Obama nominates Hagel, Brennan to national security posts

[Buster]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...y.html?hpid=z1

Obama nominates Chuck Hagel for Defense, John Brennan for CIA

By Scott Wilson and William Branigin,


President Obama on Monday nominated former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel as defense secretary and counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Appearing with the two men in the East Room of the White House, Obama called Hagel “the leader that our troops deserve” and a “champion of our troops and our veterans and our military families.” He said Hagel, a former Army sergeant, would be the first person of enlisted rank and the first Vietnam War veteran to head the Defense Department.

“Maybe most importantly, Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction, Obama said.

In Brennan, Obama said, the CIA “will have the leadership of one of our nation’s most skilled and respected intelligence professionals.”

Standing alongside the nominees were outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and acting CIA director Michael J. Morell.

“I hope that the Senate will act on these confirmations promptly,” Obama said. “When it comes to national security, we don’t like to leave a lot of gaps between the time that one set of leaders transitions out and another transitions in. So we need to get moving quickly on this.”

In a brief speech accepting his nomination, Hagel pledged to work to “strengthen our country and strengthen our country’s alliances, and advance global freedom, decency and humanity as we help build a better world for all mankind.” He said he would always give Obama “my honest and most informed counsel.”

Brennan, who described himself as “neither a Republican nor a Democrat,” said he would “make it my mission to ensure that the CIA has the tools it needs to keep our nation safe, and that its work always reflects the liberties, the freedoms and the values that we hold so dear.”

If confirmed by the Senate, the nomination of Hagel would add a well-known Republican to the president’s second-term Cabinet at a time when he is looking to better bridge the partisan divide, particularly after a bitter election campaign. But the selection has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from Republicans, who have questioned Hagel’s commitment to Israel’s security.

While noting that Hagel “served our nation with honor in Vietnam,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement: “I have serious concerns about positions Senator Hagel has taken on a range of critical national security issues in recent years, which we will fully consider in the course of his confirmation process before the Senate Armed Services Committee.”

McCain also said he has “many questions and concerns” about Brennan’s nomination, “especially what role he played in the so-called enhanced interrogation programs while serving at the CIA during the last administration, as well as his public defense of those programs.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) strongly denounced the nomination of Hagel, calling him “the wrong man for the job at such a pivotal time.” The second-ranking House Republican said Hagel’s “views and inflammatory statements about Israel are well outside the mainstream and raise well-founded doubts that he can be trusted to manage the special relationship the United States shares with our greatest Middle East ally.”


Cantor also charged that Hagel’s “reported views” on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and defense spending “represent a call for a broad retreat” from America’s preeminent role in the world.

But former defense secretary Robert M. Gates, a Republican holdover from the George W. Bush administration who served as Obama’s first Pentagon chief, praised Hagel.

“While there are issues on which I have disagreed with him, such as the 2007 surge in Iraq, he is a man of complete integrity and deep patriotism,” Gates said in a statement. “He is also the president’s choice. The country and our men and women in uniform would be well-served by his swift confirmation.”

In an interview published Monday by the Lincoln Journal Star, Hagel said critics have “completely distorted” his record, and he denied that he is “anti-Israeli.” He vowed to set straight a record that he said would show “unequivocal, total support for Israel” and endorsement of tough international economic sanctions against Iran, the paper reported.

The choice of Hagel sets up a confirmation fight of the sort that Obama appeared unwilling to have over Susan E. Rice, his preferred pick for secretary of state. Rice pulled out of consideration for that job last month after facing sharp Republican criticism about her characterization of the September attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. Obama subsequently nominated Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state when she steps down.

In an appearance Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) called Hagel’s selection an “in-your-face nomination.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Hagel’s record nevertheless would be given a fair shake in the Senate. McConnell stopped short of saying whether he would support his former colleague.

“He’s certainly been outspoken in foreign policy and defense over the years,” McConnell said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” He added: “The question we’ll be answering, if he’s the nominee, is: Do his views make sense for that particular job? I think he ought to be given a fair hearing, like any other nominee. And he will be.”

Brennan, a veteran CIA analyst who rose to become deputy executive director during the first term of President George W. Bush, was also considered for the top CIA post in 2009, when Obama first took office. He was forced to withdraw from consideration after liberal groups accused him of complicity in the agency’s use of brutal interrogation measures under Bush — criticism that Brennan denounced as unfair and inaccurate.

His nomination now — after serving for four years as Obama’s counterterrorism adviser, a position which did not require Senate confirmation — could spur scrutiny of his role in escalating the CIA’s drone war and renew debate over the agency’s use of harsh methods.

