Confirming Chuck Hagel

posted at 3:31 pm on January 6, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

It’s still not official official but it’s looking more and more like it’s sort of kind of official at this point. Having backed down on Susan Rice, the President isn’t in the mood to be kicked around anymore and he’s going to move forward on nominating Hagel for SecDef. Or so the latest round of claims would lead us to believe.

WASHINGTON — President Obama is expected to nominate Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be Defense secretary, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of Hagel’s views on Israel and Iran.

White House officials said Friday 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.

This could easily turn into another column on the various alleged sins or proclaimed virtues of Chuck Hagel and why Obama should or shouldn’t nominate him, but honestly… that horse has been beaten well past the glue factory stage. There are two other points I’d like to address today – one brief and one a bit more detailed.

First, consider why exactly Barack Obama would pluck Hagel out of the national flock for this responsibility. The two men surely don’t agree on every line item of government policy – though they obviously share some beliefs on matters of foreign policy – and the President could easily find a naturally occurring Democrat to fill the role. What does Hagel bring to the table that somebody like Wes Clark doesn’t? My thinking on this is that it could readily be part of Obama’s recently successful, “my way or the media will blame you down the highway” approach. The strategy from the bully pulpit in this new season is looking more and more like an iron fist in an iron glove as long as they hold both the White House and the Senate. And if the GOP manages to defeat a Hagel nomination, just wait until Obama and Reid stonewall on things like the debt ceiling and any future cost cutting issues. The President is prepping the answer, “Look. These guys are so intent on shutting Washington down that they wouldn’t even confirm a member of their own party when I nominated him.”

What do you think, Alex? “Survey says… the public could buy it.

The second point is a bit more from the ten thousand foot level. Remind me again why the “advise and consent” role has gotten to the point where we should be expending political capital to defeat the nomination of somebody we don’t agree with on this or that? If you let the blood seep back out of your eyeballs and think about it, this has very little chance of accomplishing anything productive. Why? Because the next person that Obama nominates isn’t likely to be substantially different.

Further, it strikes me as rather silly to base our opposition to any nominee for any cabinet position based on their own personal beliefs. The members of the cabinet are put in those offices to project the policy and opinions of the President, not their own. And if they fail – as they have previously in spectacular fashion – the final judgment about the failure is laid at the feet of the President, not the cabinet member. At the end of the day, the responsibility for all of their actions is his and his alone, whether he (or she) wishes to own up to it or not.

If a president nominates someone who can be shown to lack the fundamental skills and abilities to perform their duties, then clearly the Senate needs to intervene if possible. But that’s a fairly low bar to reach in most cases if we’re really being honest. The President won the election and he gets to populate his cabinet for the most part. Shooting down his nominees like we’re in some sort of target range may feel good and score some political points with the base, but it also helps Obama construct the argument about the Party of No, which he’s been pretty good at lately.

Be careful what you wish for.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Nope.

KCB on January 6, 2013 at 3:33 PM

He doesnt seem…honest to me. was kindov a tool in the senate

Drunk Report on January 6, 2013 at 3:34 PM

If Obama wants him, I am sure it is because he has our nation’s best interests at heart.

WryTrvllr on January 6, 2013 at 3:35 PM

What’s wrong with voting present?

aryeung on January 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Has anyone — anyone — made a positive case why Chuck Hagel would be a good choice for Secretary of Defense ???

Just asking …

RedPepper on January 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Can’t stand Hume but he’s right.

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Let him have him. Obozzo already has the most incompetent administration in history, and If he wants to go lower let him.

stephana on January 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

It’s schadenfreudig to observe how Obama has snookered the LGBT crowd, he who scrooms them literally and figuratively.

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Hagel hates:

Israel
The Pentagon
Gays

Heh, AmeriKa, go Obama!!!

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Agree with the second point. The views for which Hagel is “in trouble” aren’t markedly different (if at all) from those of the President who’s going to nominate him.

Obama’s the problem.

BD57 on January 6, 2013 at 3:44 PM

so jazz is telling us that saying yes will make us look less like the party of no. LOL.

hey jazz hows about we stand on principle and do the right thing. obama picked a hater of the Jewish people. i say that disqualifies him, repub or dem.

renalin on January 6, 2013 at 3:45 PM

He’s a tool, but who gives a sh*t? Let him appoint him, it won’t matter, s noted if you bounce Hagel we’ll end up with Wes Clark anyway…

Tim Zank on January 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2013 at 3:42 PM

don’t be naive. obamas succes has been catering to his base. you do that for four years, they’ll let a few slip by.

the repubs take a different tack. they insult and refudiate christian conservatives.

the times, they wil be a changin’

renalin on January 6, 2013 at 3:49 PM

It looks like President Obama will appoint former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to be his next Secretary of Defense and could do so as early as Monday.

If Obama appoints Hagel then he will once again be telling Israel, “F*#k you.”

And why not? For all his antipathy towards Israel, Obama still got more than two thirds of the Jewish vote last year.

It tells us that Obama is comfortable with someone who derisively uses the term “Jewish lobby” and “let the Jews pay for it”.

It also reminds us that Obama views Israel, not Iran as the biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

Still, I don’t understand why Obama wants to pick a fight with Chuck Schumer. I guess Obama thinks the Senate will confirm their former colleague.

I’m no fan of Barney Frank but I would love to see Deval Patrick appoint him to the Senate if for no other reason than the pleasure of seeing Frank make Hagel sweat during the confirmation hearings.

Aaron Goldstein at AmSpec.

Wethal on January 6, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Has anyone — anyone — made a positive case why Chuck Hagel would be a good choice for Secretary of Defense ???

Just asking …

RedPepper on January 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Because shut up.

davidk on January 6, 2013 at 3:57 PM

renalin on January 6, 2013 at 3:49 PM

I’m not naive, not to worry. AmeriKa ain’t seen nada, yet.

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Has anyone — anyone — made a positive case why Chuck Hagel would be a good choice for Secretary of Defense ???

Just asking …

RedPepper on January 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

He will advocate against the Pentagon and thus Obama likes him.

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Evidently, Ahmadinejad turned down OBOZO’s offer to be his SecDef, so he’ll go with the second most anti-Jewish/anti-Israel person on Earth.

TeaPartyNation on January 6, 2013 at 3:59 PM

Lets start the Meme the Sec Def Hagel will bring back DADT. Just the rumor and smear will remove the trial balloon.

tjexcite on January 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM

O just wants another fight , he’s not really in love with Hagel .
O is just a petty little man who likes to stick his thumb in your eye.
The more fights he has going on the more he can blame the opposition .

Lucano on January 6, 2013 at 4:05 PM

One thing that has not received the attention it deserves is that the core of pro-Israel support is still Jewish Democrats. I know that’s changing, and that those Jews who felt Obama was not sufficiently pro-Israel voted Romney. Still, Schumer’s noncommittal attitude on Hagel and Barney Frank’s opposition — which I think has little to do with Hagel’s gay comment (Frank wasn’t bothered by Armey calling him Barney Fag) and mostly about Israel — show at least some reluctance on the part of Jewish Democrats to support him.

It will be interesting to see if Lauetenberg, Feinstein, etc., as well as senators from states with numerous Jewish Democratic Party contributors, will support Hagel.

bobs1196 on January 6, 2013 at 4:09 PM

The Obama Campaign is picking Hagel because they want the abandonment of Israel of be bipartisan.

forest on January 6, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Washington Post, other news sources now reporting that Hagel nomination will be announced tomorrow.

RedPepper on January 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Another example where extreme voices on both sides define the debate.

I’m not sure what the problem is saying that there is a strong Israel/Jewish lobby. Are we supposed to play make believe and pretend that AIPAC doesn’t exist? I’m grateful there are powerful voices for Israel here in the US. Likewise, Israel is not the United States. They aren’t our 51st state.

It would be helpful if people like the president treated Israel as an important ally, whose interests coincide with ours most of the time. You can be a strong supporter of Israel without being mind-controlled by the Jewish cabal. It would also be helpful if folks like Bill Kristol stopped acting like our interests and Israel’s match up 100% of the time. Thoughtful disagreement with some Israeli policies does not make you an anti-Semite.

BocaJuniors on January 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

ABC says that there aren’t enough Dems to confirm although I would pay the price of admission to see “Senator Barney Frank,” a gay Jew, interrogate Hagel in the hearings.

BTW, Democrats would get to once again say that they chartered new territory with “Senator Barney Frank”: the first gay Senator. If only a certain gentleman from a certain southern state had just came out and said how much he enjoyed listening to Judy Garland, picking out window treatments, and watching Kevin Kline in “In & Out,” the Republican Party could have been the TAILblazer! It NEVER learns!

‘Exploring Your Masculinity’ Self-Help Tape: Repeat after me. Yo.

Howard Brackett: Yo!

Tape: Hot damn.

Howard: Hot damn!

Tape: What a fabulous window treatment.

Howard: What a fabulous window treat-

Tape: That was a trick!

Howard: Aagh

Tape: Truly manly men do not dance.

Howard: Oh, come on!

Tape: Under any circumstances. This will be your ultimate test.
At all costs avoid rhythm, grace, and pleasure. Whatever you do, do not dance.

[Gloria Gaynor's 'I Will Survive' speeds up with disco beat]

Howard: I won’t.

Tape: Can you hear it?

Howard: Yes.

Tape: Can you hear the demon? “Dance,” the demon whispers. Everyone else is dancing. They’re getting down. They’re getting funky now. They’re having fun! – Not you! – No. Catch the fever. Feel the heat of the disco beat. It’s calling to you. Do not listen! Men do not dance. They work, they drink, they have bad backs. They do not dance. Hold still. Hold tight. Whatever you do, do not dance!

Gaynor: [Singing] Hey, hey. I… I will survive…

Tape: What are you doing?! Stop dancing, you big ballerina! Stop waving those hands! Aren’t you listening, you pantywaist? Stop it! Stop shaking that booty! Be a man! Kick someone! Punch someone! Bite someone’s ear! Are we a little teapot????

Gaynor: [Singing] …hold my head up high…

Tape: Stop it! Get a grip! Think about John Wayne. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold doesn’t dance! He can barely walk. Stop it! Stop it! Just stop dancing!

So how did you do, prissy boy?

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 4:33 PM

At this point, it’s about not allowing the President freebies.

Hagel’s got uncontestably controversial views. In truth, however, the Senate Dems will be able to ram him through. As the opposition party, it’s the GOP’s job to make him spend political capital as the price for having Hagel as SECDEF. Allowing a guy with controversial views to just waltz into the Pentagon is dumb. So, the sound ethical and political calculus for the GOP is to make a loud protest about Hagel and force the President and the Senate Dems to use as much political capital with the public to get him approved, and then afterward, make them pay a price with a pro-Israel public for having an anti-Israel SECDEF.

Robert_Paulson on January 6, 2013 at 4:40 PM

The members of the cabinet are put in those offices to project the policy and opinions of the President, not their own. And if they fail – as they have previously in spectacular fashion – the final judgment about the failure is laid at the feet of the President, not the cabinet member. At the end of the day, the responsibility for all of their actions is his and his alone, whether he (or she) wishes to own up to it or not.

Yeah, that really worked great with Geithner and Holder.

bgoldman on January 6, 2013 at 4:40 PM

So are Republicans now going to go against a Republican just to stick it to our President? new low?

nonpartisan on January 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Thoughtful disagreement with some Israeli policies does not make you an anti-Semite.

BocaJuniors on January 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Uhm, have look you checked the weather in the middle east lately? Nothing I see looks very thoughtful. Not a good time to just look the other way and leave little ole Israel out in the arab spring breeze. Oh no wait, for O I guess it’s the perfect time to thoughtfully look the other way and leave’m flap’n.

onomo on January 6, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Who are “the Jewish lobby”?

Is it personified by Bill Kristol? Or Barney Frank?

Charles Krauthammer or Ed Asner? Those men are all “Jews.” But they all have little in common politically.

Is there a pro-Israel lobby? Sure, just as there is a pro-Irish lobby. Or a pro-Mexico lobby. Et cetera, et cetera.

These are American citizens expressing their first Amendment rights to petition government for policies they want.

Americans of all stripes overwhelmingly support Israel. The vast majority are not Jews. They support Israel because it is a pluralistic democracy surrounded by large numbers of people who want to destroy it.

Characterizing this as being brainwashed by a “Jewish cabal” is a smear. It harkens back to long promoted conspiracies made against Jews.

It’s not just a smear, it’s false.

Argue the merits of your case without resorting to such smears, please.

SteveMG on January 6, 2013 at 4:45 PM

For a nonpartisan you sure defend Mr. Obama a lot. In fact, in every post.

A nonpartisan would be sometimes willing to criticize him.

That is, a real nonpartisan.

SteveMG on January 6, 2013 at 4:47 PM

They’re Americans NOT Jews.

If you disagree with them, fine. But don’t make it a religious issue since Jewish people are just that, people.

Israel is, as I said above, a pluralistic liberal democracy that unlike any other nation in the Middle East guarantees a wealth of rights and freedoms to its people. Not just Jews, but Arabs and Muslims and Christians and Atheists.

Why shouldn’t we support such a state? Why favor nations that deny those liberties over one that guarantees it?

SteveMG on January 6, 2013 at 4:56 PM

Thoughtful disagreement with some Israeli policies does not make you an anti-Semite.

BocaJuniors on January 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

No one is anti-Semite according to CAIR.

But blaming Israel for defending themselves while minimizing the death of civilians from Rocket attacks. While making out like the purposeful attacks on civilians by Hamass is the same.

Well seems anti-Semite to anyone but CAIR.

Steveangell on January 6, 2013 at 5:00 PM

To a large degree these arguments have merit: whoever is Sec of State will be doing Obama’s bidding. If Hegel is not confirmed, whoever does end up being confirmed will end up doing exactly what Hegel would have done. So political capital will have been wasted.

Hegel does, however, give Obama some distance so when Hegel makes statements against Israel (as he will), Obama can say it wasn’t his opinion that was voiced, give Hegel a ceremonial slap-on-the-wrist while winking “Good Job!” at him at the same time.

Best move for the GOP would be to vote ‘present’ on all Cabinet posts and let Obama own his choice. GOP leadership should concentrate on the debt ceiling and the deficit.

sultanp on January 6, 2013 at 5:01 PM

Can’t stand Hume but he’s right.

Schadenfreude on January 6, 2013 at 3:41 PM

I usually much prefer Descartes over David Hume but you are right.

SparkPlug on January 6, 2013 at 5:08 PM

So are Republicans now going to go against a Republican just to stick it to our President? new low?

nonpartisan on January 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Republicans have had problems with Hagel for years. He is a known bigot, who has made anti-semitic and anti-homosexual comments – ON THE RECORD – for years. He criticised the Iraq war “a war for oil” before voting FOR it. He criticised The Surge in Iraq, which was probably one of the few good things about the stupid adventure. He has supported Hezbollah and Hamas, two terrorist organisations. He is a long-time, vocal opponent against the sanctions on Iran.

If you think the opposition to Hagel has anything whatsoever to do with the President, then you’ve just outed yourself as another “Obama low-information voter.”

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 5:19 PM

So are Republicans now going to go against a Republican just to stick it to our President? new low?

nonpartisan on January 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM

They’re going against incompetence for the good of the country. Hagel is an undistinguished politician with a less than notable formal education and is basically an antagonist. Furthermore, serving a single tour in Vietnam as a junior grade enlisted soldier does not in any way qualify one to be the secretary of defense. Fundamentally, he is a dim bulb looking for attention.

rplat on January 6, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I say to non-democrats get out your pop corn and watch the Democratic Party have a fight between their Jewish supporters and everyone else. Remember the recent Democrtic convention and the comical floor fights between the pro Jewish and pro Arab Democrats? Hagel’s nomination should be pure comedy gold for the country.

In short I don’t see that the GOP has a dog in this fight.

richardb on January 6, 2013 at 5:50 PM

but it also helps Obama construct the argument about the Party of No, which he’s been pretty good at lately.

Uh, the supposed “party of no” has proven to be the “party of yes” time and time again – they capitulate to obama’s demands every chance they get – not that it matters, the Republican Party will continue to be labeled as “obstructionist” no matter what they do. BUT – we must accept the simple FACT that obama is an enemy of the United States – EVERY action he takes, every word he speaks, is specifically designed to damage America – The Republican Party should, as should all thinking Americans, opposed everything obama does and every person he nominates – to side with obama on anything, is to commit treason against the United States.

Pork-Chop on January 6, 2013 at 6:01 PM

So are Republicans now going to go against a Republican just to stick it to our President? new low?

nonpartisan on January 6, 2013 at 4:41 PM

“Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary.”

- The Washington Post Editorial Board, 18 December 2012

Why don’t you go shake your fist at those stupid-racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic-home-schooled-dirt-eating-snake-handling-sister-marrying-deer-shooting-squirrel-eating-hick-n-hustering-moonshine-running-meth-cooking-one-tooth-brushing-single-hair-comb-overing-blue-plate-’n-light-special-luvin’-stand-at-attention-WalMart-shopping-ignorant-untravelled-flag-waving-cry-in-their-beers-and-with-Lee-Greenwood-Teabag-waving-guns-n-Bibles-bitter-clinging-right-wing morons over at The Washington Post and accuse them of “a new low” for daring to disagree with the Lightbringer™?

Evidently, dissent is no longer patriotic.

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 6:07 PM

if you bounce Hagel we’ll end up with Wes Clark anyway…

Tim Zank on January 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

That’s what I’m thinking. And I think of Weaselly Clark like I think of John Heinz Kerry: Almost anybody but him.

petefrt on January 6, 2013 at 6:08 PM

Any whining by Reid or Obama about a Hagel rejection is nonsense. If Hagel is rejected, it will be the consequence of Dem votes; the GOP cannot unilaterally reject the nomination. A Hagel rejection will have zero bearing on the debt ceiling fight. That is not only a silly argument, Obama will want the public to forget all about it, not remind the public.

Frankly, I like this fight because it is suitable payback for John Tower in 1989 – among other positive consequences.

matthew8787 on January 6, 2013 at 6:12 PM

if you bounce Hagel we’ll end up with Wes Clark anyway…

Tim Zank on January 6, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Yes, but Clark can think and reason and that’s a determent to Obama. Hagel one the other had will blindly do his bidding and then, when told to, he will go sit in the corner and shut up.

rplat on January 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Yes, but Clark can think and reason and that’s a determent to Obama. Hagel one the other had will blindly do his bidding and then, when told to, he will go sit in the corner and shut up.

rplat on January 6, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Let me try that again. Yes, but Clark can think and reason and that’s a determent to Obama. Hagel on the other hand will blindly do his bidding and then, when told to, he will go sit in the corner and shut up.

rplat on January 6, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Another example where extreme voices on both sides define the debate.

I’m not sure what the problem is saying that there is a strong Israel/Jewish lobby. Are we supposed to play make believe and pretend that AIPAC doesn’t exist? I’m grateful there are powerful voices for Israel here in the US. Likewise, Israel is not the United States. They aren’t our 51st state.

It would be helpful if people like the president treated Israel as an important ally, whose interests coincide with ours most of the time. You can be a strong supporter of Israel without being mind-controlled by the Jewish cabal. It would also be helpful if folks like Bill Kristol stopped acting like our interests and Israel’s match up 100% of the time. Thoughtful disagreement with some Israeli policies does not make you an anti-Semite.

BocaJuniors on January 6, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I agree with you and would add the extremist have been losing as of late:

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-does-not-have-a-blank-check-to-harm-american-interests-says-former-us-defense-secretary/

I guess Bob Gates is now a socialist who is also a rabid anti-Semite.

He is a known bigot, who has made anti-semitic and anti-homosexual comments…

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Uncle Leo? :-)

Punchenko on January 6, 2013 at 6:22 PM

He is a known bigot, who has made anti-semitic and anti-homosexual comments…

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Uncle Leo? :-)

As Dr Hurd observed:

“Imagine if a nominee for Health and Human Services secretary was on record saying, ‘Let the blacks pay for it.’ Or: ‘Let Hispanics pay for it.’ The outrage would be deafening—and not surprising.

OTOH, Hagel saying “Let the Jews pay for it”???

Meh.

The Hagel Nomination: Will It Survive?

Resist We Much on January 6, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Criticizing Israel’s policies is fine. No one here says it’s not allowed.

Claiming that there’s a “Jewish cabal” that is “brainwashing” Americans is not okay. You can say it but you’ll get a response.

America has a pro-Israel policy because the vast majority of Americans – mostly non-Jews – support it. Not because “the Jews” have hijacked our foreign policy.

Israel is a pluralistic liberal democracy. Its neighbors – most of whom are populated with people who loathe America – are not.

Why should be favor the latter over the former?

SteveMG on January 6, 2013 at 6:35 PM

This is one where it shouldn’t be filibustered, bring it to a floor vote and let the Democrats explain. I don’t want Democrats to be able to hide behind the argument they opposed Hagel and efforts to filibuster him.

Anyone who expected Obama to nominate a strong on defense friend of Israel is bound to be disappointed. Let’s see Schumer take the stand he so hinted he might. If they vote him in, then we can use it against them.

amazingmets on January 6, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Obama loads his Cabinet for show. Unless the guy is an overt crook, or is missing his long form birth certificate, he might as well be confirmed so he can start drawing checks like the rest of the Cabinet

If Hagel is anti Israel, he becomes the perfect choice for Obama to stack on his ‘Cabinet’. Obama gets to prove his anti-Israel credentials. If Hagel doesn’t pass, Obama can wear the rejection as a medal.

Hagel might not be Marxist enough to be a bona fide adviser of the Prez, but he has a place in the system, and a mission, just like Christie

entagor on January 6, 2013 at 7:03 PM

…p r e s e n t !

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2013 at 8:45 PM

I agree the President is entitled to have his choices for the cabinet if they are otherwise qualified.

Hagel has never run anything larger than his old Senate staff. With him at the helm, the DoD will run about as well as the federal government runs under Obama. See the Sandy response in reference.

Adjoran on January 7, 2013 at 12:37 AM

Hagel is as much of a Jewhater as you can find in any cabinet choice

He has to be defeated

TexasJew on January 7, 2013 at 12:56 AM

There was enough weak kneed fella who was an ambassadoor to china that was perfect for a job too.

He was chosen because he will rip his own party.

tomas on January 7, 2013 at 8:40 AM

yeah… people that dont want idiots like Hagel at defense should just roll over like dog for the most left wing anti constitutional president we have ever had..

this is one of the dumbest article i have ever seen on Hotair

georgealbert on January 7, 2013 at 8:49 AM

Hagel has voted AGAINST every sanction against Iran…he has made Anti-Semitic remarks…he has promoted the idea of working WITH Iran and HAMAS…he is a walking, talking billboard for ‘weakness’ & ‘concessions to terrorists who want to kill us & rule/dominate the world’…in short, he is EVERYTHING you would expect in an Obama-nominated Sect of Defense!

I am just wondering, when will even the dumb@$$ Obama supporters reach the point where the clue light comes on & they even say ‘ENOUGH’?! Thanks to them putting him back in office, the rest of us just have to sit back & try to survive, hoping America will survive the next 4 years under this largest threat to the United States since Hitler &/or ‘The Great Depression’!

easyt65 on January 7, 2013 at 9:20 AM

Republicans ought to start calling Hagel what he likely is: An Anti-Semite and Jew hater. It doesn’t matter if Hagel’s best friend is Jewish.

Next smash him because he is a homophobe.It doesn’t matter if his own brother is a homosexual.

He just hates all Jews. He hates all homosexuals.

Make the accusation and then, like Harry Reid, state that Hagel has to prove that all this is not the case. Meanwhile, make it the case!

Republicans need to learn this isn’t the Marquis De Queensbury rules anymore.

kens on January 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM