I don’t understand why the neo-cons are picking a fight with the administration over Chuck Hagel. They are going to lose the fight. What is the advantage of picking fights that you will surely lose? It annoys me when people urge that kind of strategy on the administration, and it doesn’t make any more sense to me when the Republicans do it. I understand the need to keep your base happy, but there is no base for neo-conservatism. And even if you are a far right ally of the Israeli settlers, I don’t see how it benefits you to exaggerate Hagel’s hostility to Israel and then lose. That makes it appear like damage has been done to the U.S.-Israeli relationship when that isn’t really the case. And it makes it a little easier to take on the pro-settler hardliners in the future. I will never buy the idea that you can win by losing. It is almost never true. The only way it ever works is if you can make something so painful that the winner won’t want to go to the trouble to win again in the future. And that is not applicable in this case, or in almost any cases. It’s a strategy for rutting rams, maybe, but not for politicians.
In any case, I dislike the nomination of Chuck Hagel and I don’t give a damn whether he is confirmed or not. I don’t oppose him; I just don’t like the pick. John Brennan for CIA, I oppose. I don’t think he has been held accountable for his actions during the Bush administration and I do not think the Democrats should confirm him unless and until his record gets a full vetting. In general, I think presidents should be allowed to create their own administration except in extreme circumstances. John Brennan couldn’t face the scrutiny four years ago, and he probably couldn’t face real scrutiny now. Put it this way: Brennan has defended torture in the past. I find that to be flatly disqualifying. But, if he recants on that, and it is proven that he had no direct responsibility for torture, I would reconsider my opposition to his nomination. I’d like to follow my own advice to not pick fights I can’t win, but torture is such a moral outrage that I don’t care about losing.
There’s plenty more not to like about John Brennan than just his defense of torture, but most of it can be transferred to pretty much anyone in Obama’s national security team, including the president himself.
Agree with your comments. Hagel isn’t the worst possible pick. Brennan makes me feel sick.
Last summer, in an interview with USA Today (?) Obama said he would make some decisions in a second term that would anger his base. I think it’s going to get a lot worse as the budget negotiations ramp up.
.
It’s clear President Obama has high regard for both nominees, and more important has blind trust in their integrity. He has worked closely with both men, I place my trust in the President on this call. Continuity at the CIA is very important, these are not political choices as we experienced with GW Bush. Their qualifications cannot be denied. As Obama said, these men are patriots and serve the people of the United States. Keeping the homeland secure the next four years, bring our men and women home from wars after more than a decade of fighting on foreign soil. Fighting elements of terror is a dirty job, Obama has experienced the tough choices these past 4 years. And Israel? Netanyahu is positioned with a loss of 8 seats in the Knesset and the voter base is moving to the center.
See my diary – POTUS Names John Brennan and Chuck Hagel to Cabinet Posts
‘…the voter base is moving to the center.’ Could you explain that statement for me? I don’t get it.
.
See my diary – Israel Exit Poll – No Clear Mandate for Netanyahu’s Coalition.
If the President is for it and Lindsey Graham opposed, then I support the nomination.
Sort of like “If the Russians are against them [the Taliban], then I’m for them?”
The Senate should take a lesson from Mao, and make Hagel and Brennan perform full, public self-criticism confessions: Hagel on gay rights, Brennan on torture.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa
is that sarcasm?
.
I don’t think so. It includes a swim in the Yellow River. If you don’t like the nominees, do I need to say the buck stops with the commander-in-chief?
Nope, I’m completely serious. I want a good grovel.
Two of them, in fact, live on CSPAN.
I want them for the same reason the Maoists liked them: for the benefit that the show would provide by defining what is, and what is not, acceptable within our political culture.
I loved Ed Koch when I was a kid and he was mayor. Then I learned that he is an idiot.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/reasons-secretary-defense.html
Juan Cole agrees with you about the politics of trying, and failing, to bring down Hagel’s nomination by the Israel-firsters:
For Hagel’s appointment to go through is extremely important at this juncture. It will blunt if not altogether end the use by extremist Jewish nationalists of the charge of `anti-Semitism’ to sideline critics of any aspect of Israeli policy. It will set a precedent showing that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other such organizations don’t always get their way on appointments, despite their long track record of shooting down capable Americans nominated for public service on the grounds that they are insufficiently worshipful of Israeli policy. ( Chas Freeman is a recent such victim of an orchestrated smear campaign, such that the US was deprived of his considerable expertise at a time it is desperately needed). It will put the far right wing coalition now in charge of Israel on notice that its intensifying colonization of Palestinian territory and attempt forever to forestall a 2-state solution is unacceptable. And it will signal that the US is not going to war against Iran for Bibi Netanyahu, however much William Kristol and the American Enterprise Institute demand it.
I hope everybody can understand what Cole is saying here, because it’s a good point to grasp. Remember Pickett’s Charge? His side lost the war.
If I was in the Senate I’d vote for cloture of Hagel then vote against him.
Koch was always an idiot.
BooMan actually disagrees with Obama on something. When you get a little older, you’ll start to understand the rest of it – like why so many of us are so pissed at him for his repeated attempts to steal our social security and medicare investments – not ENTITLEMENTS – INVESTMENT.
If you had been reading this site for more than 3 and a half weeks, you would have seen BooMan disagree with Obama several times.
Of course, you’d also have to have an interest beyond posing as a left-winger to try to start fights between actual liberals.
you forgot to point out troll’s gesture towards humor, Obama’s “repeated attempts” hah hah hah
Barack Obama is the worst negotiator in human history.
He’s spent four years trying his darnedest to get the Republicans, who want to cut entitlement benefits, to agree to cut entitlement benefits, and he still can’t close the deal.
Wut a loozr. lololol
you nailed it! [I think our recent trolls are just not producing the high quality of work we’ve come to expect. recent trollish comments are completely lacking in subtlety; like that comment on the other thread about Hillary not looking well.]
Brennan would have to do some SERIOUS groveling for me to support him. And even then I doubt it would be enough. He should be investigated for his complicit behavior with torture, not elevated.
Hagel I’ve always supported for State of Defense, so I think it’s a great pick. Obama is appointing Hagel both for the reasons I want, and because they’ve worked together for a long time; Obama trusts Hagel, Hagel trusts Obama. Are there better nominees? Probably. Are any of them going to be in the running, let alone be confirmed? No.
I’m a great believer in 11 dimensional chess; very curious how this will play out.
It isn’t chess. It’s poker. You have to consider the last hand dealt. And speculate what the other players are holding.
I’m no fan of Hagel, but my hope is that President Obama is nominating him to perform a public service analogous to that performed by Robert Gates in 2009-10.
Secretary Gates stayed on under President Obama and oversaw the scheduled withdrawal from Iraq, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, and the establishment of a timeline (too long a timeline, but that’s a different story) for withdrawal from Afghanistan—all the while providing “cover” for the young, Kenyan, Muslim, socialist president who’d never worn a uniform.
The big potential savings in government spending over the next decade are in defense, health care and prisons. If Hagel can help President Obama make serious cuts in defense spending, then he’ll have proved (in my view, at least) to be a good pick.
With the exception of your first 5 words, I could not agree more.
Maybe that’s why the GOP is squealing so hard about the Hagel pick, because they see it as a certain indicator that big cuts are coming to the Defense Dep’t and the Pentagon. But since most voters are probably on board with cutting military spending, the best the GOP can come up with is waving the Israeli flag.
And I think it’s just possible that John McCain is pissed off that someone else’s military heroism other than his own is being discussed.
Brennan signals the continuation, along with refinement and expansion, of the worst foreign policy initiative and direction of the Obama administration. As such the long-term repercussions of his appointment is much worse than that of Hagel. Politically, the face of Hagel is dangerous. His voting record in the Senate was extremely right-wing but he avoided sounding like the crazies and dumbasses. If his votes political, as opposed to his honest opinions, assessments, and positions, then he’s a tad short of integrity. If he today disowns those votes, he hasn’t publicly exhibited the sort of crisis in confidence that leads to such a change.
Hagel will struggle to get GOP support and Brennan will struggle to get liberal support. In the end, both will be confirmed and trumpeted as another victory for bi-partisanship and pragmatism.
I’m surprised you are opposed to the Hagel nomination given your avowed strategy of trying to split the GOP between establishment Republicans and fundamentalist conservatives. Surely Hagel’s nomination epitomizes that strategy – appoint an establishment Republican and watch the fundamentalist conservatives scream and demonstrate to Joe Public just how extreme the GOP has become.
Some serious defense cuts are on the way – sequester or no sequester. Why not let a Republican lead that process? The withdrawal from Afghanistan will undoubtedly be messy and give rise to a chorus of Benghazi style GOP outrage. Why not have a Republican lead that process?
Is that not why Republicans are outraged at Hagel’s nomination, because it provides so much cover for Obama?
Absolutely. Keeping Gates was brilliant in 2009.
Hagel is an equally brilliant choice for Secretary of Defense in 2013, for many of the same reasons.
you provide the reasons that I will frown and bear this.
Personally, I think Chuck Hagel is only half as bright as people give him credit for, he’s usually wrong, and his values are screwed up. I don’t give partial credit for flipping against the war midstream, either. I was happy with Panetta in the job, and I’d be much happier with some gruff no-nonsense-from-draft-dodgers-Democrat running the Pentagon and slashing their budget.
I get the strategy of the thing, but I don’t want Chuck Hagel giving the president advice. Giving him cover is fine.
I see Hagel providing the president with advice on how, not what.
Hagel’s been giving the President advice for years now. That horse is well and truly out of the barn.
I see the Sec of Defense job as a huge line management and budget management job, not so much a policy or even an operational job. The President has a huge number of direct reports – Chiefs of Staff, National Security advisory, Homeland Sec., CIA Director, State Dept,. various other councils and security/intelligence agencies all providing intel and advice on, say, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan and other strategic issues. Hagel will be one voice amongst many. But he will carry the can for implementing defense cuts across the board – one of the main issues which separate Republicans from Democrats in Congress, and thus his appointment will blunt one of the Republicans’ major lines of attack.
The presidential nomination I am intrigued by is Sec for the Treasury – as the replacement for Geithner will tell us a lot about the future direction of Obama’s economic policies.
The presidential nomination I am intrigued by is Sec for the Treasury – as the replacement for Geithner will tell us a lot about the future direction of Obama’s economic policies.
It will be Jack Lew. OTOH, has anyone seen that MoveOn.org has gotten 220,000+ signatures on a petition putting forward Krgthulu as Treasury Secretary?
Krugman says he wouldn’t be any good at the job as he hates “admin and paperwork”. Sounds like he’d take the job if they gave him a good deputy/secretary.
He’d be better in a pure policy position, like the Council of Economic Advisors.
Chuck Hagel is only half as bright as people give him credit for, he’s usually wrong, and his values are screwed up.
You could say the same thing about Biden, and he’s worked out pretty well.
I do hope that Pres. Obama decision in nominating Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense is a good choice.
Brennan seems like the CIA’s minder to cover Barack Obama. His appointment is unacceptable. He should appoint Susan Rice instead or send Panetta back there. Or heck, elevate DiFi to get her off the oversight committee that doesn’t oversee.
“Brennan seems like the CIA’s minder to cover Barack Obama.”
I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. That Brennan is a babysitter for Obama? Or to keep keep Obama in check?