There must be something good.

The "enemy of enemy is my friend" doctrine is a morally bankrupt diplomatic practice that has put the U.S. in bed with mass murderers for going on a century.

Nothing, except that now he is being nominated by a Democrat. That's the only difference.

There is no upside to Hegel. The only difference is that now those of us on the left are supposed to embrace him because he is being opposed by the Republicans. I refuse to do that. I have never liked him, and I am very angry that Obama now supports him for this position.

-Laelth

1) The vast majority of Americans will not see any of his testimony and so they will not find him "evasive". I watched most of his testimony and did not find him evasive. I did laugh out loud listening to McCain and Graham, two Iraq war cheerleaders, lecturing America on military policy. That was fun.

2) What the American people will hear is that Obama nominated a Republican, and the current group of crackpot Republicans, flipped out and tried to destroy Hagel simply because Obama picked him. That, and they might also learn that Israel is apparently the only other country on the planet that matters to the crackpots Republicans.

The Pentagon needs a surgical strike, and he's the right guy to do it. He has the management experience and as a Republican veteran they won't be able to undermine him with the usual insinuations. The reason why he's being attacked right now is because they know what's coming and they're trying to make him gun-shy. Doubt that'll work.

It was a stupid choice.

experience on the national stage with defense and war matters. Who agree with Obama that the defense budget is way overblown, and waging wars is not something that should be entered into except as a last resort.

I can't think of any, except Kerry. But if you know of some, let's hear them.

Besides, having Hagel takes away the Republicans' "wimpy Democrats" attack line, when the budget is cut and we don't bomb-bomb Iran.

And if he voted for the stupidest, most illegal war this nation has ever waged, what makes you think he'd not do the same for Iran?
He voted for the Iraq War. When actually faced with war or peace, he went with war, Shock and Awe and that is his actual record.
Did you also support the invasion of Iraq?

And Hillary Clinton. And Dick Durbin. And every other Democrat except for Barbara Boxer. That's how.

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

Also 1 Independent, Mr Jeffers. And 1 Republican, not Hagel, but Lincoln Chafee.

Get your basic facts in order before attempting to answer my question with a freaking question.

nfm

I'll not paste that long long list here as it might seem rude to those who are claiming all Democrats voted YES....in the House 82 Democrats were Yes votes, 126 were No votes.
http://voteview.com/gulfwar.htm

It amazes me that folks who do not even know how our Party's officials votes are demanding lists of names!

It amazes me that some folks don't know the difference between Senators and House Reps.

But you've missed the point completely - JOHN KERRY who will be SoS, and outgoing SoS Hillary Clinton BOTH voted for the IWR. Were and are you against their taking the SoS position? Or is it okay because they're Democrats?

You:J"...John Kerry voted YES on invading Iraq. And every other Democrat except for Barbara Boxer."
To which I replied above:
"You are wrong about that. 21 Democratic Senators voted NO in invading Iraq. 21. Not just Boxer.

Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).

Also 1 Independent, Mr Jeffers. And 1 Republican, not Hagel, but Lincoln Chafee.


So now I have shown you how wrong you were about the Senate Democratic roll call on the IWR twice. Because you did not bother to read not address the correction of your false statement about 21 good, courageous Democrats who voted NO. Boxer was among them, of course. One of 21 Democrats to vote NO.
Those 21 Democrats did the right thing. I am sorry that fact is disturbing your screed.

I will cut the fuck out of the DoD - 2/3 of their budget, and solve the deficit & national debt.

And then I will be assassinated.

Chris Dodd. How many names do you want? Hagel was a stupid choice and does nothing but further the meme that Democrats are so soft on defense we had to pick a pub. Disgusting.

If someone didn't follow the two months of smears that came beforehand, they wouldn't understand what happened yesterday. He wasn't inept at all. He said what he needed to say, and avoided saying what would have hurt him or Obama.

Hagel was selected because Obama thinks he'd make the best Sec. of Defense in his administration, which must mean that they are on the same board when it comes to philosophy and goals, etc.

There's probably not that many Democrats who are battle hardened, war heroes, with national foreign policy and defense experience, all of which are huge pluses for being Sec of Defense, esp when you're going to cut the defense budget.

The Republicans know this...that having Hagel as Sec of Defense takes away the "wimpy Democrats" attack, when the budget is cut and wars are not waged. So they're doing their best to destroy Hagel at this stage.

was a thumb in the eye to the Nebraska GOP. There is some sort of military scandal associated with Kerrey, IIRC, plus he hasn't been in the military or foreign policy/intelligence loop for many years.

The focus on the military over the next four years will be to downsize it. Firstly by bringing troops home from Afghanistan and then cutting back on a very bloated defense budget (along with a lot of corporate welfare attached to it). Hagel's job will be to chose which cuts are made and when...reign in a military that's spending has skyrocketed since 9/11. Being a republican he offers the bipartisan card to the administration when it comes to the heavy lifting ahead; inoculating Democrats from being "weak on defense".

Despite his ruffing up, Hagel still has some rushpublican friends and I suspect he'll be confirmed with at least 65 votes. Don't let Gramps and teabagger showboating distract. While I can understand the "concern" over not picking a Democrat for this post, Hagel's views on the military have been very much aligned with this administration and many "mainstream" Democrats.

General Wes Clark would send the same message.

doesn't feel like Obama ever warmed up to him though, does it ? Surely his backing of Hillary
wouldn't be the cause.

Obama developed a personal relationship with Hagel while he was in the senate, perhaps he and Clark just never really had the chance to
do so. I am beginning to think that Hagel is an excellent choice, based on his enemies.

I already count not going to war with Iran as a plus of having Obama as president. Hagel doesn't get credit for that.

strong influence on the ultimate decision made, witness the restraining power that Gates exercised over Bush.

Hagel, like Gates and Panetta before him, would be a necessary counterweight to more hawkish and neocon-tinged voices within the Obama Administration.

suggests that he was either complicit or too daft to avoid being duped.
What is any more hawkish than supporting a war of choice based on faulty and laughable 'intelligence'?
Did you personally support the invasion of Iraq along with Hagel? I was opposed to it because it was clearly a set up and a losing proposition. Hagel voted to let bin Laden go while we went after nonexistent WMD. Was that a 'counterweight'?
23 of his fellow Senators voted NO on the IWR. Hagel voted yes along with every Republican save Chafee.
Do you always think it is wise to reward failure with promotion?

was against it from the start, it would be great, IMHO.

criticized her for making that same vote. There are people on DU who called her a war monger who say that the same vote makes Hagel a dove. Her yes vote was a huge factor in her loss of the nomination, it was a key subject of discussion. Now that vote is framed for Hagel as a wise vote, he said 'war' but he meant peace! She said war and she meant war!
While that form of argument is not Hagel's fault, it sure frames his supporters in my eyes, particularly the ones who castigated others for that vote.

negotiated outcome in Syria.

I am willing to forgive those who admit they were duped in signing the Iraq authorization provided they have clearly learned from the experience. Particularly, those such as Hagel, who are dubious of ratcheting up further tensions with Iran and its regional allies.

And he did not 'sign the resolution' he voted, as US Senator, to give GW Bush power to invade Iraq at will.

"I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them."

Yes, as Hagel says there were 23 Senators who had better judgement than he did that day. Some of Hagel's supporters like to claim that only Boxer voted against IWR and it is (and I mean this) a good thing that Hagel admits that others were not duped. I've had to make that point to his supporters again and again. At least Chuck knows that he was not correct AND that others were. At least he admits it.

In Corn's view, Hagel said much the same thing as his fellow skeptic Kerry when both voted for the IRW despite their well-founded concerns that the Bush Admin casus belli didn't hold water. Like Kerry, Hagel hoped that the IRW had enough "wiggle room' so that another vote would become necessary and both would vote for or against on the basis of any additional WMD evidence the Bush White House was able to present. But, instead, Bush went ahead straight-away with the invasion several months later. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hagel-hearing-defense-secretary-iraq-war

23 of his fellow Senators, including one Republican, were not so easily persuaded by the intellectual vigor of GW Bush.
It is an interesting choice the nation is making, and a hell of a lesson to our youth. We reward the most horrid of failures, the makers of the worst possible mistakes while we ignore those who were correct and courageous when times called for courage and discernment.
Would you say this would be a good way to run schools? If you are wrong, you get an A and you skip to the next grade, if you are correct you are castigated, then shunted aside to make room for those who were wrong?
That's how Wall Street runs, and DC. In life, regular people get terminated for minor errors at work.

You're right that standards of accountability decline the higher that you go up the ladder in this society, despite the greater damage that gets done when people in power get it wrong or, as in Bush-Cheney's case, lie and hundreds of thousands of innocent people die as a result.

" I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them."
Hagel's peers, in 23 cases, had better discernment than he did. Not only was he wrong, he was certain those who were correct were wrong, nattering partisans. He bought what Bush sold him. Some say that anyone who could read the paper knew better. I agree with them when they say that.

"Hillary Clinton was one of a handful of Senators who was given full access to the unedited CIA Iraq WMD reports before the vote on the Authorization for Use of Force, and she voted for it anyway. In my opinion, she was irresponsible and showed poor judgement. While she later said she regretted her vote, fully a year into the war....."
and so on.

I voted for Obama because of Hillary's war vote in spite of his homophobic preacher surrogates. I continue to think that those who voted for IWR were irresponsible and showed poor judgement, as you did back then. I do not keep separate standards for men and women, and I most certainly would never defend a Republican for that which I have castigated a Democrat.
Just saying. I could say about Hagel what you said about Hillary. I'd say it about her too. 'While he later said he regretted his vote, fully five years into the war....' and so forth.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021951295#post5

You again:
"Anyone who read the fricking Washington Post or NYT knew that the head of the IAEA was loudly disputing these claims, as were U.S. intelligence agencies, themselves.
Hillary is just as guilty of cherry-picking her intelligence sources as Douglas Feith or Richard Cheney.
If she has simply said, "I am persuaded by the Administration's version of the evidence", that would have at least been honest, and we probably wouldn't hold it against her so much. But this . . . what a weasel.
Thank you for reminding us of what she actually said, and why I feel so strongly that she's disqualified herself from consideration as the Democratic Candidate to be the 44th President."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4819473#4820820

The most distressing thing for me about the Hagel nomination is seeing that many DUers and others will gladly use rhetoric about war and peace differently at different times.
I agreed with you back then about Hillary, thus I can not as a consistent and honest person agree with you that the things which disqualified her in my view now qualify another to be in charge of Defense no less.

influenced some of her peers to vote for the IWR. "I cast my vote with conviction" Here's her statement at the time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=DkS9y5t0tR0

You are claiming that Hagel had no conviction, but voted for massive bombing and invasion anyway? Do you think that is a positive thing? When in doubt, he drops the bombs?
According to your post, Hillary started opposing one year in. Hagel did not criticize the war for 5 years of destruction.
They both voted Yes, and you castigate one for that, while you defend the other...it is what it is. Your words are very strong against Hillary for her vote. Many who adore Hagel were also very opposed to her, and claimed that vote was the reason. Now, for Hagel, the vote is not such a big deal, what's a major war between friends?

continued stumping for the invasion. Here's her statement made to Code Pink a week before the war started in which she expresses no doubts that military action is necessary to "disarm Saddam". If she had an opportunity to express doubts publicly, this was it. Let's listen:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b83_1200118934

Meanwhile, Hagel, who admits he got the vote wrong, was not a prime mover of the Resolution. Here's another Hillary statement advocating the invasion just a week before the war started, in which she speaks about the certainty of Saddam having WMD and also reflects with pride about the US military intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo:

he looked so uncomfortable, he couldn't even look Hagel in they eye it seemed to me. Just kept shifting about in his chair....ugh....never could stand him.

Swaying back and forth EVERY time I saw him. That wasn't a dig. I really think there is something wrong with him.

mean and bullying.

The President does not want him because they disagree on things.

Never see his name mentioned for consideration.

There's a lot of distrust of him from the officer corps since then.

If Dick B. says he's OK, then take it to the bank, Hagel is OK. Dick is a fearless and relentless progressive. He was our wonderful CT Attorney General for many years, out front on everything from abortion rights to consumer rights and battling United Illuminating over customer gouging. The guy is aces.

On Morning Joe today Dick spelled out the case for Hagel in the most progressive terms possible. You can probably get his segment on the MJ website at msnbc.com

I urge you to view this segment to hear what he has to say.

...it doesn't seem to be such a bad thing for there to be a reward for Republicans who stand up to GOP groupthink. I'm sure that Obama thinks that he's the best man for the job right now and that's the only reason he picked him, but Hagel did stand up for what he thought about Iraq and got all but driven from his party for his efforts. I don't think this is really a case of reaching across the aisle because Hagel doesn't really have a place on the other side of the aisle any longer.

I would add his frank comments on Israel. I think Hagel's pick says that you can say such obvious things as he said, and not fall off the face of the earth. A lot of people would like to see that be a third rail.

answer the questions Hagel refused to. I consider Lindsay Graham colonic slime but he asked a good question. He asked Hagel to name names of those in the "Jewish Lobby" who were dictating policy (Hagel couldn't) and futher to that quote, that the Jewish lobby forced us to to so stupid things, Hagel couldn't name even one. He looked like a loser in that exchange.

Please tell me the last time a Republican appointed a Democrat to such an important cabinet position. We are pretty much sending the message that we have nothing and no one worthy on our side. That's pathetic. Sorry.

Especially McCain.

He and Obama did some very great stuff in the Senate about nuclear nonproliferation (which is why they're friends), and it's a big personal issue with him.

makes an actual point of fact. I thank you for that. I have been asking 'why Hagel' for weeks and the answers are never like this one. This gives me something to read up on.
The 'he opposed Iraq' arguments are daft because he voted for that war. People keep saying 'he opposed Bush's wars' but he only did so 5 years into the war. That makes him better than those who still support it, but it is not a good argument for putting him in charge of wars.
I have asked many 'what do you like about him' and they don't provide a thing positive about Hagel that is true. They often claim he voted no on IWR.
You gave a reason, as the OP asked. I respect that. I don't support Republicans ever, particularly not the anti choice, anti gay variety who voted to invade to look for WMD, but at least you came up with an actual positive.

Though I'm as aware of his flaws as you are. I suspect Obama wants a strengthened NPT as one of his "legacies".

support for the man. Several people, including media professionals, have attempted to say 'he voted against Iraq war' which is not true. I get the impression from most supporting him that they would not feel comfortable stating the reasons they support him because they avoid direct questions and rattle off lots of meaningless crap.

Pundits practically wet themselves with joy every time there's a cross-party appointment; I think that's all this is. I doubt many of his fans could even name his signature legislative achievements, or his cosponsors for them (hint: his co-sponsor just nominated him for SecDef), and your experience seems to confirm that. In a lot of ways I'm glad I'm leaving DC...

Then they demand a list of Democrats who could be Sec of Defense because they are sure there are none. I have to say that on the internet, with Google just sitting there, it amazes me that people make claims like that.
I don't support Republicans, ever. Suddenly on DU this is bad stuff. But I also seriously oppose the rewarding of failure and mediocrity along with the refusal to reward those who were correct when it mattered, those who displayed true wisdom and courage.

"Are you now or have you ever been a Republican?"

"No"

"Don't call us we'll call you and good day"

Is apparently the "bipartisan" position on interviewing a potential Secretary of Defense. Democrats are to "wimpy" or "too out of touch with the culture" or "don't have enough support in the ranks" or are "too soft" for the job.

If there is a "culture" in a government of a free people that can only tolerate a Republican then that "culture" should be eradicated rather than coddled.

and now is rational on Israel, Cuba, bloated military etc.

That makes a very big point with some who might come over from the dark side.

It was also intended to drive a wedge between him and Obama, and to "go after" Obama's policies and discredit them--he did not allow that to happen. He's got intelligence, banking, and military experience, built his own business, and ran other successful businesses--and was almost always right on foreign policy in the last 15 years. (Also a deputy administrator for the VA and quit when his boss wouldn't take Agent Orange seriously--his boss resigned two months later in disgrace.) Obama, Biden and Kerry know him well and trust him.

Because Bispartisanship! Anyway, only Republicans can defend the country - everyone knows that.

He knows what combat and death is about. He isn't so easily to send the troops off the unnecessary wars. I think he is reasonable that also makes him the right person for the job.

the only plus side of Hagel for the 99% is that we already know this.

Expect war.

I am royally pissed at Obama for appointing someone to office that good Democrats spent a great deal of time, money, and energy struggling daily to prevent from holding office.

That's the plus side. Any opposition to him is opposition to the President.

BWAH!

the President does or has done? Seriously?

in Iraq at a time when even our great hero Dems thought there was a target for something. Plus he was a grunt who understands what it is being under fire on the ground in a useless war.(Vietnam)

My Democratic Senator did not buy into that WMD crap. Five years into the war he joined the increasing choir of war critics, five years after the vote in which 23 of his peers not only questioned but refused to support the invasion of Iraq.
It is fine to support him if you wish, but this routine of claiming all the Democrats voted Yes as well is really not very cool. They were correct and courageous, and you claim otherwise....

and I do remember not being able to find much strong opposition to a baseless invasion. Having been in the military during the Vietnam era, not many people are really concerned about the troops, but sounding right politically.

that at some point after we rush into a war he'll wonder if it was worth it. Wait, that doesn't sound like a very good leader.

or Biden. Hagel was very torn on the war resolution, he came down on the wrong side and quickly regretted it--and publicly said so. Not afraid to admit he's wrong, an admirable trait.

races. His 'opposition' was not found quickly, he started criticizing the war in 2007, 5 years in. He started opposing once the new Presidential cycle was underway and the wind was blowing in a certain direction....

I'll tell you who I don't vote for: Republicans. Nor do I feel any particular need to laud them on a Democratic site.

Can Haqel? It remains to be seen but it must happen.

That's the kind of decision making I want in my government.

provided, meaning his ideological trust of Bush caused him to vote to go find those WMD when all of the actual data let the rest of the world, millions of people, know that there were no WMDs. Hagel was sure it was worth the cost and the lives and he did not challenge the Iraq policy for 5 full years of spending and dying there.
That is the kind of decision making I don't think we can afford more of.

he trusts hagels insights into the workings of the defense dept. he`s a republican with the military cred to makes his distractors look like fools,you know like johnnie mccain. good pick

That become apparent if this asswipe is confirmed.

to our side of it? After all, we actually voted for him.

"Only Nixon can go to China."

Agreed

and that everything should be tried within reason to keep our people from getting killed...

A Democrat would be accused of being a bleeding heart, so a Republican like Hagel who was in the war makes dovishness acceptable.

Which actual actions has he taken that indicate he is one who avoids war? Voting for Bushco war on demand? Co-sponsoring the failed Kosovo authorization?
He's never been asked to vote on a war to which he said no. What exactly is your view of his great hesitance to make war based on? To call him 'dovish' when he voted for invading a nation that did not attack us is absurd and even a bit offensive. 23 Senators voted no on that war. He voted yes. Dovish? Show some evidence aside from rhetoric.

From what he's said, he doesn't want to send anyone to battle anymore..

Obama has said he feels the same way...