• 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

clownboy

DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
26,087
Reaction score
10,860
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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 — 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 hadn’t 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
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Is he going to haggle over Hagel?
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

will AIPAC allow this to happen?
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

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 — will AIPAC dare to take him on?
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

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

I'm surprised Obama nominated him, but hope he gets the nod!
 
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.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Yeah I had this up earlier.
includeme.gif


http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...k-hagel-secretary-defense.html#post1061328240

Hopefully a mod can merge them. :shrug:
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

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:
Re: Hagel for SOD

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.
 
This is fairly huge IMO.

IMHO, not that huge. What is huge is the nomination of Brennan, who under George Bush, supported torture and wiretapping. As I have said all along, Obama is Bush on steroids, and half the crap he is doing to America is unconstitutional. But not a peep from the same Democrats who were extremely vocal during the Bush administration over the same crap. To me, THIS is what is huge, and defines hypocrisy. Their mantra is "It's OK to spy on Americans, and do all kinds of other BS, as long as it is MY political party doing it".
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

They won't be happy but perhaps they feel they may have to give in on this one:

If AIPAC is unhappy about Hagel, it can just order Congress to reject him.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

If the Republicans and Democrats alike hate him, then he must be doing something right. He's had some less-than-strong wording choices in his time (Jewish lobby and "openly, aggressively gay), but the man's as solid a choice as any. I wouldn't fault him for calling on Israel to negotiate with Palestine; they really do need to stop treating the Palestinians as second-class human beings, and I agree with his call for negotiations with Iran. I, personally, believe we will not deter an Iranian nuclear armament program by estranging them from the world; if Iran feels backed into a corner, as they have been by our sanctions and threats, they're more likely to engage in a brash action. By opening up diplomatic and cultural exchange, we'll show the Iranian people that America isn't an imperialistic "evil empire," and they'll be more likely to rise up against the government on their own.

Additionally, the man is not only a veteran, but a war veteran and enlisted man; he, unlike former generals, will understand the needs of our soldiers and veterans. He's a solid choice, even though I disagree with his social policies; he's possibly the Secretary of Defense, not the Speaker of the House. His social policies don't matter.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Which seems like a bad thing to have in someone who will be advising the President on defense policy.
They are decidedly good things to have in a candidate if you are interested in enacting overall policy that includes deficit reduction, and not pissing away this country’s wealth on unnecessary war.

You have a job to do, which person are you going to put in place to get it down; “I see no way that can be done” or “I have a vision for how that can be accomplished”?
We don’t need someone with partisan or personal politics in that position.
For crying out loud he is a Republican, or is your dictionary at the cleaners? Further, you want someone without any opinion?
Pulling someone from within the dept would have been a better choice.
Because everyone in the DoD is a yes-man toady that has no opinion or “personal politics”?
:roll:
 
Last edited:
Re: Hagel for SOD

He's a solid choice, even though I disagree with his social policies; he's possibly the Secretary of Defense, not the Speaker of the House. His social policies don't matter.
Given the current changes occurring with military rules regarding homosexuality, I do think the matter does have some relevance. But it isn’t like he is a card carrying member of the Westboro Baptist Church…or made those particular comments during this century. *shrug*
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

They are decidedly good things to have in a candidate if you are interested in enacting overall policy that includes deficit reduction, and not pissing away this country’s wealth on unnecessary war.

You have a job to do, which person are you going to put in place to get it down; “I see no way that can be done” or “I have a vision for how that can be accomplished”?

For crying out loud he is a Republican, or is your dictionary at the cleaners? Further, you want someone without any opinion?

Because everyone in the DoD is a yes-man toady that has no opinion or “personal politics”?
:roll:

I dont do split quotes. :2wave:
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

I dont do split quotes. :2wave:
Congratulations!

That and NOT posting nonsense will get you a cookie! Sadly, at this point you are going to have to go entirely cookie-less…for the reasons I clearly laid out above.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

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.
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.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Given the current changes occurring with military rules regarding homosexuality, I do think the matter does have some relevance. But it isn’t like he is a card carrying member of the Westboro Baptist Church…or made those particular comments during this century. *shrug*
Yeah, his stance of homosexuality will have no effect on current policies. Can anyone really imagine a scenario where DADT or something even more strict is instituted? Me either.
 
I am not sure if there are better people for the job, but I have no problem with his nomination. SecDef's job is not to determine foreign policy, so most of that stuff in his record I could not care less about. I have always sided with the idea that unless some one is clearly unqualified, or has legal issues(see Geithner), then it is the presidents choice. Congress is there to protect against those 2 issues.
 
I am not sure if there are better people for the job, but I have no problem with his nomination. SecDef's job is not to determine foreign policy, so most of that stuff in his record I could not care less about. I have always sided with the idea that unless some one is clearly unqualified, or has legal issues(see Geithner), then it is the presidents choice. Congress is there to protect against those 2 issues.
Yes, and Congress does a wonderful job in all of it's other duties as well lol.:peace
 
I am not sure if there are better people for the job, but I have no problem with his nomination. SecDef's job is not to determine foreign policy, so most of that stuff in his record I could not care less about. I have always sided with the idea that unless some one is clearly unqualified, or has legal issues(see Geithner), then it is the presidents choice. Congress is there to protect against those 2 issues.

Further, and on a serious note, I understand that the SecDef doesn't determine foreign policy. However, I do think Sen Hagel will have impact upon it.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Congratulations!

That and NOT posting nonsense will get you a cookie! Sadly, at this point you are going to have to go entirely cookie-less…for the reasons I clearly laid out above.

Lay them out in context, and I will. Im not interested in reading your rhetoric and rolleyes.
 
Re: Hagel for SOD

Lay them out in context, and I will.
My comments are in context. It is laid out as such to help the read identify which parts are talking about which sections of your post.
Im not interested in reading your rhetoric and rolleyes.
Then either skip the parts that offend your senses or stop saying stupid ****. Either one will get you the results.

— Purposefully ribbed for your reading pleasure. Don’t like it split into sections? Here is trick to fix that; Tap the Reply With Quote button and all my text comes together so you can read it as a bigass blob. So stop your whining already. :2razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom