Hagel: I’ve shown “unequivocal, total support for Israel”; Update: AIPAC standing down?

posted at 6:01 pm on January 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

Yeah, listen. If we’re going to confirm this guy, let’s please confirm him without sugarcoating his record.

Chuck Hagel said Monday an accurate assessment of his record will demonstrate “unequivocal, total support for Israel” and endorsement of tough international economic sanctions against Iran…

[T]he fact is that there is “not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israeli, not one (Senate) vote that matters that hurt Israel.”…

Critics have hammered Hagel for not joining most of his Senate colleagues in signing on to a number of policy pronouncements that sometimes were sought by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington.

“How does that further the peace process in the Middle East?” Hagel asked. “What’s in Israel’s interest is to help Israel and the Palestinians find some peaceful way to live together.”

There’s not one shred of evidence that he’s anti-Israel? Go read Alana Goodman’s post at Commentary quoting extensively from a 2007 critique of Hagel on Israel published by — ta da — the National Jewish Democratic Council. He’s a “bipartisan pick” insofar as both Republicans and Democrats have raised eyebrows at him over this subject for years. But for the White House, that’s a feature, not a bug: Half the reason that liberals are rallying behind him is that he hasn’t shown unequivocal support for Israel. The left is willing to overlook the fact that he’s a Republican precisely because his elevation to SecDef would help move opposition to Israel further into the political mainstream. (Turns out people who say things like “Let the Jews pay for it” are Israel’s “true friends,” you see.) The other half of the reason is that after four years of shrugging at Obama’s Bush-like counterterror policies, replete with scores of drone strikes across the world and military action in Libya unsanctioned by the War Powers Act, the left thinks it can regain some of its anti-war brand by pushing Hagel through at the Pentagon. Never mind that he voted to invade Iraq, like so many of the Wise Men and Women who populate Obama’s cabinet; never mind that his position on the surge was both wrong and embarrassingly grandstand-ish. Nominating him is Obama’s way of reclaiming his own, and the wider left’s, dovish cred on the cheap.

The point here is that almost nothing about the battle over Hagel has to do with his actual qualifications. Will he be an effective manager of an enormous bureaucracy at a moment when it’s facing budget cuts? Will he demonstrate the same keen foreign-policy insight as SecDef that he did as a senator when he greenlit the Iraq war and then railed against the surge? Dunno. Doesn’t seem to matter. I don’t think I’ve seen a single piece online making the case that Hagel would be better on the merits than Michele Flournoy or Ashton Carter or any of the other shortlisters. Given his lack of Pentagon experience, he might be considerably worse. But who cares? His nomination fight will be a political proxy war, which is loads more fun than having the best possible person fill the most important cabinet position at a critical moment, and it’ll let President Buckpasser share responsibility with a nominal Republican if things go sideways on foreign policy (especially post-withdrawal Afghanistan) in his second term. Although, given O’s interventionist tendencies, I wonder if that might backfire on the left: Philip Klein thinks nominating Hagel is O’s way of signaling to Iran that there’ll be no bombing over the next four years, but I’m less sure. He might also be a political insurance policy in case things do come to that, someone at whom Obama can point and say, “Even my dovish, anti-interventionist, Israel-critic defense secretary thought a military strike was a good idea.” The One hates taking blame; even on Benghazi, he waited until Hillary admitted culpability before doing so himself. Having Hagel around at the Pentagon will be useful cover to him if/when the no-fly zone over Damascus comes or we start ramping up drone strikes in Mali or wherever his next target is.

Update: I’m increasingly convinced Hagel will be confirmed relatively easily, and this is one reason why:

“Staffers and members are trying to find out what AIPAC thinks of Hagel and we are not getting anything,” one Senate Republican staff member said. Another Senate staff member said, “AIPAC will be sitting this one out.”…

The group’s apparent neutrality on Hagel is likely a big relief to the White House. On Sunday, senior White House staffers began reaching out to prominent members of the Jewish community to address concerns about Hagel. On Monday, White House chief of staff Jack Lew called AIPAC executive director Howard Kohr to discuss the Hagel nomination, according to administration officials…

AIPAC is not the only pro-Israel group holding its fire. Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, backed away from the tone of earlier comments, saying Monday that “Senator Hagel would not have been my first choice, but I respect the President’s prerogative.”

Jeffrey Goldberg saw that coming this morning. Obama’s heavily invested in getting Hagel through — more so than he was with Susan Rice, which is bizarre — and if AIPAC goes to the mat on this they’ll spend the rest of his term at war with the White House. Which might not be so bad if they thought they could torpedo his nomination, but the odds seem slim. Josh Marshall is unfortunately right that Democrats don’t want to blow up O’s first big post-reelection appointment, and while there’s been critical noise for Hagel from the GOP, there’s no guarantee that the entire caucus would vote against him. Six Democrats would have to cross Obama to kill the nomination even if the Republicans vote unanimously; if just four GOPers vote yes (Paul? Murkowski? Lee?), suddenly you need double-digit Democratic defections to block Hagel. How likely is that when AIPAC and the ADL are backing off, people like Tom Ridge are coming forward to endorse him, and wayward Democrats like Barney Frank are being brought back into the fold? Not very.


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

He’s got ObamaSpeak down, for sure.

Shay on January 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Muslim sympathizer appoints friend of Jew Haters.

Shock.

PappyD61 on January 7, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Bizaro World.

portlandon on January 7, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Hagel: I’ve shown “unequivocal, total support for Israel”

That statement – even though TOTALLY FALSE – just cost hagel the votes of 15 d-cRAT socialist extremist Senators!

TeaPartyNation on January 7, 2013 at 6:13 PM

yeah, and Charlie Rangel is an exemplary Tax paying citizen.

FlaMurph on January 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM

i think barry is trying to tidy up the narrative.

AIPAC is on chll

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/07/pro-israel-lobby-aipac-sitting-out-hagel-fight.html

Barney Frank is on chll now. So, this will strictly be a R/D split…Rs are pro-war, anti-Hagel.

I think Hagel will be confirmed by decent margin

r keller on January 7, 2013 at 6:15 PM

“I’ve shown unequivocal, total support for the destruction of Israel.”

the destruction of” is silent in lib-speak.

Pork-Chop on January 7, 2013 at 6:19 PM

So he hates jews more that he likes gays…got it.

tomas on January 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I do not hate the Jews. This is the truth. I had Jewish friends, I read Zionism, I fully understand the aspirations of the Jews. – Adolf Eichmann

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Thumbs down to Chuck..:(

Dire Straits on January 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

He does know that if anything bad in the world happens militarily, and Obowma orders another ‘stand down’ order, he is the one who is going to take the blame…

… Not that anything will come of it.

Seven Percent Solution on January 7, 2013 at 6:23 PM

But for the White House, that’s a feature, not a bug

Key words…plus, the Jews and gays get exactly what they voted for, fools.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM

There just doesn’t seem to be anything substantive to back these ‘anti-semite’ charges.

verbaluce on January 7, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Manson: “I’ve shown “unequivocal, total support for the LaBiancas.”

Bishop on January 7, 2013 at 6:27 PM

Hagel: I’ve shown “unequivocal, total support for Israel”

That’s how lying is done.

rebuzz on January 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Filibuster?

Greg Q on January 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Obama: “I won.”

Khun Joe on January 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM

“Senator Hagel would not have been my first choice, but I respect the President’s prerogative.”

Anyone remember how everyone appeased Hitler because they respected his prerogative?

ButterflyDragon on January 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Nuance.

OK, I take it “Nuance” is Allahpundit “code” for bald faced lie by bald faced liar.

VorDaj on January 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Obama must go home every night and he and Michelle must crack up at what they were able to get away with that day.

They probably have a “let’s see if we can top THAT one” contest each new morning.

Cleombrotus on January 7, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Hot Air is really pushing this aren’t they?

I support Israel as our ally, but is Hagel being nominated for American Secretary of Defense or Israel Secretary of Defense? So a massive Jewish special interest group doesn’t like him because of certain votes and questionable comments, I get it, but we already have a President who thinks the same way and he was just re-elected with overwhelming Jewish support – so unless Hagel is incapable of doing the job (like Rice as Secretary of State) then Obama should get his pick confirmed.

And I can’t stand Hagel, but seriously, elections have consequences.

Daemonocracy on January 7, 2013 at 6:36 PM

“What’s in Israel’s interest is to help Israel and the Palestinians find some peaceful way to live together.”

One cannot make a statement such as this, and be a friend to Israel.

OldEnglish on January 7, 2013 at 6:36 PM

If a Progressive like Tom Ridge says he’s good then it’s GOLDEN.

More Bushes, McCains and Ridges to continue to lead the gop off the political cliff.

PappyD61 on January 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM

so unless Hagel is incapable of doing the job (like Rice as Secretary of State) then Obama should get his pick confirmed.

Daemonocracy on January 7, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Doesn’t mean we can’t make fun of them.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Except for that whole Jew thing, he totally supports Israel…

catmman on January 7, 2013 at 6:39 PM


Hagel: I’ve shown “unequivocal, total support for Israel”

.
.
You’ll be needin’ to “qualify” that statement, in considerably more detail, … Chuck.

listens2glenn on January 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Doesn’t mean we can’t make fun of them.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Oh by all means, rip this guy apart.

Daemonocracy on January 7, 2013 at 6:42 PM

AIPAC is not the only pro-Israel group holding its fire. Foxman, of the Anti-Defamation League, backed away from the tone of earlier comments, saying Monday that “Senator Hagel would not have been my first choice, but I respect the President’s prerogative.”

Jews deserve the Flukeing coming their way. Votes have consequences.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 6:43 PM

He supports Israel as does Obama.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Oh by all means, rip this guy apart.

Daemonocracy on January 7, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Truthfully we aren’t going to stop much of anything Obama does.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 6:44 PM

It’s a trick. Get an ax.

apostic on January 7, 2013 at 6:45 PM

yeah, and Charlie Rangel is an exemplary Tax paying citizen.

FlaMurph on January 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM

And I’m a 22 year old TTU cheerleader.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Truthfully we aren’t going to stop much of anything Obama does.

sharrukin on January 7, 2013 at 6:44 PM

We stopped Rice becoming Secretary of State. That was a moral victory after Benghazi.

As far as policy goes, with guys like Boehner and McConnell running things we might as well just hang it up now.

Daemonocracy on January 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Most fun to be had:

1. Watch the Rs fill their diapers/Depends, then vote for him.

2. Watch the Dershowitz/Koch exercises in futility.

3. Watch the gays ignore most all of it.

What a bunch of eunuchs. They all deserve Obama/Hagel.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM

I think Obama’s prerogatives should be respected. He should be able to have all the hacks, incompetents and dandies he wants in his cabinet.

He never talks to them anyway.

Curtiss on January 7, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Hamas-Supporting, Islamist Group CAIR Praises and Endorses Obama Defense Candidate

http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2012/12/hagel-the-horrible

Vince on January 7, 2013 at 6:52 PM

yeah, and Charlie Rangel is an exemplary Tax paying citizen.

FlaMurph on January 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM

.
And I’m a 22 year old TTU cheerleader.

annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2013 at 6:46 PM

.
Ok, your secrets are safe with me.

BTW, NCAA cheerleaders are soooooo sexy !

OMG ! I just remembered . . . . . . . tonights my last chance to “ogle” them, this season.
.
Don’t ask me to pick a favorite, either. I’m just hoping for a close, competitive game.
.
.
GO IRISH !

GO ‘TIDE !

listens2glenn on January 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM

“AIPAC will be sitting this one out.”…

…just like most Jews in Germany as Adolf rose to power.

TeaPartyNation on January 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Leading Obama Secretary of Defense candidate Chuck Hagel (center), advocating for closer U.S.-Saudi Arabia ties at a 2009 New America Foundation conference on U.S.-Saudi ties. The New America Foundation is known as a far-left, anti-Israel organization funded by George Soros.

From here.

Vince on January 7, 2013 at 7:00 PM

…And I can’t stand Hagel, but seriously, elections have consequences.

Daemonocracy on January 7, 2013 at 6:36 PM

That doesn’t mean the Republicans should vote for him. The Senators were elected too. I don’t see any point in filibustering, but if he doesn’t get grilled mercilessly and if one Republican votes for him I’ll be …very annoyed. The Democrats don’t let something like this pass without making a big stink, the Republics just say: oh gee, we’re going to lose this so no point in scoring any political points. Marquis of Queensbury rules and all, don’t you know ol’ chap.

Fenris on January 7, 2013 at 7:10 PM

…”I’m part of the team that flukes with the facts!”
…so what?

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2013 at 7:10 PM

When is everyone going to get the hint, that a large majority of the GOP doesnt care about anything but their jobs. They are too spineless to fight Obama unless they have no choice and they have plenty of cover to grab the ankles on Hagel.

In my opinion, he is as unqualified, incompetent, and harmful as anyone else Obama would have chosen for the position, but thats what the country voted for in November. Ive given up on these political battles, elections do have consequences.

But what can we do? The country is run by liars and thieves who have bought the support of a lazy selfish citizenry, and is protected by a dishonest, corrupt, and intellectually bamkrupt press.

We must take over our local governments and/or start a third party. Washington DC is not savable by way of either major political party.

We must change the paradigm or the country is lost. Most Obama supporters/voters (or Democrats for that matter) are not reasonable human beings to be bargained with for the future of America. They have shown their end goal is tyranny, and the GOP is merely a speed bump on the road towards those ends.

Sorry, i just see people squabble over minutiae while our opponents are driving nails into liberty’s coffin.

alecj on January 7, 2013 at 7:15 PM

“He might also be a political insurance policy in case things do come to that, someone at whom Obama can point and say, “Even my dovish, anti-interventionist, Israel-critic defense secretary thought a military strike was a good idea.”

Yeah , he’s playing 4 dimensional strategic political chess rather than just being a predictably left wing,Jihad sympathizing, anti-Israel a$$hole.
.
*sigh*

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on January 7, 2013 at 7:17 PM

Jews voted for Obama and Dims big time. Elections have consequences. Join the club.

Dingbat63 on January 7, 2013 at 7:19 PM

FROM THE WASHINGTON POST:

FORMER SENATOR Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national security team. He would not, however, move it toward the center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him.

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

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Well at least with Hagel as SecDef, DADT will be unofficially back. But don’t tell the left or they will end it right there, they could care less about Israel. /low information voter

tjexcite on January 7, 2013 at 7:21 PM

“What’s in Israel’s interest is to help Israel and the Palestinians find some peaceful way to live together.”

STFU, Hagel, you friggin worm. You belong with your buddy, Barky the Indonesian Dog-Eater, dirtball.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 7, 2013 at 7:23 PM

In the bizarro world of Obamaland the anti-Israel feelings of Hagel aren’t going to trump any anti-Israel feelings of the President. What do we gain from having a pro-Israel Defense Secretary with Obama as his boss? If we are going to pick our battles why are we going to the mat for an anti-Israel guy that isn’t even at State?

Conan on January 7, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Obama is not even trying to hid his hatred for Israel now..it’s clearly out in the open for all to see..No bombing or more sanctions for Iran, no back up for Israel if/when they attack Iran..God’s i know is not happy about this pic or Obama himself..Don’t mess with God Obama, even though you think you are one yourself

sadsushi on January 7, 2013 at 7:51 PM

If Republicans had nervy firebrands like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, someone would rise up to declare, “Chuck Hagel’s America is a land in which gays would be forced back in the closet and Jews would be accused of dual loyalty. Chuck Hagel’s world is one in which devastating defense cuts become a goal, not a problem; we enter direct talks with the terrorist organization Hamas; and sanctions on Iran wither.”

The Hagel nomination expected to come on Monday is so outrageous and the rationale for his nomination so weak that it becomes an easy no vote for all Republicans. Phillip Terzian aptly sums up the problems with Hagel that go beyond his extreme views: “Simply stated, there is no evidence that Chuck Hagel has the experience or temperament to master the gigantic defense establishment, or deal effectively with Congress on delicate issues. On the contrary, there is every indication that he would quickly suffocate in the details of running the Pentagon, and run afoul of his political masters in the White House.”

Unlike the Democratic Party, support for the U.S.-Israel relationship has become a positive litmus test for national office in the GOP, in large part due to the intensely pro-Israel Christian conservatives. The opposition to Hagel will be fierce. At the very least the battle will potentially suck up much of the oxygen in the Senate, put other issues like gun control on hold and threaten to become the blockbuster hearing of the Obama presidency as the Judge Robert Bork hearing was in the Reagan administration.

But this is not merely about Israel or Iran policy or defense spending. It is about the acceptability of the worst expression of anti-Semitism, the accusation of disloyalty. There is no other meaning to Hagel’s phrase “Jewish lobby.” The declaration from Hagel that he is not “the senator from Israel” (Who said he should be?) is again a direct attack on Jews’ fidelity to the United States. For decades this kind of venomous language has been gaining acceptance in Europe. But never in America. In elevating Hagel the president in a real and troubling way moves us closer to Western Europe. Indeed the most disturbing aspect of Hagel’s nomination is not his impact on policy (President Obama has and will continue to make one blunder after another), but what it says about the U.S. president’s willingness to embrace a man espousing the world’s oldest hatred.

The nomination will trigger a batch of litmus tests for various political groupings:

The Hagel Litmus Test

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM

I guess it’s the shameless lying on the part of politicians; seems to have gotten worse, hasn’t it? Like the spouse who gets caught red-handed buck-naked in bed with someone else and says, “look – are you going to believe me or your own lying eyes”.

It’s beyond gall for these f*ckwits to claim patently false things and simply expect people will either believe it, or that it then gives the media some lie to run with as though it resets reality… or something.

Midas on January 7, 2013 at 8:00 PM

so unless Hagel is incapable of doing the job (like Rice as Secretary of State) then Obama should get his pick confirmed.

And I can’t stand Hagel, but seriously, elections have consequences.

Daemonocracy

Is that you Lindsay? We elected a president, not a dictator or a king. We have 3 branches of government for a reason. If he’s supposed to get whoever he wants, why do we even bother with voting and hearings to begin with? In fact, why doesn’t the losing party just go home until the next election, and let Obama do whatever he wants. After all, he did win you know.

xblade on January 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM

The first AJC encounter with Sen. Hagel I recall was when we sought his support, in 1999, for a Senate letter to then Russian President Boris Yeltsin urging action against rising anti-Semitism. We were unsuccessful. On June 20, 1999, we published the letter as a full-page ad in The New York Times with 99 Senate signatories. Only Sen. Hagel’s name was absent.

Our concern then has only grown since, as we have witnessed his stance on a range of core U.S. national security priorities.

What is striking is that the opposition to him today is being labeled as “neocon,” when a number of his documented positions, in fact, have been contrary to the Obama Administration’s to date — on Iran sanctions, on a credible military option against Iran, on Hezbollah as a terrorist group, on the special nature of the US-Israel relationship, etc.

Against that backdrop, what message would the President be sending if he opted to go ahead with such a nomination?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2012/12/19/more-trouble-for-hagel/

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM

“AIPAC will be sitting this one out.”

anti-semites, all of them.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 8:41 PM

WINGNUTTERY IS CONSIDERED “PERFECTLY RATIONAL”

But, we should negotiate with people, whose Charter reads like it came from a bunch of nutters that haven’t yet caught on that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fake. I bet you wouldn’t cut any slack to groups that believe gays can be “cured.” Wingnuttery is A-OK, as long as it supports your worldview.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM

this rule seems a bit weird. why should we exclude perfectly rational options?

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Are you claiming that either the Hamas Charter or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are “perfectly rational”??? Really???

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 7:18 PM

negotiating with your enemies is.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

Maybe, for some people like you, but I don’t remember either FDR or Truman negotiating with Hitler or Hirohito after WWII started. Both demanded unconditional surrender.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 8:30 PM

It is “perfectly rational” to negotiate with people, who believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are TRUE!!! Why, O, why didn’t FDR just negotiate with Hitler??? I’m sure that he could have prevented the madman from murdering 11 million people in the Holocaust and millions more through his invasions and Lebensraum programme.

Obamabot, Sesqui, is like an American Jew in 1939 applauding FDR’s decision to turn away the MS St Louis with its Jewish refugees from Europe…many of whom were returned to Europe and perished in the Holocaust.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 8:45 PM

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM

you really should be embarrassed, too bad you don’t have the capacity.

Though Hagel didn’t sign the letter, the reason had nothing to do with his views on anti-Semitism: a spokesperson for his office said at the time, in the words of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, that Hagel had a “policy not to send letters to foreign heads of state regarding their domestic policy.” Deb Fiddelke, the spokesperson, explained that Hagel’s absence had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the letter: “Anti-Semitism and discrimination in any form should not be tolerated,” she told JTA.

How do we know Hagel was really opposed to anti-Semitism? Well, his record of letters, actually. In 2002, three years after the AJC letter the Yeltsin, Hagel signed another letter urging action against anti-Semitism in Europe and the Arab media—only this letter was not to a foreign head of state, but rather to then-President George W. Bush. “Ninety-nine senators expressed concern Friday over anti-Semitism in Europe and in the Arab media and urged President Bush to address the issue,” said an Associated Press report about the letter. The letter signed by Hagel (PDF), which was spearheaded by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), read: “We urge you and your Administration to make every effort possible to raise, at the highest level, our concerns about anti-Semitic acts in Europe and anti-Semitic portrayals in the Arab media.” That, apparently, is how Hagel thought it worked: you urge your own President, who is tasked by the constitution to make foreign policy, to raise it with, as Levin’s press release had it, the “highest level of those governments.”

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 8:48 PM

well…there’s this.

REMEMBERING CHUCK HAGEL’S ROLE IN DERAILING KYOTO. “The Byrd-Hagel resolution was essentially a missile aimed at the Clinton administration that said Don’t even think of bringing this crap treaty to the Senate if it doesn’t include India and China. It passed by a vote of 97 – 0; think of who was included in that vote for this to happen — such prominent ‘climate deniers’ as Babs Boxer and John Kerry. . . . I wonder what Al Gore thinks of this nomination? (He’s probably too busy counting his new Arab oil millions. Heh.) I wonder if the environmentalists will say something cross about Hagel. Not everyone on the Left has forgotten this. The Daily Kos Kids have their knickers bunched up at least.”

UPDATE: Randy Barnett emails: “What’s the chances that the Hagel nomination is about Obama’s next nominee for Defense, who’ll get waived through if Hagel is defeated?”

anybody that brought down Kyoto in my book starts with warm regards.

the 97-0 was sweet, and it was used for years and years against the AGW fruitcakes

r keller on January 7, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 8:45 PM

you keep comparing hamas to hirohito, blissfully ignorant of the sheer stupidity of it, and then you go ahead and copy your failure into other posts for the whole world to see.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Jews: STFU. You sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

Dingbat63 on January 7, 2013 at 8:59 PM

HEB and HOMO Hater!

Drill and Fill on January 7, 2013 at 9:04 PM

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 8:48 PM

I’m not embarrassed by it. Hagel should be. He was the ONLY Senator that couldn’t stand up against anti-Semitism. The Senate was urging a response, not demanding one.

you keep comparing hamas to hirohito, blissfully ignorant of the sheer stupidity of it, and then you go ahead and copy your failure into other posts for the whole world to see.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 8:52 PM

Hamas is a terrorist organisation and is listed as such by the United States, the European Union, Canada, Japan, and Israel. Its Charter reads like it was written by a group of people that believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was NOT a forgery. Somehow, you believe that it is “perfectly reasonable” to demand that Israel negotiate with people that believe in ludicrous – indeed, blood libelous – anti-semitic, conspiracy theories, have a stated goal to completely destroy it, have a cute little salute that, just coincidentally, is exactly like the one the Nazis used to use, and has been behind terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what is “perfectly reasonable.”

BTW, are Hamas’ positions on homosexuality, same-sex marriage, abortion, womens’ rights, etc, “perfectly reasonable”?

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 9:11 PM

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 9:11 PM

the logical connection between hamas’s heinousness and the prohibition of negotiating with them is still missing, i’m afraid.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 9:16 PM

the logical connection between hamas’s heinousness and the prohibition of negotiating with them is still missing, i’m afraid.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I never said that there was a prohibition on negotiating with Hamas. It is not something that most people would encourage given that they are a terrorist organisation. Chuck Hagel DID encourage it. That’s the difference.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Chuck Hagel DID encourage it. That’s the difference.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 9:25 PM

cold war presidents, including, prominently, ronaldus magnus, negotiated with the SU. to me, the soviets were worse than hamas, hezbollah, aq and every other terror group combined. and the communist regime wasn’t any more rational than khaled meshal.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 9:43 PM

cold war presidents, including, prominently, ronaldus magnus, negotiated with the SU. to me, the soviets were worse than hamas, hezbollah, aq and every other terror group combined. and the communist regime wasn’t any more rational than khaled meshal.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 9:43 PM

MAD doesn’t work with nutters. The Soviets didn’t believe that waging “jihad” could get them 72 virgins or bring about the return of Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Mahdī. In no way am I saying that all Muslims are nutters, but, unfortunately, a lot of nutters – like some of the more fanatical of Iran’s mullahs and Ahmadinejah, who are members of the Hojjatieh Mahdatieh Society – are in positions of great power in the Muslim world.

The truth be known, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union wanted a nuclear war. Neither had a reason to seek one. There ARE people in the Islamic world that DO seek an apocalyptic situation. Unlike fundamentalist Christians – or Christians, in general, for that matter, who believe that Armageddon will happen and a Messiah will return one day, the 12′th’ers believe that they must CAUSE Armageddon in order for the Mahdī to return. It is a key difference. To get an idea of how extreme and insane this sect is, know that the Ayatollah Khomeinei banned 12′th’ers and he wasn’t exactly liberal.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 10:01 PM

The truth be known, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union wanted a nuclear war. Neither had a reason to seek one. There ARE people in the Islamic world that DO seek an apocalyptic situation. Unlike fundamentalist Christians – or Christians, in general, for that matter, who believe that Armageddon will happen and a Messiah will return one day, the 12′th’ers believe that they must CAUSE Armageddon in order for the Mahdī to return.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 10:01 PM

…then self-preservation prevails as usual, alhamdulillah.

sesquipedalian on January 7, 2013 at 10:08 PM

“Obamacare”

The Left: That’s RAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCIIIIIISSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!

“Golf”

The Left: That’s RAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCIIIIIISSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!

“Chicago”

The Left: That’s RAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCIIIIIISSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!

“Apartment”

The Left: That’s RAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCIIIIIISSSSSTTTTTTT!!!!

“The JOOOOOOOOISH Lobby”

The Left: That’s NOT Anti-Semitic!!!!

**eyef^ckingroll**

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 10:14 PM

The Left: That’s NOT Anti-Semitic!!!!

**eyef^ckingroll**

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Reverend Jeremiah Wright: “I Hate Israel.”

The Left: That’s NOT Anti-Semitic

sentinelrules on January 7, 2013 at 10:17 PM

if the Jewish lobby doesn’t have the guts to challenge him then why should the rest of us care? Nothing matters anymore in this bizarro, infinite shades of gray world.

rplat on January 8, 2013 at 7:16 AM

Is that you Lindsay? We elected a president, not a dictator or a king. We have 3 branches of government for a reason. If he’s supposed to get whoever he wants, why do we even bother with voting and hearings to begin with? In fact, why doesn’t the losing party just go home until the next election, and let Obama do whatever he wants. After all, he did win you know.

xblade on January 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM

LOL, I’ve been calling for Graham to be primaried since the Tea Party movement started, so cut the bullsh*t.

Tell me exactly why the GOP should publicly fight a losing battle against Hagel’s confirmation and play into Obama’s hands. What makes Hagel ineligible to be Secretary of Defense aside from tension with Israel supporters? AIPAC and the Anti Defamation League won’t get involved, so Obama is free to demagogue the hell out of the GOP on this one.

Republicans should absolutely grill him in the confirmation hearings, but I think they should either abstain from voting. Hagel is a purely political pick, Republicans need to learn not to fall for these things. Brennan is someone worth fighting.

Seriously though, explain to me exactly why Hagel is not qualified to be Secretary of Defense?

By the way, did you support Boehner and that awful fiscal cliff “deal”?

Daemonocracy on January 8, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Republicans should absolutely grill him in the confirmation hearings, but I think they should either abstain from voting.

cut myself short there. They should either abstain from voting and issue a written statment expressing their Hagel concerns (the Senate’s form of voting present), or quietly vote against him with no filibuster. If a Republican does vote for him, it’s no big deal because there are bigger fish to fry and smarter battles to fight. The Hagel nomination is nothing more than distraction technique, the GOP should not fall for it.

Daemonocracy on January 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM