Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense?

#1
V

Vol Main

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
12,777
Likes
4,433
#1
Former (R-Nebraska))Senator Chuck Hagel is in the news as a possible nominee for Secretary of Defense. Despite his very honorable service to our country, the possibility of his nomination is spurring some controversy. Neocon attack ads are already out.

Here is an article from the New Yorker which discusses Senator Hagel.
Chuck Hagel and His Enemies : The New Yorker

Here is an op-ed column by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times, supporting Hagel.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/opinion/friedman-give-chuck-a-chance.html?_r=0

This article is about Hagel's politics, friends and foes. "Swiftboating" in the title may be confusing, because criticism of Hagel has nothing to do with his military service.
Veterans Denounce Neoconservative 'Swiftboating' of Chuck Hagel | RealClearPolitics

Here are some criticisms of Senator Hagel, from leading Republicans.
GOP critics line up against Chuck Hagel - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

A voice in support of Chuck Hagel's nomination.
Top five reasons Obama should pick Chuck Hagel for SecDef | Stephen M. Walt

This thoughtful article provides supportive perspective on Chuck Hagel, with excerpts from his own book.
Chuck Hagel Deserves Fair Hearing for Defense Secretary Post - The Daily Beast
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
Now wait... I could think of 100 names that would be worse than Hagel. Now the GOP is just being partisan hacks.
 
#3
#3
Rasputin_Vol said:
Now wait... I could think of 100 names that would be worse than Hagel. Now the GOP is just being partisan hacks.
Click to expand...
Its par...Jesus himself could be a candidate and some would raise hell. Unintentional pun.
 
#4
#4
As a matter of fact, I suppose 50 of those 100 names ahead of Hagel would probably be Republicans.
 
#6
#6
Vol Main said:
Hagel is a Republican.
Click to expand...

Oh, I was about to say. I know I've heard the guy speak several times in the past and didn't seem to recall any unreasonable stances or anything out of the ordinary. For some reason, I had it in my mind that he was a moderate or conservative Democrat.

My mistake.
 
#7
#7
Rasputin_Vol said:
Oh, I was about to say. I know I've heard the guy speak several times in the past and didn't seem to recall any unreasonable stances or anything out of the ordinary. For some reason, I had it in my mind that he was a moderate or conservative Democrat.

My mistake.
Click to expand...

No biggie. He is considered a moderate Republican, despite the fact that he is socially and fiscally conservative. That is because he strayed from the party line on numerous occasions. If nominated, he probably will receive Senate confirmation, after facing serious questions about several of his past positions. I incline to support his nomination, but I first will be interested to see how he defends some of his previous statements on foreign policy.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
I like Hagel. I think he is a good choice for Defense..
.

He is 100 times better than the John Kerry for state pick
 
Last edited:
#9
#9
Best Authority News
Storm Warning
by Vol Main

The best authorities inside Washington's Beltway are reporting that a Storm Warning has gone out to residents of the United States Senate. While barometers fall in the 900 millibar range, C. Hagel is expected to make landfall early next week, with the announcement of the former Republican Senator's nomination as President Obama's new Secretary of Defense. One White House insider claims that reports of the storm's imminent arrival are premature, "We haven't even named this one yet."

Hagel likely to be nominated for Defense Secretary next week - First Read
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
LOL neocons are attacking him because he puts American interests first over israel

“I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator,” . “I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath … to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.”
 
#11
#11
TSwafford said:
LOL neocons are attacking him because he puts American interests first over israel

“I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator,” . “I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath … to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.”
Click to expand...

Isn't there some kind of law against that?
 
#12
#12
Rasputin_Vol said:
Now wait... I could think of 100 names that would be worse than Hagel. Now the GOP is just being partisan hacks.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with his merit as choice, or what's good for the country. The marching orders to the GOP are to fight Obama, at every turn, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Has nothing to do with his merit as choice, or what's good for the country. The marching orders to the GOP are to fight Obama, at every turn, regardless of whether they are right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually, Senator Hagel has made policy statements in the past which appeared to diverge from official U.S. policy. So he will face real questions about them if nominated. The fact that some of his positions concern the Israeli lobby should stir the pot a bit.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
Always does.
Click to expand...

Folks in the Congress like to keep good relations with lobbies, but neither they nor the lobbies seek publicity about their relations. So I would be surprised to see that subject worked in confirmation hearings if Hagel gets the nod. It would be a very tricky situation for Hagel, but there are risks of going there for the Senators and lobbies. It would be very interesting if they do, but I don't expect that to happen.

The questions more likely will focus on the compatibility/advisability of his positions regarding U.S. policy. Also, I would expect questions about his competence to manage such a huge bureaucracy and plans for its future.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
In the Hagel confirmation hearing, Senator Graham literally acted as a prosecutor in his examination of former Senator Hagel, as if Hagel were a defendent in a criminal court. He hammered Hagel for saying that many people were intimidated into doing dumb things by the Israeli lobby, and asked him to name one person who was so intimidated. Hagel was obviously intimidated at that very moment, but of course did not say so. Was Senator Graham acting for the Israeli lobby? Was his interrogation dumb? Yes and yes, but there was no way that Hagel was going to air a list of accusations against the very people who stood in judgment over his nomination, which he very well could do. Instead, he looked like a torture victim, suffering the indignities of his captors.

I think it was sleazy Senator Cruz who interrogated Hagel about not signing a lobby letter declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which it is. Hagel could have stated the obvious, that it would have been tantamount to supporting a declaration of war against Iran. Was there a lobby supporting that? Yes. Were Senators intimidated into doing that? Yes. Was it dumb? Yes. If we go to war with Iran, it should be because there comes a time when we must go to war, for the vital security interests of our country...not because a powerful foreign lobby conned our elected officials into signing a series of letters and resolutions, like they did going to war with Iraq.

Another example of folks in Congress being intimidated into doing something dumb by "the lobby" was the support given to Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, for Chalabi to obtain "intelligence" about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and links to Al Queda. Chalabi was previously exiled from Iraq to Jordan, where he founded the Petra Bank and received a 22 year conviction for bank fraud, after tens of millions of dollars went missing. He was in fact a convicted felon, evading justice while receiving our tax dollars. The so-called intelligence he provided to the Bush Administration with support from Congress was later proven to be a massive fraud, after it was used to start the Iraq War. Dumb?

Ooohh yeah. Visualize Senator Graham answering these questions. "Senator Graham, you are surely aware of lobby activity to fund Ahmed Chalabi with tax dollars. Did you vote to provide that funding? Yes or no, Senator. Are you aware of any influence from lobbyists to provide such funding? Yes or no, Senator. Do you know that Ahmed Chalabi was convicted and sentenced for fraud, after millions of dollars disappeared from his Petra Bank? Yes or no, Senator. Do you think it was dumb to pay a felon convicted of fraud, Ahmed Chalabi, with U.S. tax dollars to fabricate false intelligence and use that intelligence as a basis for going to war with Iraq? Yes or no, Senator...yes or no!"

Senator Hagel was among the few who resisted intimidation by "the lobby" to do those dumb things. In order to serve the country as Secretary of Defense, he now must suffer the malicious attacks of those who did not and do not resist it. Of course, he created many of his current problems, by being too politically incorrect with his speech on difficult issues and by being openly disloyal to his own party.

I think(thought at the time) that he was actually wrong about some of his positions, like his decision to oppose the surge in Iraq, but I understand(understood at the time) the reasons for his concerns. The Neoconservatives who misled the President and Congress into the war never intended for the U.S. to withdraw forces from Iraq; they planned for a very long term war of occupation. They also planned to use Iraq as a base to launch other wars, in Syria and Iran. Read their policy papers and you'll find it all in their own words. But even President Bush finally realized the high costs of their militarist expansion, replaced a number of them, and negotiated a withdrawal treaty to end the war.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
VolsNSkinsFan said:
They are calling it the worst nomination hearing in the past century
Click to expand...

It is the worst I've ever seen. Hagel looks like an independent man who serves his country. The Senators haranguing him look like bought and paid for mouth pieces serving their party machine and "the lobby." Hagel now is a man without a party, and it's payback time for not saying and doing what he was told.
 
#21
#21
Vol Main said:
Senator Graham literally acted as a prosecutor in his examination of former Senator Hagel. He hammered Hagel for saying that many people were intimidated into doing dumb things by the Israeli lobby, and asked him to name one person who was so intimidated. Hagel was very obviously intimidated at that very moment, but of course did not say so. Was Senator Graham acting for the Israeli lobby? Was his interrogation dumb? Yes and yes, but there was no way that Hagel was going to air a list of accusations against the very people who stood in judgment over his nomination, which he very well could have.
Click to expand...



I remember during the Clinton impeachment the GOP had a designated attack dog. Went on all the shows, asked all the hard questions, was the darling of the extreme right....

And then faded into oblivion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
I remember during the Clinton impeachment the GOP had a designated attack dog. Went on all the shows, asked all the hard questions, was the darling of the extreme right....

And then faded into oblivion.
Click to expand...

I remember some woman who did that, made all the talk shows. When someone asked her why, she claimed she was friends with the one who filed the law suit, which wasn't true. Haven't seen her since the impeachment.

This Hagel nomination is interesting, and I am not sure what to think about it. Defense is the largest Department in our government. If Hagel survives, he might not feel well disposed toward the Senators from Arizona, South Carolina, and Texas.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
Carl Pickens said:
He wasn't exactly impressive
Click to expand...

He really wasn't. He was clearly committed to swallowing a lot of crow instead of strongly defending himself. That is apparently the plan, to just go humbly through and get the votes for the nomination; might work, might not work. Some of his past statements were difficult to defend, because they were poorly worded or because they involved complex situations not easily explained under hostile "yes or no" interrogations. There were major points he could have made, but he looked tired and beat down, not effective as he needed to be.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top