• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama expected to nominate Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense

Re: Hagel for SOD

Veritas said:
Hagel is a good choice. He was an infantrymen in Vietnam and he seems to understand the implication of sending people off to war.

The only reason that people are really opposing his nomination is because he failed their litmus test for unconditional support for Israel. Believe it or not, the U.S. isn't supposed to be Israel's puppet.
Click to expand...

That is the only reason you chose to focus on. One can only wonder why. He was against the surge in Iraq that seemed to work, calling it the worst blunder in decades. When the current defense secretary said the sequester cuts would be very harmfil, Hagel disagreed and said the pentagon was bloated. Not sure that these are anti-Israel issues or as hagel ( and perhaps you) call the "Jewish Lobby".
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Veritas said:
Hagel is a good choice. He was an infantrymen in Vietnam and he seems to understand the implication of sending people off to war.

The only reason that people are really opposing his nomination is because he failed their litmus test for unconditional support for Israel. Believe it or not, the U.S. isn't supposed to be Israel's puppet.
Click to expand...

Course there was his remarks over Syria, and Iran too. But then if Hagel wasn't worried about it.....then why is he calling Republican Senators to try and assure them of himself? As that was brought out by several Senators Aides.
 
Fiddytree said:
No, it wouldn't. It would bolster them. Hagel would only bring the issue once more to the forefront, make the Republicans look like those who cannot support bi-partisanship, and the White House would pick another moment to play on divisions in the future (it's what I would do if I were him). You can't expect for the White House to deal with Hagel's hypothetical rebuttal to the President by saying, "well, damn..I guess we can't try to alienate moderate Republicans from the rest of the Party to get some legislation through...or trash the Party for being extreme." Hagel doesn't get the last word on the next four years.
Click to expand...

Well there is no getting around that the Republicans will need Moderates. But still they need to stop Obama from exploiting their divisions. Moreover now that Obama has got his victory lap. Time for reality to set in.....he has to work with Republicans. Which means telling all it is his way or the highway.....isn't going to work. Because we know we can turn that lame duck into a carrier pigeon. Which he wouldn't like!

Still this pick and Lew, plus the Gun play shows the distraction from the real issue.
 
MMC said:
Well there is no getting around that the Republicans will need Moderates. But still they need to stop Obama from exploiting their divisions. Moreover now that Obama has got his victory lap. Time for reality to set in.....he has to work with Republicans. Which means telling all it is his way or the highway.....isn't going to work. Because we know we can turn that lame duck into a carrier pigeon. Which he wouldn't like!

Still this pick and Lew, plus the Gun play shows the distraction from the real issue.
Click to expand...

The real issue is what? Budgetary concerns regarding social programs?

I thought this was about Secretary of Defense, which is the real issue.
 
Fiddytree said:
The real issue is what? Budgetary concerns regarding social programs?

I thought this was about Secretary of Defense, which is the real issue.
Click to expand...

I never said it wasn't a real issue. But we do know that most Presidents get to pick their own Cabinet members. Most are usually confirmed. So when I was speaking of Obama defecting with issues I was talking political strategy that was being implemented. Tho myself I would have thought just about any Neo-Con would know such.

Myself I would think any that eases tensions with diplomatic relations would be the common sense call. Not someone that adds more fuel to the fire. But then again there is logic which should have dictated the course.
 
MMC said:
Yeah it's common sense to pick someone who also has some difficulties with Israel.
Click to expand...

I suspect AIPAC "convinced" Obama to nominate Hagel so that Netanyahu would have the leverage he needs to convince the Israeli public that the US will not attack Iran, and therefore, Netanyahu must do so.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer is meeting with Hagel to demand that he grovel before Israel.

As Chuck Schumer goes, so goes Chuck Hagel
 
Alan Hart is a British author and journalist with over 30 years experience reporting on the Mid East conflict and was the first Western journalist to arrive at the Suez with the advancing Israelis in the Six Day War.


"As I write it looks as though the Zionist lobby realises that it overplayed its hand in smearing Chuck Hagel in the hope of causing President Obama to back off nominating him for the post defense secretary. The implication is not that the lobby’s stooges in the Senate will refrain from giving Hagel a hard time at his confirmation hearing, but that they will not risk, at least for a while, further public exposure as Israel Firsters by causing the nomination to be rejected ...

"My guess is that Obama will content himself with the thought that Israel is becoming more and more of a pariah state because of its own actions and that Zionism is on the road to self-destruction ... In my view there is a very strong possibility, even a probability, that if a second-term President Obama did turn some real heat on Israel to back a demand that it end its defiance of international law and its occupation of the West Bank and its siege of the Gaza Strip, its leaders would say to him, “Go to hell!” There would also be a possibility that they would demonstrate their fury and teach him a lesson by creating some havoc in the region. What do I mean?

"When President Carter worked with the Soviet Union to produce a joint superpower declaration of principles on the way to peace, all Arab governments and Arafat’s PLO agreed to co-operate, only Israel rejected this superpower initiative. Prime Minister Begin sent his foreign minister, General Moshe Dayan, to Washington for a conversation with Carter. Very shortly after it, the joint US-Soviet Declaration was torn up and replaced with a new memorandum of US-Israel understanding. What happened? Dayan said to Carter: “Mr. President, you must understand that my prime minister is mad. If you push him too far he could bomb the Arab oil wells.” (If Obama did put real pressure on Israel, it’s not impossible that Netanyahu would send his foreign minister to Washington to say to the president: “You must understand that my prime minister is crazy. If you push him too far he could bomb Iran.”)"

A significant defeat for the Zionist lobby?
 
shanners said:
I suspect AIPAC "convinced" Obama to nominate Hagel so that Netanyahu would have the leverage he needs to convince the Israeli public that the US will not attack Iran, and therefore, Netanyahu must do so.

Meanwhile, Chuck Schumer is meeting with Hagel to demand that he grovel before Israel.

As Chuck Schumer goes, so goes Chuck Hagel
Click to expand...

Myself.....I believe the pick was made to play on the Divisions within the Republican Ranks. Specially between Neo-Cons and moderates. Moreover that Obama knows there are others more qualified for that position than Hagel is. Which has to do with Obama's agenda and nothing to with Netanyahu or if Israel goes after Iran. As Obama looks to his 2014 Elections.

That this is more of Obama putting on the show with the bipartisan ship.....just like he did the first time round.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Bodhisattva said:
It isn't true... that's why.
Click to expand...

Not sure what he exactly said, but AIPEC always struck me as a pretty powerful lobby. But at the end of the day they are still just lobbyists, just ones that are extremely good at what they do
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Dr. Chuckles said:
Not sure what he exactly said, but AIPEC always struck me as a pretty powerful lobby. But at the end of the day they are still just lobbyists, just ones that are extremely good at what they do
Click to expand...

Special Interest Groups and Lobbying is one of the two or three core problems with America and it is only getting worse.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Six reasons why Jewish groups don't like Chucky:


"1. Hagel was very critical of president George Bush (pro-Israel) foreign policy.

2. Hagel doesn’t agree with Washington, Ottawa and Tel Aviv that Lebanese Hizballah is a terrorist group. He agrees with European Union that there is no valid evidence to prove that Hizballah is involved in terrorism. The group uses its arms to defend its country from Israeli aggression.

3. In 2006, realizing that Jewish army could not defeat Hizballah fighters, as a friend of Israel, Hagel called both parties to stop fighting. However, he made a mistake to censor Israel by saying that Israeli was destroying an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon.

4. Hagel’s greatest sin is, he has voted against designating Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and also voted against Iran sanctions.

5. Hagel has supported reduction in military spending and recalling all US forces from Afghanistan.

6. Hagel is chairman of the Atlantic Council. On December 11, 2012 – the group’s website posted an article, titled Israel’s Apartheid Policy."


Jews against Chuck Hagel
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

We have a ****ing hearing on this guy today, and comment or threads? Am I missing something???
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

jonny5 said:
Hagel isnt qualified. But we'll never get to that because the media has already framed the debate around Israel.
Click to expand...

Decorated enlisted Vietnam Veteran...

While serving during the war, he received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, two Purple Hearts, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.​

Successful businessman and a two term Republican senator that sat on...


Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee on African Affairs
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection (Ranking Member)​
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance and Investment
Subcommittee on Financial Institutions (Ranking Member)
Subcommittee on Housing, Transportation, and Community Development​
Select Committee on Intelligence
Committee on Rules and Administration​


Other than a ringing endorsement from right-wing punditry land, exactly what qualifications where you looking for?
 
Last edited:
Re: Hagel for SOD

Hagel's hearing went over like a fart in church. he looked lost, ill-prepared, flustered, and incompetent.

Looks like he's toast but we'll see...
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

MarineTpartier said:
I think this may be one of the Pres Obama's best decisions. I fully support Hagel as the nominee for SecDef. That establishment neocons are opposing it so vehemently only furthers my support. I really hope he is voted in. I think it would be great for us. By us I mean servicemembers. The past 2 SecDef's we've had have been either a neocon themselves (Gates) or a wimp (Panetta). I will be writing a letter to my Senator urging him to vote in favor of Hagel.
Click to expand...

I think liberals like me and conservatives like you could actually get a lot of good **** done.
 
MMC said:
Yeah.....Obama had difficulties with Israel these last 2 years, so it's common sense to pick someone who also has some difficulties with Israel. That will help with negotiations and smoothing anything over and everything over. Someone that Israelis have a real High Respect for. Yep nothing like some good ole common sense....huh?
rolleyes.png
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't have problems with Israel. Stop watching Fox News.


AIPAC isn't even a lobby for Israel. It's a lobby for the far right wing Israeli Likud Party. Israel is quite a bit more than the one political party. **** the Likud party and screw AIPAC.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

American said:
Hagel: Iran Has ‘Elected, Legitimate’ Government | Washington Free Beacon

Five things Chuck Hagel may be asked about - CNN.com

What a ****ing joke, this is all we get from CNN. The Secretary of Defense confirmation hearings and this is it??? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Previously, even as I disagreed with some of the positions Senator Hagel publicly took regarding bilateral U.S.-Israel relations, among others, I reserved judgment on his nomination. Even as I don't object to his willingness to leave history to judge the Iraq troop surge or even his basic view that the U.S. should not have gone to war in Iraq as disqualifying him, I was struck by how unprepared for the job he seemed to be. On Afghanistan, which is one of the more prominent issues he will face as Defense Secretary, he claimed not to be sufficiently informed to make troop level judgments. After all the briefings he has had since receiving the nomination, he is not sufficiently informed? I find that troubling. One would expect that a candidate for a Cabinet post would make it a priority to be reasonably informed on the biggest issues he/she would have to deal with. Almost certainly, he has received sufficient information, but is unable at this time to evaluate the alternative choices and, thus, can't suggest one over another.

As I've frequently noted, U.S. strategic planning has been weak. Senator Hagel should have a good idea based on present circumstances and likely contingencies how he would respond. Waiting to come up with an idea when 2014 has arrived is far too late.

In the larger context, he also failed to convincingly articulate the importance of the balance of power in promoting international stability and security/safeguarding U.S. interests, as well as the role the U.S. should play in maintaining that balance. Even as he will be responsible for carrying out the President's policies, one would expect that he would be able to provide concrete advice in helping shape those policies. His inability to provide a clear guiding framework and his unpreparedness on at least one of the major issues he will have to deal with, and quite imminently given the timeline in place, I am not convinced he is ready to provide such advice at this time.

Given the critical role of the Defense Secretary, I believe the nation needs someone who can immediately step into the position. Based on today's performance, Senator Hagel appears to need time to learn on the job.

In short, I don't believe he is sufficiently prepared for the position. Given that situation, I cannot support his confirmation. He might well be confirmed, but I believe the President could find a better candidate to fill the position and that the nation would be better served from his doing so.
 
poweRob said:
Obama doesn't have problems with Israel. Stop watching Fox News.


AIPAC isn't even a lobby for Israel. It's a lobby for the far right wing Israeli Likud Party. Israel is quite a bit more than the one political party. **** the Likud party and screw AIPAC.
Click to expand...


Well.....lets put it this way. Obama's performance with Israel hasn't been par for the Course. Did you forget the episode with Sarkosy and Netanyahu?

Moreover the real issue with Hagel is.....he is completely out of the box when it comes to those in the Senate. So the question is why would Obama pick one that rarily was ever on Board with what most of the Senate was. Let alone be on board with most of Congress and the White House.
 
He went through a total beatdown yesterday. I've never seen anything like it.
 
American said:
He went through a total beatdown yesterday. I've never seen anything like it.
Click to expand...

Rubio says he isn't voting in Favor.....plus Santorum had made a push to block Hagel by getting up a Website that would send the peoples thoughts Directly to those on the Committee.
 
American said:
He went through a total beatdown yesterday. I've never seen anything like it.
Click to expand...

missed the part where he was beaten
would you please point it out
 
justabubba said:
missed the part where he was beaten
would you please point it out
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't see any of the coverage. Just go online and watch it.
 
American said:
I guess you didn't see any of the coverage. Just go online and watch it.
Click to expand...

i did
hagel held his own against the other republicans

i thought lindsey graham was going to hit him with his pocketbook when hagel refused to agree to change his position on israel


... so i can only conclude the part where lindsey was beat down as the portion of the hearing that fascinated you
 
American said:
He went through a total beatdown yesterday. I've never seen anything
like it.
Click to expand...

Hagel deserved every bit of it and then some.

His response to his own words being played before him ?

He denied his sentiment. Your typical politician under questioning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom