You are correct. I took some liberties with Hagel’s ignorance.
I am not ashamed.

In my view, his experience that you posted, does not speak well for a SecDef. Ms. Flournoy is much better qualified. And she also “leans towards restraint”

Jabberwock on February 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM

And don’t forget she’d be all Obama’s. When the inevitable clusterfark occurs there won’t be a handy “R” to have all the sh!t to stick to.

Hagel’s just a handy scapegoat for the Obama administration.

That’s a bad sign for Hagel and the White House. If McCain switches to the filibuster, they won’t get either of these confirmations through the Senate.

But Jay Carney was on local talk radio ahead of the SOTU. He said that Hagel did fine and will be an outstanding SecDef. Of course his next comment was the old “war hero” riff as if that alone qualifies the man for a pass on being a Jew-hating homophobe with absurd ideas about nuclear proliferation. Thank you for your military service Senator but I don’t think you are the best choice to have control over our nuclear weapons programs and policies.

In my view, his experience that you posted, does not speak well for a SecDef. Ms. Flournoy is much better qualified. And she also “leans towards restraint”
Jabberwock on February 13, 2013 at 1:54 PM

That’s a fair opinion.

So necessary evil? Got it.
How does one deter a state whose leaders are Sign 10 Devouts?

nobar on February 13, 2013 at 1:45 PM

And you assume the 75 million inhabitants of Iran are willing to be nuked in order to achieve martyrdom? Nuclear technology is close to 70 years old. Heck, even Pakistan has nukes. If Iran were committed to martyrdom as you say they would already have them and already used them by now. Pakistan is an Islamic state, they likely gave OSB a safe haven and yet they haven’t wiped any country off the face of the earth. It looks like Mutually Assured Destruction has worked quite well.

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM

You are correct. I took some liberties with Hagel’s ignorance.
I am not ashamed.

In my view, his experience that you posted, does not speak well for a SecDef. Ms. Flournoy is much better qualified. And she also “leans towards restraint”

I wish there were no nukes to begin with buy since the nuclear genie is out the bottle the US must have a nuclear deterrence. However, I don’t believe that the US is justified to initiate a preemptive war for the purpose of keeping another country from acquiring nukes.

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 1:33 PM

So necessary evil? Got it.

How does one deter a state whose leaders are Sign 10 Devouts?

Sign 10 (Martyrdom): To a zealot, no greater glory can exist than to die for the cause. Few devouts (or zealots) possess this sign. Even those who commit murder or betrayal often still value their lives. To cede their own life is the ultimate sign of commitment. The leaders often send these to pave the way for future conquest.

Question: Do you support nuclear deterrence? If not, why not?
nobar on February 13, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I wish there were no nukes to begin with buy since the nuclear genie is out the bottle the US must have a nuclear deterrence. However, I don’t believe that the US is justified to initiate a preemptive war for the purpose of keeping another country from acquiring nukes.

That would be infinitely better than one who admits to not knowing the military itself.
BECAUSE ….. SecDef do not start wars.
Jabberwock on February 13, 2013 at 1:10 PM

If you bothered to read what Hagel actually said he never said he didn’t know the military. He said the he didn’t have knowledge about specific programs. I would not expect for the perspective CEO for a Fortune 500 company to have knowledge of many specific programs associated with that company. Being that the Pentagon has a $700B budget and 28000 employees I think that it is a reasonable expectation that any perspective Sect of Def candidate would not have knowledge of all the specifics.

You’re right, Sect of Def don’t start wars but they do advise the President. Since Chuck leans towards restraint I believe that this has the neocons in a tizzy.

af-
Can you specifically explain what is it about Chuck Hagel’s background and experience that makes him qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense? Also would you explain what experience you have that qualifies you to make a determination that Hagel is qualified for this job?
marks on February 13, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Chuck Hagel Experience

Chairman of the Atlantic Council and the United States of America Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee; co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and member of the Defense Policy Board. U.S. senator, 1997-2009; president, McCarthy & Co., an investment banking firm based in Omaha, Neb., 1992-1996; president and chief executive officer of the Private Sector Council, a nonprofit business organization in Washington, D.C., 1990-1992; co-founder, director and executive vice president of Vanguard Cellular Systems Inc. and chairman of Communications Corporation International LTD, 1985-1987; co-founder, director and president of Collins, Hagel & Clarke Inc., an international consulting, marketing and investment company involved in cellular telecommunications, 1982-1985; deputy administrator, U.S. Veterans Administration, 1981-1982; manager of government affairs, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 1977-1980; assistant to Rep. John Y. McCollister, R-Neb., 1971-1977; newscaster and talk-show host in Nebraska, 1969-1971; Army, including service in Vietnam, 1967-1968.

It appears to me that Chuck has a solid résumé.

In answering that question- please explain how, if you were on a hiring committee to hire a candidate for any job, how, in all honesty you would hire someone who would show up for their interview with an appearance and presentation as inept as Hagel did for his committee hearing

I would not be on a hiring committee with nearly half the members have made the decision not the a person prior to the interview. The Republicans already decided to vote no even before the hearing. The purpose of this hearing for Reblicans has been to block his confirmation. This has not been an interview. It has been a farce.

One that doesn’t recklessly initiating wars in the Middle East would be good enough for me.

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM

That would be infinitely better than one who admits to not knowing the military itself.

BECAUSE ….. SecDef do not start wars.

Hagel has opposed every sanction imposed on Iran — the leading exporter of terrorism throughout the world, the nation currently involved in every nation throughout the Middle East in an attempt to destabilize governments, the nation currently trying to acquire a nuclear bomb, & who has said they will nuke Israel & drive the rest of the Irsraelis into the sea.

We just gave elitist, Globalist, Progressive Liberal John Kerry a free pass to take over for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Kerry was the LIAR exposed as such by committing PERJURY BEFORE CONGRESS during Viet Nam, lying before Congress about our military in order to launch his Anti-Military/Anti-US political career. Kerry, who hates the military, recently declared that our military members were only in Iraq because they were uneducated/under-educated! Couldn’t theyfind anyone WHO ACTUALLY LIKES THE UNITED STATES to represent us to the world?

I am tired of the recycled Anti-American/Anti-Military, enemy-embracing Progressive Liberals & ignorant SOBs like John McCain, an incredible military vet who fought for his country but more resembles the FRENCH DURING WWII by SURRENDERING during/prior to every skirmish now with Liberals!

Hey John, either GROW A PAIR/BACKBONE – finding your love of country & desire to fight for her again or RETIRE!

One that doesn’t recklessly initiating wars in the Middle East would be good enough for me.

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Question: Do you support nuclear deterrence? If not, why not?

One that doesn’t recklessly initiating wars in the Middle East would be good enough for me.

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM

define “recklessly”, I don’t think it means what you thin it means.

And thank you Palin for supporting Cruz.

Palin 2016

One that doesn’t recklessly initiating wars in the Middle East would be good enough for me.

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 12:59 PM

lol, you think the SecDef initiates wars unilaterally?

Sounds to me that a crap DOD would be just fine with you.
Bitter Clinger on February 13, 2013 at 12:21 PM

One that doesn’t recklessly initiating wars in the Middle East would be good enough for me.

Ed,

Can you specifically explain what is it about Chuck Hagel’s background and experience that makes him unqualified to serve as Secretary of Defense? Also would you explain what experience you have that qualifies you to make a determination that Hagel is unqualified for this job?

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM

af-
Can you specifically explain what is it about Chuck Hagel’s background and experience that makes him qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense? Also would you explain what experience you have that qualifies you to make a determination that Hagel is qualified for this job?

In answering that question- please explain how, if you were on a hiring committee to hire a candidate for any job, how, in all honesty you would hire someone who would show up for their interview with an appearance and presentation as inept as Hagel did for his committee hearing, while simultaneously editing his resume to selectively omit past employment.

just asking…because, if someone here is not being completely honest about having an agenda in wanting Hagel in or out, it ain’t Ed.
Buy a mirror, buddy-

Ed,

Can you specifically explain what is it about Chuck Hagel’s background and experience that makes him unqualified to serve as Secretary of Defense? Also would you explain what experience you have that qualifies you to make a determination that Hagel is unqualified for this job?

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM

We’re not talking about Ed’s experience, we’re talking about Hagels experience or lack thereof. Hagel is a hack, but you already know that right?

Now either run along or go back and read what Ed wrote, there are Democrat’s that thought Hagel made an azz out of himself at the hearings.

ahaha, seriously now – show of hands. who actually thought for even a moment that limp-noodles like Lindsey Graham or John McCain possess the stones to filibuster the Emperor God-King Unicorn Princess?

Jeddite on February 13, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Which only serves to emphasize what an egregious choice Hagel was to begin with. He’s such a bad choice that even Graham and McCain feel comfortable pulling the plug on this farce.

Ed,

Can you specifically explain what is it about Chuck Hagel’s background and experience that makes him unqualified to serve as Secretary of Defense? Also would you explain what experience you have that qualifies you to make a determination that Hagel is unqualified for this job?

antifederalist on February 13, 2013 at 12:15 PM

At his own hearing for the SecDef job, Hagel admitted that his knowledge of the military was weak and that there would be significant “on the job” learning on his behalf.

There are better choices.

PUHLEEZE