Is the Chuck Hagel nomination as good as it sounds?

[Constitutional Paulicy]

I've been following this since it broke and it looks to be a good move. First thing I noticed is that he is a former military man who earned a purple heart. Most military men are highly unlikely to take war lightly.

He was one of the first Republicans to come out against the Iraq war even though he took extreme heat for his change of heart. He's gone so far as to write a book (America the Next Chapter) expressing that opposition. In his book he called out Bush as being arrogant as well as also criticizing the approach to nation building. From what I can gather, he seems to have an interventionist position.

He is no friend of the Jewish lobby and hasn't any military lobbyist donations influencing him. He has said that we should negotiate directly with Iran and that sanctions wont work. The neoconservatives actually drove him from the party.

Best of all, John McCain is strongly opposed to his nomination. Lindsey Gram stated that Hagel, if elected, would be the most antagonistic towards the state of Israel.

What do you guys think of this move? I'm having trouble finding a downside.

[FrankRep]

The Hagel Trap (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130124.html)


Daniel McAdams | LewRockwell.com
January 6, 2013


Desperation can make people do strange things. Obama's election was like a neutron bomb to the majority of the antiwar Left, with too many of the former eloquent critics of "W" suddenly twisting themselves into inhuman intellectual contortions to explain why drones in Yemen/Pakistan, targeted killing of American citizens, and arming al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria were both humanitarian and patriotic.

The rest of those opposed to empire were left desperate and grasping. Many initially sung hosannas to Obama claiming he was an antiwar alternative we could get behind. That didn't turn out too well. To their credit some of those soon realized their mistake, but the intellectually dangerous impulse to seek salvation in a personality lingered -- the temptation of a short-cut to the promised land.

Which leads us to former Senator Chuck Hagel, who far too many in the remnant of the antiwar, anti-empire movement have taken to praising as if with his nomination -- expected tomorrow -- the war party would be defeated.

It is a trap.

Hagel is the perfect choice for Obama if he wants to actually expand militarism: Hagel’s peace/anti-empire backers will be silenced when Hagel does as he is told (as he must) and continues, possibly expands, the disastrous policies of this administration. Do they really believe that the employee will force his drone-a-holic employer to suspend what has become the centerpiece of his foreign policy? What are Hagel's backers going to do when he does as he must, as a man who serves at the pleasure of a president who believes he has the Constitutional authority to draw up a "kill list" of Americans? Will they start denouncing the very person they demanded get the job in the first place? How foolish would that look? How ineffective.

Be careful what you ask for. And don't forget that among the others asking are those like the Podesta Group (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/04/leading-foreign-policy-voices-mount-pro-hagel-defense/), who are currently making a killing (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/128212.html) on all the killing they supported in Serbia under their former boss, former president Clinton.

And if Obama decides to invade Iran (or anywhere else) there are two things a Defense Secretary Hagel can do: 1) be a good soldier and carry out to the best of his abilities the command of his commander in chief (call it the the Colin Powell UN option); or 2) resign in protest, which simply does not happen in these days. What then? Haven't we been here before?

I think it is a losing proposition to put faith in a Hagel nomination when the real problem is our foreign policy — which is neither set by Hagel nor controlled by him. He is a good man in many ways to be sure. And that the Lindsey Grahams of the world despise him make it all the more tempting to sign those petitions. But in the end it will prove the timeless axiom of the all-time champion (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/104630.Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin) of politics, who said "the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130124.html



Also, think about this:


The Constitutional Case Against Chuck Hagel


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)

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)

Chuck Hagel is a member (http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=H) of the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0882791346).

Chuck Hagel scored a 44% on the Constitutional Voting Index (http://www.jbs.org/voting-index/download?id=18_4e72d649ea3d66fd1883cab0545fb042)

Endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130104/NEWS/130109759)

Endorsed by Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Obama_administration_consideration)

[Constitutional Paulicy]

The Hagel Trap (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130124.html)


Daniel McAdams | LewRockwell.com
January 6, 2013


Desperation can make people do strange things. Obama's election was like a neutron bomb to the majority of the antiwar Left, with too many of the former eloquent critics of "W" suddenly twisting themselves into inhuman intellectual contortions to explain why drones in Yemen/Pakistan, targeted killing of American citizens, and arming al-Qaeda in Libya and Syria were both humanitarian and patriotic.

The rest of those opposed to empire were left desperate and grasping. Many initially sung hosannas to Obama claiming he was an antiwar alternative we could get behind. That didn't turn out too well. To their credit some of those soon realized their mistake, but the intellectually dangerous impulse to seek salvation in a personality lingered -- the temptation of a short-cut to the promised land.

Which leads us to former Senator Chuck Hagel, who far too many in the remnant of the antiwar, anti-empire movement have taken to praising as if with his nomination -- expected tomorrow -- the war party would be defeated.

It is a trap.

Hagel is the perfect choice for Obama if he wants to actually expand militarism: Hagel’s peace/anti-empire backers will be silenced when Hagel does as he is told (as he must) and continues, possibly expands, the disastrous policies of this administration. Do they really believe that the employee will force his drone-a-holic employer to suspend what has become the centerpiece of his foreign policy? What are Hagel's backers going to do when he does as he must, as a man who serves at the pleasure of a president who believes he has the Constitutional authority to draw up a "kill list" of Americans? Will they start denouncing the very person they demanded get the job in the first place? How foolish would that look? How ineffective.

Be careful what you ask for. And don't forget that among the others asking are those like the Podesta Group (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/04/leading-foreign-policy-voices-mount-pro-hagel-defense/), who are currently making a killing (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/128212.html) on all the killing they supported in Serbia under their former boss, former president Clinton.

And if Obama decides to invade Iran (or anywhere else) there are two things a Defense Secretary Hagel can do: 1) be a good soldier and carry out to the best of his abilities the command of his commander in chief (call it the the Colin Powell UN option); or 2) resign in protest, which simply does not happen in these days. What then? Haven't we been here before?

I think it is a losing proposition to put faith in a Hagel nomination when the real problem is our foreign policy — which is neither set by Hagel nor controlled by him. He is a good man in many ways to be sure. And that the Lindsey Grahams of the world despise him make it all the more tempting to sign those petitions. But in the end it will prove the timeless axiom of the all-time champion (http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/104630.Vladimir_Ilyich_Lenin) of politics, who said "the best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/130124.html



Also, think about this:


The Constitutional Case Against Chuck Hagel


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)

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)

Chuck Hagel is a member (http://www.cfr.org/about/membership/roster.html?letter=H) of the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0882791346/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=libert0f-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0882791346).

Chuck Hagel scored a 44% on the Constitutional Voting Index (http://www.jbs.org/voting-index/download?id=18_4e72d649ea3d66fd1883cab0545fb042)

Endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski (http://www.omaha.com/article/20130104/NEWS/130109759)

Endorsed by Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel#Obama_administration_consideration)

The fact that he isn't in the drivers seat could be said about any nominee who accepts the position. As pointed out by the writer at Lew Rockwell, the Lindsey Grams of the world despise him.

I also understand that a trillion dollars has been cut from conventional war spending. Which leads me to believe this is why Obama chose him. However, covert CIA operations and drone warfare is seeing increased funding. Just how much of a role would Secretary of Defense play in matters of the CIA and National Intelligence?

[sailingaway]

He isn't good, he's bad. But the others whose names I've seen are worse. That's about all I can say about it. Oh, and Kristol et all are really upset about Hagel's nomination, which is entertaining.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

He isn't good, he's bad. But the others whose names I've seen are worse. That's about all I can say about it. Oh, and Kristol et all are really upset about Hagel's nomination, which is entertaining.

I've also read that he was more hawkish but had a change of heart and turned around his position. Most of the mistakes he made with support of the war agenda, which was referenced in the Lew Rockwell article, was prior to his awakening.

Considering he is being appointed by Obama, I'd say our cup is half full. Had it been someone of our own choosing, then I'd say we failed.

[sailingaway]

I've also read that he was more hawkish but had a change of heart and turned around his position. Most of the mistakes he made with support of the war agenda, which was referenced in the Lew Rockwell article, was prior to his awakening.

Considering he is being appointed by Obama, I'd say our cup is half full. Had it been someone of our own choosing, then I'd say we failed.

fair enough. Half full might be high, he is still a globalist, was fine with joint Iran sanctions just not unilateral, etc. But he doesn't seem as hair trigger and set to go off as the others.

[Keith and stuff]

Since there is nothing I can do about it, I have no dog in the race. On the issues shows Hagel as better than average for a high ranking Republican.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chuck_Hagel.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s030_090.gif

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Since there is nothing I can do about it, I have no dog in the race. On the issues shows Hagel as better than average for a high ranking Republican.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chuck_Hagel.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s030_090.gif

Wow that's an awesome site. Thanks for posting that. +rep

[TywinLannister]

It does not matter who he appoints, Obama is the one making the decisions. I don't know why anyone thinks this matters. Nothing will change regardless of who takes the job.

[itshappening]

It's not a trap. Defense secretary answers to the president. he has no power.

it does not matter if it's Chuck Hagel or Barney Frank.

Militarism cannot be expanded because of the budget constraints so I don't expect to see that happen whoever is the defense secretary. Even the most imperialist agenda is subject to economic law i.e see Roman's

[Bastiat's The Law]

The neocons are in panic mode over Hagel on all the networks. They are smearing him left and right. That alone makes me want him to get in there. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[Jon311]

The neocons are in panic mode over Hagel on all the networks. They are smearing him left and right. That alone makes me want him to get in there. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This.

[klamath]

We could have done far far worse. Just the fact of the people that hate him says it all. Most of those that hate him are chickenhawks.

[Bastiat's The Law]

We could have done far far worse. Just the fact of the people that hate him says it all. Most of those that hate him are chickenhawks.
Like Dan Senor on Morning Joe. He was Romney's foreign policy advisor and he's down right scary.

[twomp]

If Obama wanted to bomb Iran, Chuck Hagel couldn't stop him. But at least hopefully, Obama will have someone in his ear saying, "well maybe we shouldn't do that just yet" and when I see people on MSNBC, FOX NEWS, and CNN opposing him, it makes me think that maybe the guy should be brought in. When the media is on a witch hunt, we probably shouldn't side with the media.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Militarism cannot be expanded because of the budget constraints...


That has done little to stop anything.

[airborne373]

This is my personal opinion and nothing more:

It appears that Barack Obama has done one thing I can agree with .... preventing a full scale war with Iran. While I do not believe Obama is anti-Israel (Israel still gets billions from U.S. tax payers, intelligence and every other kind of support both offered and stolen.) he is opposing to some degree the Polish - pseudo Jewish - Neo Conservative - Zionist world viewers from starting WWIII. At least for now.

[sailingaway]

Since there is nothing I can do about it, I have no dog in the race. On the issues shows Hagel as better than average for a high ranking Republican.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Chuck_Hagel.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/images/s030_090.gif

but the only issues of relevance are his military and foreign policy positions. Not sure if that is highlighted in that chart.

[Brian4Liberty]

The neocons are in panic mode over Hagel on all the networks. They are smearing him left and right.

That is probably the most revealing part of this whole nomination. It is the extent that some people will go to smear a person based on nothing more than the slightest suspicion that he might be neutral on Israel, and that is based on nothing more than Hagel acknowledging the power of the Israel lobby (AIPAC) in DC.

The irony is thick:

"You guys have a very powerful lobby in DC. All of the politicians know that."

"What! No we don't! You are anti-Israel! You are a racist! You are an anti-Semite! We are going to smear you 24x7 all over the media for weeks, and that will prove that we don't have any influence! Errr, well, hhmmm, anyway, it still means you are a racist! Hold on, you hate gay people too! You are a homophobe of the highest order! You don't want to drop bombs on Iran? You are a murderer! You are the next Hitler!"

[Occam's Banana]

Militarism cannot be expanded because of the budget constraints [...]

That's what the Fed is for ...

[Brian4Liberty]

Is the Chuck Hagel nomination as good as it sounds?

Who knows? Will he try to reduce spending in that role, or fight to increase spending? Less wars = less spending, so maybe he is on the right track.

[COpatriot]

He's as good as we're going to get. Just look at how hard the neocons and Israel-firsters are working to slander him. That alone is reason for optimisim. He fought in Vietnam so he's not a chickenhawk and knows how awful war is. And like I've had to do, he admitted he was wrong about Iraq.

Perfect? Hardly. But can anyone here give me a single name who would be a better choice that Obama would realistically consider?

[sailingaway]

He's as good as we're going to get. Just look at how hard the neocons and Israel-firsters are working to slander him. That alone is reason for optimisim. He fought in Vietnam so he's not a chickenhawk and knows how awful war is. And like I've had to do, he admitted he was wrong about Iraq.

Perfect? Hardly. But can anyone here give me a single name who would be a better choice that Obama would realistically consider?

that's pretty much where I come out.

[itshappening]

That has done little to stop anything.

Eventually reality bites. See Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire.

Sooner or later they wont be able to expand and will have to cut back.

I strongly suspect that what Hagel's job is going to be so Obama can cut the Pentagon's funding with a Republican at the helm.

[angelatc]

Several writers at American Conservative have expressed their support for him. I trust them. Seeing the neocons go into full blown meltdown only confirms for me that this can't be an entirely bad thing.

And cutting the Pentagon funding isn't a bad thing either.

[Bastiat's The Law]

That is probably the most revealing part of this whole nomination. It is the extent that some people will go to smear a person based on nothing more than the slightest suspicion that he might be neutral on Israel, and that is based on nothing more than Hagel acknowledging the power of the Israel lobby (AIPAC) in DC.

The irony is thick:

"You guys have a very powerful lobby in DC. All of the politicians know that."

"What! No we don't! You are anti-Israel! You are a racist! You are an anti-Semite! We are going to smear you 24x7 all over the media for weeks, and that will prove that we don't have any influence! Errr, well, hhmmm, anyway, it still means you are a racist! Hold on, you hate gay people too! You are a homophobe of the highest order! You don't want to drop bombs on Iran? You are a murderer! You are the next Hitler!"
And that is creepy as hell. +rep

[Bastiat's The Law]

He's as good as we're going to get. Just look at how hard the neocons and Israel-firsters are working to slander him. That alone is reason for optimisim. He fought in Vietnam so he's not a chickenhawk and knows how awful war is. And like I've had to do, he admitted he was wrong about Iraq.

Perfect? Hardly. But can anyone here give me a single name who would be a better choice that Obama would realistically consider?
Nope. A non-chickenhawk would be a nice change and step in the right direction.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Eventually reality bites. See Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, British Empire.

Sooner or later they wont be able to expand and will have to cut back.

I strongly suspect that what Hagel's job is going to be so Obama can cut the Pentagon's funding with a Republican at the helm.
Obama wants political cover to do that, Hagel would provide that.

[Constitutional Paulicy]

Why the War Party Fears Hagel
by Pat Buchanan


Hagel's enemies contend that his own words disqualify him.

First, he told author Aaron David Miller that the "Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up there" on the Hill. Second, he urged us to talk to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran. Third, Hagel said several years ago, "A military strike against Iran ... is not a viable, feasible, responsible option."

Hagel has conceded he misspoke in using the phrase "Jewish lobby." But as for a pro-Israel lobby, its existence is the subject of books and countless articles. When AIPAC sends up to the Hill one of its scripted pro-Israel resolutions, it is whistled through. Hagel's problem: He did not treat these sacred texts with sufficient reverence.

"I am a United States senator, not an Israeli senator," he told Miller. "I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath ... to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not to a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."

Hagel puts U.S. national interests first. And sometimes those interests clash with the policies of the Israeli government.

In 1957, President Eisenhower told Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to get his army out of Sinai. Would that disqualify Ike from being secretary of defense because, to quote Kristol, this would show Ike was not "serious about having Israel's back"?

more here.... http://www.creators.com/opinion/pat-buchanan/why-the-war-party-fears-hagel.html

[FrankRep]

He isn't good, he's bad.

Everyone needs to repeat this to themselves for a few moments.

Lets not reward bad behavior.