Obama nominates Hagel for DoD: “The leader our troops deserve”

posted at 4:01 pm on January 7, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

As Ed previewed this morning, President Obama nominated Chuck Hagel to replace Leon Panetta at the Department of Defense, as well as John Brennan to take over at the CIA, at the White House on Monday afternoon. Here’s the full vid, for your viewing pleasure (and here’s the transcript):

 

Why President Obama seems so inclined to be borderline belligerent with insisting upon Hagel’s nomination is still a head-scratcher for me, since Republicans in the Senate have made it all too clear that Hagel’s successful appointment is far from a sure thing, unless Obama is dead set against the perception that he’s been cowed by the GOP for a second time on a potential nomination. I’m with Sen. Portman on this one:

I am surprised and disappointed President Obama has chosen to move forward with Senator Hagel’s nomination given the significant concerns that both Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have expressed about Senator Hagel’s positions and past votes on issues regarding some of our closest allies and most pressing national security threats.  I believe Senator Hagel should get a fair look and an opportunity to defend his record, his past comments, and his current beliefs, but I don’t understand why the Administration is looking to pick yet another political fight instead of working with Congress to solve some of the very real problems we face as a country.

Panetta, at least, seemed like he was in good spirits — I’d guess that the novelty of dealing with all of the political punting on the sequestration cuts and the subsequently ongoing uncertainty over the Pentagon’s budget has worn off somewhat.

As for me, after close to 50 years of serving the American people — began in 1964 when I served as a first lieutenant in the United States Army, and then in both the legislative and executive branch positions in Washington — the time has come for me to return to my wife Sylvia, our three sons, their families, our six grandchildren, and my walnut farm — (laughter) — dealing with a different set of nuts.


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

Obama nominates Hagel for DoD: “The leader our troops deserve”

…in JugEars matter of speaking…P O S !

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM

so, here we go! i think hagel is a good choice, really!

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM

…he wanted Sean Penn!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2013 at 4:05 PM

1. Hagel hates the Pentagon/Defense.

2. Hagel hates Israel.

3. Obama likes Hagel.

4. Best part, the Jews and the gays get precisely what they voted for from Obama.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 4:05 PM

so, here we go! i think hagel is a good choice, really!

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Sure he is, for destroying defense, Israel and the US.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Obama nominates Hagel for DoD: “The leader our troops deserve”

Translation: I hate our troops.

portlandon on January 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM

Panetta, at least, seemed like he was in good spirits…

I’m assuming he can’t wait to get the hell out of Dodge.

BigGator5 on January 7, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Well that doesn’t say much about how you feel about out troops does it bho? It is bad enough for our wonderful men and women serving in our military under you the anti-American you are bho and now they get hagel?

God bless and please protect our militay.
L

letget on January 7, 2013 at 4:09 PM

1. Hagel hates the Pentagon/Defense.

2. Hagel hates Israel.

3. Obama likes Hagel.

4. Best part, the Jews and the gays get precisely what they voted for from Obama.

By Barry’s reckoning, this nomination is perfect then. Should be a slam dunk appointment.

hawkeye54 on January 7, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Obama hates our Brightest and Best.

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Sure he is, for destroying defense, Israel and the US.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM

nonsense… hagel defends the interest of the US first, what is wrong with that?

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Why President Obama seems so inclined to be borderline belligerent with insisting upon Hagel’s nomination is still a head-scratcher for me, since Republicans in the Senate have made it all too clear that Hagel’s successful appointment is far from a sure thing

Obstructionists!!!

CW on January 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Nazi’s !!

Mr. Arrogant on January 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM

Obama nominates Hagel for DoD: “The leader our troops deserve”

Deliberately ambiguous, isn’t it? More of Obysmal the passive-aggressive.

Re Panetta’s walnut joke and a different set of nuts: I guess it is not too far of a pun to call him Peanutta.

I imagine that the country will have some savings now that Panetta is not flying back home to CA as often as he had.

onlineanalyst on January 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM

nonsense… hagel defends the interest of the US first, what is wrong with that?

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:11 PM

You’re delusional.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

And Obama thinks he is the President that America deserves – you see how that works?

redguy on January 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Sometimes the American public gets what it deserves. Our troops and allies don’t deserve this, however those who voted for Obama need a reminder what a dud he is. The greatest sacrifice our troops will make is put up with Hagel, to prove what a sorry commander Obama is.

Tater Salad on January 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Hagel is another liberal Islamist apologist.

redguy on January 7, 2013 at 4:16 PM

What did our troops do to deserve this moonbat puke?

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Sometimes the American public gets what it deserves. Our troops and allies don’t deserve this, however those who voted for Obama need a reminder what a dud he is. The greatest sacrifice our troops will make is put up with Hagel, to prove what a sorry commander Obama is.

Tater Salad on January 7, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Our troops should not have to “put up” with Hagel. We need to fight
Obama on every front for the next four years. Don’t give him anymore ground.

redguy on January 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Why President Obama seems so inclined to be borderline belligerent with insisting upon Hagel’s nomination is still a head-scratcher for me,

Really?

Have we been down this road now for over 4 years and we are still trying to act like we don’t really believe Obama will always make decisions that favor anyone, anything and any possibility that will help Islam destroy Israel?

Helping Islam grow while helping Israel fail alongside America is what Obama is all about. Everything else is window dressing for the idiots that vote for him.

MikeA on January 7, 2013 at 4:18 PM

You’re delusional.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

no you are! just because someone does not agree with your policy, does not mean the are out there to “destroy america”
Hagel is a known “non interventionist” and criticized the both the iraq war and the libya war. very close to my libertarian positions, so, what is not to like? I think he is an excellent choice! it means that Obama is serious in avoiding new wars and israel should play nice instead of burning our foreign policy capital in demented stuff like settlements that we are after forced to defend as well.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

The Paulnuts are on the march today, aren’t they?

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

I think he is an excellent choice! it means that Obama is serious in avoiding new wars and israel should play nice instead of burning our foreign policy capital in demented stuff like settlements that we are after forced to defend as well.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Explain Libya.

BobMbx on January 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM

The Paulnuts are on the march today, aren’t they?

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Want some cheese with that whine?

Though I acknowledge that Obama is starting petty wars to look tough…and/or because someone else is telling him to.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 4:24 PM

What did our troops do to deserve this moonbat puke?

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Volunteered for military service and became the greatest terrorist threat to this country (according to Big Sis).

BobMbx on January 7, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Hagel is a known “non interventionist” and criticized the both the iraq war and the libya war. very close to my libertarian positions, so, what is not to like? I think he is an excellent choice! it means that Obama is serious in avoiding new wars and israel should play nice instead of burning our foreign policy capital in demented stuff like settlements that we are after forced to defend as well.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

How about you and your pseudo-libertarian Muslim-serving scum let Israel build whatever settlements they want – on their own land, no less – as long as they do not ask Americans for military or financial help. FYI, “USA bankrolling settlement constructions” only exists in your imagination – Israel only receives money in accord with Camp David Treaty, signed by none other than Jimmy “Dhimmi” Carter, not exactly a Jewish sympathizer.

Archivarix on January 7, 2013 at 4:27 PM

You’re delusional.

Schadenfreude on January 7, 2013 at 4:13 PM

no you are!

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Ouch!/

portlandon on January 7, 2013 at 4:27 PM

While this will indeed be messy, American Jews are largely on their own.

Since our friends in the Jewish community largely voted for Mr. Obama and he’s the “leader” they chose, they’ve lost my support.

Given the President’s record on Israel- what did they think he was going to do?

Good luck to them.

Marcus Traianus on January 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Oh yes, the anti-America, anti-Israel, anti-military leader our troops deserve.

Brilliant.

Pork-Chop on January 7, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Imagine the loons who will get promoted to general under this guy. And that’s the plan, after all, isn’t it? To remake the military into a state police force, putting down rebellion inside the country. Once that becomes the military culture — mowing down your fellow citizens — it’s pretty much over. Zero’s dreams of his father will be complete.

Rational Thought on January 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Hagel hates Israel and will use America’s forces to prove it. In Obama’s mind, Hagel is perfect for the job.

ROCnPhilly on January 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Oh, good effing Lord!
*glares*

annoyinglittletwerp on January 7, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Helping Islam grow while helping Israel fail alongside America is what Obama is all about. Everything else is window dressing for the idiots that vote for him.

MikeA on January 7, 2013 at 4:18 PM

Sounds about right.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 7, 2013 at 4:30 PM

The Paulnuts are on the march today, aren’t they?

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

libertarians are tolerant even of demented socons like yourself!
a libertarian lead of the GOP can win while a socon lead will only bring permanent minority.
embrace the times!

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:30 PM

boy is the lsm defending chuckie hagel big time for dear leader…only the gop have a problem with chuckie, not a peep about the dems

cmsinaz on January 7, 2013 at 4:30 PM

boy is the lsm defending chuckie hagel big time for dear leader…only the gop have a problem with chuckie, not a peep about the dems

cmsinaz on January 7, 2013 at 4:30 PM

The LSM and the Usurper share the owner.

Archivarix on January 7, 2013 at 4:33 PM

barry said it quite clearly…hagel isn’t the type that leads our boys into battle where they lay, dying in the dirt…for no good cause

so a vote For hagle will be a vote for stupid wars…a vote to maintain this country on a Bush smirky-chimp footing.

and that’s what the media’s narrative will be…are you for Bush’s WAR or agin it?…because, we ain’t goin into iran, no way

r keller on January 7, 2013 at 4:35 PM

barry said it quite clearly…hagel isn’t the type that leads our boys into battle where they lay, dying in the dirt…for no good cause

so a vote For hagle will be a vote for stupid wars…a vote to maintain this country on a Bush smirky-chimp footing.

and that’s what the media’s narrative will be…are you for Bush’s WAR or agin it?…because, we ain’t goin into iran, no way

r keller on January 7, 2013 at 4:35 PM

Well at least you get one out of three in your wrechedly-typed post, because we do NOT have the spine to go after Iran.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

CNN is running with a headline that says Hagel is drawing fire from the GOP. Ne’er mind the left’s less than convivial pre-reaction.

apostic on January 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Bill Ayers not available for nomination…

Khun Joe on January 7, 2013 at 4:39 PM

libertarians are tolerant even of demented socons like yourself!
a libertarian lead of the GOP can win while a socon lead will only bring permanent minority.
embrace the times!

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Tolerance.

Only neocons can bring a majority :P

thebrokenrattle on January 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM

How about you and your pseudo-libertarian Muslim-serving scum let Israel build whatever settlements they want – on their own land, no less – as long as they do not ask Americans for military or financial help. FYI, “USA bankrolling settlement constructions” only exists in your imagination – Israel only receives money in accord with Camp David Treaty, signed by none other than Jimmy “Dhimmi” Carter, not exactly a Jewish sympathizer.

Archivarix on January 7, 2013 at 4:27 PM

fist of all, I am married to an israeli citizen and both my kids have double US-isreali nationality, so, I have much better reasons to support israel than most of you.
and since I lived in israel for 2 years I have my own opinion about some things there, and the settlements are one of them. they are a torn in the side of peace and is being pushed by demented historical revivalists that think those barren hills deserve any blood to be wasted over them.
that said, the palestinians cant be trusted peace partners but that should not be used as an excuse to build even more idiotic settlements.
and yes, every time settlements are built the US suffers on its image as Israel best friend. we pay a price in a different way, such as, more jihadis willing to target our troops

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Lets see, bho has nominated kerry, hagel, and brennen. Who is left to for bho to get who could be much worse? It is going to be fun to see who bho/jarrett picks for other posts?

We are in another ‘distraction, constant crisis mode’ here with bho! Keep everyone bent out of shape watching one hand and bho’s other hand is doing his evil against the US!
L

letget on January 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Tolerance.

Only neocons can bring a majority :P

thebrokenrattle on January 7, 2013 at 4:40 PM

lol! neocons are done, their policies failed. its time to return to the “non-interventionist” GOP.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

“Leader” my backside. He was a low grade enlisted soldier who served honorably, and that’s it. His senate term was mediocre and his formal education was minimal. Obama really knows how to pick them. Hagel is a dim bulb and needs to be sent packing.

rplat on January 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

The Paulnuts are on the march today, aren’t they?

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Considering how much Paul got in the GOP primaries and Gary Johnson’s 1% in the general elections….it’s a very small march.

sentinelrules on January 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Why President Obama seems so inclined to be borderline belligerent with insisting upon Hagel’s nomination is still a head-scratcher for me

No, not a head scratcher at all if you understand that Ogabe is totally, completely and utterly incapable of realizing that his every thought, choice or action isn’t the most brilliant thought, choice or action in the entirety of history. In Ogabe’s mind, he is incapable of making the tiniest error of judgement. Every minute of every day, he is the smartest person in the room as well as the smartest person ever born. So how could he possibly make a poor choice for Secretary of Def?

catsandbooks on January 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Obama nominates Hagel for DoD: “The leader our troops deserve”

Our troops deserve a leader that opposed The Surge in Iraq, which was one of the bright spots in that folly?

Our troops deserve a leader that criticises a war as a “war for oil,” which it wasn’t (see the contracts that have been awarded since), before he votes FOR it?

Our troops deserve a leader, who calls for UNCONDITIONAL negotiations with Iran and its leader, who is a member of the Hojjatieh Mahdatieh Society?

Our troops deserve a leader, who says that the US and Israel should negotiate with Hezbollah and Hamas, whose Charter calls for the total destruction of the Jewish State?

Our troops deserve a leader, who refused to sign onto a letter asking the European Union to label Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation?

Our troops deserve a leader, who is a homophobe?

Would Federal employees at Health & Human Services deserve a leader who said “Let the blacks pay for it” or “Let the Hispanics pay for it”? If not, why would our troops deserve a leader that says, “Let the Jews pay for it”?

Our troops deserve a leader, who, when in 2002 457 Israelis were killed in terrorist attacks (the equivalent of more than 20,000 fatalities in the US or seven 9/11s), told Israel that IT “must take steps to show its commitment to peace” even though a mere 2 years earlier Prime Minister Ehud Barak had offered a state to Yasser Arafat at Camp David only to be rebuffed?

Our troops deserve a leader, who called Israel’s war against Hezbollah “the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon”?

Our troops deserve a leader, who voted against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation even though it had been proven that the IRG had, in fact, been behind many of the attacks in Iraq and elsewhere that killed American troops and others?

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Our troops deserve a leader, who wrote on Egypt:

“We are today defining a new world order. Not since World War II has mankind witnessed such a realignment of interests, influences and challenges….Continued long-standing U.S.-Egyptian military-to-military relationships will be vital to U.S. policy and Egypt’s democratic transition. There are early positive signs that the Egyptian military establishment, now in charge in Egypt, is fulfilling its commitments to the Egyptian people. It convened a distinguished and credible panel of Christians, Muslims and respected jurists to revise the country’s constitution. Military exchange programs over decades have exposed Egyptian military leaders to U.S. military doctrine and culture, including civilian control of the military and respect for human rights and rule of law. This built a foundation for personal and professional bonds between Egyptian and American generals…Reform and change share the ledger with stability and security; there is no longer a trade-off — and never really was.

Although we may be on the cusp of some real democratic reform in the Middle East, the future direction of other individual countries in this region cannot be generalized based upon Egypt.

We must remember that democracy is more than an election. In a region where many governments for decades have tolerated little or no space for political thought, debate or opposition, reform will not come quickly, easily or without setbacks.

There is a long and difficult struggle ahead for the people of the Middle East. But there has been a new flame of hope lit in this ancient land that is the cradle of religion and humanity. Individual and societal freedoms that allow men and women to innovate, invent, improve and imagine will never be driven from the human spirit. Human endeavor will always eventually dominate and dictate the course of events. This is the story of world civilization. This is the drama that is now playing out in the Middle East.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM

That was a rhetorical question. Hagel was a starry-eyed about the Arab Spring and Tahrir Square as was Billy Kristol.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM

“Leader” my backside. He was a low grade enlisted soldier who served honorably, and that’s it.

lol, so, he is not blue blood enough for you? what is wrong with having a men of the people knowing what a common soldier suffers in war, to lead our defense? at least he will think twice before engaging our nation into quagmires unlike our last blue blood GOP president.

His senate term was mediocre and his formal education was minimal. Obama really knows how to pick them. Hagel is a dim bulb and needs to be sent packing.

rplat on January 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

so you are opposed to Hagel because he was a “dim bulb”? where were you during the bush years…

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Ramsey Clark must have held out for Joint Chiefs chair.

cbenoistd on January 7, 2013 at 4:51 PM

lol! neocons are done, their policies failed. its time to return to the “non-interventionist” GOP.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM

I just said that to rile you up. Im one of the last self-declared neoncons.

thebrokenrattle on January 7, 2013 at 4:51 PM

ALINSKY!

tom daschle concerned on January 7, 2013 at 4:51 PM

I suppose if one kicked around a little bit one could find evidence that Hagel is an anti-semite. The problem is, the republicans probably aren’t even trying to look. They think all they have to do is trot McCain out there and recite how “disturbed and troubled” he is about this nomination and that’ll do it?

Truth is, Hagel is going to get the job so hold the bluster and cast the votes accordingly. That is unless you uncover pictures of Hagel in his Nazi uniform or swastika armband. If you can’t, then shut up and move on to something you can win.

kens on January 7, 2013 at 4:52 PM

The Paulnuts are on the march today, aren’t they?

kingsjester on January 7, 2013 at 4:22 PM

…seem to be goosestepping!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Meh….I served my last tour under Harold Brown. Now that was a piece of work. Hagel is John Wayne in comparison.

Limerick on January 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM

…seem to be goosestepping!

KOOLAID2 on January 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Meanwhile, the people who actually want to make you goosestep *COUGH*liberals*COUGH* are laughing very hard at you.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Hagel is a known “non interventionist” and criticized the both the iraq war and the libya war. very close to my libertarian positions,

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Sorry – but being a wuss on foreign policy isn’t “libertarian” position. I am a Libertarian – and I say the Iraq war was a good thing. Bush botched the reasoning – but it was a necessary war because you nations spending BILLIONS to contain an arse who wouldn’t play by the conditions of surrender.

Libertarians are for “self-ownership” – that’s the cruxt of our beliefs.

I don’t think Chuck Hagel supports that notion.

HondaV65 on January 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM

In the video still shot at the top of the page, why is Buddy Hackett speaking at the podium?

UpTheCreek on January 7, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Libertarians are doing themselves NO FAVOR in insisting that a weak foreign policy is a cornerstone of Libertarianism.

It most definitely is not. Libertarianism is about “self ownership” and restricting the powers of government. It isn’t about “intervention” overseas or “non-intervention” overseas. This highlights the problems of Libertarians – which I am one. We keep shooting ourselves in the foot by dividing Libertarians.

You tell the SoCons to back off the social issues right?

Well – Libertarians need to back off the foreign policy issues. Intervention … Non-Intervention – the libertarian outlook is big tent enough to handle both.

HondaV65 on January 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM

The non-establishment perspective:

Is the Iraq War over oil? Chuck Hagel, who was just nominated for Secretary of Defense, thinks so; or at least he did in 2007. And, for neocon Bill Kristol, that’s a big problem. Michael Moore responded to Kristol, quoting several conservative pundits who basically agreed with Hagel. One of the pundits quoted was Ann Coulter, who claimed that it is right and good that the U.S. fights for oil, because the country needs it. Murray Rothbard, in detailing the prime motives for the first war in Iraq, made a crucial point. Intervention in Iraq is indeed about oil. But it is not about national access to oil per se, but about the privileged access of certain oil producers. It is war, not for consumer capitalism, but for crony capitalists.

Fighting for Oil

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM

You tell the SoCons to back off the social issues right?

Well – Libertarians need to back off the foreign policy issues. Intervention … Non-Intervention – the libertarian outlook is big tent enough to handle both.

HondaV65 on January 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM

All I ask of SoCons is not to say exceptionally stupid things on-camera (this is mostly their politicians), or steal the stage for another anti-abortion crusade that will fail as sure as the sun rises. (take it to the SCOTUS already or go home)

We are going to have to end our policy of constant intervention no matter who is President, no matter who controls the House and/or Senate, if for no other reason because of the fiscal cliff. I’m asking people to start pushing for an orderly withdrawal while that is still an option, because all too soon it won’t be.

MelonCollie on January 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

lol, so, he is not blue blood enough for you? what is wrong with having a men of the people knowing what a common soldier suffers in war, to lead our defense? at least he will think twice before engaging our nation into quagmires unlike our last blue blood GOP president.

You need to engage your brain before you put your mouth in gear. I was a poor boy that joined the Army at age 18 and served 35 years, 10 years of that time as an enlisted soldier. Hagel lacks the experience, the background and the raw intelligence to serve in this job. Furthermore, you can think what you will of GW Bush but he was far from a dim bulb. How many high performance fighter aircraft have you flown lately

rplat on January 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

The leader our troops deserve

Wow, that’s insulting.

GWB on January 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Sorry – but being a wuss on foreign policy isn’t “libertarian” position. I am a Libertarian – and I say the Iraq war was a good thing. Bush botched the reasoning – but it was a necessary war because you nations spending BILLIONS to contain an arse who wouldn’t play by the conditions of surrender.

Libertarians are for “self-ownership” – that’s the cruxt of our beliefs.

I don’t think Chuck Hagel supports that notion.

HondaV65 on January 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM

my fault here, just because ron paul is for “non interventionism”, does not mean that it is the libertarian policy. But I think his foreign policy position was one of his greater strengths.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Sorry – but being a wuss on foreign policy isn’t “libertarian” position. I am a Libertarian – and I say the Iraq war was a good thing. Bush botched the reasoning – but it was a necessary war because you nations spending BILLIONS to contain an arse who wouldn’t play by the conditions of surrender.

Libertarians are for “self-ownership” – that’s the cruxt of our beliefs.

I don’t think Chuck Hagel supports that notion.

HondaV65 on January 7, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I wouldn’t call you Libertarian; I’d call you ignorant. You cannot possibly say you are libertarian and also declare the Iraq war was a good thing. Clearly, you know nothing of libertarianism and its tenets.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Hagel voted for the war, Dante.

As for this mythical “war for oil” nonsense, from Time Mag, you know that house-organ of the VRWC:

U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM

I’d call you ignorant.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Be careful about calling other people ignorant, Dante. I just proved that you are…once again…on the gun thread.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Hagel? Why not? Incompetence has been a hallmark of this administration.

GarandFan on January 7, 2013 at 5:30 PM

You need to engage your brain before you put your mouth in gear. I was a poor boy that joined the Army at age 18 and served 35 years, 10 years of that time as an enlisted soldier. Hagel lacks the experience, the background and the raw intelligence to serve in this job. Furthermore, you can think what you will of GW Bush but he was far from a dim bulb. How many high performance fighter aircraft have you flown lately

rplat on January 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

his background and senatorial experience on foreign policy seem quite solid. but I wonder what proof you have that he is a “dim bulb”? do you know him personally?

as for GWB, i dont think he was dumb as the left paints him, but he is no genius as well.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

I began training for service in the U.S. Army in 1978, to protect our country from the Soviet bear.

Service under civilian leadership is a cornerstone of our professional military. The idea of our soldiers executing policies set by the likes of Hagel and Kerry makes my hair stand up.

Learning Mandarin *and* Farsi is going to be tough…

Peyton on January 7, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Hagel voted for the war, Dante.

Hagel also co-sponsored the Kosovo Resolution, which gave Bill Clinton the ok to wage war against Serbia back in 1999.

But he’s pragmatic or something – nathor

sentinelrules on January 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I may not agree with Sen. Hagel’s stance on Israel. However, at least he’s not a career politician like one of the other potential nominees. Thank goodness, President Obama didn’t nominate the senior, French-looking, who by the way served in Vietnam, senator from Massachusetts. He has some serious executive credentials with a history of success (a lot more than his possible future boss).

I’d rather have Sen. Hagel than myriad other politically connected idiots with no experience in running anything besides their mouths.

RedinPDRM on January 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Hagel also co-sponsored the Kosovo Resolution, which gave Bill Clinton the ok to wage war against Serbia back in 1999.

But he’s pragmatic or something – nathor

sentinelrules on January 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM

so you are against hagel because of, the kosovo war?

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Hagel voted for the war, Dante.

As for this mythical “war for oil” nonsense, from Time Mag, you know that house-organ of the VRWC:

U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Yes, I know he did. He realized his mistake.

There is nothing mythical about it being a war for oil. Saddam accused Kuwait of slant drilling into its oil fields and invaded Kuwait over it. We, in turn, intervened and went to war against Iraq. It was about oil and nothing more.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Be careful about calling other people ignorant, Dante. I just proved that you are…once again…on the gun thread.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

No, you did not.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Thank goodness, President Obama didn’t nominate the senior, French-looking, who by the way served in Vietnam, senator from Massachusetts.

RedinPDRM on January 7, 2013 at 5:37 PM

You are speaking of your next Secretary of State, who will be 4th (or 5th, if you ask Biden) in line for the Presidency!

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:43 PM

No, you did not.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Yes, I did. Both Barbary wars had congressional approval (First Barbary War, 6 February 1802; Second Barbary War, 10 May 1815). Neither war was “declared.”

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM

You are speaking of your next Secretary of State, who will be 4th (or 5th, if you ask Biden) in line for the Presidency!

I know. I’m stuck in Bizarro world. Ahhhhhhhhh!

However, I’d rather have Kerry as SoS than SecDef. Ms. Fulbright proved that you just need a titular head of that cabinet position.

RedinPDRM on January 7, 2013 at 5:50 PM

There is nothing mythical about it being a war for oil. Saddam accused Kuwait of slant drilling into its oil fields and invaded Kuwait over it. We, in turn, intervened and went to war against Iraq. It was about oil and nothing more.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Wrong Bush. Wrong war.

It was about oil and nothing more.

Dante on January 7, 2013

Well, other than Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, asovereign country, which was/is a member of the United Nations, the UN’s Resolution 660 demanding Iraq’s withdrawal of said sovereign state (I thought that you were a stickler for sovereignty?) and the opposition of both the Arab League and the PLO to the occupation of Kuwait.

Now, if you are advocating that we withdraw from the UN, let’s do it, but there are obligations to being a member and coming to the aid of other members is one of them, which is also the case with NATO. This is the reason that I said earlier that Iran need never be able to deliver a nuclear weapon to the US mainland, hit an American installation, or hit Israel to draw us into a regional or world conflict. Under Section 5 of the NATO Treaty, the US is obligated to come to the aid of all NATO member states should they request it. One of those member states is Turkey, which is a neighbour of…wait for it…Iran.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:53 PM

That picture of the Three Stooges is just begging for a caption contest.

Cleombrotus on January 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Same war.

Gee, why do you think Turkey was admitted into NATO?

Nevermind, you don’t think; you regurgitate.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Nathor, wouldn’t you be against Hagel due to his support for Kosovo?

sentinelrules on January 7, 2013 at 6:19 PM

Same war.

Dante on January 7, 2013 at 6:10 PM

You know we were talking about W’s Iraq War.

Gee, why do you think Turkey was admitted into NATO?

I probably know more about it than you do, since Turkey was admitted to NATO long before Iran became a “problem.” It joined in 1952 and its admission had to do with the Soviet Union and the European market.

Nevermind, you don’t think; you regurgitate.

So sayeth the person, who failed to read the An Act for the Protection of the Commerce and Seamen of the United States, Against the Tripolitan Cruisers, which was passed by Congress on 6 February 1802, which authorised President Jefferson to use military force OFFENCIVELY, as opposed to repelling “sudden attacks,” against the Barbary pirates.

Puke up that Paul Pot fur-ball! Puke it up, Dante!

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Nathor, wouldn’t you be against Hagel due to his support for Kosovo?

sentinelrules on January 7, 2013 at 6:19 PM

not sure, he was against libya and a later irag oppositionist.
anyway, who are we going to find for the defense department that is against all foreign interventions?
but also, I am not as dovish as you might think. kosovo, libya and the panama war dont bring much condemnation from me, mostly because they were successful and relatively cheap. Afghanistan was a justified retaliatory war, even if it cost us. iraq was the hugest blunder and somalia a small blunder.
the first gulf war I would also be against but since it worked, I shut up. at least GHW bush was smarter that his son and did not deposed Saddam. he took the small victory and avoided the quagmire.
the issue is deeper and as to do with our huge projection of force and the wars that we must fight to service the many alliances and interests we have. we probably are too far spread and certain retreat to more safe positions is preferable (not as purist as ron paul would want it). like that, we would not have to fight half of the wars listed above. either successful or not. this would save us a huge amount of blood and treasure.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 6:52 PM

not sure, he was against libya and a later irag oppositionist.

nathor on January 7, 2013 at 6:52 PM

He turned against Iraq when it started to go badly…just like most Democrats. If we are to applaud that “wisdom,” should we not also condemn or mock his alleged military wisdom considering the fact that he stated that The Surge would fail and mark the Vietnamisation of Iraq? After all, The Surge was one of the few things that went right and did not end in the US being “bogged down” in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam.

It is easy to have hindsight. It’s not always an indication of genius.

Resist We Much on January 7, 2013 at 7:04 PM

not sure, he was against libya and a later irag oppositionist.
anyway, who are we going to find for the defense department that is against all foreign interventions?
but also,

Your prior posts say that Hagel would put “US interests first” and is a non-interventionist, so now presented evidence to the contrary, do you still support Hagel?

sentinelrules on January 7, 2013 at 9:55 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 10:18 PM

I probably know more about it than you do, since Turkey was admitted to NATO long before Iran became a “problem.” It joined in 1952 and its admission had to do with the Soviet Union and the European market.

Do you think Iran just became a “problem” in 1979? No.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM