won’t happen quickly. Unless something goes really wrong.
But the people who voted to keep us out of foreign entanglements don’t actually have a problem with us invading other countries, it appears. But I’m guessing we’ll mostly be invading much smaller/weaker countries, and they’re perfectly fine with bullying. Which we knew.
Hegseth has also said that one of the first acts of the Secretary of Defense would be to fire the current Chief of Staff of the Air Force who he claims to Be a DEI hire.
I was otherwise engaged last night and missed the initial discourse on Hegseth’s nomination but let me jump in late. The U.S. military has traditionally free of politics. Like any large organization there will always be some internal politics but not external. Since the Army was reorganized just prior to WW II all branches of the service have been merit oriented. No one becomes general without running the gauntlet from platoon leader to company commander and up the chain of command, along the way facing different commanders who will evaluate their performance. During that time, they will be required to undergo periodic training and attend schools like the one where our host teaches, where they will again be evaluated. Sure, occasionally some jerk will find his way to a top spot, but it won’t be because of external politics, and he will have run the same obstacle course to get there just as his peers. He may be a jerk, but he will probably be competent.
The idea that that some political appointee or external committee should sift through the command structure for officers’ political beliefs smacks of the communist political officer in the Russian army.
This would be a disaster for our military. If that happens, I will hope for another “revolt of the admirals”.
Well, if God granted Israel to Abraham (and his descendants, presumably), then how about those Native American peoples who can show that their gods granted them lands in North America? Of course, they won’t have paperwork but I’m pretty sure Abraham didn’t either.
After all, if we’re going to go by the equivalent of creation myths to determine American policy, then we should be ecumenical about it.
“We are in for four years of a blustering, simplistic approach to national security policy.”
Only national security policy?
Taking on the cartels is not going to be easy. They’re well armed, disciplined, and many of them have US provided training (great move!). See how hard it was to handle the Taliban or the Iraqi “insurgents.”
Not to mention the damage that will be done to international relations. And even if the cartels are eventually wiped out, some other criminal gang will arise elsewhere and carry on. As they arose in Mexico when others were soundly beaten in Colombia.
Illegal drugs are just too lucrative.
And, when it comes to synthetic drugs like fentanyl, they can be made just about anywhere.
@a country lawyer:
It smacks of Stalin’s purges.
But, hey, the felon himself claimed to be the opposite of a fascist. I said traditionally this made him a communist. he’s not even trying to prove me wrong.
@a country lawyer:
Assuming Hegseth is actually referring to General C. Q. Brown, who was Chief of Staff of the Air Force until last October, Brown was nominated to that post by…Donald Trump. So I guess Hegseth is saying Trump has bought into the whole DEI thing?
Or, more likely, Hegseth is a racist imbecile.
As far as Gen Brown, he is a very accomplished fighter pilot, with nearly 3000 flying hours, including 130 combat hours, and a resume that would be the envy of any Air Force officer.
Another war with Mexico? But Trumpers said it was Biden-Harris who would lead us into WW3.
@Mikey: You know, Hegseth deserves to get roasted for not knowing who the current Chief of Staff of the Air Force is.
This guy thinks he can be SecDef, and he doesn’t know this? He didn’t bother to look it up? What a poser!
@DK: Sorry, my mistake. He was referring to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not the Chief of Staff of the AF.
“You’ve got to fire the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and obviously, to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever that was involved in any of the DEI woke s–t has to go,” he said in the Nov. 7 episode of “The Shawn Ryan Show.”
@DK: Sorry, my mistake. He was referring to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, not the Chief of Staff of the AF.
“You’ve got to fire the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and obviously, to bring in a new secretary of defense, but any general that was involved, general, admiral, whatever that was involved in any of the DEI woke s–t has to go,” he said in the Nov. 7 episode of “The Shawn Ryan Show.”
Well, Hegseth knows very little about axing so he’s got some learning to do before he goes after anyone. His first attempt in 2015 didn’t go so well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMrVdFnjEjs
He took part in an axe-throwing event (on a public street!), missed the target and hit a drummer in a military band. Bet this clip is making the rounds of the Pentagon today.
@a country lawyer: Well, ok. His ignorance is confined to racism. However, this particular initiative terrifies me. How easy would it be to find and promote generals that are “more like German Generals” and feel they owe fealty to Trump more than the Constitution?
I would hope there aren’t any at that echelon, but my hopes have been disappointed a lot lately.
He may just be rewarding toadies and sycophants, but as his base is turbo-Christian, that also matches well with staffing-up for a war with Iran in mind. The reported assassination attempt…and he do loves him his revenging.
Lots more Hegseth details here:
“Jay Kuo“
Lots more Hegseth details here:
“Jay Kuo“
One way this might go is that Hegseth doesn’t get nominated, due in no small part to general incompetence.
And Trump will play it as “anti-woke” forces defeated Hegseth, and this whole drama will portray Trump as fighting for them. And his voice is a lot louder than pretty much anybody else’s its clear.
I’m not making a prediction, and I will note that my predictions have not done well lately. Make up your own mind. I just think this is a possibility.
@Scott: Well, Medicare fraudster Rick Scott lost the first round of Majority Leader. Some hope as the slavering MAGA on line hordes (and at least Ted Cruz) failed in bullying the rest of the Senators. I know nothing about John Thune which is probably a good thing in that he may spend more time doing than going on Sunday talk shows. We’ll see.
@Mikey: Or, more likely, Hegseth is a racist imbecile.
Occam’s razor
Trump is a traitor, racist, rapist, and a thief
So far Hegseth seems like a racist and what I think is a thief (he played fast and loose with two charities, nothing to convict him on buts sleazy and dishonest.
At this point I’ll give him a pass on the other two, but nothing would surprise.
A country lawyer, Dr. Joyner, I really don’t think the average person understands how deeply ingrained in the military culture it is to be completely sealed off from and avoid any hint of partisan politics. It really is a great tradition that was encouraged from the founding
“…open up your Bible you will find that God granted Abraham the land of Israel,..”
“…the DEI woke shit has to go,”
Pete. Is woke shit translated from Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek?
Inquiring minds want to know!
@Lucysfootball:
Respect to Hegseth for serving in combat, but he is plainly and dangerously unqualified for this most important post.
Hegseth accepting the assignment while calling anyone else a DEI hire is projection at its funniest. Like Trump, Hegseth is the Republican version of a DEI hire: here just to cater to the white male grievance identity politics fueling contemporary conservativism.
For a moment, it may be an electoral net positive. So there’s no reason for the GQP to block the pick, aside from the sanity and seriousness that’s passé at present.
@DK: So perfectly put:
BTW, I was looking up when the senate last rejected a nominee for secretary of defense, and Copilot came up with a whooper of a contradiction and a hallucination.
The contradiction was the claim that none have ever been, but that some had withdrawn. I further asked for a list of those who had withdrawn and it said:
1) John Tower was rejected by the Senate (contradiction to its earlier statement).
2) HALLUCINATION: Hegseth has withdrawn (HE HASN’T! I can’t stress that enough).
For the record, Tower was rejected by the senate in 1989. also for the record, he was the last nominee for a cabinet post to be rejected since. Several, however, have withdrawn their nomination. Most or all claiming the president, or the felon, never asked them to drop out (I’ll buy that for a dollar!).
I don’t know the traitor racist serial adulterer in question enough to say whether he’ll withdraw. The felon may push him under the bus, but then he hats to back down. The more stupid the choice he makes (“How hard is it to say nazis are bad?”), the more he’s likely double down. And I don’t think there’d be enough Republiqan votes against confirmation. At least five are needed.
So it may take some dreadful action that gets Hegseth branded a RINOdemocratwokesobdeepstateDEIhire and fired on a Xitt.
@Jay L Gischer:
I do hope the fire extinguishers are all in working order on Capitol Hill.
More seriously: a defence command chain that de facto pledges allegiance to the “leader” is a very perilous thing.
As are federal prosecution and law enforcement agencies.
See Germany, 1930’s.
Beside which, how on earth can such an obvious dimwit hope to be an effective Secretary of Defence?
Rumsfeld, for instance, was tad partisan, but also a constitutionalist, and hardly a incompetent as an executive.
His policies being another matter entirely: he may have been mistaken but he was certainly effective, and competent.
@Mister Bluster:
@Not the IT Dept.:
More hilariously, for those of a historical pedantic bent, such as yours truly, the Medieaval Christians were quite adamant that the “grant of Abraham” had passed to the Christians, because reasons.
It tends to be forgotten that modern Levant/Syria/Palestine was a Roman/East Roman and overwhelmingly Christian province for some 500 years, with Jerusalem being one of the “Five Patriarchates” (Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople).
In the Middle Ages, Huckabee would have been in dire peril of a heresy trial, lol.
It may sound like just historian pedantry (which it is, of course 🙂 ) but its quite funny how the evangelicals these days go on about the “heritage of Christianity” while being unaware of how different the modern evangelical Protestant mind-set is to most of the historical attitudes of Christendom, both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, from the 1st to the 19th centuries.
@JohnSF:
WA! Dispensationalist theory on this point goes back that far? I had no idea. I did know that dominionist theory went back quite a way, though, so it occurs to me that this one would have long antecedents, too.
And the “reasons,” to the extent that I understand them, are centered in what people believe about what “new covenant” means. (It seems to mean much more than I think it means, for the record.)
@Just nutha ignint cracker:
More or less that.
(Though I have to admit: modern evangelical Dispensationalism is outwith my area. It likely differs a great deal from the early equivalent. But had similar bases: see St Augustine)
It’s pretty crucial to recall that in the early Christian era, Christianity was seen by a lot of Romans first as a Jewish heresy, then as a rather subversive and anti-social sect.
(“You won’t celebrate the Saturnalia and have drink with us? What’s wrong with you guys?”)
Plus a whole bunch of other issues.
But above all, from the pov of coherent Christian theology, it was the only thing that made sense, to them. As systematized, late on in the Medieval period, by Aquinas: Jews should not be persecuted or maltreated, physically, but may be taxed in particular.
Ironically, Aquinas was regarded by Medieval Jews as much in accord with Judeo-Greek exilic philosophy.
Apart from his not not liking Jews very much, obvs.
So, distancing from Judaism was an early move to emphasise loyalty to the Imperium.
And also genuine belief: the new gospel supersede the old. Therefore adherents of the old must be wicked.
Dominionism is a rather different matter:
Otoh, that Christainity should dominate was common course in Mediaeval Christendom.
Otoh, much Medieval law,outside canon law, was derived from Germanic and Roman Civil law. And it would be very rash and/or self-confident Christian who would try to force an Emperor or King to submit to clerical supremacy.
See Henry II re Thomas a Becket (“will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”);
Frederick II vs Innocent III;
Constantine the Great telling the bishops “Be reasonable: do what I say”;
Phillip IV of France telling the papacy to go sit on it;
The virtual total subordination of Church to Emperor in Byzantium (mostly) etc etc.
I would love to see all the comic book avatars in Rupar’s thread fight a female MMA pro.
They wouldn’t change their minds from their hospital bed, because they think the world is like a comic book. But it would certainly be watchable.
No shade thrown at comic books. A few are as rich as any traditional novel. But the people in that thread don’t seem like the reflective type.
@JohnSF: modern dispensationalism has become pretty bizarre as the distance between it, evangelicalism (which wasn’t always dispensationalist before but seems to always be now), and dominionist belief get so close that light can’t pass between the three. On the other hand, watching this synchronicity develop was what drove me away from indy churches…
WA!!!…40 years ago.
@JohnSF:
Didn’t Ambrose well and truly whip Theodosius? I think he even had the emperor do penance in public. Light penance, but public.
I think Constantine dropped the office of Pontifex Maximus when he adopted Christianity, thus separating church from state. I don’t recall is this was by design or just to do away with the pagan associations inherent to the office. I wonder why he didn’t declare himself head of the church as well as the state.
@JohnSF: @just nutha: Additionally, separatist Baptist sects as they split from both Northern and Southern Baptistness took on an anabaptist flavor that tried to walk the tightrope between the “world” politicosocial and the “world” religiopolitical. Not quite to the degree of, for example, the Amish or other extreme separatist groups, but finding it desirable to try to emphasize “not of this world” while being “in” it. Sadly, the fact that “the church” is both the family of God and a commercial enterprise proved too daunting.
@Kathy:
Oh yes, the enforced repentance of Theodosius.
iirc Charlemagne and others attitude was “try that on ME and you’ll get a lance where the sun don’t shine”
Constantine dropped the Pontifex because it was inextricably pagan; but he would not tolerate bishops trying to determine policy alone, even when it came to church policy.
See Council of Nicaea and all that.
Late Roman/early Byzantine church/state relationship are … complicated.
To put it mildly.
Arianisnm, monophtyism, nestorianism, homoousios vs homoiousios, iconophiles vs iconoclasts.
Greens vs Blues.
Fun for all!