HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Hagel?
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:19 AM

Why Hagel?

It appears Chuck Hagel is going to be nominated for Defense Secretary. I was immediately against it when his name was first floated, but have since reconsidered after taking a look at those who are opposing him. For years, Hagel has been JAFO (just another fucking Republican) to me...but the caliber of his new enemies, more than anything, compelled me to take a second look.

I am in favor of his nomination, for one very large reason: the political orthodoxies of the DoD (spending, Israel, etc.) have remained largely untouched by the last 30 Defense Secretaries, no matter what their political affiliations have been. Chuck Hagel has long held a reputation for absolutely refusing to embrace those orthodoxies...which is why so many people are dead-set against his nomination.

I want there to be significant cuts to the Defense budget. So, I believe, does Obama. So, it is widely known, does Chuck Hagel...so why nominate a Republican to Defense?

Because only Nixon can go to China.

Who better to take on the bloat in defense spending? It's a very canny selection.

If your concern over his nomination centers around his late-90s gay-bashing, I offer this spirited defense of the Hagel nomination from Glenn Greenwald, who is himself gay, and who hasn't had a good thing to say about the Obama administration in almost four years: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/hagel-liberals-gays-israel-democrats

Flame away.

89 replies, 6047 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Hagel? (Original post)
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 OP
Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #1
Still Sensible Jan 2013 #2
spanone Jan 2013 #3
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #4
Victor_c3 Jan 2013 #24
FarCenter Jan 2013 #68
vaberella Jan 2013 #5
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #7
vaberella Jan 2013 #9
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #11
dsc Jan 2013 #19
vaberella Jan 2013 #82
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #25
dsc Jan 2013 #27
vaberella Jan 2013 #84
SaveAmerica Jan 2013 #76
waronxmas Jan 2013 #20
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #48
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #49
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #59
vaberella Jan 2013 #83
KharmaTrain Jan 2013 #62
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #67
white_wolf Jan 2013 #53
dotymed Jan 2013 #44
Little Star Jan 2013 #6
Faryn Balyncd Jan 2013 #8
mimi85 Jan 2013 #42
sheshe2 Jan 2013 #10
Kelvin Mace Jan 2013 #12
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2013 #13
hlthe2b Jan 2013 #14
pinboy3niner Jan 2013 #15
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #18
Dustlawyer Jan 2013 #23
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #32
s-cubed Jan 2013 #34
A Simple Game Jan 2013 #56
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #16
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #35
Lizzie Poppet Jan 2013 #36
madrchsod Jan 2013 #17
progressoid Jan 2013 #21
FSogol Jan 2013 #22
progressoid Jan 2013 #26
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #28
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #30
riverbendviewgal Jan 2013 #63
GatorOrange Jan 2013 #29
think_critically Jan 2013 #31
CranialRectaLoopback Jan 2013 #37
1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #50
snooper2 Jan 2013 #55
plethoro Jan 2013 #33
judesedit Jan 2013 #38
Voice for Peace Jan 2013 #43
riqster Jan 2013 #39
Myrina Jan 2013 #40
WilliamPitt Jan 2013 #41
rivegauche Jan 2013 #45
progressoid Jan 2013 #46
rivegauche Jan 2013 #74
mac56 Jan 2013 #47
PatrynXX Jan 2013 #51
buzzroller Jan 2013 #52
oberliner Jan 2013 #71
stevenleser Jan 2013 #54
mulsh Jan 2013 #57
buzzroller Jan 2013 #58
Peaceful Protester Jan 2013 #60
Peaceful Protester Jan 2013 #61
immoderate Jan 2013 #81
TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #64
leftynyc Jan 2013 #65
plethoro Jan 2013 #66
Taverner Jan 2013 #69
oberliner Jan 2013 #72
oberliner Jan 2013 #70
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #73
MissMarple Jan 2013 #75
Skraxx Jan 2013 #77
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #88
Skraxx Jan 2013 #89
Texas Lawyer Jan 2013 #78
11 Bravo Jan 2013 #79
jsr Jan 2013 #80
Politicub Jan 2013 #85
watrwefitinfor Jan 2013 #86
WinkyDink Jan 2013 #87

Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:21 AM

1. Another well thought out and written OP. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:24 AM

2. Agreed. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:26 AM

3. K&R.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:26 AM

4. Hagel is a combat Infantry vet

He's seen the horrors of war, up close and personal. Hagel won't be a warmonger and won't be seduced by neocons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:04 AM

24. Can't say it any better than you did, +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #4)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:14 PM

68. Hitler and Churchill were combat veterans, neither had qualms about ordering men to die.

Hitler was a corporal in the German Army in WW I, and was wounded by gas on the Western Front.

Churchill was a "war correspondent" during the Boer War, and saw plenty of carnage, as well as was captured and escaped. This was before he ordered Aussies and New Zealanders to their death in the Gallipoli campaign.

The theory that leaders who have been in combat will be less willing to sacrifice others is not well founded in history. It is likely that the opposite is true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:27 AM

5. I had to ask "Why not Hagel?"

People seemed to be more against him because he was a Republican, than any other reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:31 AM

7. And frankly,

that's a perfectly reasonable reason to be against him. Andrew Jackson once said, "If there is a job in government that cannot be done by a Democrat, we should abolish the job." Given the widespread carnage caused by Republicans over the last few decades, being against Hagel because of his political affiliation is not unreasonable.

Personally, it took me a while to struggle to this particular shore because of that very reason...until I decided he was being nominated *because* he is a Republican, and not in spite of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:35 AM

9. I wonder what Hagel's on the repeal of DADT is?

I consider hate to be something learned and unlearned. I wonder if he has evolved. As for Greenwald, his input in any thing means nothing to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:41 AM

11. Quote

When it comes to LGBT equality, 1998 is a different universe. Virtually no prominent Democrats (let alone Republicans) supported marriage equality back then, or even equal rights for LGBT citizens. In fact, Hagel's comment came only two years after the overwhelming majority of Democratic Senators voted in favor of the truly odious and discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act - including Joe Biden, Patty Murray, Pat Leahy and Paul Wellstone - which was then signed into law by Bill Clinton. That law not only defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but barred the federal government from issuing any spousal benefits - immigration, tax, death benefits - to same-sex couples. If you're going to judge politicians by how they felt about LGBT issues 15 years ago, be prepared to scorn almost every national Democratic Party hero you have as a bigot.

(snip)

So yes: like virtually every prominent politician in both parties, Chuck Hagel had primitive and ugly views on gay issues back in 1998. But shouldn't the question be: does he still hold these views or, like huge numbers of Americans, have his viewed evolved since then? Hagel has apologized for what he said, an apology which Hormel accepted, graciously noting: "I can't remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything . . . .Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted--perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too." Moreover, Hagel last week also vowed that he is "fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military families."


...from the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:56 AM

19. To equate opposition to marriage equality to refusing to hire a qualified person

simply because he is gay, and then bragging about that behavior to the press, is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

82. Obviously, I was not the only person asking that question. Thanks. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:07 AM

25. Wall Street Journal article from yesterday says Obama was assured that Hagel

would be fully on board with DADT repeal:

"Officials also will stress the president is confident that Mr. Hagel will complete the implementation of the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," the policy banning gays from serving openly in the military.

A senior administration official said Mr. Obama would not have chosen Mr. Hagel unless he had been assured he would see through the implementation of "don't ask, don't tell."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323482504578225532918927080.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:13 AM

27. actually the quoted text doesn't agree with you header

I can be confident of something without having been assured of it. He may simply believe Hagel is going to do the right thing without Hagel having promised anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #25)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:38 PM

84. Good to hear. I was also happy to hear that Hagel apologized for his homophobic comments. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:41 PM

76. If he brings troops home from A'stan he'll bring home all,

gay, straight everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:57 AM

20. Not the best of sources

Andrew Jackson is also the same asshole who stabbed my Cherokee ancestors in the back (Cherokee Warriors saved his life during the War of 1812) by making them walk almost 1000 miles in the middle of winter to Oklahoma after stealing their homelands. Basically, Andrew Jackson can take his opinion and shove it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to waronxmas (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:00 PM

48. He. also, ...

did everything he could to reverse the 13th amendment and, failing that, largely defanged reconstruction. AJ is not high on my list of favorite Presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:03 PM

49. I love DU

A quote from Jackson about hiring Democrats in a reply to a reply to a reply opens a whole can of worms that has nothing to do with the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:45 PM

59. Sorry ...

just a useless historical fact presented that might cause someone supportive of AJ's presidency, but not familar with his history, to reconsider.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #49)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:36 PM

83. Hence the reason I refrained. Weren't democrats back then what Republicans are largely now?

But I figured it would derail the conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 1StrongBlackMan (Reply #48)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:20 PM

62. That's A New One On Me...

Considering Andrew Jackson died on June 8, 1845 and the 13th Amendment (the one in the "Lincoln" movie) wasn't proposed and ratified until January 31, 1865...a nearly 20 year lag there; unless Andy came back from the great beyond. You may be thinking of Andrew Johnson...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KharmaTrain (Reply #62)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:06 PM

67. . . . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to waronxmas (Reply #20)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:19 PM

53. Andrew Jackson's actions in dealing with the Cherokee were both vile and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional and Jackson's reply was "John Marshall has made his decision now let him enforce it." In short Jackson was scum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #7)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:47 AM

44. Honestly, I am still

struggling with his nomination. I hope that y'all are right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:29 AM

6. That's where I'm at....

Hagel seems to be the right person if the president wants to cut defense spending. Here's hoping!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:33 AM

8. Glenn Greenwald cares deeply about civil liberties, constitutional process, & defense policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faryn Balyncd (Reply #8)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:25 AM

42. He may care deeply

about those things and I respect that, but has anyone, ever, anywhere, seen Glen smile? I don't think I've ever seen anyone so miserable looking. I respect his opinions even though I rarely agree with him and, of course he has the complete right to those opinions. Maybe I should tweet him a pic of a laughing baby with a puppy?
I'm truly not trying to be facetious; I just wonder why he seems so unhappy? That's probably why he rarely is on the round of tv shows. Hopefully he's at peace with himself.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:36 AM

10. Kicked! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:44 AM

12. No flames, I just don't believe

he is a canny pick.

He will NOT be "Nixon to China", he is just another spineless pick by the Vichy wing of the Democratic party.

I am pretty fed up with war mongers and misogynists being given posts in Democratic administrations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:46 AM

13. Agreed

It will be exceedingly hard for many non-serving GOPers to upbraid an enlisted-man combat veteran and former GOP Senator on defense cuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:49 AM

14. I don't discount concerns from progressives out of hand... That said, I'm NOT convinced by them.

His comments re: the gay ambassador were disgusting, but I do believe in the possibility of evolution of attitudes towards GLBT--even among Republicans, or at least moderate Republicans. After all, the American people have shown such an evolution of attitudes over the past two decades--attitudes that has advanced rights for GLBT well beyond what even Barney Frank has said he would ever have thought possible in such a short time. I can conceive that an individual could sincerely evolve in their attitudes, since we've seen similar from our own President in terms of his views on gay marriage.

I'm also not impressed that his attitudes towards Israel reflect anything more than a need to put US interests first, while maintaining that important alliance. After the neocons, I think a bit of balance in all of our alliances is not uncalled for This attempt to demonize him for (clearly) inartful language--to suggest he is actually anti-Semitic in his views could be applied to a large number of politicians and public figures. If there is malintent behind some inpolitic language, I've yet to see evidence of it.

He has strengths in other areas--not the least that DOD needs someone versed in the ways of Congress AND the military to push through very needed reforms and wasteful spending cuts.

Yes, he's a Republican, but of a more moderate nature that is nearly extinct now. That distinction would seem to be relevant and very likely the reason that the current crop of RETHUGs are so determined to preemptively destroy him.

I'm not at a point of promoting his nomination, but I am willing to give Obama benefit-of-the doubt on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:54 AM

15. You want flames? I gotcher flames right here...




Other than that, I got nothin' ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:54 AM

18. Want

*drool*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:01 AM

23. Beautiful lead sled! 49 Merc?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:33 AM

32. nice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:47 AM

34. I made much the same point yesterday in an answer to a post.

Not so much about the opposition, but that only Nixon could go to China. I'm with Will here: given those who are opposing Hagel, I'm for him. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". If Lindsay Graham opposes Hagel, I'm for him. I'm willing to cut him some slack on LGBT ISSUES: 1998 was ages ago to most people in their attitudes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2144416

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #15)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:24 PM

56. I could never have a car like that because

I have a friend that would kill me for it! I might survive if I let him drive it occasionally.

I would love it and I am not normally a Ford (or Merc) fan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:54 AM

16. To get a better price, of course.

Oh, wait...um...never mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lizzie Poppet (Reply #16)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:47 AM

35. It took me an hour to get that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #35)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:52 AM

36. *grin*

BTW, outstanding original post...very well thought-out and presented point. Rec'd...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:54 AM

17. hagel will be a good pick

he`s qualified and he`s a republican. that should be enough to piss off both the democrats and the republicans.

does anyone remember that the secretary of transportation is a republican?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #17)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:58 AM

21. Of course. There are/were lots of Republicans in this administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:59 AM

22. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:11 AM

26. Bill Clinton managed to cut defense spending during his first term without a Republican Secy.

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:58 AM - Edit history (1)

And with a Republican congress iirc.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:20 AM

28. Here's a lengthy article that shows why Obama probably likes the guy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:24 AM

30. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #28)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:21 PM

63. this article provides a very good understanding of Nagel

Excellent read. He sounds like one of the few remaining sane republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:22 AM

29. I'm not against Republicans in the administration....

I just hate the fact we always seem to go down this reach across the aisle road in the DoD. I'm afraid Hagel won't be the game changer being advertised for us.

When it comes to this spot; this nation DESPERATELY needs someone to be that game changer. The Pentagon has had unabated power, funding, and a free pass for too long now. We have a chance to initiate fundamental change here and I don't want us to blow the opportunity.

As for the GOP bashing Hagel: I don't put much stock in that b/c they are so high up BS Mountain now they would probably tar and feather Reagan as a RINO Commie Pig at this point if he tried to run for POTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:32 AM

31. It's really simple

 


Obama wan'ts this fight to distract from the whole debt ceiling issue. If the republicans fight him tooth and nail on this pick they will look even dumber trying to fight him tooth and nail on these other issues. He's setting himself up to be the practical guy by nominating a person that both sides have issues with. This pick gives him more credibility when it comes to debt negotiations as well as sucks some some of the air out of the republican obstruction balloon. This is a chess move.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to think_critically (Reply #31)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:55 AM

37. Perhaps Obama needs to play different game

 

Because he's not very good at chess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CranialRectaLoopback (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:05 PM

50. I would suspect that the gop, in general, ...

and boehner, in particular, if honest, would disagree with you ... as do I, based on his results.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CranialRectaLoopback (Reply #37)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:23 PM

55. well, his opponents don't even know how the knight moves, so may a different game is in order..

Something like...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 10:44 AM

33. Agree. Finally, a voice of reason.......nft

 

dddddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:01 AM

38. Give the guy a break. That was in the 90's. I guarantee a lot of others were saying it with him.

They've grown up some since then. And probably realize a whole lot of people they know are gay. They were born that way. I'm just happy that for a change our Defense Secretary will know what war is all about so surely won't help start any for any reason other than protecting our homeland or the defenseless. I'm happy about our Secretary of State also knowing the hell of war. Because 99% of our Congress lives in la-la land and has no clue about reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to judesedit (Reply #38)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:46 AM

43. thank you!

excellent point on both appointees.

scale back the military, quit starting wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:09 AM

39. Great OP

My take is that Obama is using this to put the Reeps in a corner once again. "See", he can say,"I can't even get Senate Republicans to confirm a qualified Republican, that's how unreasonable they are".

And if he is confirmed, we have a well-qualified Defense Secretary. Nice one, Mister President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:12 AM

40. If POTUS wants 'significant cuts' to the defense budget ...

... why did he just ok $693B and actually authorize MORE than the House/Senate requested?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:22 AM

41. Barney Frank Dials Back Opposition to Hagel Nomination

“As much as I regret what Hagel said, and resent what he said, the question now is going to be Afghanistan and scaling back the military,” Frank said. “In terms of the policy stuff, if he would be rejected (by the Senate), it would be a setback for those things.”

http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/01/07/still-potent-gay-rights-voice-barney-frank-dials-back-opposition-chuck-hagel-nomination/FKjOCf0K1oOYm1lB5I6v9J/story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:56 AM

45. OK, but what happened to Kerry? I thought it was going to be him. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rivegauche (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:57 AM

46. Kerry for Secy of State.`

Hagel for Dept of Defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #46)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:09 PM

74. DOH!! Thanks, I am dumb today. ;-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 11:59 AM

47. Chuck Hagel went to the wall for Max Cleland

when the rest of the GOP was blackguarding his name, his service, his sacrifice.

That, right there, makes Hagel A-O-K in my book.

Flame away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:10 PM

51. I'm not anti Republican

Most have gone so extreme that any real Republican left call themselves Democrats now. Think Chuck's been brave accepting. Really not sure what the right is thinking .. when they want to have a fight. I expect some of the left but the Right. They sure aren't Reagan fans. ie don't speak ill of Republicans. Not that Chuck was either But neither is his opponents , that and I tend to like eastern NE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to buzzroller (Reply #52)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:11 PM

71. MJ assumes the Jewish Lobby (his term) is always the bad guy

You can pretty much count on him to bring it all back to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:19 PM

54. He has to do better on explaining himself regarding LGBTIQ rights.We should not accept anything less

I dont think this is asking too much.

He needs to say something like:

"I realized how wrong I was about gay rights and the LGBT community some time ago and I deeply regret those comments. I am 100% in favor of marriage equality and equality in all other ways for the LGBT community"

He hasnt said anything like that yet. This statement http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2012/12/21/hagel-retracts-1998-statement-on-gays/ didnt go far enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:28 PM

57. Steve Clemmons at The Washington Note supports Hagel.

Mr.Clemmons is a foreign policy pro and wonk who is also gay and out. He has posted extensively on Hagel's alleged homophobic bigotry and anti Israel positions.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:42 PM

58. And here is David Sirota's view

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/why_chuck_hagel_terrifies_hawks_gop/

My own view is that the President gets his Cabinet picks except for very good reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 12:57 PM

60. Defense Budget Accountability

1) Barack Obama won in 2008 partly because of the Iraq War and Hagel was helpful.
2) NEOCONS and Hawks (ie: Graham, McCain and McConnell) haven't forgiven Hagel.
3) Foreign policy centrists (ie Hagel) challenge the influence of NEOCONS and Hawks.

NEOCONS and Hawks used 'the War on Terror' to gain power, spend wildly, grow Gov. and divert attention from the Bush administration's failure to act on proactive information that could have prevented 9/11.


What if, instead of ignoring the August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing titled:
'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States'

which had contained very important proactive information provided by the FBI:
"...parallel activities tracked by the FBI consistent with preparations for hijacking..."


What if...someone had suggested the president take one very simple step: get on TV and make the case for increased airport security screening?

Instead, NEOCONS and Hawks have created a network of expanded presidential powers and agencies consistent with Imperial Militarism: growing the Military-Industrial Complex, the Pentagon, and the CIA. They have created: the Patriot Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, indefinite detention wo/trial, torturing, spying, preemptive war, invasion, occupation, drone strikes, etc...

As Washington continually finds it easier to re-authorize this network of expanded presidential powers, we will face unchecked actions, expenditures and blowback. The debate over the debt will be one-sided, controlled by Hawks and framed around 'European-style Socialist Programs' (a Republican term for the Social Safety Net).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peaceful Protester (Reply #60)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:20 PM

61. (Read More: Blowback, Sorrow and Consequences)

Chalmers Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalmers_Johnson#The_Blowback_series

"In Blowback, I set out to explain why we are hated around the world. The concept "blowback" does not just mean retaliation for things our government has done to and in foreign countries. It refers to retaliation for the numerous illegal operations we have carried out abroad that were kept totally secret from the American public. This means that when the retaliation comes -- as it did so spectacularly on September 11, 2001 -- the American public is unable to put the events in context. So they tend to support acts intended to lash out against the perpetrators, thereby most commonly preparing the ground for yet another cycle of blowback."




"The Sorrows of Empire was written during the American preparations for and launching of the invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. I began to study our continuous military buildup since World War II and the 737 military bases we currently maintain in other people's countries. This empire of bases is the concrete manifestation of our global hegemony, and many of the blowback-inducing wars we have conducted had as their true purpose the sustaining and expanding of this network. We do not think of these overseas deployments as a form of empire; in fact, most Americans do not give them any thought at all until something truly shocking, such as the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, brings them to our attention. But the people living next door to these bases and dealing with the swaggering soldiers who brawl and sometimes rape their women certainly think of them as imperial enclaves, just as the people of ancient Iberia or nineteenth-century India knew that they were victims of foreign colonization."




"In Nemesis, I have tried to present historical, political, economic, and philosophical evidence of where our current behavior is likely to lead. Specifically, I believe that to maintain our empire abroad requires resources and commitments that will inevitably undercut our domestic democracy and in the end produce a military dictatorship or its civilian equivalent. The founders of our nation understood this well and tried to create a form of government – a republic – that would prevent this from occurring. But the combination of huge standing armies, almost continuous wars, military Keynesianism, and ruinous military expenses have destroyed our republican structure in favor of an imperial presidency. We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. Once a nation is started down that path, the dynamics that apply to all empires come into play – isolation, overstretch, the uniting of forces opposed to imperialism, and bankruptcy."

Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peaceful Protester (Reply #61)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:28 PM

81. Heh-heh, sometimes I forget how smart Chalmers Johnson was...

Thanks for the reminder.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:39 PM

64. Some might prefer that the job not be qualified by reverse McCarthyism

Last edited Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

"Are you now or have you ever been a Republican?"

"No"

"We'll keep your application under consideration, don't call us we'll call you"

It would seem from a third person perspective that even Democrats don't place much stock in Democrat's ability to perform the job. Even Panetta used to be a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:43 PM

65. Just us acknowledging

that obviously Democrats are so soft on defense we can't even get one to run the defense department. Fabulous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #65)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 01:58 PM

66. Can you imagine the emails to Bernie Sanders?

 

ddddd

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:16 PM

69. It's another one of those "best we can get" situations

 

I don't think he'll be half bad - he puts country over party and that's a rare find these days

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #69)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:13 PM

72. Might've been nice to not have chosen another white male

I understand there was a woman on his short list.

FYI: Every single US Sec of Def in history has been a white male.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 02:43 PM

70. Glenn Greenwald is an idiot

Policy vis-a-vis Israel trumps all other concerns for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 03:15 PM

73. Conservatives seem to be furious with the choice...

That alone, but also coupled with my tendency to trust that President Obama knows what he's doing, is enough for me to support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:40 PM

75. I'm with you and Glenn Greenwald.

Demanding absolute ideological purity gets in the way of getting things done, the things we need to have done already. Ideological purity does not create good policy, it doesn't allow the political process to work. We have been experiencing that with the goppers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:45 PM

77. Just Imagine The Optics Of Republicans VIRULENTLY OpposingThe Nomination of REPUBLICAN Chuck Hagel

The looney will be on full, irrefutable display for the entire country to see. Once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #77)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:38 AM

88. THAT? Will be merely theatrics for the easily fooled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #88)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 09:44 AM

89. For What Purpose? They Will Do Themselves No Favors With Those "Theatrics"

No, it will be kneejerk obstruction and it will further cement their image as unreasonable, obstructionist dicks. But they can't help it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 05:48 PM

78. Kerry @ Sec'y State = Democratic Senate majority's loss; Hagel @ DoD Sec'y = Haliburton's loss

I disagree with Hagel about MANY things, but almost none of them will have any direct impact on his service at the DoD.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:18 PM

79. Agreed, Will. But I have another, slightly parochial reason for liking Hagel as SecDef ...

I fucking LOVE the idea of a grunt heading up the Department of Defense. I can guarantee that he will bring a perspective unlike that possessed by any previous Secretary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 06:24 PM

80. Hagel is fine.

If they don't like it, well, fuck 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Mon Jan 7, 2013, 09:40 PM

85. I support his nomination now, too

And I followed a very similar trajectory as you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:30 AM

86. Good points, Will. Two other considerations:

1. Two of the new appointees (Hagel & Kerry) are not subservient to or beholden to the generals, at least not in any obviously apparent way. (I don't know enought about Brennan.)

2. Those leaving the two posts are Clinton people (well, one is Clinton) as were the overwhelming majority of Obama's first term appointments. The new appointees are not. It will be interesting to see who gets nominated for Treasurer. (I have thought, since 2008, that O made a big deal with the Clintons to avoid that convention showdown everyone was talking about.)

Wat


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 08:32 AM

87. Obviously, because we've run out of Democrats. Yes, I'm hard-core. To me, a "good Republican"

is one who has changed his Party affiliation to "Democrat."

Otherwise, it's an oxymoron.

P.S. Let me know when the next Republican President is so ecumenical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread