"Announcement on Senator John Kerry is delayed; Other national security team picks are factor" by Glen Johnson | Globe Staff, December 16, 2012
Chuck Hagel, former senator of Nebraska, a Vietnam War veteran, has been labeled a top candidate to succeed departing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, but he needs to be thoroughly vetted before being offered a job in the administration.
Hagel has also faced opposition from some in the Jewish community who have complained about his criticism of Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon.
I'm already liking him!
A top Defense Department official said Saturday that Obama has yet to decide between Hagel and other candidates....
Meanwhile, the possibility of picking Kerry and Hagel — two white men — for the two secretary positions could also create pressure on the White House to add gender or racial diversity to the team with its selection of a permanent replacement for David Petraeus as CIA director.
Didn't: Praying For the New CIA Chief
Related:
"Under fire for nominating a series of white men to top posts in recent days, President Obama vowed Monday that his second-term administration would be diverse and urged critics not to ‘‘rush to judgment.’’"
Just not any of the really important jobs.
Among the possible candidates in that case would be Michelle Flournoy or Jane Harman, former representative of California. She currently heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and is a former member of the House Intelligence Committee....
She didn't get the job, and I'll bet it was because of the huff.
--more--"
Related: Cabinet nod could be next for Harvard’s Ashton Carter
Nope.
"Obama makes gun-limit law 2d term priority; Says day of Conn. shooting was worst of his presidency" by Michael Schwirtz and John M. Broder | New York Times, December 31, 2012
Related: Cabinet nod could be next for Harvard’s Ashton Carter
Nope.
"Obama makes gun-limit law 2d term priority; Says day of Conn. shooting was worst of his presidency" by Michael Schwirtz and John M. Broder | New York Times, December 31, 2012
WASHINGTON — During the interview, the president also defended former senator Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who has been mentioned as one of the leading candidates to replace Leon Panetta as defense secretary.
Hagel supported the 2002 resolution approving US military action in Iraq, but later became a critic of the war. He has been denounced by some conservatives for not being a strong enough ally of Israel.
That's all I would need to see before voting aye.
That's all I would need to see before voting aye.
Also, many liberals and gay activists have banded against him for comments he made in 1998 about an openly gay nominee for an ambassadorship.
Obama noted that Hagel had apologized for his 14-year-old remark on gays....
Don't ask, don't tell.
Don't ask, don't tell.
--more--"
"Obama to nominate Hagel as defense chief; Republicans voice concerns on defense pick" by Michael Schwirtz | New York Times, January 07, 2013
NEW YORK — President Obama has selected Chuck Hagel, a former senator from Nebraska, to be his next defense secretary, turning to a prominent Republican to lead the Pentagon as it faces the challenge of winding down the war in Afghanistan and possible reductions in military spending.
But the nomination, which a White House official said would be announced Monday, has already encountered stiff opposition from Republicans and Democrats because of Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran and his comments about an ambassador who was gay.
That's the problem with AmeriKan government right now: the Congress is further under Israeli thumb than the executive. It's AIPAC-occupied territory.
Republicans, in particular, have raised objections to statements by Hagel that they have described as dismissive of Israel and soft on Iran. Hagel once described pro-Israel lobbying groups as the ‘‘Jewish lobby.’’ He has insisted that he is a strong supporter of Israel.
See what happens when you tell the truth?
Speaking on Sunday talk shows, several Republican senators indicated that a stormy confirmation process was all but inevitable.
‘‘His views with regard to Israel, for example, and Iran and all the other positions that he’s taken over the years will be very much a matter of discussion in the confirmation process,’’ Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, said on NBC’s ‘‘Meet the Press.’’
McConnell said he had not decided whether he would support Hagel. ‘‘I think there will be a lot of tough questions for Senator Hagel, but he will be treated fairly by Republicans in the Senate,’’ McConnell said.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said Sunday that he personally liked Hagel but that he was ‘‘out of the mainstream of thinking on most issues regarding foreign policy.’’
That's because the "mainstream" up there is whatever is Israeli policy.
‘‘This is an in-your-face nomination of the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel,’’ Graham said on CNN. ‘‘I don’t know what his management experience is regarding the Pentagon — little if any — so I think it’s an extremely controversial choice.’’
Those sentiments were echoed by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who said Obama was being overly dismissive of criticism about Hagel.
‘‘I think this is a president right now who has drunk the tea,’’ Cruz said on ‘‘Fox News Sunday.’’ “He is feeling very good about himself; he is feeling like there can be no opposition to his position. And so, it doesn’t seem — he doesn’t seem terribly concerned that there’s not a lot of support for Chuck Hagel in the Senate.’’
Cruz said he would probably vote against Hagel’s confirmation.
Hagel, 66, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has also received criticism for opposing several bills to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran.
His supporters point out that he has backed several rounds of sanctions aimed at preventing Iranian weapons proliferation. He also supported the Iran Freedom Support Act in 2006, which, in addition to imposing sanctions, provided funding for human rights and prodemocracy groups in the country....
Coming confirmation battles for Hagel and other Cabinet appointees could open another schism between the White House and Congress. Fierce Republican resistance has already derailed the candidacy of one potential nominee.
Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state after lawmakers threatened to disrupt her nomination over statements made about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Obama instead nominated Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton....
Israel won that one.
Hagel’s candidacy has also raised questions among some liberal groups because of a statement he made 14 years ago about President Bill Clinton’s nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg, James C. Hormel. Hormel, he said, was not qualified because he was ‘‘openly, aggressively gay.’’ Hagel has since apologized.
The president has praised Hagel as a ‘‘patriot,’’ saying nothing in his record would prevent him from serving as defense secretary.
Hagel spent 12 years in the Senate, retiring in 2009 after serving on the Foreign Relations Committee. As senator, he called for trimming the defense budgets and often expressed skepticism about involving US troops in extended missions abroad, particularly without international support.
Though he voted for the resolution allowing President George W. Bush to take military action in Iraq, he was among the most outspoken Republican critics of the war. In 2004, he declared that he had ‘‘no confidence’’ in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s leadership, and he later joined Democrats in opposing Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.
Hagel’s service in Vietnam has helped shape his views on Afghanistan. He has declared that militaries are ‘‘built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations.’’ In a recent interview, he spoke of the need for greater diplomacy as the appropriate path in Afghanistan, noting that ‘‘the American people want out’’ of the war.
Hagel hears us?
Whatever the criticism of Hagel’s views on Israel, perhaps his most pressing concern if confirmed as defense secretary will be the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
This week, Obama is expected to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to discuss the withdrawal set to begin in 2014.
Hagel has indicated that he would be comfortable with quickly drawing down the remaining 66,000 troops as Pentagon officials say the White House desires.
--more--"
"In Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, a wariness of war; Both Cabinet picks draw on Vietnam experiences" by Bryan Bender | Globe Staff, January 08, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s nomination on Monday of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense, coupled with his pick of Senator John F. Kerry for secretary of state, would put two Vietnam veterans known for their cautious approach to the use of military force at the helm of American defense and foreign policy.
I suppose the globalists are a bit better than neo-con Zionists, but not by much. They dovetail together on so many things.
Hagel has come under fire from fellow Republicans for comments about the undue influence of the “Jewish lobby” and what they see as his lukewarm support for Israel and reluctance to support tougher actions against Iran. The stances, along with his 1998 criticism of an openly gay diplomat, have also alarmed some Democrats.
If Hagel survives a nomination fight, the former Republican senator from Nebraska would be working closely with Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, to carry out Obama’s foreign policy....
Hagel voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002 but became the first Republican to break with President George W. Bush and oppose involvement. Kerry, similarly, voted for the use of force but later said that was a mistake based on faulty intelligence about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
It wasn't faulty intelligence because people like me knew beforehand that WMD was a lie.
“We’re locked into a bogged-down problem, not dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam,” Hagel said in the summer of 2005, after more than two years of war. “We should start figuring out how we get out of there.”
It took six years and we still haven't left.
Hagel and Kerry also opposed the Bush administration’s surge of US troops in Iraq in 2007....
The focus of Hagel’s confirmation hearing is likely to be how his world view has shaped his positions on Israel and Iran. His comments about the influence of the “Jewish lobby” and criticisms of Israel have drawn rebukes from both parties, including Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Charles Schumer of New York, who were noncommittal in their support for his nomination Monday.
But the ire over some of Hagel’s previous opposition to gays serving in high government positions — which he has since apologized for — may have ebbed.
“I was hoping the president wouldn’t nominate him,” former representative Barney Frank, the openly gay Newton Democrat who has suggested he be an interim replacement for Kerry, said in an interview.
Related:
"Politically connected Democrats do not believe that Barney Frank, former US representative, who has openly urged Patrick to appoint him, will get the interim Senate job. Patrick and his political advisers have bristled at Frank’s public pursuit of the job."
Sorry, Barney.
“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. In terms of the policy stuff, if he would be rejected [by the Senate], it would be a setback for those things. With the attack coming out of the right, I hope he gets confirmed.”
Ah, the false left-right debate of AmeriKa's political s*** fooleys.
--more--"
"Hagel nomination revives debate over intervention limits" by Jim Rutenberg | New York Times, January 13, 2013
"Obama to nominate Hagel as defense chief; Republicans voice concerns on defense pick" by Michael Schwirtz | New York Times, January 07, 2013
NEW YORK — President Obama has selected Chuck Hagel, a former senator from Nebraska, to be his next defense secretary, turning to a prominent Republican to lead the Pentagon as it faces the challenge of winding down the war in Afghanistan and possible reductions in military spending.
But the nomination, which a White House official said would be announced Monday, has already encountered stiff opposition from Republicans and Democrats because of Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran and his comments about an ambassador who was gay.
That's the problem with AmeriKan government right now: the Congress is further under Israeli thumb than the executive. It's AIPAC-occupied territory.
Republicans, in particular, have raised objections to statements by Hagel that they have described as dismissive of Israel and soft on Iran. Hagel once described pro-Israel lobbying groups as the ‘‘Jewish lobby.’’ He has insisted that he is a strong supporter of Israel.
See what happens when you tell the truth?
Speaking on Sunday talk shows, several Republican senators indicated that a stormy confirmation process was all but inevitable.
‘‘His views with regard to Israel, for example, and Iran and all the other positions that he’s taken over the years will be very much a matter of discussion in the confirmation process,’’ Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, said on NBC’s ‘‘Meet the Press.’’
McConnell said he had not decided whether he would support Hagel. ‘‘I think there will be a lot of tough questions for Senator Hagel, but he will be treated fairly by Republicans in the Senate,’’ McConnell said.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said Sunday that he personally liked Hagel but that he was ‘‘out of the mainstream of thinking on most issues regarding foreign policy.’’
That's because the "mainstream" up there is whatever is Israeli policy.
‘‘This is an in-your-face nomination of the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel,’’ Graham said on CNN. ‘‘I don’t know what his management experience is regarding the Pentagon — little if any — so I think it’s an extremely controversial choice.’’
Those sentiments were echoed by Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, who said Obama was being overly dismissive of criticism about Hagel.
‘‘I think this is a president right now who has drunk the tea,’’ Cruz said on ‘‘Fox News Sunday.’’ “He is feeling very good about himself; he is feeling like there can be no opposition to his position. And so, it doesn’t seem — he doesn’t seem terribly concerned that there’s not a lot of support for Chuck Hagel in the Senate.’’
Cruz said he would probably vote against Hagel’s confirmation.
Hagel, 66, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has also received criticism for opposing several bills to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran.
His supporters point out that he has backed several rounds of sanctions aimed at preventing Iranian weapons proliferation. He also supported the Iran Freedom Support Act in 2006, which, in addition to imposing sanctions, provided funding for human rights and prodemocracy groups in the country....
Coming confirmation battles for Hagel and other Cabinet appointees could open another schism between the White House and Congress. Fierce Republican resistance has already derailed the candidacy of one potential nominee.
Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state after lawmakers threatened to disrupt her nomination over statements made about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
Obama instead nominated Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton....
Israel won that one.
Hagel’s candidacy has also raised questions among some liberal groups because of a statement he made 14 years ago about President Bill Clinton’s nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg, James C. Hormel. Hormel, he said, was not qualified because he was ‘‘openly, aggressively gay.’’ Hagel has since apologized.
The president has praised Hagel as a ‘‘patriot,’’ saying nothing in his record would prevent him from serving as defense secretary.
Hagel spent 12 years in the Senate, retiring in 2009 after serving on the Foreign Relations Committee. As senator, he called for trimming the defense budgets and often expressed skepticism about involving US troops in extended missions abroad, particularly without international support.
Though he voted for the resolution allowing President George W. Bush to take military action in Iraq, he was among the most outspoken Republican critics of the war. In 2004, he declared that he had ‘‘no confidence’’ in Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s leadership, and he later joined Democrats in opposing Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq.
Hagel’s service in Vietnam has helped shape his views on Afghanistan. He has declared that militaries are ‘‘built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations.’’ In a recent interview, he spoke of the need for greater diplomacy as the appropriate path in Afghanistan, noting that ‘‘the American people want out’’ of the war.
Hagel hears us?
Whatever the criticism of Hagel’s views on Israel, perhaps his most pressing concern if confirmed as defense secretary will be the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
This week, Obama is expected to meet with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan to discuss the withdrawal set to begin in 2014.
Hagel has indicated that he would be comfortable with quickly drawing down the remaining 66,000 troops as Pentagon officials say the White House desires.
--more--"
"In Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, a wariness of war; Both Cabinet picks draw on Vietnam experiences" by Bryan Bender | Globe Staff, January 08, 2013
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s nomination on Monday of Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense, coupled with his pick of Senator John F. Kerry for secretary of state, would put two Vietnam veterans known for their cautious approach to the use of military force at the helm of American defense and foreign policy.
I suppose the globalists are a bit better than neo-con Zionists, but not by much. They dovetail together on so many things.
Hagel has come under fire from fellow Republicans for comments about the undue influence of the “Jewish lobby” and what they see as his lukewarm support for Israel and reluctance to support tougher actions against Iran. The stances, along with his 1998 criticism of an openly gay diplomat, have also alarmed some Democrats.
If Hagel survives a nomination fight, the former Republican senator from Nebraska would be working closely with Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat, to carry out Obama’s foreign policy....
Hagel voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2002 but became the first Republican to break with President George W. Bush and oppose involvement. Kerry, similarly, voted for the use of force but later said that was a mistake based on faulty intelligence about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.
It wasn't faulty intelligence because people like me knew beforehand that WMD was a lie.
“We’re locked into a bogged-down problem, not dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam,” Hagel said in the summer of 2005, after more than two years of war. “We should start figuring out how we get out of there.”
It took six years and we still haven't left.
Hagel and Kerry also opposed the Bush administration’s surge of US troops in Iraq in 2007....
The focus of Hagel’s confirmation hearing is likely to be how his world view has shaped his positions on Israel and Iran. His comments about the influence of the “Jewish lobby” and criticisms of Israel have drawn rebukes from both parties, including Democratic Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Charles Schumer of New York, who were noncommittal in their support for his nomination Monday.
But the ire over some of Hagel’s previous opposition to gays serving in high government positions — which he has since apologized for — may have ebbed.
“I was hoping the president wouldn’t nominate him,” former representative Barney Frank, the openly gay Newton Democrat who has suggested he be an interim replacement for Kerry, said in an interview.
Related:
"Politically connected Democrats do not believe that Barney Frank, former US representative, who has openly urged Patrick to appoint him, will get the interim Senate job. Patrick and his political advisers have bristled at Frank’s public pursuit of the job."
Sorry, Barney.
“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. In terms of the policy stuff, if he would be rejected [by the Senate], it would be a setback for those things. With the attack coming out of the right, I hope he gets confirmed.”
Ah, the false left-right debate of AmeriKa's political s*** fooleys.
--more--"
"Hagel nomination revives debate over intervention limits" by Jim Rutenberg | New York Times, January 13, 2013
NEW YORK — In the bitter debate that led up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said that some of his fellow Republicans, in their zest for war, lacked the perspective of veterans like him, who have ‘‘sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.’’
Those Republicans in turn called him an ‘‘appeaser’’ whose cautious geopolitical approach dangerously telegraphed weakness in the post-Sept. 11 world.
The campaign now being waged against Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute.
It is also a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives, whose worldview remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party and in the national debate about the United States’ relationship with Israel and the Middle East.
What debate?
To Hagel’s allies, his presence at the Pentagon would be a very personal repudiation of the interventionist approach to foreign policy championed by the ‘‘Vulcans’’ in the administration of President George W. Bush, who believed in preemptive strikes against potential threats and the promotion of democracy, by military means if necessary.
“This is the neocons’ worst nightmare, because you’ve got a combat soldier, successful businessman, and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force,’’ said Richard L. Armitage, who broke with the more hawkish members of the Bush team during the Iraq war when he was a deputy to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
He leaked Plame's name and wasn't hung out to dry.
William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, who championed the Iraq invasion and is leading the opposition to Hagel’s nomination, says the former senator and his supporters are suffering from ‘‘neoconservative derangement syndrome.’’
You smug pos.
Kristol said he and other like-minded hawks were more concerned about Hagel’s occasional arguments against sanctions (he voted against some in the Senate), what they consider his overcautious attitudes about military action against Iran, and his tougher approach to Israel than they were about his views on Iraq — aside from his outspoken opposition to the US troop surge there that was ultimately deemed successful.
Was it?
“I’d much prefer a secretary of defense who was a more mainstream internationalist — not a guy obsessed by how the United States uses its power and would always err on the side of not intervening,’’ Kristol said.
?????? You are getting a globalist.
Of Hagel and his allies, Kristol said, ‘‘They sort of think we should have just gone away.’’
Yup, me, too.
In fact, the neoconservatives have done anything but disappear. In the years since the war’s messy end, the most hawkish promoters have maintained enormous sway within the Republican Party, holding leading advisory posts in the presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney as their counterparts in the ‘‘realist’’ wing of the party, epitomized by Powell, gravitated toward Barack Obama.
Nothing about the Ron Paul wing.
The most outspoken among them had leading roles in developing the rationale and, in some cases, the plan for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.
As called for by the Project for the New American Century!
Yeah, the need for an AmeriKan presence transcended the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and thus lies were needed to invade and overthrow him.
--more--"
And one of those who helped bring it to you:
"Colin Powell goes to bat for Chuck Hagel" New York Times, January 14, 2013
WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain of Arizona, on CBS’s ‘‘Face the Nation,’’ said Hagel’s early opposition to the troop surge in Iraq was ‘‘bizarre.’’
***************************
Another Republican, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, appeared to open a new front on Sunday against Hagel, saying that he had questions about his ‘‘overall temperament.’’
Corker, who is not on the Armed Services Committee and said that he did not know Hagel well, offered little elaboration. But he said that there were ‘‘numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them.’’
Corker’s comments on ABC’s ‘‘This Week’’ seemed to suggest that he considered Hagel, who has a reputation for speaking his mind, overbearing or erratic.
Until now, Hagel has been criticized mainly for what some lawmakers and interest groups consider his overly cautious attitude toward Iran and his tough approach on Israel. But Powell said that Hagel had shown that it was possible to be ‘‘a good supporter of Israel’’ while still criticizing it.
Hagel’s past reference to ‘‘the Jewish lobby’’ has been widely criticized, and he has apologized for it. His position on Israel, including an openness to negotiations with Hamas, the Palestinian militant group, has drawn pointed criticism from some pro-Israeli groups and from neoconservatives.
Yeah, I can see where he is really pissing off some factions.
Last week, Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, suggested that Hagel had ‘‘some kind of problem with Jews.’’ But the council’s president, Richard N. Haass, said on ‘‘This Week’’ that he had known Hagel for years and that any accusations of anti-Semitism were ‘‘preposterous.’’
********************************
Powell said there was a ‘‘dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the party’’ that must be addressed....
--more--"
Another endorsement:
"Hagel was right on Iraq — and is being punished for it" January 15, 2013
Sometimes, it hurts to be right. Just ask the many skeptics of the Iraq war.
We never received any apology or anything. Never even came to us after so many failures and said "you guys were right, so what should we do now?"
In the face of fears of chemical weapons, and amid patriotic demands for action expressed everywhere from the White House, where President George W. Bush delivered his ultimatums, to suburban carports, where drivers pasted flag decals on their SUVs, some people dared to raise questions. For their courage, many were written off as troublemakers (Army General Eric Shinseki), egotists (French President Jacques Chirac), or myopic bureaucrats (United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix).
And the millions of protesters that filled the streets before the invasion, right, Globe?
It’s surprising that, a decade later, so many of those who accurately predicted the convulsions set off by the war would still be regarded in that same light — as fundamentally off-center in their thinking. One might have assumed that having been proven right would have raised their standing. But not really. While then-backbenchers like Barack Obama, who wasn’t a national figure in 2003, were able to use their opposition to the war to build bases of support, many of those who were in the thick of the national debate are still tarred with disloyalty.
Chuck Hagel is one such case. The former Republican senator from Nebraska raised extremely prescient concerns about the Iraq War — early warnings that should have greatly enhanced his reputation as a strategic thinker. But instead many military hawks regard him with deep suspicion, as if his observations had proven to be dangerously naive. The opposite is the case. Now, as President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary, Hagel is being pilloried by the some of the same Republicans who promoted the war as a relatively cheap, easy path to a peaceful, democratic Iraq.
There may be legitimate policy questions to ask of Hagel at his confirmation hearing — about his suggestions over the years to negotiate with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran — even though there is nothing toxic in his record on those matters. But many of the more serious charges that neoconservatives have levied against him, such as his allegedly insufficient support for Israel, seem overblown precisely as payback for his past stance on Iraq.
Those who question Hagel’s thinking should go back and read the Landon Lecture he delivered at Kansas State University on Feb. 20, 2003, just two weeks before the start of the Iraq war. Hagel had voted in favor of authorizing the use of force to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow weapons inspections and possible disarmament. But he went on to warn in his lecture that “the uncertainties of a post-Saddam, post-conflict Middle East should give us pause, encourage prudence, and force us to recognize the necessity of coalitions in seeing it through.”
Hagel disagreed with the conventional thinking that Iraq was ripe for democracy, urging that postwar policy concentrate first on establishing economic and political stability. “We should put aside the mistaken delusion that democracy is just around the corner,” he declared. And, in the meantime, the United States needed to ramp up the Mideast peace process. “Every day that passes without active American mediation contributes to the radicalization of Palestinians and Arab politics — and the likelihood of greater terrorism visited on Israel,” he predicted.
Almost all of Hagel’s admonitions — and there were many more — proved accurate, which is even more impressive given how few people were giving voice to similar thoughts. As the years went by, his breach with the Bush administration and other Republicans grew larger. His conspicuous failure to endorse his old friend John McCain for president in 2008 understandably ruffled feathers within the GOP.
But when neoconservatives point to Hagel’s opposition to the troop surge in 2007 as proof of his faulty judgment — so faulty as to raise questions about his ability to serve as defense secretary — one can’t help but wonder what they themselves were saying back in 2003, when Hagel delivered the Landon Lecture. If George W. Bush had followed Hagel’s advice, rather than the neocons’, there would have been no need for a troop surge four years later. As a decorated combat veteran, successful cellphone entrepreneur, and two-term senator with a spotless record for integrity, Hagel deserves more respect than he’s getting from his own party.
--more--"
Yeah, Hagel is now a hero to the Boston Globe.
Related: Senators extend support to Hagel for Pentagon’s job
Israel's grip loosening?
"Conservative group runs ads against Chuck Hagel" by Jim Rutenberg | New York Times, January 27, 2013
NEW YORK — A new conservative group calling itself Americans for a Strong Defense and financed by anonymous donors is running advertisements urging Democratic senators in five states to vote against Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense, saying he would make the United States ‘‘a weaker country.’’
Another freshly minted and anonymously backed organization, Use Your Mandate, which presents itself as a liberal gay rights group but purchases its television time through a prominent Republican firm, is attacking Hagel as ‘‘anti-gay,’’ “anti-woman,’’ and ‘‘anti-Israel’’ in ads and mailings.
Those groups are joining at least five others that are organizing to stop Hagel’s confirmation, a goal even they acknowledge appears to be increasingly challenging. But the effort comes with a built-in consolation prize should it fail: depleting some of Obama’s political capital as he embarks on a new term with fresh momentum.
Actually, I would think it would strengthen it. He flipped the finger to Israel on this one.
The media campaign to scuttle Hagel’s appointment, unmatched in the annals of modern presidential Cabinet appointments, reflects the continuing effects of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which loosened campaign finance restrictions and was a major reason for the record spending by outside groups in the 2012 election.
All told, these independent and largely secretly financed groups spent well over $500 million in an attempt to defeat Obama and the Democrats, a failure that seemed all the greater given the huge amounts spent.
While the campaign against Hagel, a Republican, is not expected to cost more than a few million dollars, it suggests that the operatives running the independent groups and the donors that finance them — many of whom are millionaires and billionaires with ideological drive and business agendas that did not go away after the election — are ready to fight again....
Sheldon Adelson is so invested in the fight over Hagel that he has reached out directly to Republican senators to urge them to hold the line against his confirmation, which would be almost impossible to stop with six Republican ‘‘yes’’ votes and a unified Democratic caucus.
Another gambling loss for Adelson?
Another major Republican donor, Foster Friess, said in an interview that he had developed his own skepticism over ‘‘the whole idea of these multimedia ads from 45,000 feet.’’ After last year’s losses, he said, he was devoting most of his resources to an effort he called Left-Right, Left-Right, Forward March, which finds projects liberals and conservatives can support together, such as water purification in developing countries.
Still, he said, ‘‘no one in this effort is going to give up the values that they think are important.’’ For him, that extends to Hagel, whose ‘‘past statements about Israel should be really taken into consideration,’’ Friess said, adding, ‘‘and I would hope they could find a better person to serve in that position.’’
Well, Friess backed Santorum for president, so his judgment of character is called into question.
Whatever its chances of success, the blitz against Hagel is of a sort that has generally been reserved for elections and some Supreme Court nominations. The last major Cabinet skirmish, over President George W. Bush’s nomination of John Bolton as the US ambassador to the United Nations, had no comparable outside media blitz.
Though goaded along by a phone campaign organized by the political action arm of the liberal group MoveOn, Democrats succeeded in blocking him in the Senate, forcing Bush to appoint him during a congressional recess....
Wasn't that unconstitutional?
That was before the Citizens United decision.
‘‘This is the first big Cabinet fight since Bolton,’’ said Michael Goldfarb, a strategist for a conservative group opposed to Hagel called the Emergency Committee for Israel and a founder of a conservative website called The Washington Free Beacon that is running a steady stream of anti-Hagel news articles....
The most mysterious of the new groups is Use Your Mandate. Portraying itself as a gay rights group, it has sent mailings to voters in seven states — including New York, New Jersey, Maryland and Montana — and run television ads against Hagel in New York and Washington.
It has sent out posts on Twitter questioning his gay rights record and asking, ‘‘Is this what we worked so hard for?’’ Established gay rights activists have expressed skepticism about the group’s authenticity.
They know it is a JEWISH FRONT!
It has no website and it only lists as its address a post office box in New York. But paperwork filed with the Federal Communications Commission link it back to Tusk Strategies, a bipartisan political group founded by Bradley Tusk, a former strategist for Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York.
Told ya'!
In an interview, Tusk would identify its financiers only as Democratic ‘‘gay and LGBT people who have been active in campaigns around the country.’’
Yet federal records show that Use Your Mandate uses Del Cielo Media, an arm of one of the most prominent Republican ad-buying firms in the country, Smart Media.
The firm’s clients have included the presidential campaigns of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the 2010 Senate campaign of Christine O’Donnell — who was known for positions against homosexuality — and the Emergency Committee for Israel.
--more--"
Also see: Chuck Hagel will too set policy
Ex-senators Nunn, Warner set to speak for Hagel at hearing
Others say Hagel stole his Senate seat?
