as a Bona fide "radical leftist" I STRONGLY, STRONGLY support Chuck Hagel's nomination

[Douglas Carpenter]

for a senior cabinet level national security position. It is not that I agree with Chuck Hagel's politics or his foreign policy ideology. It's not like he is some kind of dove or a neo-isolationist or even a moderately liberal Republican. Yes, OF COURSE I KNOW- he has a right-wing record on almost every domestic issue. He is essentially an old style Reaganite movement conservative. But he also is and would be a voice of restraint when it comes to the use of military force. He is an old style hard nosed foreign policy pragmatist. He believes in restraint, multi-national alliances, the limitations of military power, advancing the peace Middle East peace process and defusing tensions in the Middle East, and around the world and building international consensus - a multi-lateralist as opposed to a go-it-alone unilateralist. This is in sharp contrast to the foreign policy neoconservatives. If we want to establish resistance against foreign policy neoconservatism and even the equally dangerous excesses of liberal internationalism (neoconservatism on valium) - we need conservatives with gravitas on board. Liberals and doves alone cannot win the war on war. The selection of Chuck Hagel to a senior cabinet level national security position in the Obama Administration will be a step away from war and a step toward peace. What could possibly be more important that that?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. We have plenty of our own who could do the job

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. as LBJ once said - it is better to have someone inside your tent pissing out than outside your tent

pissing in. When it comes to building a political base that supports restraint in the use of military force - there would be more benefit for having a conservative Republican in that position than a Democrat.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

6. The GOP is not what it used to be

I think this time we need to be bolder.

[morningfog]

13. It's not like Hagel is doing much pissing.

[leftstreet]

2. Where are these 'liberals and doves' of which you speak?

The current ThirdWay Democrats are very cozy with war

[Douglas Carpenter]

3. all the more reason why we need a conservative Republican who would be very restrained on the use of

military force - whatever it takes

[leftstreet]

5. Strange days. Party ideological shifting before our eyes

strange indeed

[Maine-i-acs]

7. This Leftist believes that

doing so could reinforce the fallacy that Democrats can't "do" foriegn policy, and the only way to do it properly is to appoint a Republican (ref. Pres. Clinton / Sec. Cohen). NSA would be good, but not SecDef, as that would just undermine Dem chances down the road. Just MHO.

[Douglas Carpenter]

8. I do not think that Sen. Hagel will be nominated for Secretary of State

Secretary of Defense would be more likely, But we are now at a point where thanks to George W. Bush the Republicans have lost their advantage in the foreign policy arena in the market place of public opinion. It is well known that Sen. Hagel had no truck with the neoconservatives. It could only be a good thing to weaken the standing of that foreign policy cult. A conservative Republican "realist" would have considerably more credibility and gravitas to marginalize that ideological cult.

[BainsBane]

9. Depends which cabinet position

Defense, probably. State, no.

[Oilwellian]

10. How "restrained" was he...

when he voted for the Iraq War & the Patriot Act? State & Defense should be given to Democrats, period.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. So did John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and a whole bunch of Democrats

That was the politics of the time. If one's priority is to reduce the risk of war - having a conservative Republican on board in a senior cabinet position would help a lot.

[Nightowl]

12. Basic Criteria

As a woman I think the basic criteria for any job in a Democratic administration should include no anti-woman votes.

[libdem4life]

14. As another radical leftist and shameless partisan, have we no alternatives to a Republican?

And exactly when do the Republicans turn to a Liberal for issues like equal pay, veteran's benefits, public education, race relations ... I could go on. Not tit for tat ... but frankly there is no tit to start tatting with.

With all due respect, and given the positives described, the Democrats have a Big Tent and that's why. We don't need to go all gaga on Inclusivism. At some point, it becomes politically hazardous.

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. This is not about inclusiveness or making a peace offering to the Republicans

It is about reducing the risk of war. Having an abashed movement conservative Republican - but who is nonetheless very restrained when it comes to the use of military power and who understands multi-lateralism, reducing tensions and building international consensus will weaken the position of the neoconservatives and the liberal internationalist when they get the bug to go to war - which quite likely will happen within the next year or two. Having a conservative Republican in such a position will make broaden the coalition against unilateralist military action.

[coalition_unwilling]

16. Sorry, the blood of 1,000,000+ dead Iraqis is dripping from Hagel's hands. Without his

switching parties publicly and calling out the Rape-publi-scum for the murderous brutes they are, no dice.

How's about Obama picks someone this time around who isn't a war criminal or war crimes enabler? Is that too much to ask?

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. that criteria would rule out Kerry and would have ruled out Clinton and a whole bunch of other

Democrats. I'm interested in taking whatever steps can be taken in the real world in real time that will reduce the likelihood of further ill advised unilateral wars. Given that Sen. Hagel is philosophically opposed to the neoconservatives and their unilateralist agenda -and given that his conservative gravitas could actually carry weight in reducing the likelihood of unilateral war - his choice would be a better choice than most others who would EVER even be considered for such a senior position - when it comes to choosing someone who would even be considered in the real world and who could actually carry some weight in deterring wars of aggression.

[coalition_unwilling]

18. I respect your views and think I share your objective. Maybe we just disagree on the

best way to get there. I actually think Jimmy Carter would be far more suitable and just as capable of stopping wars based on lies. Plus, Carter has serious name recognition and street cred in the Middle East.

If you have not already done so, check out this modest little work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine:_Peace_Not_Apartheid

Carter has some baggage of his own (Brzezinski, his national security advisor, made some rather intemperate remarks about using Afghanistan and the Mujaheddin to lure in the USSR and how the fall of the USSR somehow justified 9-11), but he has grown since leaving office and the world holds him in incredibly high regard.

[Douglas Carpenter]

19. I love Mr. Carter - but he is getting o their in years and I don't think he is being considered for

such a position/

But considering how powerful the forces are that would lead us into war - we should look for ever conceivable monkey wrench that might jam the gears of the war machine and we must seize those opportunities no matter what they are - even appointing conservative Republicans - if it means slowing down the marches war - considering how devastating the consequences would be if the movements toward war advance uninhibited

[coalition_unwilling]

21. Yes, he is older now. From what Hillary said, I gather the position is very grueling too. I might

also suggest Al Gore. A very smart guy (maybe too smart when it comes to electoral politics) but again someone whom the world respects for his work on global climate change.

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. Perhaps he has changed since he left office - but Mr. Gore's did not hold the most enlightened

positions regarding Middle East Peace. But all of that aside - I don't think he has been mentioned as someone who is being considered for a cabinet level position. No bona fide anti-imperialist or open Palestinian sympathizer or someone who challenges the assumptions of Pax Americana is going to be considered for one single second for a cabinet level position. As wonderful as that would be - it simply is not going to happen. So we get down to those who would ever actually be considered for a cabinet level position that relates to foreign policy and national security issues -I would most enthusiastically support the one who would be most likely actually get the position and who would most likely be an actual restraining influence on the use of American military power.

[Zorra]

20. No thank you, I'm not buying even one thing you wrote in that OP. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. why's that?