But the level of opposition appears to have subsided. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, recently said she believes that Brennan could be confirmed

Brennan, 57, would be filling the vacancy created by the resignation of David H. Petraeus, following the discovery that Petraeus was having an adulterous affair.

“Brennan has the full trust and confidence of the President,” an administration official said in a statement Monday. “For four years, he has seen the President every day, and been by his side for some of his toughest decisions.... Brennan is as close to President Obama as any member of his national security team.”

The nominations of Hagel and Brennan begin what White House officials have said will probably be a busy week of announcements about who will fill Obama’s second-term Cabinet and senior staff positions. The president returned Sunday from a curtailed holiday in Hawaii and must start making final personnel decisions that were delayed by the year-end negotiations with Congress over taxes and spending cuts.

Foreign policy tussle

Despite the opposition to a Hagel nomination that has arisen on Capitol Hill, a senior administration official said Sunday that the White House expects him to receive the support of Democrats, as well as many Republicans who served with him.

“Having a name floated and having one officially put forward are two different things,” the official said.

Hagel, who was twice awarded the Purple Heart for wounds suffered in Vietnam, served in the Senate for two terms, ending in 2009.

He was an outspoken and often independent voice as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, breaking with many in his party to sharply criticize the management of the Iraq war after he initially supported the U.S.-led invasion.

“A lot of Republican opposition is rooted in the fact that he left his party on Iraq,” the senior administration official said. “And we think it will be very hard for Republicans to stand up and be able to say that they oppose someone who was against a war that most Americans think was a horrible idea.”

Hagel also has been a strong advocate for veterans, an issue that Obama has spoken about frequently as tens of thousands of U.S. troops return from battlefields after more than a decade of war. The administration official said Hagel, as a result, is “uniquely qualified” to help wind down the war in Afghanistan by the end of 2014 and make budget decisions to support the returning troops.

Some of the recent criticism directed at Hagel has focused on his mixed record over the imposition of sanctions on Iran. As a senator, Hagel opposed several bills to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran. But he also supported measures to put in place sanctions as part of multinational efforts, and he endorsed labeling Iran a state sponsor of terrorism.

Hagel’s record has raised concern among some of Israel’s supporters in the United States, who fear that he may not be sufficiently committed to that country’s security.

But his defenders point to his record as a senior senator on the Foreign Relations Committee, where he voted for nearly $40 billion in military aid to Israel over his tenure.

Obama, who worked with Hagel on nuclear nonproliferation issues and other foreign policy matters in the Senate, has vowed to prevent Iran from using its uranium-enrichment program to develop a nuclear weapon.

Obama has worked to tighten both U.S. and international sanctions to pressure Iran into giving up the effort, moves that Hagel has supported in recent interviews. The Iranian government has said that it is pursuing nuclear power, not weapons.

A network of supporters

Since leaving office, Hagel has served as co-chairman of Obama’s intelligence advisory board. Hagel has advised the president to open talks with Hamas, the armed Palestinian movement that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. He also has complained about the influence that Israel’s supporters exert on members of Congress, telling writer Aaron David Miller in an interview for his 2008 book that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.”

“If Hagel is nominated, it is very difficult to imagine a circumstance in which I could support his nomination,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”

But Hagel has many supporters, including former ambassadors, senators and secretaries of state who value his experience and independence.

A network of supporters has rallied in recent weeks to defend Hagel’s record as the criticism has grown. The supporters also said privately that they expect him to receive strong public backing from many Republicans and Democrats alike once the nomination is official.

Writing last week in the Wall Street Journal, Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, called Hagel “a statesman,” adding that “America has few of them.”

Hagel, 66, would be taking over the Pentagon at a time of budget cuts and a changing mission after two long wars. Defense Secretary Panetta is retiring to his home in California. Hagel would become Obama’s third defense secretary; Gates, a member of the Bush administration, was retained in the post until 2011.

If confirmed, Hagel would be the second Republican in Obama’s Cabinet, after Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.



Dan Eggen, David Nakamura, Sean Sullivan and Debbi Wilgoren contributed to this report.

[Buster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/us...uck-hagel.html

Hawks on Iraq Prepare for War Again, Against Hagel


By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: January 12, 2013

In the bitter debate that led up to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said that some of his fellow Republicans, in their zest for war, lacked the perspective of veterans like him, who have “sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.”

