HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What's the plus side of H...

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:44 AM

What's the plus side of Hagel? I'm not seeing it.

I'm not a fan of reaching across the aisle for appointees, especially given the recent experience with Petraeus and the fact that recruiting republicans for national security position reinforces the narrative that Democrats are weak on defense. Oh well, I'm sure they looked through binders full of Democrats I digress. Isn't part of the incentive for picking a republican that the approval should happen more easily? Is the choice not a conciliatory gesture? But instead the republicans are stomping him and he seems evasive and harried. So what's the plus side here?

96 replies, 4286 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 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply What's the plus side of Hagel? I'm not seeing it. (Original post)
JVS Feb 2013 OP
liberal N proud Feb 2013 #1
Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2013 #14
Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #52
Laelth Feb 2013 #80
JoePhilly Feb 2013 #2
BeyondGeography Feb 2013 #3
The Link Feb 2013 #4
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #6
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #20
BlueCaliDem Feb 2013 #34
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #42
didact Feb 2013 #92
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #44
BlueCaliDem Feb 2013 #51
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #61
maxsolomon Feb 2013 #69
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #74
leftynyc Feb 2013 #85
babylonsister Feb 2013 #12
BlueCaliDem Feb 2013 #35
babylonsister Feb 2013 #38
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #47
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #5
JVS Feb 2013 #18
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #50
KharmaTrain Feb 2013 #7
leveymg Feb 2013 #8
Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2013 #13
Sekhmets Daughter Feb 2013 #16
JVS Feb 2013 #15
leveymg Feb 2013 #19
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #24
Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2013 #30
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #39
leveymg Feb 2013 #43
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #46
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #54
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #65
leveymg Feb 2013 #55
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #60
leveymg Feb 2013 #62
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #66
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #64
leveymg Feb 2013 #67
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #71
leveymg Feb 2013 #83
leveymg Feb 2013 #84
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #73
pipoman Feb 2013 #9
a kennedy Feb 2013 #10
Auntie Bush Feb 2013 #26
Laura PourMeADrink Feb 2013 #31
immoderate Feb 2013 #59
1-Old-Man Feb 2013 #11
SayitAintSo Feb 2013 #17
Recursion Feb 2013 #29
1-Old-Man Feb 2013 #70
CTyankee Feb 2013 #21
union_maid Feb 2013 #22
Enrique Feb 2013 #25
leftynyc Feb 2013 #87
Generic Other Feb 2013 #23
Skinner Feb 2013 #27
Recursion Feb 2013 #28
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #32
Recursion Feb 2013 #36
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #40
Recursion Feb 2013 #41
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #49
TheKentuckian Feb 2013 #33
flamingdem Feb 2013 #37
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #45
kenny blankenship Feb 2013 #48
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #53
Zorra Feb 2013 #56
marshall Feb 2013 #57
bigwillq Feb 2013 #63
leftynyc Feb 2013 #88
dmosh42 Feb 2013 #58
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #68
dmosh42 Feb 2013 #95
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #76
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #79
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #82
Union Scribe Feb 2013 #96
kentuck Feb 2013 #72
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #75
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #81
madrchsod Feb 2013 #77
William769 Feb 2013 #78
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #86
WilliamPitt Feb 2013 #89
fadedrose Feb 2013 #91
fadedrose Feb 2013 #90
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #93
fadedrose Feb 2013 #94

Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:47 AM

1. McCain and Graham don't like him

There must be something good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:31 AM

14. true dat. When did the two of them become in charge of the world? I missed that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:01 AM

52. Sorry, but no.

The "enemy of enemy is my friend" doctrine is a morally bankrupt diplomatic practice that has put the U.S. in bed with mass murderers for going on a century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:52 PM

80. They loved him in 2008. What has changed?

Nothing, except that now he is being nominated by a Democrat. That's the only difference.

There is no upside to Hegel. The only difference is that now those of us on the left are supposed to embrace him because he is being opposed by the Republicans. I refuse to do that. I have never liked him, and I am very angry that Obama now supports him for this position.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:51 AM

2. Two points ...

1) The vast majority of Americans will not see any of his testimony and so they will not find him "evasive". I watched most of his testimony and did not find him evasive. I did laugh out loud listening to McCain and Graham, two Iraq war cheerleaders, lecturing America on military policy. That was fun.

2) What the American people will hear is that Obama nominated a Republican, and the current group of crackpot Republicans, flipped out and tried to destroy Hagel simply because Obama picked him. That, and they might also learn that Israel is apparently the only other country on the planet that matters to the crackpots Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:52 AM

3. He'll do a good job is the plus side

The Pentagon needs a surgical strike, and he's the right guy to do it. He has the management experience and as a Republican veteran they won't be able to undermine him with the usual insinuations. The reason why he's being attacked right now is because they know what's coming and they're trying to make him gun-shy. Doubt that'll work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:52 AM

4. He appears inept to me. There are lots of good Democrats for that job.

 

It was a stupid choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:58 AM

6. Who? Let's hear some names. War hero, battle hardened, national defense experience....

experience on the national stage with defense and war matters. Who agree with Obama that the defense budget is way overblown, and waging wars is not something that should be entered into except as a last resort.

I can't think of any, except Kerry. But if you know of some, let's hear them.

Besides, having Hagel takes away the Republicans' "wimpy Democrats" attack line, when the budget is cut and we don't bomb-bomb Iran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:21 AM

20. If he thinks waging war is only a last resort, how do you explain his YES on invading Iraq?

And if he voted for the stupidest, most illegal war this nation has ever waged, what makes you think he'd not do the same for Iran?
He voted for the Iraq War. When actually faced with war or peace, he went with war, Shock and Awe and that is his actual record.
Did you also support the invasion of Iraq?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #20)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:02 AM

34. The same way you can explain why John Kerry voted YES on invading Iraq.

And Hillary Clinton. And Dick Durbin. And every other Democrat except for Barbara Boxer. That's how.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:24 AM

42. You are wrong about that. 21 Democratic Senators voted NO in invading Iraq. 21. Not just Boxer.

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

Also 1 Independent, Mr Jeffers. And 1 Republican, not Hagel, but Lincoln Chafee.

Get your basic facts in order before attempting to answer my question with a freaking question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #42)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:25 PM

92. I had forgot that Byrd voted no.

nfm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #34)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:37 AM

44. Here is a link to the 126 Democratic House Members who voted NO.

I'll not paste that long long list here as it might seem rude to those who are claiming all Democrats voted YES....in the House 82 Democrats were Yes votes, 126 were No votes.
http://voteview.com/gulfwar.htm

It amazes me that folks who do not even know how our Party's officials votes are demanding lists of names!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #44)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:01 AM

51. Hagel was a Senator, not a U.S. House member.

It amazes me that some folks don't know the difference between Senators and House Reps.

But you've missed the point completely - JOHN KERRY who will be SoS, and outgoing SoS Hillary Clinton BOTH voted for the IWR. Were and are you against their taking the SoS position? Or is it okay because they're Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #51)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:42 AM

61. Yeah, that's why I posted the list of Democratic Senators who voted NO before I posted the House.

You:J"...John Kerry voted YES on invading Iraq. And every other Democrat except for Barbara Boxer."
To which I replied above:
"You are wrong about that. 21 Democratic Senators voted NO in invading Iraq. 21. Not just Boxer.

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

Also 1 Independent, Mr Jeffers. And 1 Republican, not Hagel, but Lincoln Chafee.


So now I have shown you how wrong you were about the Senate Democratic roll call on the IWR twice. Because you did not bother to read not address the correction of your false statement about 21 good, courageous Democrats who voted NO. Boxer was among them, of course. One of 21 Democrats to vote NO.
Those 21 Democrats did the right thing. I am sorry that fact is disturbing your screed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:25 PM

69. Me!

I will cut the fuck out of the DoD - 2/3 of their budget, and solve the deficit & national debt.

