Second Highest-Ranking GOP Senator Says He’ll Oppose Hagel For Defense Dept.

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM



TOM KLUDT 12:20 PM EST, FRIDAY DECEMBER 21, 2012

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the GOP whip, told conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin on Friday that he will oppose the nomination of Chuck Hagel if President Obama taps the former Nebraska senator to serve as secretary of defense as is widely expected.

“I can’t support a Hagel nomination if it comes,” Cornyn said, making him the first senator to publicly state his opposition to a Hagel nomination.

Cornyn said his opposition stems from Hagel's positions on Israel's national security.

“I’ve heard prominent Democrats concerned about his position on Israel," Cornyn said. "Many Republican have said they did not want to prejudge. But it would be a bad move and one of the reasons I’ve taken the position [to oppose]. ‘Mr. President don’t do that. It would be a bad nomination.’”

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/second-highest-ranking-gop-senator-says-hell-oppose

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Why doesn't Obama just ask Netanyahu

whom he should appoint?

Or maybe just outsource the whole appointment process to Israel?

[plethoro]

21. Exactly. Is anyone but a relative few starting to understand what

has happened, who is controlling, and how sending emails and nasty letters to congresspeople will do exactly nothing. This country is under Inverse Fascist Control by rich banksters here and abroad.

[Eric the Reddish]

59. Bingo!

[Joe Bacon]

62. That's what AIPAC wants.

I'm at the point where I've had it with propping up this apartheid state

[kelliekat44]

68. You beat me to it.

Can they really stop this?

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. Great. I'm for Hagel, if it upsets Cornyn

Nothing like pissing off a repuke to make my day.

[malibea]

13. I'm with you.

Let me second your opinion on that one! Hopefully there will be some more that can make our day!

[Kelvin Mace]

39. Nothing pisses me off more

than a Dem appointing a war-mongering conservative to any position in his administration.

[TwilightGardener]

43. You do realize Cornyn is opposing him because he prefers

diplomacy, right? That's their problem with Hagel--he's not as excited as they are to turn Iran into a sheet of glass.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. Again, WHY are we appointing a conservative

who backed the illegal invasion of Iraq for a post in a DEMOCRATIC administration? Screw all of them with the same hot poker!

Why not appoint someone WITHOUT blood on their hands to be SecDef?

[TwilightGardener]

47. Well, we don't want to pull out another sitting Senator or Congress

critter--we're already going down a seat with Kerry, possibly--so we'd have to look at those who are out of office or at least retired. And then they'd have to have some sort of qualifications or history with defense issues, and they and Obama would have to share similar views on defense, etc. etc. You see why it's not that easy, right? The alternate names suggested are Fluornoy (whom the Repubs are really pushing for--hmmm) and some Ashton guy that I don't know anything about. I have no idea what their views were on Iraq. Wes Clark, maybe, but if Hagel can't get nominated because of his views on the middle east and Iran and Israel, Clark sure as hell won't. Maybe Feingold?

[Kelvin Mace]

49. Wes Clark would be my first choice

Here's a thought, how about the first woman SecDef? Lets expand the field of candidates by 100%.

[TwilightGardener]

50. I don't care if it's a male or a female, or whatever nationality or race.

I just want the person who will be most effective at getting Obama's agenda done within the DoD. A large part of that will be budget cuts--whoever takes the job is going to be unpopular and will have to withstand some pressure.

[wordpix]

72. good idea, why not Clark?

[joshcryer]

57. He's Libertarian as far as foreign policy.

He did make some mistakes supporting the Iraq war initially but he was one of the most critical Republicans against Bush during and after the war. He had a real strong shift on it.

This is why while I was against him as SoS I said I wouldn't mind if he was DoD.

[wordpix]

71. me, too and Cornyn is lowest type of repuke

[brett_jv]

3. Wait, Hagel is a Republican, isn't he?

I think they really want the President to choose Kerry so that they can go after his seat. So much so that they're ready throw one of their own under the bus. How typical of the 'Thugs ... power first, everything else, second.

[Enrique]

6. different post

Hagel would be Sec. of Defense.

[malibea]

14. You still don't get it, do you?

The whole game is NOT to accept anyone the President wants, whether they are republican, democrat, independent, green or otherwise? It doesn't matter!

[BlueToTheBone]

17. crazy, isn't it. n/t

[malibea]

24. Crazy is not the word I would use here!

No, "crazy" is not how I would describe it. I could think of a lot of words to use, but crazy is not one of them. The word crazy infers something inexplainable, and with that I disagree. It is very explainable, albeit unacceptable, ignorant and pitiful.

[BlueToTheBone]

64. Yes, malevolent would be a better word.

They have darkness all around them.

[JustAnotherGen]

26. +1

[davidpdx]

65. I think both parties are trying to poison potential nominees before they come up

Some of the Ds seem to be strongly against Hagel as well.

[malibea]

69. Maybe because he is listed as a republican

Some Democrats are against Hagel perhaps because he is listed and labeled as a repug. To some people, label means everything and they can't see past that. Not that I am saying that this is the case here, but I try to keep a "neutral" eye open when it comes to this political game.

Unfortunately from what I seen in the last 10 or so years, some can not get past such labeling--and for good reason. I know and can hear voices saying "they (if they were repug) would not (make that NEVER) nominate or accept a Democrat for anything". And while turn around is thought to be fair play, this way no one will ever get anywhere, ever. I also know that it is past the time for Democrats to turn the other cheek, as this has been done too much in the past on our part, and now it really is their turn. But it has to start somewhere, and I would like to think that I am big enough to start it out.

Of course, since our current President Barack Obama has been elected and serves, everyone that the President likes, nominates, or wants to nominate are strongly dispelled, discouraged, targeted and voted against. I really don't see how the President keeps a straight face in the midst of all of this hate; but as God has admonished, "Vengeance is Mine."

[geek tragedy]

4. I didn't realize Israel was the 51st state.

Neocon turds like Cornyn need a lesson on the Constitution and loyalty to foreign powers.

[Enrique]

5. i want to see the spectacle

of the republicans blocking the socialist president's appointment of a conservative republican.

[Texin]

20. Right. And if Obama keeps bending to their demands like he appears to have done with Rice,

he won't be able to appoint anyone to anything for the next four years. Not a damn thing will be accomplished. This crap on the right is nothing more than a sit-in. If the asshats in those disctricts that keep voting for shitheads like these (and it appears they won't lose any more idiots to reelection because they will have successfully gerrymandered their way into perpetual red districts) not a damn thing will be done during the next four years, or forty years for that matter.

[Roy Rolling]

7. Typical...

A moron Senator gives his opinion and answer to a question nobody asked him

[Botany]

8. Sorry Chuck but more Ds then Rs in the senate and when / Reid ....

.... changes the filibuster rule along with more Ds coming in in 2013
their will be nothing you can do about it. BTW as another poster noted
if you don't like something then I am for it.

[merrily]

9. Cool. I'd love to see a Democrat heading defense.

Gates is not only a Republican, but Bush's pick. Panetta is a Nixon Republicon turned Democrat after the Democratic Party went right; and Hagel is Republican. Clinton appointed a Republican to head Defense too. I am tired of Democratic Presidents reinforcing the stereotype that Democrats cannot handle defense.

[Mass]

10. Jeez. There are reasons to be against Hagel at Defense, but this one is not one.

More that it upsets the neocons, because, even if he is a true conservative, Hagel is not a neocon.

[Historic NY]

11. If the President is for it they're against it...

[Bucky]

12. As a Texan, let me just say this...

My senator is a schmuck.















































So is my other senator, by the way.









































Also that "Tea Party" senator elect we just got.

[alfredo]

23. Ask him if he swore to represent the US or Israel.

[cannabis_flower]

34. I'll second that..

And let me add that the former Senator (Phil Gramm) was also a schmuck.

[pkdu]

51. And let's not get started on your Governor....nt

[Thinkingabout]

54. As a Texan I agree with you and add John Culberson is worse than the Senators.

[DallasNE]

15. Kerry Is Being Nominated For Secretary of State

Hagel is being considered for Secretary of Defense so I don't understand the diplomatic concern Cornyn has regarding the Secretary of Defense. Let Cornyn question Kerry regarding Israel. One thinks that Cornyn really is just looking to oppose Obama where ever he can, end of story.

[malibea]

27. I agree.

I stated in an earlier response that anything, any person of any party the President wants to nominate, the repugs will oppose. Truly End of Story .

[Jennicut]

70. I know. Hagel's views on Israel are not even pertinent to being Sec of Defense.

Cornyn has never been that bright, like most Republicans.

[Joey Liberal]

16. Cornyn is a nutjob

We are not Israel.

[olegramps]

18. To hell with Cornyn. Just another obstructionist Repukian.

These people are just plain evil to the very bone. I have grown to despise these bastards, one and all. I simply cannot stand to listen to them and just turn them off when ever they appear on TV. Nothing more than fascists who are the greatest threat to the welfare of the nation. They are the enemy with in that are a cancer eating at the soul of the Republic.

[malibea]

28. You are totally right-on!

You are truly and totally right-on! You said it perfectly; I too turn these bastards off the television whenever they come on because I can't stand to hear them lie any more. They are truly a cancer on society and need to be voted out- every last one of them- asap.

Keep your eyes on the prize and never give up. I am with you every step of the way.

[madrchsod]

19. don`t tell johnnie boy that the sec of transportation is a republican too......

[alfredo]

22. We need to ask Cornyn where his loyalty lies. Is it the US or Israel. He needs to make a choice.

[malibea]

30. Amen!

Amen to that! Thank you for bringing it up. I wonder has anyone else considered asking that same question- or are they too afraid to broach the subject?

[alfredo]

44. I'm not sure if Israel would return the same level of loyalty they expect of us.

[malibea]

53. I would bet against it!

I am with you! I would bet against it as a matter of fact.

[alfredo]

55. I was an Army spook during the USS Liberty murders. I lost a lot of trust for

the Israeli and US government. It was a turning point for me.

[TwilightGardener]

25. They are trying to dictate to Obama what his foreign/defense policy

should be, through his appointments. Interestingly, though, Kerry and Hagel have nearly the exact same views on foreign policy and defense. But they are not opposing Kerry. WHY? Because they want Kerry's seat.

[malibea]

31. Yep!

You got it darling! But these bastards will lose in the end. Karma is a bitch - and then you die!

[The Wielding Truth]

29. Honestly. Who cares what Republicans think anymore. They are frail and flailing. They should be

ignored and just shunned into going away. They are wrong on most things and the want to fight everything that is needed to help our country recover from their polices. Ba-bye...GOP.

[malibea]

32. Love your statements!

I just love your statements, especially the one that conveys how many are kept from working to put ONE man out of work. And you are absolutely correct: ba-bye...GOP.
Brillant!

[The Wielding Truth]

35. Thanks. I think this cowering to these spoiled fools is ridiculous.

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2012, 01:01 PM - Edit history (1)

[malibea]

37. Could not agree with you more.

I am in total agreement. I have asked that every elected repugnant be un-elected (or beaten in the next race) pronto and sent packing. They refuse to add to the good of the community and do not support any program for the betterment of the people. I don't understand how they keep getting reelected.

Ridiculous is putting it mildly.

[leftynyc]

33. I don't want the President

to have ANY republicans in his cabinet. Why on earth should he? Is there seriously no qualified Democrat? And that people on a supposedly progressive board are all for this pub just cause you think he'll stick it to Israel make me sick.

[TwilightGardener]

36. This is all about the neocons and the MIC trying to keep their

interests protected. Hagel isn't anti-Israel, neither is Obama. Hagel thinks the DoD should be trimmed down significantly. Repub neocons and defense contractors know he will do it.

[leftynyc]

38. That didn't answer my question

Why should THIS President nominate ANY republicans to his cabinet? That party has done nothing but insult and obstruct him at every turn and it'll earn him zero points from anybody. Fuck the republicans.

[TwilightGardener]

40. I don't think his being a Repub is a factor at all. It's more of a

unique situation with Hagel involving past Senate relationships (especially with Biden and Kerry), and a demonstrated capability to stand up to entrenched interests, rather than a show of bipartisanship.

[leftynyc]

41. It should be a factor

I want that party crushed - they are a detriment to this country. And how convenient for him to apologize for his disgusting views when he wants a cabinet post. Is he going to stand up for LGBT folks when discriminated against in the military? Is he going to fight for women and justice when they get raped by their fellow military people? His belonging to the pub party tells me no.

[TwilightGardener]

42. If he's nominated, I'm sure he'll be questioned. He will serve

at the direction of President Obama, if nominated and approved. I don't think Obama would select someone who isn't going to carry out his policies or would work to subvert them. Gates was a Repub, and faithfully fulfilled Obama's directives. I think Hagel would, too.

[leftynyc]

45. But why not nominate a Democrat?

It plays right into the right wing whako meme that Democrats are soft on defense and even a Democratic President doesn't trust us when it comes to the military. I thought Gates was a mistake also as I think nominating any pubs is a mistake.

[TwilightGardener]

48. Well, if that's your most important criteria for the job, then I can't

argue with that. I don't know who's available or being considered in terms of Democrats.

[leftynyc]

60. Wesley Clark, Jim Webb

Joe Sestak - all Democrats who have served - I have no idea if they would even want the job but my point is that we should definitely look to our side of the aisle before looking at the party that has done nothing but obstruct and insult this President.

[David__77]

52. I support Hagel.

He has demonstrated some fine qualities that might at least slightly shake up the globalist establishment.

[joshcryer]

58. Yeah, for DoD I think it's OK.

It's not necessarily the best pick, but compromising / diplomatic-wise it's not bad at all.

[w8liftinglady]

56. I wish the president would consider Jim Webb.

http://www.webb.senate.gov/

Webb has shown real Defense Knowledge in both Republican and Democratic parties.

I get the impression Webb wants to "leave Washington".

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. Washington Post outraged with Hagel claiming he might push Obama well to the left on foreign policy

WaPo Editorial: Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary

By Editorial Board, Published: December 18

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.”

While both Republicans and Democrats accept that further cuts in defense may be inevitable, few have suggested that a reduction on the scale of the sequester is responsible. In congressional testimony delivered around the same time as Mr. Hagel’s interview, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the sequester would lead to “a severe and irreversible impact on the Navy’s future,” “a Marine Corps that’s below the end strength to support even one major contingency” and “an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk” for the Army.

Mr. Hagel was similarly isolated in his views about Iran during his time in the Senate. He repeatedly voted against sanctions, opposing even those aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Mr. Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than sanctions, were the best means to alter Iran’s behavior. The Obama administration offered diplomacy but has turned to tough sanctions as the only way to compel Iran to negotiate seriously.

-snip-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defense-secretary/2012/12/18/07e03e20-493c-11e2-ad54-580638ede391_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines


Thanks to DonViejo for posting this in the Politics 2012 forum

[Joe Bacon]

63. F the WHORESHINGTON POST!

That propaganda rag lied us into war with Iraq.

F them!

[janx]

66. Chuck Hagel would push President Obama to the left?

What the...?

[Douglas Carpenter]

67. at least his public positions - at least up to now - left of the first term of the Obama Administrat

That is absolutely correct. I suspect the major areas of concern coming from Hagel's opponents as this article demonstrates is that he has been vocal in his skepticism of the use of military power to resolve conflicts and he has been more vocal than most in emphasizing the need to find a negotiated settlement both for the Iranian nuclear crisis and for the Israel/Palestine conflict while also seeking to reduce the military budge. This clearly ruffles some feathers in both parties as this official position of the Washington Post op-ed demonstrates.

[wordpix]

73. how about Colin Powell? or is he too tainted from * Admin?