Those Republicans in turn called him an “appeaser” whose cautious geopolitical approach dangerously telegraphed weakness in the post-Sept. 11 world.

The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old dispute. It is also a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful undercurrent in the Republican Party and in the national debate about the United States’ relationship with Israel and the Middle East.

To Mr. Hagel’s allies, his presence at the Pentagon would be a very personal repudiation of the interventionist approach to foreign policy championed by the so-called Vulcans in the administration of President George W. Bush, who believed in pre-emptive strikes against potential threats and the promotion of democracy, by military means if necessary.

“This is the neocons’ worst nightmare because you’ve got a combat soldier, successful businessman and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force,” said Richard L. Armitage, who broke with the more hawkish members of the Bush team during the Iraq war when he was a deputy to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, who championed the Iraq invasion and is leading the opposition to Mr. Hagel’s nomination, says the former senator and his supporters are suffering from “neoconservative derangement syndrome.”

Mr. Kristol said he and other like-minded hawks were more concerned about Mr. Hagel’s occasional arguments against sanctions (he voted against some in the Senate), what they deem as his overcautious attitudes about military action against Iran and his tougher approach to Israel than they were about his views on Iraq — aside from his outspoken opposition to the American troop surge there that was ultimately deemed successful.

Mr. Kristol’s latest editorial argues that Mr. Hagel’s statement that he is an unequivocal supporter of Israel is “nonsense,” given his reference in a 2006 interview to a “Jewish lobby” that intimidates lawmakers into blindly supporting Israeli positions.

“I’d much prefer a secretary of defense who was a more mainstream internationalist — not a guy obsessed by how the United States uses its power and would always err on the side of not intervening,” he added. Of Mr. Hagel and his allies, Mr. Kristol said, “They sort of think we should have just gone away.”

In fact, the neoconservatives have done anything but disappear. In the years since the war’s messy end, the most hawkish promoters have maintained enormous sway within the Republican Party, holding leading advisory posts in both the McCain and Romney presidential campaigns as their counterparts in the “realist” wing of the party, epitomized by Mr. Powell, gravitated toward Barack Obama.

And while members of both parties think the chances are good that Mr. Hagel will win confirmation, the neoconservatives are behind some of the most aggressive efforts to derail it, through television advertisements, op-ed articles in prominent publications and pressure on Capitol Hill, where some Democrats, including Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, have also indicated reservations.

Their prominence in the fight over Mr. Hagel’s nomination is testament to their continued outsize voice in the public debate, helped by outlets like The Weekly Standard, research groups like the American Enterprise Institute and wealthy Republican financiers like the casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, whose nearly $100 million in political donations last year were driven largely by his interest in Israel. The Republican Jewish Coalition, on whose board of directors Mr. Adelson sits, was among the first to criticize the Hagel nomination.

The most outspoken among them had leading roles in developing the rationale and, in some cases, the plan for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein.

One critic is Elliott Abrams, a national security adviser to Mr. Bush during the Iraq war who pleaded guilty in the Iran-contra scandal to withholding information from Congress. He called Mr. Hagel an anti-Semite who has “some kind of problem with Jews” in an interview on NPR last week. (The Council on Foreign Relations, where Mr. Abrams is a senior fellow, distanced itself from his comments.)

The Emergency Committee for Israel, a conservative group, has run a TV advertisement and has a Web site calling Mr. Hagel an inappropriate choice for the Defense Department, citing some of his votes against sanctions on Iran and Libya and his calls to engage in direct talks with groups like Hamas. Its donors have included the activist financier Daniel S. Loeb, and Mr. Abrams’s wife, Rachel, serves on its board.

And of course, there is Mr. Kristol himself, who in the late 1990s helped form a group called the Project for a New American Century. In 1998, the organization released a letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that Saddam Hussein posed a potential nuclear threat to the United States, Israel and moderate Arab states and should be ousted.

It was signed by several future members of the Bush national security team: Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as defense secretary; Paul D. Wolfowitz, who served under Mr. Rumsfeld; Mr. Abrams; and outsider advisers, including Richard N. Perle, a former chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee; and Mr. Armitage. Serving as a research associate was Michael Goldfarb, who is helping to direct the Emergency Committee for Israel’s attacks against Mr. Hagel.

Around the same time in the late 1990s, Mr. Hagel was allied with Mr. Kristol and other hawks calling for the commitment of ground troops in support of the Clinton administration’s intervention in Kosovo. Mr. Kristol went so far as to suggest Mr. Hagel as a potential running mate for Mr. Bush in 2000, calling him an “impressive and attractive first-term senator.”

