Hagel confirmed as Sec of D despite neo-con smears

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What the common denominator here is, Obama surrounds himself with people that think exactly like he does on certain issues so there is never debate on ideas within his administration. That is horrible when you have no room for the arena of ideas.

How do you then explain him keeping on Gates from the Bush administration, or his appointments of Republicans Hunt and Gregg? Biden has long opposed the Afhganistan surge, and Obama went against his cabinet in the decision on getting OBL instead of bombing the compound, and on Libya where his cabinet favored only enforcing the no fly zone.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by Row6

How do you then explain him keeping on Gates from the Bush administration, or his appointments of Republicans Hunt and Gregg? Biden has long opposed the Afhganistan surge, and Obama went against his cabinet in the decision on getting OBL instead of bombing the compound, and on Libya where his cabinet favored only enforcing the no fly zone.

Good point, but look who he replaces people with when they leave. I could only assume he had conversations with Gates and the others and they showed no resistance to his policies and a willingness to carry them out.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

What the common denominator here is, Obama surrounds himself with people that think exactly like he does on certain issues so there is never debate on ideas within his administration. That is horrible when you have no room for the arena of ideas.

The irony of this post in a thread about another appointment of a major Republican in his administration. If he "surrounds himself with people that think exactly like he does on certain issues so there is never debate on ideas within his administration" does his consistent appointment of major Republicans to a wide variety of positions suggest a significant amount of moderation on a wide range of issues?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

The irony of this post in a thread about another appointment of a major Republican in his administration. If he "surrounds himself with people that think exactly like he does on certain issues so there is never debate on ideas within his administration" does his consistent appointment of major Republicans to a wide variety of positions suggest a significant amount of moderation on a wide range of issues?

Not at all when you look at Hagel's background and things he was said. He is simply going to carry out orders, nothing more nothing less.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Not at all when you look at Hagel's background and things he was said. He is simply going to carry out orders, nothing more nothing less.

Well his job is to carry out orders from the head of the military as best as possible. He is still a Republican, just like all of the other Republicans appointed to major positions in both domestic and foreign affairs under Obama. If all he wants are yes men, and he never appoints people that disagree with him, he must be very moderate and in agreement with many Republicans in many policy areas.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Well his job is to carry out orders from the head of the military as best as possible. He is still a Republican, just like all of the other Republicans appointed to major positions in both domestic and foreign affairs under Obama. If all he wants are yes men, and he never appoints people that disagree with him, he must be very moderate and in agreement with many Republicans in many policy areas.

I could care less what his label is, the guy is a goofball and is simply going to be a stooge

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

I could care less what his label is, the guy is a goofball and is simply going to be a stooge

Well when you have nothing substantive to say, I guess the next option is to sound like a child trying to ostracize somebody from the group.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by Row6

Reluctance to aggressively start wars is not "ambivalence about defending America". We've been there, done that - Hagel on a personal level - and it led to the two largest foreign policy debacles of the last half century.

Chummy enthusiasm about a nuclear Iran and disdain for a nuclear America, for instance; I said "at best" can be described as ambivalence. The politest way, that is. Pathologically idiotic and dangerously naive would be the more candid way to describe his notions of what will "defend" this country.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Chummy enthusiasm about a nuclear Iran and disdain for a nuclear America, for instance; I said "at best" can be described as ambivalence. The politest way, that is. Pathologically idiotic and dangerously naive would be the more candid way to describe his notions of what will "defend" this country.

RR famously had the same position as Hagel on nuclear weapons.

"Dangerously naive" was the "mainstream" belief, circa 2002-2006, that Iraq would be easy and that removing Iran's main strategic obstacle in the region and replacing it's government with Iraqis who spent the trench war with Iran hiding out in Iran was a good idea. Actually, chummy enthusiasm for Iran's interests then is a perfect way describe what we accomplished there in that period, although in fact, total ignorance better explains it. That "mainstream" is fortunately drying up.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Well when you have nothing substantive to say, I guess the next option is to sound like a child trying to ostracize somebody from the group.

Not at all, he has his record with regard to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It's pretty creepy. This guy is foolish

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Not at all, he has his record with regard to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It's pretty creepy. This guy is foolish

You mean the "Friends of Hamas?" You realize that group doesn't exist right?

When you can't tell the difference between the actual criticisms and the intentionally ridiculously made up smears, you should probably realize how ridiculous the position is.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

You mean the "Friends of Hamas?" You realize that group doesn't exist right?

No thats not what I'm talking about

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Not at all, he has his record with regard to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It's pretty creepy. This guy is foolish

What is that record?

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

No thats not what I'm talking about

What are you talking about?

[gatorman_07732]

Hey, this is just for starters but the list is so long. It just goes on and on and on......

http://www.gop.com/news/research/chuck-hagels-world/

ACCORDING TO HAGEL, HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH ARE WORTH TALKING TO

Just Before Obama Took Office, Hagel Urged Him To Talk To Leaders Of Hamas

In A Letter Delivered Days Before Obama Took Office, Hagel Urged Him To Talk With Leaders Of Hamas. “Nine former senior US officials and one current adviser are urging the Obama administration to talk with leaders of Hamas to determine whether the militant group can be persuaded to disarm and join a peaceful Palestinian government, a major departure from current US policy. The bipartisan group, which includes economic recovery adviser Paul A. Volcker and former national security advisers Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, made the recommendation in a letter handed to Obama days before he took office, according to Scowcroft. … Along with Scowcroft, Volcker, and Brzezinski, who was national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter, signatories included former House International Relations Committee chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat; former United Nations ambassador Thomas Pickering from the first Bush administration; former World Bank president James Wolfensohn; former US trade representative in the Ford administration Carla Hills; Theodore Sorensen, former special counsel to President John F. Kennedy; and former Republican senators Chuck Hagel and Nancy Kassebaum Baker.” (Bryan Bender and Farah Stockman, “Top Officials Urge Dialogue With Hamas,” The Boston Globe, 3/14/09)
“Longstanding US Policy Has Stipulated That Before Engaging In Any Talks, Hamas Must Renounce Violence, Recognize Israel, And Agree To All Previous Agreements Signed By Palestinian Negotiators.” (Bryan Bender and Farah Stockman, “Top Officials Urge Dialogue With Hamas,” The Boston Globe, 3/14/09)

During The 2006 Lebanon War, Hagel Called On The Bush Administration To Open Direct Talks With Hezbollah’s Backers Iran And Syria. HAGEL: “Ultimately the United States will need to engage Iran and Syria with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and disagreement. For this dialogue to have any meaning or lasting relevance, it should encompass the full agenda of issues.” (Sen. Chuck Hagel, Remarks At The Senate Floor Proceeding, 7/31/06)
Click To Watch

National Jewish Democratic Council: “In August 2006, Hagel Was One Of Only 12 Senators Who Refused To Write The EU Asking Them To Declare Hezbollah A Terrorist Organization.” (Michael Goldfarb, “NJDC: Obama Appointee Has ‘Questionable Israel Record,’” The Weekly Standard, 10/28/09)

[Row6]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Hey, this is just for starters but the list is so long. It just goes on and on and on......

http://www.gop.com/news/research/chuck-hagels-world/

I note the source - gop.com.

I agree - as does Obama - with talking with enemies. Good plan.

Hagel explained in his hearing that he did not sign the letter because he doesn't believe in Congress directly addressing foreign entities as that is the president and administration's job and congressional involvement can constitute interference and be counter productive. I agree with that. He was also asked about another vote - don't recall the exact details - that he opposed that seemed a no brainer and replied that Condeleeza Rice had asked that the bill not be passed as it would hamstring the administration's position. Abstaining from grandstanding is a virtue in my opinion. As it was, those senators asking about these cherry picked "events" chose to not let Hagel even answer and he was only able to between Senators or when another sympathetic senator gave him a chance. I'm sorry but gop.com is part of an ambush that was big on out of context quotes and low on anything having to do with Hagel's new role as Sec of D.

[JerseyGator01]

Kerry (D) breezes through. Hagel (R) struggles with his own party. Once again this shows how much more diversity of thought is tolerated in the Pub Party than in the Dems. Not even close.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by JerseyGator01

Kerry (D) breezes through. Hagel (R) struggles with his own party. Once again this shows how much more diversity of thought is tolerated in the Pub Party than in the Dems. Not even close.

Do you notice just a hint of contradiction in your claim?

[ncgatr1]

Here's another honestly opinion. Honestly Americans could give a rats ass and nobody with a job Monday thru Friday didn't even watch the hearings. We are all too busy trying to survive in this horrible democrat fed recovery.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

From Five Thirty Eight



Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel was confirmed Tuesday as President Obama’s new secretary of defense. Mr. Hagel — after failing to clear a Republican filibuster 12 days ago — cleared a cloture vote easily early Tuesday before being confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 58 to 41.

But Mr. Hagel’s confirmation was more partisan than those for other recent secretaries of defense, and by a large margin, with votes from 54 Democrats and 4 Republicans. For the data we have available — covering all defense secretary votes since Jimmy Carter was sworn in as president in January 1977 — Mr. Hagel is the only defense secretary to be confirmed with fewer than 90 votes.

Source: Senate.gov

In fact, three recent nominees — Donald Rumsfeld, Les Aspin and Harold Brown — faced such little opposition that they were confirmed by a voice vote, where senators are not even troubled to go on the record with a yea or nay.

John Tower, former President George Bush’s nominee for defense in 1989, was rejected by the Senate after allegations of “womanizing” and “hard drinking.” But the rejection of a cabinet nominee is exceedingly rare; it has happened only nine times. Instead, troubled cabinet nominations are usually withdrawn.

Mr. Hagel is in the rare position of gaining confirmation with less than overwhelming support in the Senate.