Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 139

Thread: Obama expected to nominate Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense

  1. #1
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Obama expected to nominate Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense

    This is fairly huge IMO.

    Obama expected to nominate Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense
    By David S. Cloud and Brian Bennett

    January 4, 2013, 2:06 p.m.
    WASHINGTON ó President Obama is expected to nominate Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be secretary of Defense, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of his views on Israel and Iran.

    White House officials said Friday afternoon that the president hadnít formally offered the job to Hagel, but others familiar with the process said that the announcement could come as soon as Monday

    More at source

  2. #2
    Sit Nomine Digna
    Carjosse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,152

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    Is he going to haggle over Hagel?

  3. #3
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,127

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    will AIPAC allow this to happen?
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  4. #4
    Professor

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,276

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    will AIPAC allow this to happen?
    They won't be happy but perhaps they feel they may have to give in on this one:

    "One of the most extraordinary dramas of the modern presidency, the Floating of Chuck Hagel, in which a fundamental question of the People versus A Special Interest was debated in the media thanks to White House leaks...

    "Neoconservative Ari Fleischer is angrily resigned to it: When Obama names Hagel, I hope there's a table in the room so we can see if there is anything on it.

    "Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post says the appointment is a move to the left ... Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian agrees, calling the likely appointment one of the boldest moves of the Obama presidency. And he urges liberals to join realists to smash the Israel lobby...

    "Jim Lobe ... says that AIPAC will read the writing on the wall-- Senate confirmation of a decorated war hero (Steve Walt's describes Hagel as such in talking to Lobe)-- and understand that it could lose considerable political capital if it takes the battle on."


    Hagel looms ó will AIPAC dare to take him on?
    We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq.

    Benjamin Netanyahu, as quoted in Ma'ariv, 16 April, 2008

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,007

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    Hagel isnt qualified. But we'll never get to that because the media has already framed the debate around Israel.

  6. #6
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    I'm surprised Obama nominated him, but hope he gets the nod!

  7. #7
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    On the foreign policy perspective, former Senator Hagel falls somewhere between a pacifist and Realist. I'm not concerned that he is not a neoconservative and would oppose intervention in civil conflicts such as Syria or other humanitarian military interventions. My concern is that he might not recognize the value power can offer and the importance of the balance of power in promoting stability/safeguarding American interests and allies. I need to hear more about that at any Senate confirmation hearings, should he be nominated for Defense Secretary.

    On the Palestinian-Israeli issue, Haaretz has a piece on Hagel. Excerpts from that piece:

    ...he endorses the “Clinton Parameters” enunciated by former President Bill Clinton following the 2000 Camp David summit, saying that these “represent the most comprehensive, detailed and practical plan to date for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement and a two-state solution.”

    “The Israeli people must be free to live in peace and security,” Hagel wrote in his book. “Similarly, the Palestinian people must also have the same right to live in peace in Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital and with the same hope for a prosperous future.”


    Hagel: Israel's Jewish identity is non-negotiable issue in any Mideast dealIsrael News - Haaretz Israeli News source.

    I believe that the Clinton parameters were reasonable and generous. The Palestinian side made a strategic blunder in failing to accept them after Israel had embraced them.

    On the issue of East Jerusalem, that is a final status issue. Its status will be determined in negotiations. I don't subscribe to the idea that it must automatically be given to the Palestinians and, on that matter, I disagree with Hagel.

    As for bilateral negotiations with Iran, something Senator Hagel has advocated, the U.S. and Iran may already be engaged unofficially in such discussions. Last November, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote, "The United States and Iran are apparently conducting bilateral negotiations through official or semiofficial emissaries — a departure from the previous procedure of multilateral talks." What's most important is not the process--and bilateral negotiations might lend a sense of gravity and clarity to the issue--but the outcome. The U.S. position that Iran must not become a nuclear-armed power should be the end goal of any diplomatic process, given the balance-of-power implications of such a development. The U.S. should have a strategy in place should negotiations fail. Given the Afghanistan and Iraq experience, my worry is that a robust strategy is not available. General ideas about targeting absent a big picture assessment of what would be achieved and responses to alternative scenarios e.g., Iranian retaliation directly and/or through proxies, don't cut it.

    As for Afghanistan, the U.S. strategy has been inherently flawed since the war was launched back in 2001. The Kabul/Karzai-centric approach has led to impaired progress. Tactical changes e.g., troop surges notwithstanding, that underlying Kabul/Karzai-centric approach has not been changed. The muddled outcomes are no surprise. The unreliable, unsteady, and crony regime in Kabul is part of the reason the Taliban maintains more than a degree of support in that country. It's a big part of the reason the country remains unstable.

    Finally, the largest national security issues today include Iran's nuclear activities, China's evolution and the balance of power in Asia (policy emphasis on helping assure that the evolution is not a disruptive one, as China will become a great power regardless, but it need not be a Cold War-era type foe), the winding down of the Afghanistan intervention, and continuing North Korean provocations. The Pentagon will undoubtedly have input, but the Pentagon alone cannot be the lead or sole policy architect.

    The Palestinian-Israeli dispute does not rank as high nor as urgent as the matters I laid out. It is a fallacy to suggest that a Palestinian-Israeli settlement would bring stability and prosperity to the Middle East. Very little beyond the two countries would change. The same sectarian and religious rivalries that hobble Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq would persist. Moreover, the diplomatic strategy involved in managing that dispute and overall foreign policy approach is largely a matter properly outside the Pentagon's area of responsibility. IMO, it would be a mistake for the Obama Administration to make the Palestinian-Israeli dispute the centerpiece of its foreign policy effort.

    Overall, I reserve judgment on Senator Hagel. I'll be interested in seeing what he says during confirmation hearings, if nominated. If he demonstrates an understanding of the importance of the balance of power and can credibly indicate that he would put his responsibilities in implementing U.S. policy ahead of his personal preferences in areas in which they might conflict, then I would not object to his confirmation. If, however, he discounts the balance of power and displays little indication of such a capability to surmount his personal preferences, then I would hope that the Senate would not confirm him.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    Yeah I had this up earlier.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-par...post1061328240

    Hopefully a mod can merge them.

  9. #9
    Educator
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    02-08-13 @ 10:14 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    843

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    will AIPAC allow this to happen?
    It is a tough spot. If they don’t (this all assuming they actually have an effective veto) it would only serve to add validation to Hagel’s assertion about “The political reality is … that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here”.

    I personally expect he will get a rougher ride for one of the main reason that I suspect Obama is bringing him in. He thinks poorly of war (due in large part to his personal experiences on the battlefield) and he thinks the Pentagon’s budget needs down-sizing.
    Last edited by Dwight; 01-07-13 at 03:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,007

    Re: Hagel for SOD

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwight View Post
    It is a tough spot. If they don’t (this all assuming they actually have an effective veto) it would only serve to add validation to Hagel’s assertion about “The political reality is … that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here”.

    I personally expect he will get a rougher ride for one of the main reason that I suspect Obama is bringing him in. He thinks poorly of war (due in large part to his personal experiences on the battlefield) and he thinks the Pentagon’s budget needs down-sizing.
    Which seems like a bad thing to have in someone who will be advising the President on defense policy. We dont need someone with partisan or personal politics in that position. Pulling someone from within the dept would have been a better choice.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •