Politics DA- Chuck Hagel

1NC

Uniqueness
Republicans do not like Chuck Hagel, Obama must use his political capital to ensure Chuck Hagel becomes the next Secretary of the Department of Defense Crabtree, 1/8/13 (Susan, Washington Post, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/8/little-enthusiasm-on-capitol-hillfor-hagel-nomina/) In many ways, Mr. Obamas choice, former Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska and a Vietnam veteran with two Purple Hearts, is a

Mr. Hagels nomination had kicked up a cloud of consternation from those on the right who questioned his commitment to Israel and his willingness to get tough with sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program.
man without a party who has plenty of detractors on both sides of the aisle. Even before it became official Monday, Those on the left arent overjoyed, either. They would rather have worked with one of their own at the Pentagon, and have questions about criticism in 1998 of a Clinton administration nominee for an ambassadorship for being openly, aggressively gay. Mr. Hagel has since

But Mr. Obama chose his former Senate colleague anyway, putting the full weight of the presidency behind his selection and risking the political capital it takes to win confirmation battles in the worlds most exclusive club. The president has
apologized, and Democrats appear to be giving him a pass at least for now. his hands full at the moment why would he take on one more chore in dealing with Congress? said Stephen Hess, a veteran staffer of the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations and presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution. I guess partly because he really wants this guy. Sources familiar with the confirmation process say the White House would not have nominated Mr. Hagel if it were not certain the votes were there to confirm him, although recent history suggests that sometimes even the safest picks can unravel during the confirmation process. But Mr. Obama clearly wants Mr. Hagel for the job. Even though Mr. Obama and Mr. Hagel overlapped for only two years in the Senate, they forged a lasting personal, as well as political, connection. Despite a longtime friendship with Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and Mr. Obamas 2008 presidential rival, Sen. Hagels foreign policy positions his opposition to the Iraq war and wariness about U.S. military action overseas are more in line with Mr. Obamas and he backed him over Mr. McCain in the 2008 race. Mr. Hagels comments cautioning the United States and Israel against launching a military strike against Iran and referring to the power of the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill have spurred a rapidresponse media campaign of groups opposed to his nomination and raised the ire of several prominent pro-Israel Republicans in Congress.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, said he was profoundly concerned and disappointed by the nomination, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and a close ally of Mr. McCains, said Mr. Hagel would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense toward the state of Israel in our nations history if he wins confirmation. Several other Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, which will hold the hearings, already have indicated they intend to vote against Mr. Hagels nomination. Usually, when you select someone from the other party, you do it in a symbolic sense and
to attract a wide swath of support from both parties, Mr. Hess said. But in this case, he cannot count on a lot of Republican votes. Its historically interesting. I have never seen anything like this, in fact.With Republicans still demanding answers about the administrations handling of the deadly Sept. 11 attacks at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, many GOP lawmakers have vowed to use the confirmation to grill all nominees to Mr. Obamas national security team. The certainty of a fight may have convinced Mr. Obama to proceed with the Hagel pick.

Link
Transportation legislation is unpopular with Republicans, this causes Obama to lose political capital crucial to ensure Chuck Hagel is confirmed Tomasky 11 (Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael is also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas Newsweek
September 19, 2011 lexis) Finally, Barack Obama found the passion. "Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us an economic superpower," he thundered in his jobs speech on the evening of Sept. 8. "And now we're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?" Obama's urgency was rightly about jobs first and foremost. But he wasn't talking only about jobs when he mentioned investing in America--he was talking about our competitiveness, and our edge in the world. And it's a point he must keep pressing. In a quickly reordering global world, infrastructure and innovation

are key measures of a society's seriousness about its competitive drive. And we're just not

serious. The most recent infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers gives the United States a D overall, including
bleak marks in 15 categories ranging from roads (D-minus) to schools and transit (both D's) to bridges (C). The society calls for $2.2 trillion in infrastructure investments over the next five years. On the innovation front, the country that's home to Google and the iPhone still ranks fourth worldwide in overall innovation, according to the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank on such questions, which conducts a biannual ranking. But we might not be there for long. In terms of keeping pace with other nations' innovation investments--"progress over the last decade," as ITIF labels it--we rank 43rd out of 44 countries. What's the problem? It isn't know-how; this is still America. It isn't identifying the needs; they've been identified to death. Nor is it even really money. There are billions sitting around in pension funds, equity funds, sovereign wealth funds, just waiting to be spent. The

problem--of course--is politics. The idea that the two parties could get together and develop bold bipartisan plans for massive investments in our
freight-rail system--on which the pro-business multiplier effects would be obvious--or in expanding and speeding up broadband (it's eight times faster in South Korea than here, by the way)

is a joke . Says New York University's Michael Likosky: "We're the only country in the world mindset developed in the Street began moving

that is imposing austerity on itself. No one is asking us to do it." There are some historical reasons why. Sherle Schwenninger, an infrastructure expert at the New America Foundation, a leading Washington think tank, says that a kind of anti-bigness 1990s, that era in which the besotting buzzwords were "Silicon Valley" and "West Coast venture capital." Wall

away from grand projects. "In that '90s paradigm, the New Economy-Silicon Valley approach to things eschewed the public and
private sectors' working together to do big things," Schwenninger says. "That model worked for software, social media, and some biotech. But the needs are different today." That's true, but so is the simple point that the

Republican Party in Washington will oppose

virtually all public investment. The party believes in something like Friedrich von Hayek's "spontaneous order"--that is, get government off people's backs and they (and the markets they create) will spontaneously address any and all problems. But
looking around America today, can anyone seriously conclude that this is working?

Impact
Chuck Hagels nominations is key to improve US-Iran relations Huffington Post, 1/8/13 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/chuck-hagel-iran-nomination-secretarydefense_n_2431329.html)

Iran's Foreign Ministry says it is hopeful the appointment of former Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to lead the Pentagon would improve relations between Tehran and the U.S. Asked about Hagel's nomination, ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday that Tehran was hopeful that there would be "practical changes" to U.S. foreign policy, and that nations would change their attitude towards the U.S. if it respected their rights. Hagel was nominated Monday and faces tough confirmation hearings. Critics have said he is hostile toward Israel and soft on Iran. Washington and Tehran have no diplomatic relations since 1979 when Iranian militants stormed the U.S embassy and took American diplomats hostages. Tensions have spiked over America's belief that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapon, a charge Iran denies.

Improved relations with Iran stops them from producing and using nuclear weapons Watson Institute for International Studies 11
http://www.choices.edu/resources/twtn/documents/choices-twtn-iran-options.pdf Irans actions surrounding its nuclear program are a concern for the United States and the rest of the world. But war will not solve this problem. Instead we must use diplomacy and economic incentives to convince Irans leaders to abandon any ambitions they have to acquire nuclear weapons. To start, we need to address the underlying factors contributing to escalating tensions . For the past thirty years,
the United States has carried out a provocative and ineffective campaign of intimidation and isolation against Irans revolutionary government. The Iranian government has used the threatening behavior of the United States to justify its repression of the Iranian people. The United States should stop threatening Iran. Military attacks and covert action will only intensify the problem and further convince Iran that it needs nuclear weapons for protection. We must work to normalize relations with Iran and work with other nations to bring Iran back into the fold of the international community. This task will not be easy. Irans government can be hostile and difficult to work with. But in the short term, this is the only way to halt Irans nuclear ambitions. Ultimately, the only long-term guarantee that Iran will irrevocably end its nuclear program is a more democratic government in Iran. But as we saw in Iraq, U.S. efforts to change another countrys government by force are costly, difficult to control, and have devastating unforeseen consequences. Instead, we must help foster an environment that will allow the Iranian people to be successful in their push for democracy.

If we reduce tensions between Iran and the international community, the Iranian government will be unable to use outside threats as an excuse to ignore domestic concerns. These policies towards Iran must be part of a larger effort to reduce nuclear arms around the world, including in the
United States. Nuclear weapons make the world a more dangerous place. Only by engaging positively with other nuclear powers and reducing our own nuclear stores can we convince world leaders that they do not need nuclear weapons for protection. By

engaging with Irans government, we will send a clear message that the United States is committed to a more peaceful and secure world.

Iran strikes causes multiple scenarios for extinction.

Chossudovsky -06 (Michel Chossudovsky, The Next Phase of the Middle East War, Global Research,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3147) The Bush Administration has embarked upon a an overstatement. If

military adventure which threatens the future of humanity. This is not aerial bombardments were to be launched against Iran, they would trigger a ground war and the escalation of the conflict to a much broader region. Even in the case of aerial and missile attacks using conventional warheads, the bombings would unleash a "Chernobyl type" nuclear nightmare resulting from the spread of nuclear radiation following the destruction of Iran's nuclear energy facilities.
Throughout history, the structure of military alliances has played a crucial role in triggering major military conflicts. In contrast to the situation prevailing prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, America's ongoing military adventure is now firmly supported by the Franco-German alliance. Moreover, Israel is slated to play a direct role in this military operation. NATO is firmly aligned with the Anglo-American-Israeli military axis,

which also includes Australia and Canada. In 2005, NATO signed a military cooperation agreement with Israel, and Israel has a longstanding bilateral military agreement with Turkey. Iran has observer status in The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and is slated to become a full member of SCO. China and Russia have far-reaching military cooperation agreements with Iran. China and Russia are firmly opposed to a US-led military operation in the diplomatic arena. While the US sponsored military plan threatens Russian and Chinese interests in Central Asia

The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon-Palestine. The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan and Georgia, where US troops are stationed. Military action against Iran and Syria would directly involve Israel's participation, which in turn would trigger a broader war throughout the Middle East, not to mention the further implosion in the Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the proposed aerial attacks. If the US-UK-Israeli war plans were to proceed, the broader Middle East- Central Asian region would flare up, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghan-Chinese border. At present, there are three distinct war theaters: Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine-Lebanon. An attack directed against Iran would serve to integrate these war theaters transforming the broader Middle East Central Asian region into an integrated war zone. (see map above) In turn the US sponsored aerial bombardments directed against Iran could contribute to triggering a ground war characterized by Iranian attacks directed against coalition troops in Iraq. In turn, Israeli forces would enter into Syria. An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and Afghan war theaters. In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of a broader conflict. The war against Iran is part of a longer term US military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian Federation.
and the Caspian sea basin, it is unlikely that they would intervene militarily on the side of Iran or Syria.

2NC

Uniqueness Extensions
Republicans view Hagel as a lone wolf and are not necessarily going to vote for their own party member Allen and Samuelsohn 1/10/13 (Jonathan and Darren, Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/hagel-may-regretnot-having-made-more-senate-pals-85984.html) Policy aside, Hagels bedeviled by his own abrasive personality. In a chamber known for back-patting and elbow-rubbing, the former Nebraska senator mostly rubbed people the wrong way. Now, on his path to the Pentagon, he has to hope that irritation doesnt come back to bite him. He

was respected as a colleague in the normal Senate tradition but was somewhat of a lone wolf and did not forge the deep personal relationships with his fellow Republicans that would translate into a ready reservoir of support for his nomination, said John Ullyot, a former Marine intelligence officer who was the spokesman for the Senate Armed Services Committee under Chairman John Warner from 2003 to 2007. On top of that, his outspokenness and blunt criticism of several Republican priorities at a critical time, including Iraq and Iran, while sincere and heartfelt, have left him without a natural platform of enthusiasm for his confirmation. Those hurdles are not insurmountable, Ullyot added. But he starts the process with a long and uncharted road ahead. In the past, a former senator could count on getting a gentlemans confirmation vote from his old club. But Hagel cant even count on a fellow Republican Cornhusker to give him a hand.

Link Extensions
Plan drains Presidential capital. Even once-popular transportation issues now hurt the White House. Freemark 12
(Yonah Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with Distinction. Also a freelance journalist who has been published in Planning Magazine; Next American City Magazine; Dissent; The Atlantic Cities; Next American City Online; and The Infrastructurist He created and continues to write for the website The Transport Politic The Transport Politic On Infrastructure, Hopes for Progress This Year Look Glum January 25th, 2012 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2012/01/25/on-infrastructure-hopes-for-progress-this-year-look-glum/) President Obama barely mentions the need for improvements in the nations capital stock in his State of the Union. The

contributions of the Obama Administration to the investment in improved transportation alternatives have been significant, but it was clear from the Presidents State of the Union address last night that 2012 will be a year of diminished expectations in the face of a general election and a tough Congressional opposition. Mr. Obamas address, whatever its merits from a populist perspective, nonetheless failed to propose dramatic reforms to encourage new spending on transportation projects, in contrast to previous years. While the Administration has in some ways radically
reformed the way Washington goes about selecting capital improvements, bringing a new emphasis on livability and underdeveloped modes like high-speed rail, there was little indication in the speech of an effort to expand such policy choices. All that we heard was a rather meek suggestion to transform a part of the money made available from the pullout from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts a sort of war dividend whose size is undefined to do some nation-building right here at home. If these audience, they were reflective of the

suggestions fell flat for the pro-investment reality of working in the context of a deeply divided political system in which such once-universally supported policies as increased roads funding have become practically impossible to pursue. Mr. Obama pushed hard, we shouldnt forget, for a huge, transformational transportation bill in early 2011, only to be rebuffed by intransigence in the GOP-led House of Representatives and only wavering support in the Democratic Senate. For the first term at least, the Administrations transportation initiatives appear to have been pushed aside. Even
so, it remains to be seen how the Administration will approach the development of a transportation reauthorization program. Such legislation remains on the Congressional agenda after three years of delays (the law expires on March 31st). There is so far no long-term solution to the continued inability of fuel tax revenues to cover the growing national need for upgraded or expanded mobility infrastructure. But if it were to pass, a new multi-year transportation bill would be the most significant single piece of legislation passed by the Congress in 2012. The

prospect of agreement between the two parties on this issue, however, seems far-fetched. That is, if we are to
assume that the goal is to complete a new and improved spending bill, rather than simply further extensions of the existing legislation. The House could consider this month a bill that would fund new highways and transit for several more years by expanding domestic production of heavily carbon-emitting fossil fuels, a terrible plan that would produce few new revenues and encourage more ecological destruction. Members of the Senate, meanwhile, have for months been claiming they were looking for the missing $12 or 13 billion to complete its new transportation package but have so far come up with bupkis. The the current law or a bipartisan bureaucratic reforms.

near-term thus likely consists of either continued extensions of bargain that fails to do much more than replicate the existing law, perhaps with a few

Transportation policy ensures loss of political capital party demographics prove Freemark 11
(Yonah Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with Distinction. Also a freelance journalist who has been published in Planning Magazine; Next American City Magazine; Dissent; The Atlantic Cities; Next American City Online; and The Infrastructurist He created and continues to write for the website The Transport Politic The Transport Politic Understanding the Republican Partys Reluctance to Invest in Transit Infrastructure January 25th, 2011 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/01/25/understanding-the-republican-partys-reluctance-to-invest-in-transitinfrastructure/)

Conservatives in Congress threaten to shut down funding for transit construction projects and investments in intercity rail. One doesnt have to look far to see why these programs arent priorities for them. Late last week, a group of more than 165 of the most conservative members of the House of Representatives, the Republican Study

Committee, released a report that detailed an agenda to reduce federal spending by $2.5 trillion over ten years. Spurred on by increasing public concern about the mounting national debt, the group argues that the only choice is to make huge, painful cuts in government programs. With the House now in the hands of the Republican Party, these suggestions are likely to be seriously considered.

Transportation policy is prominent on the groups list, no matter investments in

the nations

President

Obamas call for

transportation infrastructure,

expected to be put forward in tonights state of the union

address. Not only would all funding for Amtrak be cut, representing about $1.5 billion a year, but the Obama Administrations nascent highspeed rail program would be stopped in its tracks. A $150 million commitment to Washingtons Metro system would evaporate. Even more dramatically, the New Starts program, which funds new rail and bus capital projects at a cost of $2 billion a year, would simply disappear. In other words, the Republican group suggests that all national government aid for the construction of new rail or bus lines, intercity and intracity, be eliminated. These cuts are extreme, and theyre not likely to make it to the Presidents desk, not only because of the Democratic Partys continued control over the Senate but also because some powerful Republicans in the House remain committed to supporting public transportation and rail programs. But

how can we explain the open hostility of so many members of the GOP to any federal spending at all for non-automobile transportation? Why does a transfer of power from the Democratic Party to the Republicans engender such political problems for urban transit? We can find clues in considering the districts from which members of the House of Representatives of each party are elected. As shown in the chart above (in Log scale), there was a relatively
strong positive correlation between density of congressional districts and the vote share of the Democratic candidate in the 2010 elections. Of densest quartile of districts with a race between a Democrat and a Republican 105 of them, with a density of 1,935 people per square miles or more the Democratic candidate won 89. Of the quartile of districts with the lowest densities 98 people per square mile and below Democratic candidates only won 23 races. As the chart below demonstrates (in regular scale), this pattern is most obvious in the nations big cities, where Democratic Party vote shares are huge when densities are very high. This pattern is not a coincidence. The

Democratic Party holds most of its power in the nations cities, whereas the GOP retains greater strength in the exurbs and rural areas. The two parties generally fight it out over the suburbs. In essence, the base of the two parties is becoming increasingly split in
spatial terms: The Democrats most vocal constituents live in cities, whereas the Republicans power brokers would never agree to what some frame as a nightmare of tenements and light rail. What does this mean? When there is a change in political power in Washington, the

differences on transportation policy and other urban issues between the parties reveal themselves as very stark . Republicans in the House of Representatives know that very few of their constituents would benefit directly from increased spending on transit, for instance, so they propose gutting the nations commitment to new public transportation lines when they enter office. Starting two years ago, Democrats pushed the opposite agenda, devoting billions to
urban-level projects that would have been impossible under the Bush Administration. Highway funding, on the other hand, has remained relatively stable throughout, and thats no surprise, either: The middle 50% of congressional districts, representing about half of the American population, features populations that live in neighborhoods of low to moderate densities, fully reliant on cars to get around. It is only in the densest sections of the country that transit (or affordable housing, for instance) is even an issue which is why it appears to be mostly of concern to the Democratic Party. Republicans in the House for the most part do not have to answer to voters who are interested in improved public transportation. This situation, of course, should be of significant concern to those who would advocate for better transit. To put matters simply, few House Republicans have any electoral reason to promote such projects, and thus, for the most part they dont. But that produces a self-reinforcing loop; noting the lack of GOP support for urban needs, city voters push further towards the Democrats. And sensing that the Democratic Party is a collection of urbanites, those from elsewhere push away. Its hard to know how to reverse this problem. Many Republicans, of course, represent urban areas at various levels of government. No Democrat, for instance, has won the race for New Yorks mayoralty since 1989. And the Senate is a wholly different ballgame, since most states have a variety of habitation types. As Bruce McFarling wrote this week, there are plenty of reasons for Republicans even in places of moderate density to support such investments as intercity rail. But the peculiar dynamics of U.S. House members relatively small constituent groups, in combination with the predilection of state legislatures to produce gerrymandered districts designed specifically to ensure the reelection of incumbents, has resulted in a situation in which there

is only one Republican-controlled congressional district with a population density of over 7,000 people per square mile. And thats in Staten Island, hardly a bastion of urbanism. With such little representation for urban issues in todays House leadership, real advances on transport issues seem likely to have to wait.

Any transportation legislation drains capital. Angers the GOP Freemark 10

(Yonah Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with Distinction. Also a freelance journalist who has been published in Planning Magazine; Next American City Magazine; Dissent; The Atlantic Cities; Next American City Online; and The Infrastructurist He created and continues to write for the website The Transport Politic The Transport Politic Growing Conservative Strength Puts Transit Improvements in Doubt December 1st, 2010 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/12/01/growing-conservative-strength-puts-transit-improvements-in-doubt/)

The next few years are likely to be difficult for advocates of public transportation because of increased hostility to government investment. 1987, 1991, 1995, 1998, and 2005 share a significant feature: In each of those
years, members of Congress were able to come together to pass a multi-year bill that codified how the U.S. government was to collect revenues for and allocate expenditures on transportation. Not coincidentally, in each of those years, one political party controlled both the House and Senate. In the 112th Congress, set to enter office in just one month, Democrats

will run the Senate and Republicans the House. This split control will make passing any legislation difficult. Unlike in those aforementioned years, there is little chance that this group of legislators will be able to pass a multi-year transportation bill either in 2011 or 2012. These circumstances, combined with increasingly strident conservative rhetoric about the need to reduce government expenditures, may fundamentally challenge the advances the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress have been able to make over the past two years in expanding the nations intercity rail network,
promoting a vision for livable communities, and reinforcing funding for urban transit. Continuing those efforts would require identifying sources of increased revenue and a steadfast commitment to reducing the role of the automobile in American society. But there is little support for increased taxes from any side of the political table and there

is a fundamental aversion from the mainstream Republican Party to the investments that have defined the governments recent transportation strategy. Meanwhile, declining power of the purse resulting from a fuel tax last increased in 1993 means that the existing situation is unacceptable, at least if there is any sense that something must be done to expand investment in transportation infrastructure. Gridlock and myopic thinking about how to improve mobility in the United States will ensue.

Public popularity does not help Obama on this issue prefer issue-specific internal link. Tomasky 11
(Newsweek/Daily Beast special correspondent Michael Tomasky is also editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas Newsweek September 19, 2011 lexis) The most pertinent bill in Congress is the one Obama name-checked in his speech: an infrastructure-bank proposal sponsored by Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas. It's designed specifically to try to win bipartisan backing: the bank's initial funding would be only $10 billion; it would have to become self-sufficient within a few years; it would be overseen by an independent board; there's even a provision for making sure rural projects don't get shafted. The public-private nature of the proposal is key, says Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, lead sponsor of a companion House bill. "If we can really bring clarity to that," she says, "we have a shot." Hutchison, who got

interested in infrastructure when George H.W. Bush appointed her to a but she hasn't spent much time talking it up to her colleagues. "It's a kind of complicated and in-the-weeds type of legislation, so I have not tried to get a big
commission, says she thinks the bill could appeal to Republicans, sponsorship," she says. Kerry holds on to optimism. "The idea is so powerful and such common sense that my hope is that the better angels will prevail for the good of the country," he says. A member of the recently formed "supercommittee" tasked with meeting the spending numbers agreed to in the debt-ceiling deal, Kerry says that the panel has a broad-enough mandate that his bill could be included in any deficit-cutting agreement. But that's an awfully tall order. Janet Kavinoky of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says the chamber endorsed the Kerry-Hutchison plan and has backed the infrastructure-bank idea since 1982. Trying to get Republicans on board, she says, has been daunting. "We've got several who say, 'We believe you, and we'd like to do this,' but getting people to say publicly that they want to make infrastructure an exception is a real challenge." This

is all the more maddening because support for such investments among the general public is broad and deep and crosses ideological boundaries, notes Nicholas Turner, who heads transportation initiatives for the Rockefeller Foundation. "The bipartisan support was stunning," Turner says. In a poll the foundation commissioned in February, even 59 percent of Tea Party supporters considered infrastructure investment to be vital. But as long as Barack Obama is for it, the Tea Partiers in Washington will fight it.

Plan cant even build capital with Dems agreement over substance gets overwhelmed by funding fights Freemark 10
(Yonah Master of Science in Transportation from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Yale University with Distinction. Also a freelance journalist who has been published in Planning Magazine; Next American City Magazine; Dissent; The Atlantic Cities; Next American City Online; and The Infrastructurist He created and continues to

write for the website The Transport Politic The Transport Politic After Two Years of Democratic Control in Washington, A Transportation Roundup December 29th, 2010 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/12/29/after-two-years-of-democratic-control-in-washington-atransportation-roundup/) Advances on livability and intercity rail were overshadowed by the inability of the Congress to legislate multi-year transportation funding. Republican control of the House beginning in January changes the equation significantly. The

2008 elections brought the full reigns of the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government under the control of the Democratic Party,
power that enabled the passage of the stimulus, health care reform, and, this month, a huge package of tax cuts. Though transportation policy was clearly not the priority of either the Obama Administration or the Congress, the decision by voters last month to install a Republican Partycontrolled House of Representatives is likely to alter the governments approach on the issues quite significantly. Thus it is worth looking back to examine the record of federal government over the last two years. The Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress have changed some aspects of federal policy significantly, advancing grant programs that reward cities for developing alternative transit systems and seriously promoting the national intercity rail project. A full-scale change in Washingtons approach to transportation, however, has yet to be accomplished. The

most significant lost cause has been, of course, the inability of the Congress to move forward on a multi-year transportation reauthorization bill. Though then-Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure James Oberstar (D-MN) proposed a draft of such legislation in June 2009, his effort went mostly unnoticed on Capitol Hill. It was never brought to the attention of the full House of Representatives and the relevant Senate committees never bothered to consider it. The biggest problem: Party

control over Washington or not, the Democrats could not come to any sort of agreement about how to fund transportation, an increasing problem because gas tax revenues are falling relative to both
inflation and the public need. President Obama refused to consider raising fuel fees in the midst of the recession and directed his press secretary to shoot down a promising alternative, the vehicle miles traveled fee. This meant repeated temporary extensions of the expired transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU, paid for through general fund expenditures rather than the fuel tax. These problems have yet to be resolved, and are unlikely to change over the course of the next two years.

Spinning plan as jobs creation hurts the President. Snider 11

Adam Snider is a transportation reporter for POLITICO Pro. Before joining POLITICO, he covered transportation issues for nearly four years at BNA, where his work won the companys Beltz Award for Editorial Excellence. Politico.com October 17, 2011 lexis

The Obama administration continues to fight for its American Jobs Act as a way to boost the sagging transportation construction sector. But Democrats, Republicans and the construction industry have all said the White House's focus is misdirected. A six-year highway and transit reauthorization is the best possible way to boost the economy, lawmakers say. And backers of the long-term plans say singular focus on the jobs bill - though it puts a positive light on pressing infrastructure issues that don't always receive national attention - has been a distraction. "Mr. President, the country doesn't need another stimulus like the last one" Pete Ruane, president of the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, wrote in a Washington Times op-ed in September. "The 2009 Recovery Act road and bridge initiative set the movement toward really improving the nation's transportation infrastructure back big time." Opponents of President Barack Obama's proposal for $50 billion in stimulus-style transportation spending, along with $10 billion to capitalize a national infrastructure bank, say it's akin to putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. A better solution, they say, is
a long-term, well-funded reauthorization that would create far more jobs than another round of stimulus spending. For all the talk about a second round of stimulus spending, Obama's proposal would offer less money for roads and transit systems than one year of regular program funds. The stimulus-style spending also suffers from bad timing - a number of states will soon halt construction for the winter, meaning the sought-after jobs largely won't appear until next spring anyway. But the White House wants to create jobs as quickly as possible and recognizes that if something sidetracks the reauthorization, Obama might not be around to sign a multiyear bill when it is finally approved. Eyeing the immediate future, the administration keeps fighting for another stimulus while staying out of the reauthorization debate. West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, the top Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, says the

White House's focus on the jobs proposal distracts from the much-needed long-term bill. "We ought to plow ahead and do a robust six-year bill and step
up to the plate and do what the American people are in need of - and that's jobs," Rahall said last week.

Winners win thesis is not true for Obama GALSTON 10.

*William, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, Brookings, President Barack Obamas First Two Years: Policy Accomplishments, Political Difficulties Brookings Institute -- Nov 4]

Second, the

administration believed that success would breed successthat the momentum from one legislative reverse was closer to the truth: with each difficult vote, it became harder to persuade Democrats from swing districts and states to cast the next one. In the event, House members who feared that they would pay a heavy price if they supported cap-and-trade legislation turned out to have a better grasp of political fundamentals than did administration strategists.
victory would spill over into the next. The

Winners dont win on controversial issues the hill is too polarized. MANN 10. *Thomas, Senior Fellow, Governance Studies, American Politics on the Eve of the Midterm Elections Brookings Institute -November] That perception

of failure has been magnified by the highly contentious process by which Obamas initiatives have been adopted in Congress. America has in recent years developed a highly polarised party system, with striking ideological differences between the parties and unusual unity within each. But these parliamentary-like parties operate in a governmental system in which majorities are unable readily to put their programmes in place. Republicans adopted a strategy of consistent, unified, and aggressive opposition to every major component of the Presidents agenda, eschewing negotiation, bargaining and compromise, even on matters of great national import. The Senate filibuster has been the indispensable weapon in killing, weakening, slowing, or discrediting all major legislation proposed by the Democratic majority.

Winners Lose For Obama Loses The Spin Game. BAKER 10. [Peter, foreign policy reporter, author of Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin and Russian Counter-Revolution, Education of a
President New York Times+

But it is possible to win the inside game and lose the outside game. In their darkest moments, White House aides wonder aloud whether it is even possible for a modern president to succeed, no matter how many bills he signs. Everything seems to conspire against the idea: an implacable opposition with little if any real interest in collaboration, a news media saturated with triviality and conflict, a culture that demands solutions yesterday, a societal cynicism that holds leadership in low regard. Some White House aides who were ready to carve a new spot on
Mount Rushmore for their boss two years ago privately concede now that he cannot be another Abraham Lincoln after all. In this environment, they have increasingly concluded, it may be that every modern president is going to be, at best, average. Were all a lot more cynical now, one aide told me. The easy answer is to blame the Republicans, and White House aides do that with exuberance. But they are also looking at their own misjudgments, the hubris that led them to think they really could defy the laws of politics. Its not that we believed our own press or press releases, but there was definitely a sense at the beginning that we could really change Washington, another White House official told me. Arrogance isnt the right word, but we were overconfident. The biggest miscalculation in the minds of most Obama advisers was the assumption that he could bridge a polarized capital and forge genuinely bipartisan coalitions. While Republican leaders resolved to stand against Obama, his early efforts to woo the opposition also struck many as halfhearted. If anybody thought the Republicans were just going to roll over, we were just terribly mistaken, former Senator Tom Daschle, a mentor and an outside adviser to Obama, told me. Im not sure anybody really thought that, but I think we kind of hoped the Republicans would go away. And obviously they didnt do that. Senator Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the upper chamber and Obamas ally from Illinois, said the Republicans were to blame for the absence of bipartisanship. I think his fate was sealed, Durbin said. Once the Republicans decided they would close ranks to defeat him, that just made it extremely difficult and dragged it out for a longer period of time. The American people have a limited attention span. Once you convince them theres a problem, they want a solution. Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, though, is among the Democrats who grade

Obama

harshly for not being more nimble in the face of opposition. B-plus, A-minus on substantive accomplishments, he told me, and a D-plus or C-minus on communication. The health care legislation is an incredible achievement and the stimulus program was absolutely, unqualifiedly, enormously successful, in Rendells judgment, yet Obama allowed them to be tarnished by critics. They lost the communications battle on both major initiatives, and they lost it early, said Rendell, an ardent Hillary Clinton backer who later became an Obama supporter. We didnt use the president in either stimulus or health care until we had lost the spin battle.

Winners-Lose for Obama RYAN 9

[1-18 -- Selwyn Professor of Social Science at the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies, University of West Indies. Ph.D. in Political Science from Cornell, http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_opinion?id=161426968] Like many, I expect much from Obama, who for the time being, is my political beast of burden with whom every other politician in the world is unfavourably compared. As a political scientist, I however know that given the structure of American and world politics, it would be difficult for him to deliver half of what he has promised, let alone all of it. Reality will force him to make many "u" turns and detours which may well land him in quick sand. Obama

will, however, begin his stint with a vast accumulation of political capital, perhaps more than that held by any other modern leader. Seventy-eight per cent of Americans polled believe that his inauguration is one of the most historic the country will witness. Political capital is, however, a lumpy and fast diminishing asset in today's world of instant communication, which once misspent, is rarely ever renewable. The world is full of political leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair who had visions, promised a lot, and probably meant well, but who did not know how to husband the political capital with which they were provided as they assumed office. They squandered it as quickly as they emptied the contents of the public vaults. Many will be watching to see how Obama manages his assets and liabilities register. Watching with hope would be the white young lady who waved a placard in Obama's face
inscribed with the plaintive words, "I Trust You." Despite the general optimism about Obama's ability to deliver, many groups have already begun to complain about being betrayed. Gays, union leaders, and women have been loud in their complaints about being by-passed or overlooked. Some radical blacks have also complained about being disrespected. Where and when is Joshua going to lead them to the promised land, they ask? When is he going to pull the troops out of Iraq? Civil rights groups also expect Obama to dis-establish Guantanamo as soon as he takes office to signal the formal break with Dick Cheney and Bush. They also want him to discontinue the policy which allows intelligence analysts to spy on American citizens without official authorisation. In fact, Obama startled supporters when he signalled that he might do an about-turn and continue this particular policy. We note that Bush is signalling Obama that keeping America safe from terrorists should be his top priority item and that he, Bush, had no regrets about violating the constitutional rights of Americans if he had to do so to keep them safe. Cheney has also said that he would do it again if he had to. The safety of the republic is after all the highest law. Other groups-sub-prime home owners, workers in the automobile sector, and the poor and unemployed generally all expect Obama to work miracles on their behalf, which of course he cannot do. Given the problems of the economy which has not yet bottomed out, some promises have to be deferred beyond the first term. Groups, however, expect that the promise made to them during the campaign must be kept. Part of the problem is that almost every significant social or ethnic group believes that it was instrumental in Obama's victory. White women felt that they took Obama over the line, as did blacks generally, Jews, Hispanics, Asians, rich white men, gays, and young college kids, to mention a few of those whose inputs were readily recognisable. Obama also has a vast constituency in almost every country in the world, all of whom expect him to save the globe and the planet. Clearly, he is the proverbial "Black Knight on a White Horse." One

of the "realities" that Obama has to face is that American politics is not a winner-take-all system. It is pluralistic vertically and horizontally, and getting anything done politically, even when the President and the Congress are controlled by the same party, requires groups to negotiate, bargain and engage in serious horse trading . No one takes orders from the President who can only use moral or political suasion and promises of future support for policies or projects. The system was in fact deliberately engineered to prevent overbearing majorities from conspiring to tyrannise minorities. The system is not only institutionally diverse and plural, but socially and geographically so. As James Madison put it in Federalist
No 10, one of the foundation documents of republicanism in America, basic institutions check other basic institutions, classes and interests check other classes and interests, and regions do the same. All are grounded in their own power bases which they use to fend off challengers. The coalitions change from issue to issue, and there is no such thing as party discipline which translated, means you do what I the leader say you do. Although Obama is fully aware of the political limitations of the office which he holds, he is fully aware of the vast stock of political capital which he currently has in the bank and he evidently plans to enlarge it by drawing from the stock held by other groups, dead and alive. He is clearly drawing heavily from the caparisoned cloaks of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Obama seems to believe that by playing the all-inclusive, multipartisan, non-ideological card, he can get most of his programmes through the Congress without having to spend capital by using vetoes, threats of veto, or appeals to his 15 million strong constituency in cyberspace (the latent "Obama Party").

Link outweighs the winners win link turn on timeframe Silber 7

(PhD Political Science & Communication focus on the Rhetoric of Presidential Policy-Making Prof of Poli Sci Samford, [Marissa, WHAT MAKES A PRESIDENT QUACK?, Prepared for delivery at the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30thSeptember 2nd, 2007, UNDERSTANDING LAME DUCK STATUS THROUGH THE EYES OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICIANS]

Important to the discussion of political capital is whether or not it can be replenished over a term. If a President expends political capital on his agenda, can it be replaced? Light suggests that capital declines over time public approval consistently falls: midterm losses occur (31). Capital can be rebuilt, but only to a limited extent . The

decline of capital makes it difficult to access information, recruit more expertise and maintain energy. If a lame duck President can be defined by a loss of political capital, this paper helps determine if such capital can be replenished or if a lame duck can accomplish little. Before determining this, a definition of a lame duck President must be
developed.

Impact Extensions
Iranian retaliation would slow economic growth, and lead to war. Washington Times, 2k12 (Iran will retaliate if attacked, but
how?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/iran-will-retaliate-if-attacked-but-how/?page=all, April 2, 2012)

Middle East analysts are certain that Iran would retaliate if Israel strikes its nuclear facilities , though the size, nature and targets of the counterattack remain mysteries. Iran has several options, such as an all-out military offensive that likely would engulf the entire region, a more limited assault using proxies in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, or a terrorism campaign against Israeli embassies and Jewish sites around the world. Whats more, the counterstrike options entail global consequences, including a slowing in economic growth because of higher oil and gasoline prices, fuel shortages from shipping disruptions in the Persian Gulf and the potential for the U.S. to become embroiled in another war.

Iran would target American troops in Afghanistan, and Petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. The New York Times 2k12 (U.S. Sees Iran Attacks as Likely if Israel Strikes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/world/middleeast/us-sees-iran-attacks-as-likely-if-israelstrikes.html?pagewanted=all , February 29, 2012) WASHINGTON American officials who have assessed the likely Iranian responses to any attack by Israel on its nuclear program believe that Iran would retaliate by launching missiles on Israel and terroriststyle attacks on United States civilian and military personnel overseas. While a missile retaliation against Israel would be virtually certain, according to these assessments, Iran would also be likely to try to calibrate its response against American targets so as not to give the United States a rationale for taking military action that could permanently cripple Tehrans nuclear program. The Iranians have been pretty good masters of escalation control, said
Gen. James E. Cartwright, now retired, who as the top officer at Strategic Command and as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff participated in war games involving both deterrence and retaliation on potential adversaries like Iran. The Iranian Cartwright and other American analysts believe, would

targets, General include petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf, and American troops in Afghanistan, where Iran has been accused of shipping explosives to local insurgent forces.

The Iranian defense minister is committed to retaliation to an Israeli strike. Buck 2k12 (Tobias, Chief Executive Officer, President, Chairman and a Director of Paragon Medical, Inc Israel
gets ready for Iran retaliation(http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6840c9ac -6133-11e1-8a8e-00144feabdc0.html , Feb 27, 2012)

As they ponder the option of a military strike against Iran, Israeli leaders have started to worry about targets closer to home. Prompted by concern over a possible Iranian counter-attack, they are debating how well their own country is prepared for war. Iranian leaders have left Israel in no doubt that a strike on its nuclear facilities would invite harsh retaliation. The latest threat came on Saturday, when Gen Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian defence minister, warned that a military attack by the Zionist regime will undoubtedly lead to the collapse of this regime. On previous occasions, Gen Vahidi has warned of a crushing response to any Israeli strike. Though some in Israel dismiss such threats as bluster, most senior Israeli officials fear that the countrys home front would indeed be severely tested in a conflict with Iran.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei guaranteed retaliation from an Israeli attack. LA Times, 2k12 ("Iran's supreme leader warns of retaliation if Israel or U.S. strikes
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/03/iran-nowruz-strike-back-israel.html, March 20, 2012)
REPORTING FROM TEHRAN --

Iran will strike back with equal force if the United States or Israel attacks it over its nuclear program, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned in an address from the eastern city of Mashhad in observance of Nowruz, the Persian new year. "The holy Koran states that if an enemy attacks you first, the enemy will certainly be defeated," he said. This is divine law. We are not thinking of attacks and aggression, but we are attached to the existence and identity of the Islamic republic." Khamenei urged the U.S. to have a respectful attitude
toward Iran. His words followed a video address from President Obama to Iranians, the fourth annual address he has created for Nowruz.

Iranian retaliation would draw in US forces. Washington Times, 2k12 (Iran will retaliate if attacked, but
how?http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/2/iran-will-retaliate-if-attacked-but-how/?page=all, April 2, 2012)

Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of the worlds petroleum is transported. Economic forecasters predict that closing the strait could push the price of oil to more than $200 a barrel. The Iranian regime also could sponsor attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan or strike U.S. assets in the Persian Gulf, such as the Navys 5th Fleet based in Bahrain. Alternatively, Tehran could attack U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf, many of which have been agitating for a strike against Iran. Israel and Western nations suspect Iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon, which Tehran has denied. The Jewish state considers a nuclear-armed Iran an existential threat because of the regimes call for Israels destruction. The U.S. has urged Israel to allow international sanctions enough time to persuade Tehrans leaders to change their behavior, but Israeli officials have said that the military should strike before Iran can secure its nuclear facilities from attack, presumably by this summer. Suzanne Maloney, an Iran specialist at the Brookings Institution, said Tehran would prefer to avoid a fullfledged confrontation with Washington, but that the density of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf would make it difficult for Tehran to do anything in the Gulf without drawing a U.S. response.

Israel strike would draw in Iranian allies. Middle East Voices 2k12 (Arab Spring News and Conversation - Powered by VOA "Scenarios for Iran
Retaliation Vary if Israel Strikes Nuclear Targets http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2012/04/scenarios -foriran-retaliation-vary-if-israel-strikes-nuclear-targets-97100/, APRIL 13, 2012)
With Western patience running thin, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warns that time that all

for diplomacy is not infinite and options remain on the table. Israel says it will not stand by as fears grow that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability an allegation Iran denies. China said recently that an Israeli strike against Irans nuclear facilities would set in motion a military backlash with far -ranging consequences. Analysts interviewed by VOA say an attack on Iran is likely to provoke a retaliatory missile barrage on Israel by Iran and its allies. They say Iran-sponsored terror could erupt against Jewish targets worldwide, U.S. interests, and American allies such as Saudi Arabia, which could be perceived by Iran as supportive of an Israeli strike

Strike would draw in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Middle East Voices 2k12 (Arab Spring News and Conversation - Powered by VOA "Scenarios for Iran
Retaliation Vary if Israel Strikes Nuclear Targets http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2012/04/scenarios -foriran-retaliation-vary-if-israel-strikes-nuclear-targets-97100/, APRIL 13, 2012)
Analysts say it

is far more likely, though, that Iran may ask its allies in Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories to inflict revenge on Israel. Iran is more likely to hit back using proxy forces, sleeper cells and sympathizers who are closer, Fitzpatrick said. Rubin says Syria is the real gravitational center of the missile and rocket threat against Israel because of the proximity of our territories. He said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, an ally of Iran, may view an attack on Israel as an escape from his battle against anti-government rebels and a way to win over Islamist elements within the countrys [Sunni Muslim] opposition.

Iranian missiles can reach 35 US military bases in the Middle East. Glaser, 2k12 (John, Editorial assistant at The American Conservative., Senior Vice President of the Theology
and Ethics Department, AntiWar.comIran Warns of Retaliation After Any US -Israeli Strike- A first strike would set off a dangerous tit-for-tat escalation of uncontrolled war over the entire Middle Easthttp://news.antiwar.com/2012/07/04/iran -warns-of-retaliation-after-any-us-israeli-strike/ , July 04, 2012)

Iran has warned Washington that it could retaliate after any unilateral attack it sustains and destroy US military bases across the Middle East and target Israel within minutes following an uptick in threatening postures from the US and Israel. These bases are all in range of our missiles, and the occupied lands (Israel) are also good targets for us, said Amir Ali Haji Zadeh, commander of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace division. Haji Zadeh said 35 US bases were within reach of Irans ballistic missiles, some of which can reach targets 1,300 miles away. We have thought of measures to set up bases and deploy missiles to destroy all these bases in the early minutes after an attack, he added. Irans bluster, such as it is, is in response to a recent increase in rhetoric and military postures from the US and Israel, following a partial breakdown of nuclear talks last month.

Israel strike would lead to underground Iranian nuclear weapons development. Glaser, 2k12 (John, Editorial assistant at The American Conservative., Senior Vice President of the Theology
and Ethics Department, AntiWar.comIran Warns of Retaliation After Any US-Israeli Strike- A first strike would set off a dangerous tit-for-tat escalation of uncontrolled war over the entire Middle Easthttp://news.antiwar.com/2012/07/04/iran -warns-of-retaliation-after-any-us-israeli-strike/ , July 04, 2012)

Irans warnings about retaliation to any US-Israeli strike ought to be taken seriously. A Pentagon war simulation, details of which were reported in March, forecasted that a strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and would immediately get at least 200 Americans killed in Irans retaliation. Not only would a unilateral strike provoke a dangerous and escalatory Iranian response, but many experts agree that a preemptive attack would drive the Iranian nuclear program underground and make weaponization inevitable. As Thomas Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN under George H.W. Bush, told Congress in March, [A military strike] has a very high propensity, in my view, of driving Iran in the direction of openly declaring and deciding, which it has not yet done according to our intelligence, to make a nuclear weapon to seemingly defend itself under what might look to them and others to be an unprovoked attack. Meir Dagan, former head of Israels secret service has explained several times as well, If Israel will attack, there is
no doubt in my mind that this will also provide them with the justification to go ahead and move quickly to nuclear weapons.

The Middle East is a hot-spot for retaliation against Israel. Baldor, 2k12 (Lolita C. Associated press, General warns of Syrian bioweapons, Iran threat
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=44591, March 6, 2012)

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East will warn Congress on Tuesday against efforts to scale back the Navys presence in the embattled region, saying threats from Iran and elsewhere will require more ships and maritime missile defense capabilities. Marine Gen. James Mattis, head of U.S. Central Command, also said Syria has a substantial chemical and biological weapons capability and thousands of shoulder launched missiles. Until now, the U.S. military has largely declined to describe the expanse of weapons that President Bashar Assads regime has at its disposal. Mattis laid out his concerns in testimony prepared for Senate and House Armed Services Committee hearings this week. He and Navy Adm. William McRaven, head of U.S. Special Operations Command, are testifying before the Senate panel Tuesday. The testimony was obtained by The Associated Press. Mattis comments come as the Obama administration meets with Israeli leaders this week to discuss the escalating Iranian threat and the possibility of a pre-emptive strike by Israel. Against a backdrop of roughly $500 billion in Pentagon budget cuts over the next decade, Mattis said the U.S. must use its Navy and special operations forces to maintain a smaller but still strong military presence in the Middle East as the wars in Iran and Afghanistan end. The stacked Iranian threats of ballistic missiles, long-range rockets, mines, small boats, cruise missiles and submarines demand stronger naval presence and capability to protect vital sea lines of communication, Mattis said.

AT: Chuck Hagels Gay Statement

Obama has accepted Hagels apology on his statement
Top Magazine 12/30/12 (http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=13969&MediaType=1&Category=26) President Barack Obama on Sunday defended former Nebraska Senator Chuck secretary of defense,

Hagel. Hagel, considered to be on Obama's short list of candidates to succeed Leon Panetta as has come under fire for comments he made in 1998 opposing James Hormel's nomination as U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg, saying he was a bad fit because he's openly, aggressively gay. Hagel apologized for the comments last week. My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive, Hagel said in a statement. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military families. In an appearance on NBC's Meet The Press, Obama said he sees nothing which would disqualify Hagel from succeeding Panetta. I've served with Chuck Hagel, Obama said. I know him,. He is a patriot. He is somebody who has done extraordinary work both in the United States Senate, somebody who served this country with valor in Vietnam, and is somebody who's currently serving on my Intelligence Advisory Board and doing an outstanding job. Obama noted Hagel's apology. And I think it's a testimony to what has been a positive change over the last decade in terms of people's attitudes about gays and lesbians serving our country. And that's something that I'm very proud to have led. And I think that anybody who serves in my administration understands my attitude and position on those issues.

The Humans Right Campaign has accepted Hagels retraction of his statement about gays in 1998 Walllsten 12/21/12 (Peter, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/21/hagel-retracts1998-statement-on-gays/)

Former senator Chuck Hagel has issued a statement retracting his 1998 comments about a gay ambassadorial nominee. Hagels potential nomination to be President Obamas new defense secretary has come under fire due in part to his concerns, published during a debate over the nomination of James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg, that Hormel was openly aggressively gay. My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive, Hagel said. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of open service and committed to LGBT military families. In response, Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization that previously deemed Hagels comments unacceptable, has now embraced the potential Obama administration nominee. Senator Hagels apology and his statement of support for LGBT equality is appreciated and shows just how far as a country we have come when a conservative former Senator from Nebraska can have a change of heart on LGBT issues, HRC President Chad Griffin said in a statement. Our community continues to add allies to our ranks and were proud that Senator Hagel is one of them.

AT: Iran
Diplomacy is the best way to deal with Iran; Chuck Hagel would promote this Gould 9/5/12 (Kate, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-gould/diplomacy-best-way-to-keep-iranaway_b_1859340.html) As Iran war-fever again breaks out upon the release of the latest IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program, the single most important determinant of 'how many years Iran is from a nuclear weapon' bears repeating: according to U.S. and Israeli intelligence, Iran

has not decided to build a nuclear weapon. Amidst this media frenzy, one can forget that centrifuges spinning on their own don't speed toward nuclear weapons. People (in governments) make the political decision about whether or not to make nuclear weapons. As countless top national security experts have pointed out, diplomacy is the best way to persuade the people in Iran -- yes, there are living breathing people behind those
centrifuges -- to never make that decision.

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said that the only way to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran is through diplomacy Gould 9/5/12 (Kate, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-gould/diplomacy-best-way-to-keep-iranaway_b_1859340.html)

Negotiating with Iran has the potential to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran forever. Even the most ardent
proponents of a military strike admit that an attack would only delay Iran's (currently civilian) nuclear program for a couple years at best.

As U.S. and Israeli officials have warned, an attack could lead to a catastrophic regional war and embolden Iranian hardliners to develop a bomb as a deterrent from further attacks from the U.S. and Israel. The IAEA's findings again underscore that this is the time for diplomacy to prevent a nucleararmed Iran. In addition, it highlights how this time should not be wasted, and that the IAEA is a critical component in negotiations with Iran.. Basing negotiations on the core principles of the NPT and It is widely known among Iran experts that the surest path for successful diplomacy is to use the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as the basis of talks. Using the NPT as the fundamental basis for the negotiations underscores that Iran has both the right to nuclear power and the responsibility to verify that its power is for peaceful purposes only reciprocity (a
'give and take approach') are largely why the talks between the U.S., Iran, and five other world powers in Istanbul were so successful, and why the proceeding talks were less so.

The Department of Defense makes many important decisions U.S Department of Defense 10 (http://www.defense.gov/about/)
On behalf of the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense, we welcome you to Defense.gov, the official web site for the Department of Defense and the starting point for finding U.S. military information online. The home page for this site is located at http://www.defense.gov/. The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the President. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense. The Deputy Secretary, the second-highest ranking official in the DoD, is delegated full power and
authority to act for the Secretary and to exercise the powers of the Secretary on any and all matters for which the Secretary is authorized to act. The Department of Defense is America's oldest and largest government agency. With our military tracing its roots back to pre-Revolutionary times, the Department of Defense has grown and evolved with our nation. Today, the Department, headed by Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta, is not only in charge of the military, but it also employs a civilian force of thousands. With over 1.4 million men and women on active duty, and 718,000 civilian personnel, we are the nation's largest employer. Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces. More than 2 million military retirees and their family members receive benefits. Headquarters of the Department of Defense, the Pentagon is one of the world's largest office buildings. It is twice the size

of the Merchandise Mart in Chicago, and has three times the floor space of the Empire State Building in New York. Built during the early years of World War II, it is still thought of as one of the most efficient office buildings in the world. Despite 17.5 miles of corridors it takes only seven minutes to walk between any two points in the building. The national security depends on our defense installations and facilities being in the right place, at the right time, with the right qualities and capacities to protect our national resources. Those resources have never been more important as America fights terrorists who plan and carry out attacks on our facilities and our people. Our military service members and civilians operate in every time zone and in every climate. More than 450,000 employees are overseas, both afloat and ashore. The

Defense Department manages an inventory of installations and facilities to keep Americans safe. The Departments physical plant is huge by any standard,
consisting of more than several hundred thousand individual buildings and structures located at more than 5,000 different locations or sites. When all sites are added together, the Department of Defense utilizes over 30 million acres of land. These sites range from the very small in size such as unoccupied sites supporting a single navigational aid that sit on less than one-half acre, to the Army's vast White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico with over 3.6 million acres, or the Navys large complex of installations at Norfolk, Virginia with more than 78,000 employees. The

mission of the Department of Defense is to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country. The department's
headquarters is at the Pentagon. The mission of Defense.gov is to support the overall mission of the Department of Defense by providing official, timely and accurate information about defense policies, organizations, functions and operations. Also, Defense.gov is the single, unified starting point for finding military information online. This mission is consistent with the DoD Principles of Information, which outline the Department's policy for providing information to military members, DoD civilians, military family members, the American public, the Congress, and the news media. The information you find here is cleared for public release in accordance with applicable DoD policies. The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were established in 1775, in concurrence with the American Revolution. The War Department was established in 1789, and was the precursor to what is now the Department of Defense.