Obama to pick Hagel as Secretary of Defense

[itshappening]

According to the official Washington mouthpiece POLITICO, Obama is going to pick Hagel for Secretary of Defense tomorrow. Watch how neocons grandstand, complain and whine for 2 weeks before they vote to confirm him:

-
President Barack Obama has settled on Chuck Hagel, a Republican and former U.S. senator from Nebraska, to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, with an announcement expected Monday, Democratic officials tell POLITICO.

The choice of Hagel, who opposed his party on the Iraq war as a senator, is likely to ignite a raucous confirmation battle because several Democratic interest groups and prominent Republicans have voiced strong opposition since Hagel’s vetting for the job was reported five weeks ago.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/chuck-hagel-picked-for-defense-secretary-85800.html#ixzz2HD1CLu7Z

[Brett85]

I'm still wondering whether Rand will vote to confirm Hagel or not. I guess we'll see.

[itshappening]

He should do. There is no good reason not to and Rand doesn't view confirmations as overtly political. He has said the president should be able to pick who he wants for his cabinet.

[mz10]

I'm still wondering whether Rand will vote to confirm Hagel or not. I guess we'll see.

I don't think there's any question he will.

This is probably the best thing Obama has done since becoming president.

[FrankRep]

Has anyone actually viewed his record? Voted for Iraq War, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc...

I don't see why Ron Paul supporters should support him.


H.J.Res. 114 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237)

S.J.Res. 23 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@R): Authorization for Use of Military Force
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281)

S. 1438 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN1438:): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00369)

H.R. 3162 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR3162:): Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313)

H.R. 5005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr5005): Homeland Security Act of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s249)

[mz10]

Has anyone actually viewed his record? Voted for Iraq War, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, etc...

I don't see why Ron Paul supporters should support him.


H.J.Res. 114 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hjres114): Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237)

S.J.Res. 23 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SJ00023:@@@R): Authorization for Use of Military Force
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281)

S. 1438 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:SN1438:): National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00369)

H.R. 3162 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR3162:): Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313)

H.R. 5005 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/hr5005): Homeland Security Act of 2002
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s249)

Cause he's not gonna start WWIII. That's reason enough for me to support him.

[coastie]

Cause he's not gonna start WWIII. That's reason enough for me to support him.


Are you basing that on his voting record?:confused: I sincerely hope not.

[FrankRep]

Cause he's not gonna start WWIII. That's reason enough for me to support him.
Do you support his votes on the Iraq War, Patriot Act, and Homeland Security?

[sailingaway]

I understand he is better than the others we could hope for, but he sure isn't on the list I'd choose if I were president.

[coastie]

I understand he is better than the others we could hope for, but he sure isn't on the list I'd choose if I were president.

Oh, its that whole lesser of two evils thing again. Gotchya.

[sailingaway]

Bill Kristol's folks are saying there aren't enough dems to confirm Hagel, but they seem to be ignoring the fact that as an ex Gop senator he likely has support on the other side of the aisle.

h xxp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abc-not-enough-democratic-support-confirm-hagel_693920.html

the fact that it is people like Kristol pushing against his appointment is what keeps me from opposing Hagel. I can't get excited, though. But if Kristol were happy with the guy, I'd feel worse.

[itshappening]

Oh, its that whole lesser of two evils thing again. Gotchya.


What should we do, take over the government in D.C through a revolution and appoint our own Defense Secretary?

This is the best we can hope for.

Hagel has said he regretted the iraq war vote and voted for a resolution in committee to get out in 2006. Plus he voted against Medicare Part D, No Child left behind and other Bush crap.

[itshappening]

Bill Kristol's folks are saying there aren't enough dems to confirm Hagel, but they seem to be ignoring the fact that as an ex Gop senator he likely has support on the other side of the aisle.

h xxp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/abc-not-enough-democratic-support-confirm-hagel_693920.html

the fact that it is people like Kristol pushing against his appointment is what keeps me from opposing Hagel. I can't get excited, though. But if Kristol were happy with the guy, I'd feel worse.

It's just posturing. There are enough Democrats to confirm a horse if Obama appointed one defense secretary. They do what they're told and as you say with most of the GOP minus the whiners he will easily be confirmed if only needs 50.

[FrankRep]

http://atlanticsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/Zbigniew-Brzezinski-300x200.jpg


Even Zbigniew Brzezinski supports Chuck Hagel.

Yeah, that's scary.




If nominated, Chuck Hagel could face bruising confirmation fight for defense post (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130104/NEWS/130109759)


Associated Press
January 5, 2013

...
However, Hagel has his supporters.

Several former national security advisers have formed the Bipartisan Group to support Hagel's expected nomination. They also have taken out advertisements this past week in both the Washington Post and on Politico, an political news website, supporting Hagel.

The group includes high-powered hitters in the foreign policy world, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, and Brent Scowcroft, a former adviser to former President George H.W. Bush and Gary Hart, a former presidential candidate and former senator from Colorado.
...

[itshappening]

Frank, he's the best available easily. The others in contention are neocons who want to expand war and presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Chuckie boy if consistent doesn't want to do that as far as I know. I suspect he will do some flips though to get through confirmation

[FrankRep]

Frank, he's the best available easily. The others in contention are neocons who want to expand war and presence in Afghanistan and Iraq. Chuckie boy if consistent doesn't want to do that as far as I know. I suspect he will do some flips though to get through confirmation

I'm not buying. I've researched his record and I found way too many problems.

[itshappening]

I'm not buying. I've researched his record and I found way too many problems.

So what do we do Frank? overthrow the D.C government and install our own man with a 100% JBS score?

[mz10]

Do you support his votes on the Iraq War, Patriot Act, and Homeland Security?

Yeah totally. I am quite the neocon you know :rolleyes:

Although he initially voted for it, he vocally opposed the Iraq War when it was extremely unpopular to do so as a Republican. He also opposes sanctions on Iran. Not just war with Iran, but sanctions as well. It's not a coincidence that Justin Raimondo is very supportive of him.

[FrankRep]

So what do we do Frank? overthrow the D.C government and install our own man with a 100% JBS score?
You voted for Mitt Romney, didn't you? You know, the whole "Lesser of two evils" philosophy.

[itshappening]

You voted for Mitt Romney, didn't you? You know, the whole "Lesser of two evils" philosophy.

I hate Romney and we're not voting for Secretary of Defense. He's the best we can get from the dictator in chief.

[FrankRep]

I hate Romney and we're not voting for Secretary of Defense. He's the best we can get from the dictator in chief.
Why would the "dictator in chief" Obama choose Chuck Hagel out of all people?

[itshappening]

Because he needs a Republican for the upcoming Pentagon cuts otherwise he may think he looks "weak" on "national security"

Hagel is probably his favorite Republican since they served in the Senate and he broke with his own party.

[klamath]

We could have done worse. At the very least he is not a chicken hawk.

[thehungarian]

Hagel is the best we could hope for, I guess.

[kathy88]

I was just listening to Bauer and Rose talking about this they are FREAKING. An RP supporter called in defending Hagel and Nauer was BRUTAL with regard to Ron and RP people. It was vicious.

[FrankRep]

Who here supports this bill?

S. 1927 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1927): Protect America Act of 2007
- Chuck Hagel: Yes (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/110-2007/s309)




The Protect America Act of 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007), is a controversial amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that was signed into law on August 5, 2007. It removed the warrant requirement for government surveillance of foreign intelligence targets "reasonably believed" to be outside of the United States. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 reauthorized many provisions of the Protect America Act in Title VII of FISA.

Domestic wiretapping

The bill allowed the monitoring of all electronic communications of "Americans communicating with foreigners who are the targets of a U.S. terrorism investigation" without a court's order or oversight, so long as it is not targeted at one particular person "reasonably believed to be" inside the country.[1][10][11]

Foreign wiretapping

The Act removed the requirement for a FISA warrant for any communication which was foreign-related, even if the communication involved a U.S. location on the receiving or sending end of communication; all foreign-foreign communications were removed from warrant requirements, as well.[10]

Experts claimed that this deceptively opened the door to domestic spying, given that many domestic U.S. communications passed via non-US locations, by virtue of old telephony network configurations.

Data monitoring

In the bill, the monitoring of data related to Americans communicating with persons (U.S citizens and non-citizens) outside the United States who are the targets of a U.S. government intelligence information gathering efforts was addressed. The Protect America Act differed from the FISA in that no discussion of actions or character judgment of the target was required for application of the statute (i.e. to receive a FISA surveillance warrant, a FISC foreign agent definition was required). This data could be monitored only if intelligence officials acted in the context of intelligence information gathering.

[itshappening]

No one here is going to support that Frank - as you know - or many of his other votes.

He made some good ones and bad ones.

[sailingaway]

No one here is going to support that Frank - as you know - or many of his other votes.

He made some good ones and bad ones.

mostly sucky ones, but no one better will be considered. Look at who is FIGHTING this, Kristol, et al.

I'm not lobbying on his behalf, but I'm not going to try to torpedo him either, given likely other options.

[itshappening]

Kristol and the neocons will lose this fight and become even more irrelevent and less influential.

It will show to GOPers that you dont need to listen to them

[FrankRep]

No one here is going to support that Frank - as you know - or many of his other votes.

He made some good ones and bad ones.

Your Pro-Chuck Hagel case is getting weaker and weaker.

[FrankRep]

mostly sucky ones, but no one better will be considered. Look at who is FIGHTING this, Kristol, et al.

I'm not lobbying on his behalf, but I'm not going to try to torpedo him either, given likely other options.

Bill Kristol is only against Chuck Hagel because he doesn't blindly support Israel.

[sailingaway]

Bill Kristol is only against Chuck Hagel because he doesn't blindly support Israel.Who is up for consideration by Obama that you like better?

[ClydeCoulter]

Bill Kristol is only against Chuck Hagel because he doesn't blindly support Israel.

Then one more plus in Hagel's column for me.

But, I'm with Sailingaway...it could be worse, and not any better on the horizon, and a plus that Kristol doesn't like him. I put "foreign policy" very high on my list, others may not.

[FrankRep]

Who is up for consideration by Obama that you like better?
Barack Obama had his eye on Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense since 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Obama_administration_consideration).

I guess Leon Panetta better fit Obama's agenda...

2011 - Leon Panetta -- History Shows He's Unfit For U.S. Secretary of Defense
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298013-Leon-Panetta-History-Shows-He-s-Unfit-For-U.S.-Secretary-of-Defense

[cajuncocoa]

I'm not understanding what there is to argue about here. It's Obama's decision; we can either agree with his decision or not. If you don't like the guy, it's not necessary to support him just because there isn't anybody better.

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, its that whole lesser of two evils thing again. Gotchya.

Left Boot, Right Boot, Left Boot, Right Boot.

If something like this doesn't make it clear there just is no fucking difference, then I don't know what will.

[FrankRep]

I'm not understanding what there is to argue about here. It's Obama's decision; we can either agree with his decision or not. If you don't like the guy, it's not necessary to support him just because there isn't anybody better.

I just have a problem with the Pro-Chuck Hagel cheerleaders we have here.

[cajuncocoa]

I just have a problem with the Pro-Chuck Hagel cheerleaders we have here.Yes, I can see that (and I tend to agree with you). What I'm not understanding is why it's necessary to get behind this guy just because there isn't anyone better. Is this preparation for excuses when Rand votes for him?

[ClydeCoulter]

I just have a problem with the Pro-Chuck Hagel cheerleaders we have here.

I'm not sure that "Pro" is the term to use, maybe it's more of a "hopeful sigh of relief"? Depends on your emphasis on foreign policy.

[Brett85]

I don't think there's any question he will.

This is probably the best thing Obama has done since becoming president.

I think there is a big question about what Rand will do, because Hagel has been labeled as being "anti Israel," and Rand wants to come across as being "pro Israel." So I don't think it's a sure thing that Rand will vote to confirm him.

[Antischism]

I don't think anyone here is "pro-Hagel," that's a load of fucking nonsense. What we are is glad Obama is choosing someone whose foreign policy is better than other potential choices. Are we voting? No. We don't have a choice, so in cases where we don't have any choice, it's nice to see someone with a better record than the rest get chosen. He could have picked someone MUCH worse, but he didn't. That's a good thing. It's not who we would want in a "perfect" world, but given his other potential choices, this is the best we could hope for.

I'd rather not be up Israel's ass and starting a war with Iran.

[sailingaway]

Yes, I can see that (and I tend to agree with you). What I'm not understanding is why it's necessary to get behind this guy just because there isn't anyone better.

I'm not pro, I don't like him at all. I just like others mentioned less. I don't have a vote, in any event.

[dillo]

a secretary of defense that is open about Israel controlling US politicians. Hes got my vote, but I doubt he will make it through

[twomp]

The Israel firsters hate him so that makes him little better but he doesn't bow down to Israel which is something sorely needed in our government right now. I know we are supposed to hate everything Obama does but who else would you rather Obama pick? Here are a few things about him from anti-war.com:


And when questioned on his Israel record, Hagel said: “Let me clear something up here if there’s any doubt in your mind. I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I take an oath of office to the constitution of the United States. Not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel.”

In October 2000, Hagel was one of only four Senators who refused to sign a letter expressing support for Israel during the second Palestinian intifada.

And in a July 2002 Washington Post op-ed, Hagel wrote that Palestinians could not be expected to make democratic reforms as long as “Israeli military occupation and settlement activity” continue, and that “Israel must take steps to show its commitment to peace.”

In 2006, Hagel demanded President Bush call for an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s attacks in Lebanon, insisting “This madness must stop,” and accusing Israel of “the systematic destruction of an American friend - the country and people of Lebanon.”

On issues of terrorism, Hagel is similarly reasonable – although in Washington his views are derided as extreme.

In August 2006, for example, Hagel, along with 12 other senators, refused to sign a letter asking the EU to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. And in 2009, Hagel signed onto a letter urging President Obama to open direct negotiations with Hamas.

On Iran, too, Hagel seems to part with the hysterical belligerence of the crowd in Washington. In 2007, Hagel urged President Bush to engage in “direct, unconditional” talks with Iran, and gave a speech claiming that that “Continued hostile relations between the United States and Iran will have the effect of isolating the United States.”

“Hagel even flirts with the idea that an Iranian bomb wouldn’t be the end of the world,” according to Foreign Policy magazine. And he would be exactly right about that.

Source: http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/15/chuck-hagels-record-on-terrorism-israel-iran/

[Brett85]

"In 2006, Hagel demanded President Bush call for an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s attacks in Lebanon, insisting “This madness must stop,” and accusing Israel of “the systematic destruction of an American friend - the country and people of Lebanon.”

I don't like that he wants to interfere in Israel's internal affairs.

[twomp]

"In 2006, Hagel demanded President Bush call for an immediate ceasefire in Israel’s attacks in Lebanon, insisting “This madness must stop,” and accusing Israel of “the systematic destruction of an American friend - the country and people of Lebanon.”

I don't like that he wants to interfere in Israel's internal affairs.

I agree and as FrankRep cited earlier, his votes on certain legislation were terrible but it's better then Obama picking someone like Lindsey Graham for Defense Secretary. Think of how terrible that would be!

In any case, any Defense Secretary that doesn't want to rush into war with Iran is a plus for me.

[Brett85]

I agree and as FrankRep cited earlier, his votes on certain legislation were terrible but it's better then Obama picking someone like Lindsey Graham for Defense Secretary. Think of how terrible that would be!

In any case, any Defense Secretary that doesn't want to rush into war with Iran is a plus for me.

That's true. A President Romney picking John Bolton for Defense Secretary would've been far worse. I still think it's unlikely that Hagel will be confirmed, however. There seems to be opposition from both Republicans and Democrats to his nomination.

[pochy1776]

he is gonna turn corrupt.

[robert68]

He's sounds better than Republican Bob Gates when he was nominated for "Defense" Secretary by President Clinton.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Does this even matter. Another pawn of the "2 party system"