Their relationship broke with Mr. Hagel’s criticism of the Iraq war, and his rare status as a Congressional Republican critical of the intervention led to plentiful TV bookings and the antipathy of the war’s architects and supporters. Besides being a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hagel had added cachet by way of two Purple Hearts from his service in Vietnam, which left shrapnel embedded in his chest and, he has said, a unique perspective on war.

“Here was a Republican with national security credentials saying that the Republican president was being irresponsible on national security — that’s potent,” said Kenneth L. Adelman, a member of the Defense Policy Review Board at the time and a frequent sparring partner with Mr. Hagel on television. “It drove me up the wall not so much that he was Republican, because I didn’t care that much from a political point of view — I thought the substance of his arguments were just wrong and unfounded.”

Mr. Hagel’s earliest concerns arose before the Congressional vote authorizing the use of force. “You can take the country into a war pretty fast,” he said in an interview with The New York Times in 2002, “but you can’t get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are.” In the interview, he took a swipe at Mr. Perle, then one of the most visible promoters of the war, saying, “Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad.”

Mr. Perle had never served in the military. Along with Mr. Hagel’s comment in Newsweek that many of the war’s most steadfast proponents “don’t know anything about war,” his criticism prompted a national discussion about “chicken hawks,” a derisive term for those advocating war with no direct experience of it. And his comments drew a rebuke from The Weekly Standard that Mr. Hagel was part of an “axis of appeasement.”

Mr. Hagel’s words appear to sting to this day. “Normally you hope your cabinet officers don’t resort to ad hominem argument,” said Mr. Perle, who is now a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. In an interview, he said his opposition to the nomination stemmed from his fear that Mr. Hagel was among those who “so abhor the use of force that they actually weaken the diplomacy that enables you to achieve results without using force.”

Yet Mr. Hagel did ultimately vote to give Mr. Bush the authority to go to war. He has said that he did so to give the administration diplomatic leverage and that he now regrets it. Explaining his vote on the floor of the Senate, he warned, “We should not be seduced by the expectations of ‘dancing in the streets’ after Saddam’s regime has fallen.”

If Mr. Hagel’s call for caution seems prescient, several opponents have argued that his prediction that the 2006 troop surge would fail was not — a position sure to come up frequently as confirmation hearings get closer.

[chiefst2000]

Those articles left out the part where Hagel opposed the nomination of an ambassador based on that person being "aggressively Gay". So he doesn't like Gays and thinks "the Jews control congress". Good choice Barry. Whats next, Jeremiah Wright to head up the DHS?

[Winstonbiggs]

Both well qualified picks who will be confirmed.

[Buster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/us...ock-hagel.html

G.O.P. Blocks Vote in Senate on Hagel for Defense Post

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked President Obama’s nominee to lead the Pentagon in a defiant move likely to further strain partisan tensions while preventing the White House, at least temporarily, from assembling its second-term national security team.

In a result that broke down almost strictly along party lines, Democratic senators could not muster the support to advance the nomination of Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, to a final vote. The vote was 58 to 40, falling short of the 60 that were needed.

Democrats vowed to try again to resuscitate the nomination of Mr. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran, when the Senate returns from recess in 10 days. Several Republicans who voted against Mr. Hagel said they would not block a final vote.

Democrats accused the opponents of mounting the first-ever filibuster against a Pentagon chief for their own political purposes.

“Just when you thought things couldn’t get worse, it gets worse,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader. “I guess to be able to run for the Senate as a Republican in most places of the country, you need to have a résumé that says, ‘I helped filibuster one of the president’s nominees.’ ”

The vote represented the first time in history that the Senate has required that a nominee for secretary of defense clear the 60-vote hurdle before a final, simple majority vote. Republicans, who took the extraordinary step of rebuffing their former colleague and fellow party member, insisted that Democrats were trying to rush a vote on a crucial cabinet position that deserved more consideration.

“We didn’t need to have this vote today,” said Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the second-ranking Senate Republican. “But the White House and the majority leader were determined to have this vote in order to try to get a story in the newspaper, one that misrepresents the nature of the objection on this side.”

All day, a tense standoff played out in the Capitol as one party tried to force the other into a more politically undesirable position. Republicans, calculating that Democrats might want to avoid forcing a vote that could result in an embarrassing setback for the president, had hoped to press Mr. Reid to back down and reschedule after the Senate returns from its recess.

Democrats, mindful that Republicans did not want to be blamed for jeopardizing the Pentagon’s stability for political purposes, decided to press ahead and require Republicans to record a vote against Mr. Hagel, allowing Democrats to accuse them of a new level of obstructionism.

While the showdown vote was set for Friday morning, just after 3 p.m. on Thursday Mr. Reid came to the Senate floor to move that it be called instead at 4:15. That forced senators like John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, members of the Senate Armed Services Committee who have said that they find the act of filibustering a defense secretary distasteful, to cast votes that had the same result as a filibuster, even if they refused to call it that.

Four Republicans joined Democrats in voting that debate on the nomination should end: Senators Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah voted present because he said he was wary of the precedent a no vote would set, even though anything other than a yes vote had the same practical effect on the outcome.

Because of parliamentary rules, Mr. Reid voted with Republicans to allow him to bring the Hagel nomination back for another vote. Counting Mr. Reid, Mr. Hagel was actually just one vote shy of the 60 needed.

Given the outcome, a major matter of concern for the White House over the next 10 days is that Mr. Hagel’s opponents — an array of groups that includes conservative and pro-Israel forces — could intensify their campaigns to defeat his nomination.

Leaders of these groups said in interviews that they expected their efforts to include more phone calls urging conservative voters to tell their senators to vote no; new efforts to unearth embarrassing details from Mr. Hagel’s past; and, potentially, a new round of television advertisements pressuring Democrats to drop their support for him.

“My intention is to keep doing what we’re doing, but only to escalate the effort,” said David Brog, the executive director of the large, pro-Israel evangelical group Christians United for Israel.

Republicans were moving on other fronts to block Mr. Obama as he tries to put together his national security team. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has said he will place a hold on the nomination of the president’s director of central intelligence, John O. Brennan, and Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham also said they intended to use Mr. Brennan’s nomination to force the administration to answer questions about the September attack in Benghazi, Libya. “It’s a time-honored practice,” Mr. McCain said. “It’s a way for us to get information.”

In a statement after Thursday’s vote, the White House accused Republicans of putting “political posturing ahead of our nation’s security.” It added that there were serious matters at hand: “We have 66,000 men and women deployed in Afghanistan, and we need our new secretary of defense to be a part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end.”

The Pentagon said that Defense Secretary Leon E. Panettawill remain in the position and travel next week to Brussels for a major NATO conference, an event that Democrats had hoped would be Mr. Hagel’s debut on the world stage.

The vote on Thursday was an abrupt and unexpected turn of events. Mr. Hagel had earlier appeared to have at least the 60 votes required to break a Republican filibuster.

Then this week, Mr. McCain and other Republicans who had said they might oppose Mr. Hagel but would not back a filibuster — an opposition tactic that is rare for cabinet-level nominees — said they would not support ending debate, a procedural step that must be overcome in the Senate for a vote to take place. They said they wanted more detailed answers to questions about the administration’s response to the Libyan attack.

In an effort to defuse the political tension and address these questions — specifically one about whether the president had spoken with anyone in the Libyan government to request assistance during the attack — the White House wrote to the senators early Thursday informing them that Mr. Obama had spoken to the Libyan president the evening after the attack, not the day it occurred.

Still, Republicans said they needed more time. Mr. Graham noted that Mr. Hagel’s nomination passed the Armed Services Committee only on Tuesday. “This is Thursday. Two days is not quite fair,” he said.

Senator Barbara Boxer of California, summing up Democrats’ frustrations, implored her Republican colleagues, “What more are you trying to get out of this?”

[cr726]

McCain looks like a complete fool has been, it is a damn shame.

[Tucker134]

Originally Posted by cr726

McCain looks like a complete fool has been, it is a damn shame.

Curious as to how you think Hagel fared during his Senate confirmation hearing....Because the general consensus is that he was an embarrassing disaster. It's clear he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Tucker134

Curious as to how you think Hagel fared during his Senate confirmation hearing....Because the general consensus is that he was an embarrassing disaster. It's clear he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

When McCain or Lindsey Graham actually get elected President they can choose the Secretary of Defense. Until than the President should be able to appoint his advisors with consent unless the person is entirely unqualified. Hagel may be a mediocre candidate but he is certainly qualified. It appears his biggest problem is being right about the surge in Iraq.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Tucker134

Curious as to how you think Hagel fared during his Senate confirmation hearing....Because the general consensus is that he was an embarrassing disaster. It's clear he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

Hagel def. looked very unprepared. McCain jumped on him solely for selfish resasons, his questions were comical.

[Tucker134]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

When McCain or Lindsey Graham actually get elected President they can choose the Secretary of Defense. Until than the President should be able to appoint his advisors with consent unless the person is entirely unqualified. Hagel may be a mediocre candidate but he is certainly qualified. It appears his biggest problem is being right about the surge in Iraq.

You libs......

Now Hagel was right about his statement that the surge in Iraq would go down as the biggest foreign policy error since Vietnam?? Along the same lines as when Harry Reid declared "the war is lost"??

How do u justify that?

[Tucker134]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

When McCain or Lindsey Graham actually get elected President they can choose the Secretary of Defense. Until than the President should be able to appoint his advisors with consent unless the person is entirely unqualified. Hagel may be a mediocre candidate but he is certainly qualified. It appears his biggest problem is being right about the surge in Iraq.

So u think Hagel presented himself as a qualified candidate during His confirmation hearing?? he's qualified bc of 2 Purple Hearts? Bc of his past anti-semitism? Bc he was wrong on Iraq?

[cr726]

Originally Posted by Tucker134

You libs......

Now Hagel was right about his statement that the surge in Iraq would go down as the biggest foreign policy error since Vietnam?? Along the same lines as when Harry Reid declared "the war is lost"??

How do u justify that?

You want to declare Iraq a win?

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Tucker134

You libs......

Now Hagel was right about his statement that the surge in Iraq would go down as the biggest foreign policy error since Vietnam?? Along the same lines as when Harry Reid declared "the war is lost"??

How do u justify that?

Iraq was and is a complete dissaster for the US. It's now a safe haven for Iran to move weapons through thanks to us providing security.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Iraq was and is a complete dissaster for the US. It's now a safe haven for Iran to move weapons through thanks to us providing security.

Hagel supported that war, he opposed the surge which was successful. As a bonus Hagel also opposed an ambassadorship for a fellow because he was to use Hagel's words "aggressively gay". Personally I've enjoyed watching Obama koolaid drinkers defend Hagel and dismiss his combination of incompetence as well as his anti-Jewish and anti-Gay rhetoric because Obama chose him. The complete hypocrisy is too juicy to ignore.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Hagel supported that war, he opposed the surge which was successful. As a bonus Hagel also opposed an ambassadorship for a fellow because he was to use Hagel's words "aggressively gay". Personally I've enjoyed watching Obama koolaid drinkers defend Hagel and dismiss his combination of incompetence as well as his anti-Jewish and anti-Gay rhetoric because Obama chose him. The complete hypocrisy is too juicy to ignore.

The surge was successful? Interesting......

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by cr726

You want to declare Iraq a win?

Militarily the war in Iraq was a win. The surge helped get the country to a point where we could end hostilities and was absolutely a military success. Diplomatically the combination of bad PR due to no WMD/no counterbalance to Iran and Obama/Biden's failure to secure a long term cooperation agreement was a disaster.

[cr726]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Militarily the war in Iraq was a win. The surge helped get the country to a point where we could end hostilities and was absolutely a military success. Diplomatically the combination of bad PR due to no WMD/no counterbalance to Iran and Obama/Biden's failure to secure a long term cooperation agreement was a disaster.

Militarily it was a win? WTF does that even mean? Why did we invade and what did we accomplish in over 10 years and billions upon billions later? Nice spin.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by cr726

Militarily it was a win? WTF does that even mean? Why did we invade and what did we accomplish in over 10 years and billions upon billions later? Nice spin.

We turned Iraq into a stable ally of Iran by providing security for a government that is now Iran's ally. Military success unless of course you are a dead or wounded member of the military

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by cr726

Militarily it was a win? WTF does that even mean? Why did we invade and what did we accomplish in over 10 years and billions upon billions later? Nice spin.

We turned Iraq into a stable ally of Iran by providing security for a government that is now Iran's ally. Military success unless of course you are a dead or wounded member of the military.

Iraq was a complete loss for the US on every level.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Hagel supported that war, he opposed the surge which was successful. As a bonus Hagel also opposed an ambassadorship for a fellow because he was to use Hagel's words "aggressively gay". Personally I've enjoyed watching Obama koolaid drinkers defend Hagel and dismiss his combination of incompetence as well as his anti-Jewish and anti-Gay rhetoric because Obama chose him. The complete hypocrisy is too juicy to ignore.

I would much prefer to see Obama appoint an anti-war gay-Jew but I have to laugh at the Republican outrage at Hagel a Republican who is as conservative as any Republican could expect to get from Obama.