And then I will be assassinated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #69)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:38 PM

74. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #6)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:09 PM

85. Wesley Clark, Tom Harkin,

Chris Dodd. How many names do you want? Hagel was a stupid choice and does nothing but further the meme that Democrats are so soft on defense we had to pick a pub. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:30 AM

12. Yea, give us some names. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to babylonsister (Reply #12)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:02 AM

35. Shall we hold our breath for an answer, babylonsister? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #35)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:06 AM

38. Please don't!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Link (Reply #4)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:49 AM

47. He didn't give them the damaging headlines they pressed for, for eight hours.

If someone didn't follow the two months of smears that came beforehand, they wouldn't understand what happened yesterday. He wasn't inept at all. He said what he needed to say, and avoided saying what would have hurt him or Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:54 AM

5. No, Hagel wasn't selected because it would make Republicans happy.

Hagel was selected because Obama thinks he'd make the best Sec. of Defense in his administration, which must mean that they are on the same board when it comes to philosophy and goals, etc.

There's probably not that many Democrats who are battle hardened, war heroes, with national foreign policy and defense experience, all of which are huge pluses for being Sec of Defense, esp when you're going to cut the defense budget.

The Republicans know this...that having Hagel as Sec of Defense takes away the "wimpy Democrats" attack, when the budget is cut and wars are not waged. So they're doing their best to destroy Hagel at this stage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:10 AM

18. You don't even have to leave the category of former Nebraska Senators to find a more decorated man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Kerrey

Medal of Honor and a Democrat. Makes Hagel look 2nd rate. And the reason that there are not may Democrats with national defense experience is that the Republicans nominate Republicans and the Democrats nominate Republicans too. Obama should stop that practice because it perpetuates the myth that the country needs republicans in positions of responsibility for defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:58 AM

50. Hagel and Kerrey are good friends. He campaigned for him in Nebraska, which

was a thumb in the eye to the Nebraska GOP. There is some sort of military scandal associated with Kerrey, IIRC, plus he hasn't been in the military or foreign policy/intelligence loop for many years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 07:58 AM

7. To Clean Up...

The focus on the military over the next four years will be to downsize it. Firstly by bringing troops home from Afghanistan and then cutting back on a very bloated defense budget (along with a lot of corporate welfare attached to it). Hagel's job will be to chose which cuts are made and when...reign in a military that's spending has skyrocketed since 9/11. Being a republican he offers the bipartisan card to the administration when it comes to the heavy lifting ahead; inoculating Democrats from being "weak on defense".

Despite his ruffing up, Hagel still has some rushpublican friends and I suspect he'll be confirmed with at least 65 votes. Don't let Gramps and teabagger showboating distract. While I can understand the "concern" over not picking a Democrat for this post, Hagel's views on the military have been very much aligned with this administration and many "mainstream" Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:16 AM

8. He's not likely to lead the charge into a war with Iran. Maybe, that's too big for you to see.

General Wes Clark would send the same message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:30 AM

13. Glad you mention Wes. He would have been a brilliant choice. It

doesn't feel like Obama ever warmed up to him though, does it ? Surely his backing of Hillary
wouldn't be the cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:39 AM

16. Who is John Kerry replacing?

Obama developed a personal relationship with Hagel while he was in the senate, perhaps he and Clark just never really had the chance to
do so. I am beginning to think that Hagel is an excellent choice, based on his enemies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:38 AM

15. That decision would be for the president anyway.

I already count not going to war with Iran as a plus of having Obama as president. Hagel doesn't get credit for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:17 AM

19. I have to differ: 1) tensions with Iran are higher now than in 2009; 2) the SOD exercises a

strong influence on the ultimate decision made, witness the restraining power that Gates exercised over Bush.

Hagel, like Gates and Panetta before him, would be a necessary counterweight to more hawkish and neocon-tinged voices within the Obama Administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:31 AM

24. Hagel's voting record does not support those theories at all. He voted for the Iraq Invasion which

suggests that he was either complicit or too daft to avoid being duped.
What is any more hawkish than supporting a war of choice based on faulty and laughable 'intelligence'?
Did you personally support the invasion of Iraq along with Hagel? I was opposed to it because it was clearly a set up and a losing proposition. Hagel voted to let bin Laden go while we went after nonexistent WMD. Was that a 'counterweight'?
23 of his fellow Senators voted NO on the IWR. Hagel voted yes along with every Republican save Chafee.
Do you always think it is wise to reward failure with promotion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:42 AM

30. Hillary did too and that turned out ok. But, I agree, if he could find someone who

was against it from the start, it would be great, IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Laura PourMeADrink (Reply #30)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:12 AM

39. 'Hillary did it too' is disturbing because Obama so roundly

criticized her for making that same vote. There are people on DU who called her a war monger who say that the same vote makes Hagel a dove. Her yes vote was a huge factor in her loss of the nomination, it was a key subject of discussion. Now that vote is framed for Hagel as a wise vote, he said 'war' but he meant peace! She said war and she meant war!
While that form of argument is not Hagel's fault, it sure frames his supporters in my eyes, particularly the ones who castigated others for that vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:34 AM

43. Like Kerry, he came out afterwards against the Iraq invasion and for restraint w/ Iran and a

negotiated outcome in Syria.

I am willing to forgive those who admit they were duped in signing the Iraq authorization provided they have clearly learned from the experience. Particularly, those such as Hagel, who are dubious of ratcheting up further tensions with Iran and its regional allies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #43)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:43 AM

46. Got a quote where Hagel says he was duped?

And he did not 'sign the resolution' he voted, as US Senator, to give GW Bush power to invade Iraq at will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:12 AM

54. Here's a quote:

But that should also have triggered alarm bells about what they really wanted to do. Well, it did. I'm not defending our votes; I'm just giving a little history of how this happened. You have to remember the context of when that resolution was passed. This was about a year after September 11. The country was still truly off balance. So the president comes out talking about "weapons of mass destruction" that this "madman dictator" Saddam Hussein has, and "our intelligence shows he's got it," and "he's capable of weaponizing," and so on.

And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored. Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that's what we were presented with. And I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them." But I was told by the president—we all were—that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort.

You were told that personally? I remember specifically bringing it up with the president. I said, "This has to be like your father did it in 1991. We had every Middle East nation except one with us in 1991. The United Nations was with us."

Did he give you that assurance, that he would do the same thing as his father?
Yep. He said, "That's what we're going to do." But the more I look back on this, the more I think that the administration knew there was some real hard question whether he really had any WMD. In January of 2003, if you recall, the inspectors at the IAEA, who knew more about what Saddam had than anybody, said, "Give us two more months before you go to war, because we don't think there's anything in there." They were the only ones in Iraq. We hadn't been in there. We didn't know what the hell was in there. And the president wouldn't do it! So to answer your question—Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.


Read More http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/republican-senator-chuck-hagel-war#ixzz2JfG3LK1j

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #54)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:14 PM

65. Hey, you posted a Hagel quote I can support....

"I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them."

Yes, as Hagel says there were 23 Senators who had better judgement than he did that day. Some of Hagel's supporters like to claim that only Boxer voted against IWR and it is (and I mean this) a good thing that Hagel admits that others were not duped. I've had to make that point to his supporters again and again. At least Chuck knows that he was not correct AND that others were. At least he admits it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #46)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:18 AM

55. David Corn reviewed Hagel's IWR statements as follows:

In Corn's view, Hagel said much the same thing as his fellow skeptic Kerry when both voted for the IRW despite their well-founded concerns that the Bush Admin casus belli didn't hold water. Like Kerry, Hagel hoped that the IRW had enough "wiggle room' so that another vote would become necessary and both would vote for or against on the basis of any additional WMD evidence the Bush White House was able to present. But, instead, Bush went ahead straight-away with the invasion several months later. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hagel-hearing-defense-secretary-iraq-war

When Hagel was contemplating a presidential run in 2008, I examined his 2002 stance in a TomPaine.com column. I've pasted it below.

Of all the senators eyeing the White House in 2008, this Nebraskan was the only one to express deep reservations about the resolution—while still voting for it. "America—including the Congress—and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism," Hagel said in explaining his vote. But he was prescient: "If disarmament in Iraq requires the use of force, we need to consider carefully the implications and consequences of our actions. The future of Iraq after Saddam Hussein is also an open question. Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world. How many of us really know and understand much about Iraq, the country, the history, the people, the role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism and a bit more humility." He added, "Imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice. A democratic effort cannot be maintained without building durable Iraqi political institutions and developing a regional and international commitment to Iraq's reconstruction. No small task."

Hagel was disappointed in the discourse within the Senate: "We should spend more time debating the cost and extent of this commitment, the risks we may face in military engagement with Iraq, the implications of the precedent of United States military action for regime change and the likely character and challenges of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions." And he cautioned humility: "I share the hope of a better world without Saddam Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world." Bottom line: Hagel feared the resolution would lead to a war that would go badly but didn't have the guts to say no to the leader of his party.

Hagel took a thoughtful approach to the question of the invasion. His worries were dead-on. Yet he had the wiggle room to vote for the measure because there remained a possibility—albeit slight—that Bush would not use this authority and the conflict with Saddam Hussein would be resolved without US military intervention. In considering the invasion and its implications, Hagel had the right take; he just couldn't bring himself to vote accordingly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:34 AM

60. So we know he can be fooled by the likes of GW Bush. Great.

23 of his fellow Senators, including one Republican, were not so easily persuaded by the intellectual vigor of GW Bush.
It is an interesting choice the nation is making, and a hell of a lesson to our youth. We reward the most horrid of failures, the makers of the worst possible mistakes while we ignore those who were correct and courageous when times called for courage and discernment.
Would you say this would be a good way to run schools? If you are wrong, you get an A and you skip to the next grade, if you are correct you are castigated, then shunted aside to make room for those who were wrong?
That's how Wall Street runs, and DC. In life, regular people get terminated for minor errors at work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #60)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:54 AM

62. This is about the best one could possibly expect from the people running U.S. foreign policy.

You're right that standards of accountability decline the higher that you go up the ladder in this society, despite the greater damage that gets done when people in power get it wrong or, as in Bush-Cheney's case, lie and hundreds of thousands of innocent people die as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #62)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:18 PM

66. Others were far more correct than Hagel, and Chuck admits it:

" I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them."
Hagel's peers, in 23 cases, had better discernment than he did. Not only was he wrong, he was certain those who were correct were wrong, nattering partisans. He bought what Bush sold him. Some say that anyone who could read the paper knew better. I agree with them when they say that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #55)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:07 PM

64. Contrast with your view on other IWR Yes voters:

"Hillary Clinton was one of a handful of Senators who was given full access to the unedited CIA Iraq WMD reports before the vote on the Authorization for Use of Force, and she voted for it anyway. In my opinion, she was irresponsible and showed poor judgement. While she later said she regretted her vote, fully a year into the war....."
and so on.

I voted for Obama because of Hillary's war vote in spite of his homophobic preacher surrogates. I continue to think that those who voted for IWR were irresponsible and showed poor judgement, as you did back then. I do not keep separate standards for men and women, and I most certainly would never defend a Republican for that which I have castigated a Democrat.
Just saying. I could say about Hagel what you said about Hillary. I'd say it about her too. 'While he later said he regretted his vote, fully five years into the war....' and so forth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021951295#post5

You again:
"Anyone who read the fricking Washington Post or NYT knew that the head of the IAEA was loudly disputing these claims, as were U.S. intelligence agencies, themselves.
Hillary is just as guilty of cherry-picking her intelligence sources as Douglas Feith or Richard Cheney.
If she has simply said, "I am persuaded by the Administration's version of the evidence", that would have at least been honest, and we probably wouldn't hold it against her so much. But this . . . what a weasel.
Thank you for reminding us of what she actually said, and why I feel so strongly that she's disqualified herself from consideration as the Democratic Candidate to be the 44th President."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4819473#4820820

The most distressing thing for me about the Hagel nomination is seeing that many DUers and others will gladly use rhetoric about war and peace differently at different times.
I agreed with you back then about Hillary, thus I can not as a consistent and honest person agree with you that the things which disqualified her in my view now qualify another to be in charge of Defense no less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #64)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:21 PM

67. The difference between Hillary and Hagel (and Kerry) on this one is she endorsed the IWR and

influenced some of her peers to vote for the IWR. "I cast my vote with conviction" Here's her statement at the time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=DkS9y5t0tR0


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:32 PM

71. Explain how one Yes vote is worse than another.

You are claiming that Hagel had no conviction, but voted for massive bombing and invasion anyway? Do you think that is a positive thing? When in doubt, he drops the bombs?
According to your post, Hillary started opposing one year in. Hagel did not criticize the war for 5 years of destruction.
They both voted Yes, and you castigate one for that, while you defend the other...it is what it is. Your words are very strong against Hillary for her vote. Many who adore Hagel were also very opposed to her, and claimed that vote was the reason. Now, for Hagel, the vote is not such a big deal, what's a major war between friends?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:04 PM

83. Hillary was a leading voice in the Senate for the IWR, didn't express doubts about WMD, and

continued stumping for the invasion. Here's her statement made to Code Pink a week before the war started in which she expresses no doubts that military action is necessary to "disarm Saddam". If she had an opportunity to express doubts publicly, this was it. Let's listen:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1200118934

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #71)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:06 PM

84. Both IWR votes proved wrong, but Hillary cheerled the war and influenced other Senators to vote yes

Meanwhile, Hagel, who admits he got the vote wrong, was not a prime mover of the Resolution. Here's another Hillary statement advocating the invasion just a week before the war started, in which she speaks about the certainty of Saddam having WMD and also reflects with pride about the US military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo:

"There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations -- they would not. I'm happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
During a meeting with "Code Pink" at the US Capitol
March 6, 2003

http://freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html#Cuf1SojhAy


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #67)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:37 PM

73. Hillary and Kerry differ from Hagel in many ways. Here are a few of Hagel's bonus features.


Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

I can see why those to my right like the man....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:22 AM

9. Many dislike both RINOs and DINOs...I'm one of them..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:22 AM

10. I was watching Graham's questioning also....

he looked so uncomfortable, he couldn't even look Hagel in they eye it seemed to me. Just kept shifting about in his chair....ugh....never could stand him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a kennedy (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:36 AM

26. Graham looked like he has Parkinson Disease.

Swaying back and forth EVERY time I saw him. That wasn't a dig. I really think there is something wrong with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:44 AM

31. What's ironic is that he and McCain thought they looked tough...but in actuality they looked

mean and bullying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #26)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:33 AM

59. Graham looked like he had to take a dump.



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:29 AM

11. What a question, its because his views coincide with Obama's

The President does not want him because they disagree on things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 08:44 AM

17. Why not Wesley Clark?

Never see his name mentioned for consideration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SayitAintSo (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:40 AM

29. There are some issues with how he handled Kosovo

There's a lot of distrust of him from the officer corps since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:25 PM

70. Yeah, no drones and no troops killed on the ground, terrible record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:23 AM

21. My Senator Dick Blumenthal gives him strong support.

If Dick B. says he's OK, then take it to the bank, Hagel is OK. Dick is a fearless and relentless progressive. He was our wonderful CT Attorney General for many years, out front on everything from abortion rights to consumer rights and battling United Illuminating over customer gouging. The guy is aces.

On Morning Joe today Dick spelled out the case for Hagel in the most progressive terms possible. You can probably get his segment on the MJ website at msnbc.com

I urge you to view this segment to hear what he has to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:23 AM

22. I don't have a very strong opinion on this but..

...it doesn't seem to be such a bad thing for there to be a reward for Republicans who stand up to GOP groupthink. I'm sure that Obama thinks that he's the best man for the job right now and that's the only reason he picked him, but Hagel did stand up for what he thought about Iraq and got all but driven from his party for his efforts. I don't think this is really a case of reaching across the aisle because Hagel doesn't really have a place on the other side of the aisle any longer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to union_maid (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:33 AM

25. great point about the reward

I would add his frank comments on Israel. I think Hagel's pick says that you can say such obvious things as he said, and not fall off the face of the earth. A lot of people would like to see that be a third rail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #25)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:15 PM

87. Then maybe you can

answer the questions Hagel refused to. I consider Lindsay Graham colonic slime but he asked a good question. He asked Hagel to name names of those in the "Jewish Lobby" who were dictating policy (Hagel couldn't) and futher to that quote, that the Jewish lobby forced us to to so stupid things, Hagel couldn't name even one. He looked like a loser in that exchange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:25 AM

23. Sick of Republican appointees

Please tell me the last time a Republican appointed a Democrat to such an important cabinet position. We are pretty much sending the message that we have nothing and no one worthy on our side. That's pathetic. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:38 AM

27. He rubs the Iraq War fiasco in the Republicans' faces. They hate that.

Especially McCain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:39 AM

28. Successful history with nuclear nonproliferation, and Obama trusts him on a personal level

He and Obama did some very great stuff in the Senate about nuclear nonproliferation (which is why they're friends), and it's a big personal issue with him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #28)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 09:56 AM

32. Hey! I have to say this is the first, the only statement in his favor that I have read on DU that

makes an actual point of fact. I thank you for that. I have been asking 'why Hagel' for weeks and the answers are never like this one. This gives me something to read up on.
The 'he opposed Iraq' arguments are daft because he voted for that war. People keep saying 'he opposed Bush's wars' but he only did so 5 years into the war. That makes him better than those who still support it, but it is not a good argument for putting him in charge of wars.
I have asked many 'what do you like about him' and they don't provide a thing positive about Hagel that is true. They often claim he voted no on IWR.
You gave a reason, as the OP asked. I respect that. I don't support Republicans ever, particularly not the anti choice, anti gay variety who voted to invade to look for WMD, but at least you came up with an actual positive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #32)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:04 AM

36. Glad to help! Nonproliferation is one of my "things", so I've followed Hagel for a while

Though I'm as aware of his flaws as you are. I suspect Obama wants a strengthened NPT as one of his "legacies".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #36)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:17 AM

40. I have been challenging his supporters for weeks now, yours is the first actual factual piece of

support for the man. Several people, including media professionals, have attempted to say 'he voted against Iraq war' which is not true. I get the impression from most supporting him that they would not feel comfortable stating the reasons they support him because they avoid direct questions and rattle off lots of meaningless crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #40)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:19 AM

41. Oh he's popular inside the beltway simply for being a Republican; that's the gushing

Pundits practically wet themselves with joy every time there's a cross-party appointment; I think that's all this is. I doubt many of his fans could even name his signature legislative achievements, or his cosponsors for them (hint: his co-sponsor just nominated him for SecDef), and your experience seems to confirm that. In a lot of ways I'm glad I'm leaving DC...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #41)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:55 AM

49. The fans say things like 'every Democrat expect Boxer voted for the Iraq War'.

Then they demand a list of Democrats who could be Sec of Defense because they are sure there are none. I have to say that on the internet, with Google just sitting there, it amazes me that people make claims like that.
I don't support Republicans, ever. Suddenly on DU this is bad stuff. But I also seriously oppose the rewarding of failure and mediocrity along with the refusal to reward those who were correct when it mattered, those who displayed true wisdom and courage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:00 AM

33. When was the last time someone who never had been a Republican had the position?

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

"No"

"Don't call us we'll call you and good day"

Is apparently the "bipartisan" position on interviewing a potential Secretary of Defense. Democrats are to "wimpy" or "too out of touch with the culture" or "don't have enough support in the ranks" or are "too soft" for the job.

If there is a "culture" in a government of a free people that can only tolerate a Republican then that "culture" should be eradicated rather than coddled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:06 AM

37. He's a good model for a Republican who saw the light

and now is rational on Israel, Cuba, bloated military etc.

That makes a very big point with some who might come over from the dark side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:39 AM

45. His hearing was not a hearing (for the GOP). It was intended to trap and disqualify him.

It was also intended to drive a wedge between him and Obama, and to "go after" Obama's policies and discredit them--he did not allow that to happen. He's got intelligence, banking, and military experience, built his own business, and ran other successful businesses--and was almost always right on foreign policy in the last 15 years. (Also a deputy administrator for the VA and quit when his boss wouldn't take Agent Orange seriously--his boss resigned two months later in disgrace.) Obama, Biden and Kerry know him well and trust him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:53 AM

48. He's a Republican. What's not to like?

Because Bispartisanship! Anyway, only Republicans can defend the country - everyone knows that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:04 AM

53. The biggest plus for Hagel is he has been war as a grunt. That alone qualifies him.

 

He knows what combat and death is about. He isn't so easily to send the troops off the unnecessary wars. I think he is reasonable that also makes him the right person for the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:20 AM

56. He is a republican, and therefore is willing to serve the needs of the 1% without question, so

the only plus side of Hagel for the 99% is that we already know this.

Expect war.

