Republicans should vote “no” and send a message to Hagel
1) Hagel’s history of contentious comments about the policies of the state of Israel is not merely obnoxious. That record will also severely impede his effectiveness in his portfolio. Israel is the United States’ most capable strategic partner in the world’s most turbulent region. Successful U.S. policy requires effective cooperation with Israel. In the 1990-91 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein attempted to wreck the U.S.-led alliance to rescue Kuwait by firing missiles at Israel. The United States asked Israel not to retaliate. This was an extraordinary and excruciating request. It’s impossible to imagine the United States exercising similar restraint. Yet Israel complied. …
3) The next secretary of defense will preside over the steepest build-down of U.S. forces since the end of the Korean War. Reducing forces while preserving strength will present a daunting managerial challenge. Nothing in Hagel’s career suggests he is equal to the task; and Hagel’s underwhelming confirmation hearing strongly suggests he will not be equal to it. I can’t remember any previous Cabinet appointee who handed in so dismaying a performance under senatorial questioning. Secretary of defense is too important a job for a man who has himself raised so many doubts about his basic competence.
Of course, the Democratic majority holds the votes to confirm Hagel even if Republicans unanimously vote “nay.” The only way Republicans can stop the nomination is by filibuster. Should they? My answer to that is again: No.
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
When you’ve lost David Frum.
Well, somebody had to say it…
Knott Buyinit on February 26, 2013 at 10:40 AM
Aha! I see. Frump’s raisins only appear when the issue might effect Israel. On everything else, he’s “play-along-get-along-can-I-carry-your-HUMONGOUS-jock-strap-President-Obama?” as he wipes the drool off of his chin.
Under ANY circumstances, NEVER go into Frump’s bedroom without a HAZMAT suit. The ceiling-to-floor pics & posters of Odreamy Obama look like the walls of Plato’s Retreat circa 1977 when he turns the black light on.
At the point, the only salient question remaining is:
Frump or Olbermann?
Resist We Much on February 26, 2013 at 11:13 AM
I completely disagree. If he is not competent to do the job then reject him.
The dems have no issue with that. They reject people who ARE competent for ideological reasons.
dogsoldier on February 26, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Frum is a neoconservative — their only issue, conservative issue, is Israel. Every other issue that is important to tax-paying, Constitution-lovin’ Americans is, well, negotiable.
So long as we commit blood and ungodly amounts of $$$ to the Middle East, the neoconservatives are happy — really, really happy. Too bad for them they lost ugly on Hagel and have been exposed as a paper tiger for all of the Political Class to see.
Punchenko on February 26, 2013 at 11:44 AM
Looks like you should read The Neocon Reader
We are more complex than you think.
thebrokenrattle on February 26, 2013 at 11:55 AM
Punchenko, I agree. I support Israel, but it is not what makes me a libertarian part of the VRWC.
Frump is only right-wing when it comes to Israel and Wilsonian-Bush foreign policy. He agrees with Obama on everything else…and has the utter gall to criticise “real” conservatives. He leaves us libertarians pretty much alone save for the occasional Ayn-Rand-Atlas-Shrugged-Galt’s-Gulch putdown.
He is very definitely a product of his mum, Barbara, a lefty journo with the CBC (who died recently, I think).
Resist We Much on February 26, 2013 at 11:59 AM
Frum’s naive and/or a coward. The left isn’t going to care about the Republicans’ precedent on nominees during the next Republican Admin.
blammm on February 26, 2013 at 12:43 PM
You’re really not, Brokenrattle. Oh, and I don’t need to plop down $$$ on a book when I can get Krauthammer’s, Frum’s, Kristol’s, Podhorezt’s, Abrams’, Boot’s, and Rubin’s opinions for free.
Speaking of “The Necon Reader”; here is a (free) discussion on the book courtesy of our friends from C-SPAN:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/185236-1
Again, not “complex” at all — they’re Big Government leftists for Israel, only their leftism is better managed leftism (or that’s how they laughably sell it.)
I support Israel’s right to exist, too. A lot of folks think I don’t because I’m rather critical of the Israel Lobby as I am all foreign lobbies. But I do support Israel and feel for the folks caught up in the hostilities there.
As far as neoconservatism goes, neoconservatives are only interested in power and will gladly readjust (if not outright chuck) their principles to get back into power. And when in power, their primary concern is foreign policy and US-Israeli relations.
That’s it. Everything else is negotiable.
Unfortunately for them, they have the American right, left, and Establishment against them now.
Punchenko on February 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM
Cool, thanks for the C-SPAN link. Do you think it’s possible to be a neocon-libertarian? That is necon in foreign affairs and libertarian in domestic affairs?
thebrokenrattle on February 26, 2013 at 3:05 PM