Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label hoekstra. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hoekstra. Show all posts

Friday, May 30, 2014

Shinseki Spares Obama From A Week From Hell

Hoekstra: Shinseki Resignation Gives Obama Cover for 'Terrible Week'

Friday, 30 May 2014 02:54 PM
By Courtney Coren
Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
President Barack Obama needed Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki to resign because he needs "to change the narrative" after his administration had a "terrible week," says former Michigan congressman and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra.

"Last weekend, he started with the White House leaking out the information, compromising the station chief, the CIA chief, in Afghanistan – a huge blunder by the White House," Hoekstra told J.D. Hayworth and John Bachman on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV Friday.

"Wednesday night you had Edward Snowden doing an hour interview, which reminds the American people not only of the things that were going on at NSA that they didn't like, but that under this president we had the most massive breach of intelligence information in the history of the world," he added.

Story continues below video.



"You then saw this week that the economic numbers were adjusted so that we actually in the first quarter this year had a one percent economic decline, contraction in our economy," Hoekstra explained further.

"And then you put on the continuing saga of the VA," the Michigan Republican said. "The president had to do something to try to change the narrative."

Obama accepted Shinseki's resignation Friday morning, saying that he didn't want the VA secretary's presence to be a distraction for the department.

Prior to the resignation, Shinseki issued an apology for the scandal in which VA hospitals across the country were allegedly keeping secret wait lists to make it look like patients were not waiting more than the 14-day required period, when in fact they were sometimes waiting for months. Forty VA patients in Phoenix, Arizona allegedly died while waiting to see a doctor at the VA hospital there.

Hoekstra contends that because of the "bad news" surrounding the Obama administration, "vulnerable Democrats in the House and the Senate" are running "from this president in unbelievable numbers."

The conservative group Crossroads GPS recently used the VA scandal in a political ad against Democratic Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, which Hoekstra warns Republicans against doing.

"You've always got to be careful in overplaying your hand," he said. "The facts here will speak for themselves — you don't need to overplay it politically."


Related Stories: © 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Russian Helicopters Being Purchased By US For Afghans! Why Employ Americans?

Pete Hoekstra: US Helps Putin by Buying Russian Helicopters

Monday, 28 Apr 2014 03:33 PM
By Joe Battaglia
Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
While President Barack Obama is busy announcing new sanctions against Russia for its continued hostilities in Ukraine, the U.S. government is secretly emboldening the Russian economy through a military contract, former Rep. Pete Hoekstra says.

In an attempt to ratchet up pressure on Russian President Vladimir Putin, Obama outlined, from his trip in the Philippines, new sanctions against high-technology exports and  wealthy Putin allies.

But Hoekstra, a onetime Michigan congressman and former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told J.D. Hayworth on "America's Forum" on Newsmax TV that while this is going on, the Pentagon is hiding "a dirty little secret" about the price the United States is paying as part of its military pullout from Afghanistan.

"As we're leaving, the Afghan military, they're looking for helicopters," Hoekstra explained. "They want about 90 attack helicopters. All right. You say, 'Hey, great! They're going to be buying 90 helicopters, that's going to be putting a lot of Americans to work.'

"Wrong. They're buying Russian helicopters for the Afghan military, and the interesting thing about helicopters is that they're high-maintenance. So, not only are we buying about a billion dollars' worth of Russian helicopters, but we're also providing the Russian military industrial complex, the people that build these helicopters, we're providing them with maintenance contracts that are multiple numbers of this one billion," he said Monday.

Story continues below video.



According to Hoekstra, the deal to purchase helicopters from Russia has been in place for some time, and Congress even attempted to stop the deal through the appropriations process because of Putin's support of Syrian President Bashar Assad. But Hoekstra said, "Obama just forgot about those restrictions and went beyond them."

"So now we've got the Russians in Syria, we've got them in Ukraine, they're creating mischief all over the place," Hoekstra said, "and we're buying Russian helicopters to give to the Afghans and the biggest promoter of this is the U.S. Pentagon."

Additionally, since Obama shut down NASA's space shuttle and Constellation programs, every time the U.S. needs to send an astronaut or satellite to space, Hoekstra says they are being launched on Russian rockets, providing an additional financial boon to the country.

"Are we sanctioning those companies?" he asked, incredulously. "Canceling these purchases? Did we cancel the purchase of these helicopters? Absolutely not.

"You just wonder why wouldn't the Pentagon go out right now and say, 'We're sorry, the balance of the helicopter contract is cancelled'? On one hand, we're saying sanctions, on the other hand we're buying lots of Russian products that are fueling and enriching the very people that we're trying to sanction, it makes no sense."

Hoekstra, however, stopped short of blaming this on Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

"I don't think you go after one person here," he said. "The Obama administration, you know, on foreign policy, on national security issues, they leave a lot to be desired."

Related Stories:
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.


Sunday, November 24, 2013

Hoekstra Makes Good Points Regarding Iran Deal

Pete Hoekstra to Newsmax: 'I'm a Huge Skeptic'on Iran Deal

Saturday, 23 Nov 2013 11:47 PM
By Todd Beamon
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra said late Saturday that Newsmax should "count me as a huge skeptic" of the deal in which Iran would receive $4.2 billion and limited sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

"This president hasn't developed the trust in his foreign policy judgment over the past five years," Hoekstra said in an exclusive Newsmax interview. "He's got a Middle East policy that is in tatters.


"All we have to show for this agreement is that two of our staunchest allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are very skeptical of it. They're wondering where the United States is heading when they've got an agreement with Iran.

"They may or may not abide by the limitations on their nuclear program, but they're getting immediate relief of sanctions," Hoekstra said of Iran. "They'll continue to fight us in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan."

According to news reports, Iran will get limited sanctions relief on gold, petrochemicals and automobiles as part of the agreement.  The deal is a six-month interim accord — and sanctions would be reimposed quickly if Iran was caught cheating.

In addition, Iran has agreed to stop enriching uranium to a high level and to do that would "dismantle the links between networks of centrifuges," The New York Times reports.  Any uranium that had been enriched further would be diluted or converted so that it could not be used for arms.

But that's not enough for Hoekstra, who served eight terms in the House of Representatives before leaving office to run unsuccessfully for Michigan governor in 2010. He chaired the Intelligence Committee from 2004 to 2007, and currently serves on the Advisory Board for Lignet.com.

"What Iran got tonight was immediate relief of sanctions. That begins tonight," he told Newsmax. "They’re getting a break beginning right now — and they've got a plan to start moving money around, getting essential materials into their country that are going to alleviate some of the problems they've had with sanctions. That's going to prop up the regime.

"Then, the question becomes: 'When do we get access to their nuclear programs? When do we get access to make sure we're stopping their program, or that they have stopped them?'"

He added: "This administration has a habit of immediately claiming victory instead of saying, 'Let's see where we are in 12 months.' They claimed victory in Egypt. It was disastrous. They claimed victory in Libya. It's been disastrous. They claimed victory in Iraq, and Iraq has not been good. They claimed success with Obamacare when they passed it. It's been disastrous.

"It's too early to claim success. Let's see where we are in 12 months," Hoekstra said. "This strength of the hand of Iran weakens our position in the region."


Monday, September 9, 2013

Obama Exposes His Weaknesses In Syria and Makes Presidency Less Powerful?

Lawmakers, Leading Policy Experts Tell Newsmax: Obama's Miscues Have Damaged Presidency

Sunday, 08 Sep 2013 05:45 PM
By David A. Patten
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
Deferring to Congress to authorize an attack on Syria’s Bashar al-Assad may have been the biggest gamble of Barack Obama’s presidency – and could significantly weaken the presidential office if it backfires, experts and commentators warn in exclusive interviews with Newsmax.

Some observers are beginning to suggest the administration’s mishandling of Syria has been so severe, it may affect not only Obama’s presidency, but future presidents’ terms as well.

“I was stunned,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton tells Newsmax. “What the president did was a display of weakness of the kind we haven’t seen in an American leader in decades, if not since the 19th century.”



GOP Rep. Peter T. King of New York has charged that President Obama is “abdicating his responsibility as commander in chief and undermining the authority of future presidents.”

Pete Hoekstra, the former Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, tells Newsmax that it’s too soon to say whether the legacy of President Obama’s “lead-from-behind” style will permanently weaken the presidency.

Hoekstra says Obama can still recover, but must change a Middle East policy that has witnessed a resurgence in Islamic extremism. Without fundamental changes in approach, Hoekstra warns, America’s enemies may well conclude that the power vacuum has left them “a real opportunity,” he says.

So far, Israelis and Arabs alike appear troubled by Obama’s rendition of Hamlet. Former Israeli UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman called it a “fiasco reminiscent of the Carter days,” and warned it would bring “gloating and celebrating” in Tehran. Gillerman told The New York Times the decision would cast “a very dark shadow” over U.S. credibility.

Arab experts are critical as well. “He is seen as feckless and weak,” Salman Shaikh, head of the Brookings Doha Center, told the Times. “Many Arab leaders already think that Obama’s word cannot be trusted – I am talking about his friends and allies.”

Future commanders in chief who launch a cruise-missile barrage or bombing campaign without congressional approval may be called upon to explain why they ignored the “Obama precedent,” for example.

The potential hit to U.S. credibility from punting to Capitol Hill how best to respond to Syria’s chemical-weapons use could have dangerous, long-term consequences for America and its allies, foreign-policy experts warn.

“I’m ready to act in the face of this outrage,” the president declared in a surprise Saturday Rose Garden speech. But the effect of the speech was lost when, after reading that line off the teleprompter, President Obama and sidekick Joe Biden grabbed their clubs and headed out for an afternoon of golf at nearby Fort Belvoir.

Off the links, the president has received no mulligans from critics, who are bolstered by voters wearied by a dozen years of U.S. war fighting abroad.

“We have the physical capability for deterrence,” Wall Street Journal columnist and foreign-policy expert Bret Stephens tells Newsmax. “[But] you have to have both the wherewithal and the will.

“What we seem to be losing, as we confront the challenges in Syria and Iran, is credibility,” Stephens says. “We’re not taken seriously. And we’re not taken seriously because we have a president who issues a red line – as he said a red line ‘for me’ – and then several months later tells us that he didn’t issue the red line, it was the world.”

Stephens charges that Obama is “hollowing out American credibility.”

He notes that ever since the 1947 Truman Doctrine kicked off the containment of Soviet imperialism, U.S. might has kept the world order from slipping into turmoil. But the unparalleled era of prosperity American strength fostered came with a caveat: It would only work as long as the world’s martinets, megalomaniacs, and tin-pot dictators believed U.S. leaders would brook no rogue adventurism.

Now, analysts are openly mulling whether the sun is about to set on the era of U.S.-enforced stability.

“The fact that the American people are confused,” former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested to Fox News, “and the fact that the Congress seems uncertain, and the international community is not supportive, is a reflection of the fact that the so-called commander in chief has not been acting as commander in chief.”

Stephens cautions that Syria may be only the beginning.

“The moment that it becomes clear to the autocrats, dictators, and totalitarians of the world that America has an administration that’s bluffing, they’re going to provoke us,” he says. “That’s exactly what’s happened in Syria.”

Another reason why U.S. deterrence appears vulnerable: The sequester cuts are starting to really bite.

The sequester, a policy dreamed up in the West Wing that D.C. denizens never thought would actually take effect, is scheduled to carve nearly $1 trillion from the Defense Department budget over the next 10 years.

Those cuts have left Pentagon leaders with a Hobson’s choice: Do they cut back on the high-tech gadgets like drones that give U.S. warfighters a force-multiplier on the battlefield? Or due they reduce the number of U.S. soldiers needed to maintain deterrence?

By one Pentagon projection, the sequester could slash the Army’s headcount from 535,000 soldiers to as few as 380,000. The Marines would decline from 182,000 to 150,000. And the Navy would shrink from 11 carrier task forces to just eight. This, despite the fact that U.S. politicians continue to paint lines in the sands of the Middle East using the blood of American soldiers.

The actual declines in U.S. military might are another reason why advocates of credible U.S. deterrence are sounding the alarm.

In a Sept. 4 speech at the National Press Club, Undersecretary of the Department of Defense Frank Kendall remarked on the confluence of events: A shrinking defense budget even as the United States entertains the possibility of further intervention abroad.

“This is a bizarre situation for the United States,” he said. “We are seeing growing national security threats but we are unilaterally disarming because of concerns about the deficit and the national debt. This is a very unusual situation for us.”

Or as the Wall Street Journal’s Stephens puts it: “We have already carved out hundreds of billions of dollars from the Defense budget. And we are headed toward a military that is going to be so reduced in size that it will mean our lack of will may in fact be matched by our lack of wherewithal. That’s the terrifying scenario."


Saturday, September 7, 2013

Obama: Learning On The Job. Was NOT Ready For Prime Time

Hoekstra to Newsmax: Obama's G-20 Debacle 'Clearly Demonstrates a Lack of Leadership'

Friday, 06 Sep 2013 06:56 PM
By Todd Beamon
Share:
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
President Barack Obama's inability to build strong international support for military strikes against Syria at the Group of 20 summit in Russia "clearly demonstrates a lack of leadership," former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra told Newsmax on Friday.

"The president has four groups of people who he needs to convince that going into Syria is an absolute imperative — and one of those is the international community," Hoekstra told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.

"And, coming out of the G-20 summit, where he had the opportunity to personally make the case to many of our allies — and to come away pretty-much empty-handed — shows exactly where this president is right now.

"It's going to make it very, very difficult to get the votes next week" in Congress, he concluded. "It's going to make it much more difficult for the president to get the American people to be supportive of a move into Syria if we can't convince our allies."

Obama, who plans to address the American people on Syria on Tuesday, left St. Petersburg on Friday without a clear, unified message of support among allies despite the "growing recognition" that the world could not stand by and let the use of chemical weapons go unanswered.

“Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence,” Obama said at a news conference before leaving the Russian city.

His efforts at the summit were strongly countered by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who hosted the event and who remains Syrian President Bashar Assad's strongest ally.

Putin has challenged U.S. evidence that Assad's military was behind a chemical weapons attack last month — and he has blocked action against Syria at the United Nations.

He said at his own news conference on Friday that Russia would continue supporting Syria if the U.S. launches strikes.

“We are already helping them with weapons and we are cooperating in the economic and humanitarian spheres,” Putin said.

Hoekstra, who served eight terms in the U.S. House of Representatives before leaving office to run unsuccessfully for Michigan governor in 2010, said he was not surprised at Putin's heavy lobbying at the summit.

"The disappointing thing here was that, even though it appears relatively certain that Assad gassed and killed over 1,000 of his citizens, it shows the weakness of this president's case that he couldn't — even though Putin was lobbying as well — build a coalition. We haven't been able to do that in this case."

Obama sought diplomatic support from the United Kingdom, Australia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. He met with the leaders of France, China, Japan, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico.

So far, the countries that have indicated a willingness to support an armed response include Canada, France, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.

French President Francois Hollande said in St. Petersburg that his nation’s military would only hit targets in Syria in a U.S.-led coalition.

“A military strike would accelerate a political solution. That’s what people have to understand,” Hollande said. If Obama failed to get authorization for a military attack from Congress, he said he was willing to ship weapons to Syrian rebels.

Still, "you don't have the key one," Hoekstra told Newsmax, "which, from my perspective, is Great Britain. They're not there." The House of Commons has rejected military action in Syria.

"It’s always somewhat comforting when you want to engage and take a military action that you have a list of allies who are willing to go with you and who are willing to support that effort," he added. "And, right now, we don't have it."

Hoekstra, who chaired the House Intelligence Committee from 2004 to 2007 and currently serves on the Advisory Board for Lignet.com, noted that Secretary of State John Kerry told legislators that Arab nations had pledged to finance the cost of any U.S.-backed military effort in Syria.

"What the secretary fails to recognize or doesn't talk about is that our greatest treasure are not the cruise missiles, not the airplanes that we send, but it is our young men and women who we send out on the battlefield," Hoekstra said.

"There may not be boots on the ground, but they're going to be dealing with the missiles, getting them prepared to launch. They may be flying over the skies of Syria. They may be protecting the embassies or American assets throughout the Middle East.

"That's our most precious asset, and if we go into Syria, that's what we're putting on the line."

At his news conference, Obama three times declined to directly answer questions about whether he would take military action even if Congress rejected authorization.

“I put this before Congress for a reason,” Obama said, adding that the U.S. position is strengthened if the nation is unified. “I’m not going to engage in parlor games” by speculating about whether it’s going to pass while still negotiating with lawmakers.

To that, Hoekstra told Newsmax: "I hope that since the president has asked for Congress' input, that when he gets it, he will listen to it."

More broadly, however, the former congressman said that Obama's G-20 experience showed that "the president is learning the difficulty of being an international leader. He's going through on-the-job training.

"I'm glad the president is learning," Hoekstra added. "I'm glad that the president is using some of the tools that former presidents have used — and I hope that this president will also develop the kind of coalition that President [George W.] Bush did before he takes action."

Bloomberg News contributed to this report.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.