Hagel: The Wrong Man

I admire former Mayor Ed Koch’s willingness to break with his own party on issues of principle, but his comments to the Algemeiner today are mind-boggling. In between some very strong denunciations of the Chuck Hagel nomination, Koch casually let it drop that he suspected Obama would abandon his pro-Israel positions after the election. The former mayor, of course, endorsed Obama’s reelection and served as one of his surrogates to the pro-Israel community:

“Frankly, I thought that there would come a time when [Obama] would renege on what he conveyed on his support of Israel,” said Koch, adding, “it comes a little earlier than I thought it would.”

“It’s very disappointing, I believe he will ultimately regret it,” Koch said, “and it undoubtedly will reduce support for him in the Jewish community, but I don’t think he (the President) worries about that now that the election is over.” …

Koch explained to The Algemeiner why he decided to back the President’s re-election even though he says he suspected that Obama would backtrack on his pro-Israel overtures. “I did what I thought was warranted and intelligent,” he said, “He was going to win! There was no question about it. I thought it would be helpful to have a Jewish voice there, being able to communicate.”

The Mayor says he has no regrets, “it’s wouldn’t make any difference. The Jews were going to vote for him no matter what. And that’s the nature of the Jews. They are always very solicitous of everybody else except there own needs and community.”

Just a reminder, here’s what Koch said in a video endorsement for the Obama campaign in October:

“I’m confident President Obama will continue his unambiguous commitment to the Jewish state in his second term, building on his record of leadership by preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and funding the Iron Dome missile defense system that is saving Israeli lives.”

To summarize: Koch believed none of that, but still vouched for Obama with Jewish voters because a.) Obama was going to win and it was important that Ed Koch maintain good relations with the White House so he could encourage pro-Israel policies (which isn’t working out too well, considering the Hagel nomination), and b.) Jews were going to vote for Obama no matter what (which would kind of mean Ed Koch’s entire schtick is irrelevant, no?).

He was the softest senator on Iran and would be a the softest secretary of defense.

Were Chuck Hagel to be nominated as secretary of defense, the Iranian mullahs would interpret President Obama’s decision as a signal that the military option was now, effectively, off the table. It would encourage them to proceed with their development of nuclear weapons without fear of an attack from the United States. It would tell them that if they can endure the pain of sanctions and continue the charade of negotiations, they will ultimately be allowed to win the prize of a deliverable nuclear bomb.

Hagel’s nomination would also validate the fears of Israeli leaders who have never really believed that the United States would attack Iran’s nuclear program even if that were the only way to stop it. It would make an Israeli military attack more likely.

President Obama himself has been clear that the policy of his administration is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons rather than to “contain” a nuclear-armed Iran through deterrence. He has made it clear that he would authorize the use of force if that were the only way to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But Hagel’s position has been the exact opposite. He was the softest senator with regard to the threat posed by Iran and its surrogates, and he would be seen as the softest secretary of defense. A lead editorial in the Washington Post aptly summarized Hagel’s views:

Mr. Hagel . . . repeatedly voted against sanctions, opposing even those aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Mr. Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than sanctions, were the best means to alter Iran’s behavior. . . . Mr. Obama has said that his policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that containment is not an option. Mr. Hagel has taken a different view, writing in a 2008 book that “the genie of nuclear weapons is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.”

It is true that Hagel has also talked about keeping all options on the table, but the thrust of his position, as it will surely be understood by the Iranians, suggests that if he were to become secretary of defense, he would strongly oppose the use of force against Iran’s nuclear program, even as a last resort.

Hagel’s appointment would send another disturbing message to the bigots of Tehran, who believe that the only people calling for military action against Iran are “the Jews.” Hagel speaks their language. He is the only mainstream American politician to talk openly about how “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.” Others refer to the “Israel lobby,” which includes Jews, Christians, and others. They understand that not all supporters of Israel are Jewish, and that not all Jews are part of the Israel lobby. But Hagel apparently sees things in terms of Jewish interests versus American interests.

This is a delicate time for American policy with regard to Iran in particular and the Middle East in general. Syria, an ally of Iran, is on the verge of collapse. Egypt is in turmoil. Jordan is having difficulties. The Israel–Palestine peace process seems to be at a standstill. This is not the time to be sending the wrong message, or even a confusing message, to Iran and its surrogates by nominating a man who is widely seen as out of the American mainstream when it comes to support for Israel’s security.

Even if Hagel were to be nominated and then not confirmed by the Senate, the Iranians would get the wrong message. They would see the nomination as representing President Obama’s real views on the possible use of force against the Iranian nuclear program, and they would see the Senate’s negative vote as a reflection of the power of the “Jewish lobby” over the legislature. Since it is the president and not the legislature that will decide whether to deploy the military option against Iran, the mullahs will be confirmed in their belief that they are free to continue to develop nuclear weapons.

In the end, the nomination of Hagel would make military action by the United States or Israel more rather than less likely, because it would embolden the mullahs toward defying any threat of the military option.

Senator Hagel is the wrong man, being considered for the wrong job, at the wrong time. There are other candidates whose nomination would send the right message: namely, that the United States will try sanctions and negotiations first, and will use force only as a last resort, but that under no circumstances will the Obama administration allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. That’s President Obama’s message. That’s not Senator Hagel’s message. Mixed messages are ineffective and in this case would be quite dangerous.

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

I acknowledge Israel wasn't the primary reason I voted against BHO, for Romney.

That's the case for Ed and Alan too.

I wasn't pleased with No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drugs, and the unsuccessful immigration bill. That's life. Ed and Alan will cope too.

Of course Hagel is a predictable choice, imo representative of the direction BHO would like to go in foreign affairs. I'm surprised he didn't put him at State where he could have some impact and Kerry at defense. Shame on Ed and Alan for attempting to assure supporters of Israel that the Obama administration not only wasn't hostile, but pro-Israel. Neither are that naive.

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

I acknowledge Israel wasn't the primary reason I voted against BHO, for Romney.

That's the case for Ed and Alan too.

I wasn't pleased with No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drugs, and the unsuccessful immigration bill. That's life. Ed and Alan will cope too.

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

I acknowledge Israel wasn't the primary reason I voted against BHO, for Romney.

That's the case for Ed and Alan too.

I wasn't pleased with No Child Left Behind, Medicare Drugs, and the unsuccessful immigration bill. That's life. Ed and Alan will cope too.

Why is the Israeli lobby surprised to discover that Bronco Bama is going to stab them in the back, not once, but repeatedly? And this in addition to the punches already delivered to the kidneys, in recognition of the Muslim Brotherhood and the inclusion of high-level infiltrators from the world-wide Islamic Caliphate into the close advisors of the White Hut?

Israel, Bronco Bama is not your friend. Just consider the repeated snubs he has given Benjamin Netanyahu, seemingly unable to find time for even a brief meeting, and for really shabby treatment even when meetings are secured.

Who is the Israeli lobby? AIPAC has raised no objections. The ADL criticized his comments but endorsed him. Alan and especially Ed are politicians, they’d still support Obama because he’s a Democrat. The only complaints have come from the right, including some right wing Jews. Which makes sense since much, probably a large majority of individuals, comprising the Israel lobby are right wing Christian Republicans.

I wouldn’t use the term betrayed, rather he’s trying to rebuild America in the form of his worldview, ala France, Italy and Greece. This desire is well established on the left, and extends back to at least Wilson, it’s a longstanding desire of the American left. I agree it’s far worse, but his actions can’t be dismissed as an individual betrayal, it’s systemic.

AIPAC is staying out of this. Those using Israel to attack Hagel are damaging Israel, not Hagel. Hagel is bad for AMERICA because he is soft on Iran and Jihad. That is where you fight him. I consider everyone bringing up Israel to be a defacto Iranian agent or idiot. All they are doing is burning Israel’s moral capital.

In my not so humble opinion, judging obama’s actions on anything OTHER than he is a muslim and in total agreement with the grislim brotherhood in all things macro and micro, internally and externally, is sheer ignorance and folly.
He is not simply anti-Israel, he is anti-ANYTHING that does not reflect islamism throughout the world and here, on American soil, he has already declared The United States a muslim country.
These new taxes are forcing us into dhimmitude and we do not have a deep enough knowledge of islam and shariah to see it. OTOH, muslims are exempt from nearly all of his edicts.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.