Posted on 01/09/2013 5:13:45 AM PST by Kaslin
It's official. President Obama has named former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) as his nominee for secretary of defense. Hence, we may be in store for the worst defense secretary nomination fight since George H.W. Bush's failed appointment of Sen. John Tower (R-Texas) more than 20 years ago.
The interesting question is, why? Why waste the political capital? Why pass over more qualified candidates who would sail through confirmation, including Michele Flournoy -- who'd be the first female defense secretary?
The most ridiculous answer is among the mainstream media's favorites: bipartisanship. According to Politico, the choice "appeals to Obama's bipartisan spirit." The Washington Post, in a front-page news story, says that "Hagel's successful nomination would add a well-known Republican to the president's second-term Cabinet at a time when he is looking to better bridge the partisan divide, particularly after a bitter election campaign."
What is particularly bizarre about this talking point is that it often appears in articles that go on to talk about how tough and grueling the nomination battle will be thanks to strong Republican opposition. So which is it? Is it a bridge across the partisan divide? Or is it an "in-your-face" nomination (South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham's words) aimed at eliciting a fight with Republicans?
At least from the perspective of nearly everyone on the right, it's the latter. Whether it's payback for the scuttled non-nomination of Susan Rice to be secretary of state or whether it's simply of a piece with Obama's efforts to divide and conquer the GOP that were on display throughout the "fiscal cliff" negotiations, the consensus in much of conservative Washington is that Obama is making this nomination at least in part out of spite.
Indeed, that's one major reason Hagel has so many unlikely friends these days. Hagel -- never overburdened with too heavy a reputation for insight, knowledge or humility -- is loathed, with ample justification, by many foreign-policy hawks, Israel supporters and neocons (those are overlapping but hardly synonymous groups, by the way). He is arguably the most prominent opponent of sanctions on bad actors in the Middle East. He's heaped scorn on those who'd take a hard line with Iran. His geopolitical acumen is of the sort that fails to shine even in the comment sections on blogs. The Iraq war, for example, was according to Hagel a war for oil.
And Hagel's views on Israel are, to be generous, hard to reconcile with those of the man who successfully campaigned for president just a couple of months ago as a staunch friend of that country. Even if Hagel's gaffe about the perfidious influence of the domestic "Jewish lobby" was accidental, his coolness to Israel is hard to dispute. For instance, when Palestinian suicide bombers were tearing the country apart in 2002, Hagel insisted in an op-ed article that this was the time for Israel to "take steps to show its commitment to peace."
For some, the thinking seems to be that if the Hagel nomination is a thumb in the eye of the neocon crowd, it must be worth it. David Greenberg writes in the New Republic that many "liberals are bending over backward to praise Hagel, in effect saying they would prefer an archconservative male mediocrity to a liberal female rising star." Why? Because punishing Hagel's enemies is worth a potentially lousy defense secretary.
This spirit results in some really batty arguments for Hagel's confirmation. For instance, New York Times columnist Roger Cohen writes that the "chief" reason Hagel should be confirmed is that doing so "will provoke a serious debate on what constitutes real friendship toward Israel." Even if you agree with Cohen's barmy views of geopolitical "friendship," Hagel's got real problems if this is the best case for his nomination.
The Defense Department faces imminent cuts, Chinese and Russian nationalism are ascendant, the Middle East is becoming even more destabilized and theocratic, and we're still at war in Afghanistan, but Hagel's chief qualification is that he'll be a great conversation starter? Wow.
The coming nomination fight will undoubtedly focus on the strength of the case against Hagel. But the real indictment of Obama's pick is the weakness of the case for Hagel -- and the pettiness of the pick in the first place.
You betcha they would
Plus that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave has to reward him for having voted for him in 2008 and 2012
The only good I can see in Hagel is that he too has seen poor leadership and hopefully that one single facet of his heading DOD if it happens is that he knows grunt work. As for his politics, I could not disagree more as I served two years in Tel Aviv at the American Embassy and support that country for several reasons, one of which is Western Civilization; that other is that our Stock Market is very inter-connected with stocks well represented in the Jewish State.
It's just effing laughable - the man has no more bipartisan spirit than he does humility or respect for The Constitution.
Obama’s intent is:
1) to further divide the Republicans against themselves;
2) to pretend to reach across the aisle, justifying blatant partisanship when the Republicans reject it;
3) to put Republicans in a position of negativity again, using up their energy on a sideshow.
At this juncture, Conservatives have no national leader, no strategy, no agenda — and it shows. Obama enjoys competent handlers running his Presidency as a political campaign, and an adulational “news” media eager to play along. Until we close the “figurehead gap”, Obama and company will eat our lunch, with dire results for the nation.
I wuz trying to be kind :)
You must referring to Trent Lott.
You’ve got that right!
This is just a game to Nobama. He practices the street hood “in yo face MoFo” intimidation, but will fold when confronted with a worthy opponent. May I suggest Ted Cruz?
I guess on the plus side...nobama didn’t nominate his commie pals, Ayers or Dornan.
Occams Razor applies here. Obama selected Hagel because they are sympatico where the “the jews” are concerned.
Do not put them past him.
This bunch really likes to “crank us up” with FU’s like BiteMe’s hinting nobama will outlaw 2nd Amendment by EO. They know that will never get by, but it really pisses us off just to hear it, that’s how subtle intimidation works.
I won’t be the least surprised when nobama starts giving the bird to his dem friends too.
"I'll take 'street thug' for $800, Alex."
Granting you his decorated service as an enlisted man, nevertheless what should be in the foreground here is the reasoning behind Obama's nomination of him, and what Obama intends by it, and what he intends Hagel to do, if he's confirmed. What are Obama's policies that Hagel will execute, and what are the politics of the nomination? That's the point.
And none of it looks good.
In my view an enlisted combat veteran serving as Secretary of Defense in this administration is about as much as anyone could hope for.
>>>>The interesting question is, why? <<<<<
Here’s the answer from the lips of Lenin:
“Deepen [and] exacerbate existing problems, crises, [and] differences, and if they don’t exist, create them or convincingly claim that they exist... and profit [politically, ideologically and even financially] the most from them in any way you can, and, in the resulting chaos, blame our enemies for the whole thing.”
Obama was correct when he announced in 2008 that change had come to America. It’s a slow-motion version of what the Bolsheviks did in Russia. His actions are designed to enflame and antagonize, and with each response, power is concentrated with the left.
There’s no need for a Reichstag fire when dozens of smaller blazes are set across the landscape. No budget. Contradictory statements. Laws with hundreds of pages, followed by thousands of regulations. Stoking racial animosity. Fast and Furious. Gay marriage. Trillion-dollar coins. Raising taxes on the rich, which means everyone paying payroll taxes. I could list dozens more things that are promoted and proposed to confuse, anger, or deflate the feelings of the American people. And while everyone is looking elsewhere, power is consolidated.
God help us.
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.