I am royally pissed at Obama for appointing someone to office that good Democrats spent a great deal of time, money, and energy struggling daily to prevent from holding office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:23 AM

57. He's Obama's pick

That's the plus side. Any opposition to him is opposition to the President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:56 AM

63. You're such a good little solider.

BWAH!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marshall (Reply #57)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:18 PM

88. Do you support EVERYTHING

the President does or has done? Seriously?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:23 AM

58. He was one of the few who finally questioned why we spent so much man power and resources...

in Iraq at a time when even our great hero Dems thought there was a target for something. Plus he was a grunt who understands what it is being under fire on the ground in a useless war.(Vietnam)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:24 PM

68. He voted for the Iraq War, while 23 Senators voted No, 21 of them Democrats.

My Democratic Senator did not buy into that WMD crap. Five years into the war he joined the increasing choir of war critics, five years after the vote in which 23 of his peers not only questioned but refused to support the invasion of Iraq.
It is fine to support him if you wish, but this routine of claiming all the Democrats voted Yes as well is really not very cool. They were correct and courageous, and you claim otherwise....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #68)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:29 PM

95. I only claim that he at least did question his vote, while many of our own still haven't backed down

and I do remember not being able to find much strong opposition to a baseless invasion. Having been in the military during the Vietnam era, not many people are really concerned about the troops, but sounding right politically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmosh42 (Reply #58)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:41 PM

76. So we can rest assured

that at some point after we rush into a war he'll wonder if it was worth it. Wait, that doesn't sound like a very good leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #76)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:51 PM

79. Well, sure hope you didn't vote for Kerry. Sure hope you don't vote for Clinton

or Biden. Hagel was very torn on the war resolution, he came down on the wrong side and quickly regretted it--and publicly said so. Not afraid to admit he's wrong, an admirable trait.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #79)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:03 PM

82. I vote for Democratic nominees, none of the IRW yes voters had any support from me in primary

races. His 'opposition' was not found quickly, he started criticizing the war in 2007, 5 years in. He started opposing once the new Presidential cycle was underway and the wind was blowing in a certain direction....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #79)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 06:32 PM

96. Small comfort to the dead.

I'll tell you who I don't vote for: Republicans. Nor do I feel any particular need to laud them on a Democratic site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:34 PM

72. Panetta could not cut the defense budget.

Can Haqel? It remains to be seen but it must happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:40 PM

75. I like him. Seems to make decisions based on data and not ideology.

 

That's the kind of decision making I want in my government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EastKYLiberal (Reply #75)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:54 PM

81. He voted Yes on the Iraq Invasion...later he claimed he was confused by the false data Bush

provided, meaning his ideological trust of Bush caused him to vote to go find those WMD when all of the actual data let the rest of the world, millions of people, know that there were no WMDs. Hagel was sure it was worth the cost and the lives and he did not challenge the Iraq policy for 5 full years of spending and dying there.
That is the kind of decision making I don't think we can afford more of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:44 PM

77. obama trusts hagel

he trusts hagels insights into the workings of the defense dept. he`s a republican with the military cred to makes his distractors look like fools,you know like johnnie mccain. good pick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:47 PM

78. There is no plus side.

That become apparent if this asswipe is confirmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:13 PM

86. I'm with you. Less bad is not good. And when is he going to "reach across the isle"

 

to our side of it? After all, we actually voted for him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:18 PM

89. He's a Republican who wants to cut Defense spending.

"Only Nixon can go to China."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #89)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:22 PM

91. You said what I said, only different..

Agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JVS (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:21 PM

90. He shares Obama's view that war should be avoided if possible

and that everything should be tried within reason to keep our people from getting killed...

A Democrat would be accused of being a bleeding heart, so a Republican like Hagel who was in the war makes dovishness acceptable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fadedrose (Reply #90)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:06 PM

93. I think his IWR Yes vote says the opposite of that.

Which actual actions has he taken that indicate he is one who avoids war? Voting for Bushco war on demand? Co-sponsoring the failed Kosovo authorization?
He's never been asked to vote on a war to which he said no. What exactly is your view of his great hesitance to make war based on? To call him 'dovish' when he voted for invading a nation that did not attack us is absurd and even a bit offensive. 23 Senators voted no on that war. He voted yes. Dovish? Show some evidence aside from rhetoric.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #93)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:27 PM

94. I think he has changed...

From what he's said, he doesn't want to send anyone to battle anymore..

Obama has said he feels the same way...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread