Chuck Hagel for Sect. of Defense ? what say you ?

[JayHawk]

1960's cabinet of JFK:

SoS Rusk

Rusk offered or planned to offer to resign in the summer of 1967, because "his daughter planned to marry a black classmate at Stanford University, and he could not impose such a political burden on the president" after it became known that his daughter, Peggy, planned to marry Guy Smith

What would the sainted around here say if Hillary Clinton announced she was resigning SoS because Chelsea was a Lesbian?

[chance1]

Today, Senator Bob Corker (R) Tennessee - anything BUT a neocon suggesed that Hagel's "temperament" is not suited for the position

"But I think another thing that's going to come up is just his overall temperament, and is he suited to run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon," Corker told the ABC's "This Week."

"There are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them," added Corker, without elaborating. Corker's office did not immediately respond to an e-mail requesting details on the alleged staff complaints.

seems like he could have provided more context or specificity no ?

I don't like the "Jewish Lobby" ref - sounds more like Louis Farrakhan then say Leon Panetta (we'll miss him)

Originally there was as much/more Democratic criticism of Hagel for SOD as Republican - now that the Dems have backed off - prob only because the Repubs were on it - politics - it's not a winner for them

The only big issue now for the cabinet is it's lack of diversity - pretty ironic - but i imagine a black president can get with that a little better than a white one


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

[JayHawk]

Today, Senator Bob Corker (R) Tennessee - anything BUT a neocon suggesed that Hagel's "temperament" is not suited for the position



seems like he could have provided more context or specificity no ?

I don't like the "Jewish Lobby" ref - sounds more like Louis Farrakhan then say Leon Panetta (we'll miss him)

Originally there was as much/more Democratic criticism of Hagel for SOD as Republican - now that the Dems have backed off - prob only because the Repubs were on it - politics - it's not a winner for them

The only big issue now for the cabinet is it's lack of diversity - pretty ironic - but i imagine a black president can get with that a little better than a white one


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

I am down with diversity at all levels but that doesn't mean it is a absolute requirement every time a job is filled. We are still 72.4% a white country so I have no problem with the President picking the best person for the job. If the folks in the running happen to be mostly white in a mostly white country then it should come as no surprise. Obama still has appointed more women to high office than any previous President.

Now for the brash personality? I have heard that as well. Depending on the circumstances or if something comes out concerning that would make me possibly change my tune on Hagel. However, if any group of government can work with a 'screamer' for a boss then the DoD would be that group of type alphas that can handle it.

[Kulindahr]

False. See, unlike you and all the other righties on here, I see nuance, and I make judgments based on specific circumstance. If the guy had said something last month or a year, or five, or even ten ago, then sure, off with his head. But we're talking a time when some of the people arguing on this board were still learning to read, which is a different age as far as understanding of homosexuality is involved.

So you can try to get into a confrontation with me all you want. Does nothing but make you seem petty.

That, and there's a difference between people who make laws and those who implement policy.

[chance1]

It would be disingenuous for me to criticize "brash" as a major problem - brash with brains i'm ok with - i rather like it - clarity vs. what does he mean is a good thing

as for the president and his appointment of women ........... does he have binders full of them ?

[JayHawk]

It would be disingenuous for me to criticize "brash" as a major problem - brash with brains i'm ok with - i rather like it - clarity vs. what does he mean is a good thing

as for the president and his appointment of women ........... does he have binders full of them ?

I think he left his binders at home in Hawaii or perhaps in Kenya.

I don't know what they mean in the statement that he is 'brash'. Part of what soured my stomach on McCain was the reputation he had as a raging fucking asshole in the service. I lead a different way. I don't suffer fools but I am not unfair. McCain basically had the reputation of being holier than thou and treating people like shit. SO I couldn't support him. He later in his campaign proved my instinct correct by choosing Palin. Hagel could just be exacting and that rubs some folks wrong. Like I said I have had the same type of accusations leveled but I am fair but don't like incompetence. I point it out rather "brashly". SO if Hagel is like that I have no problem. If he is cruel then I have no patience for him.

[chance1]

^ the issue is that in this day and age, often less than competent people who get treated "brashly" become the victims rather than those who aren't doing their job

HR is a nightmare - sorta like unions - designed for good - can often do very bad things

[JayHawk]

Dont I know it. Did I ever tell you what degree I am working on so I can choose to suckle at the corporate tit after the Navy? lol

'Cept I will be looking to do my best to prevent companies from getting into issues via good policy.

I get ya though. All too often the inept are armed with a lawyer and the corporations have better things to do so they settle and therefore perpetuate the litigious mindset.

[JayHawk]

Here is a good read and a verifiable fact sheet on one Chuck Hagel and how he stands on issues.

I still like him for the job. I think this fact sheet pretty much nails his confirmation for me. However if you want further convincing that others will drink the water on Capitol hill then read on....

If you would like a somewhat inside look at the strategic thinking on both sides of the aisle concerning our defense posture for the next ten years then go to the following link and download the PDF... Strategic Choices: Navigating Austerity

It is a 40 page document but it has lots of purposefully blank pages and charts and stuff... so an easy read. The interesting part of this study for me was that they left out all participants but included DoD policy makers, and capitol hill staffers and then set ground rules that are based in reality. The results were astounding to me. There is so much that we ALL agree on when none of us are wearing political party or protect my agency hats.

They say in short we need to prioritize our opposed access to hostile areas, emphasize cyber and space security, and reduce our ground forces. ALL things Chuck Hagel wants to accomplish. This study took place in July 2012 as well. So it isn't influenced by the prospect of a Hagel selection.

Try it. You'll like it.

[chance1]

funny you posted that

i read a george will column suggesting the "questions chuck hagel needs to answer" - thought it was good as well

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion...HaN7VnLshNAf9L

we can compare notes another day

[JayHawk]

That is a well written expose on contentious policy undertaken by American leadership since 9/11 and some of of many decades before. The two links I provided answers all those questions but I am not going to duplicate forty some odd pages of data. AT least not do so and do it justice.

I do think that many of the questions Will ask are above the pay grade of the Secr'y of Defense.

[Kulindahr]

It would be disingenuous for me to criticize "brash" as a major problem - brash with brains i'm ok with - i rather like it - clarity vs. what does he mean is a good thing

as for the president and his appointment of women ........... does he have binders full of them ?

Nobody but Republicans has binders full of women any more. Nowadays they use iPads.

[TX-Beau]

Seeing as how we are just turning the page legislatively on bigotry against gays and we turned that corner legislatively against racism in the 1960's. It then make me wonder if ANY political appointees for cabinet offices in the Sixties had held or previously stated racist remarks.

If of course that is your comparison. If we are to time warp fifty years from now then I might agree with you. However many states have legislated formalize inequality for gays. SO we haven't even turned the page yet nationally.

Oh I see, we need to sit in the back of the bus and wait - because ya know, that's how black people changed things, they waited fifty years for everyone to change their minds.

Silly me.

[TX-Beau]

I would like you to show me the voting record you're going off of. Hagel never voted on anything related to gay marriage. In fact, he was on record as being opposed to a federal amendment defining marriage. This was in light of the fact he was personally against gay marriage. As far as any other voting he has done in relation to anything gay-related, the only two votes he made were basically the same vote when he voted against adding homosexuality to the considerations for federal hate crime prosecution in 2000 and 2002. There were no votes made by him for federal anti-disrimination laws in the workplace. In fact, there are no other votes he took while in office that related at all to homosexuals. (Here is a link to his voting record. I haven't been through all votes yet, but I have yet to find anything other than the two above mentioned votes that relate to the gay community.)

It's this lack of a trail of official acts that makes me wonder why people are portraying this guy as being some extreme homophobe when all it seems like is this guy pandering to his constituency. You haven't heard a single word out of him on any gay issues since he left office, save an apology for the remarks he made and said that he was "fully supportive of "open service" and committed to LGBT military families." You haven't even waited to hear his confirmation hearing testimony. Assuming that he was this gay-hating bigot that everyone is saying he is, he may have had a change of attitude since he left office. He is not the first public figure to have done that.

As for everything else you mentioned:

- There is no fallacy of moral relativism as the fallacy of relativism applies only to objective facts, of which morals are not considered.
- Tolerance means accepting people have different views and that they are allowed to have those views even if they don't line up with what you believe is right.
- Yes, the racists did call MLK a racists, but I've seen no scholarly source ever that has presented MLK as racist.
- I don't see blanket contempt from him towards gay people. There is almost no voting record to back this claim up. I see a politician who stated his position on several issues in order to pander to his constituency but that never turned any of that into action. I have seen a situation in which Chuck Hagel seized on a person's perceived weakness of being gay and tried to use it to disqualify him from a position that it had nothing to do with (remind you of any other situations?) In fact, if you read what transpired in that confirmation hearing, Hagel was actually very reserved in his remarks.
- While not stated directly, I am sure that anyone who has taken any position or expressed any anti-gay sentiment wouldn't be qualified in your book to be the Secretary of Defense.

(emphasis mine)

Really?

"In the U.S. Senate, Hagel received a 0 percent rating with Human Rights Campaign and voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. He was not in the Senate for the enactment or repeal of DADT."

http://www.dallasvoice.com/hagel-iss...-10136652.html


"Despite his remarks toward Hormel, Hagel did not vote in committee against confirming him. In 2006, the latest Senate vote on the antigay Federal Marriage Amendment, Hagel declined to place a vote on the measure but publicly said marriage equality was a matter best left to the states. Hagel did, however, support the Defense of Marriage Act and a marriage ban in his home state of Nebraska."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/mil...-many-military

Liar Liar pants on fire.

Look it the fuck up, that took me 30 seconds to find. Seems there IS a trail of "official" discrimination.

[Kulindahr]

Oh I see, we need to sit in the back of the bus and wait - because ya know, that's how black people changed things, they waited fifty years for everyone to change their minds.

Silly me.

How in the name of all things rational did you get that from the post you quoted?

Reminder: descriptive is not prescriptive.

[tigerfan482]

(emphasis mine)

Really?

"In the U.S. Senate, Hagel received a 0 percent rating with Human Rights Campaign and voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. He was not in the Senate for the enactment or repeal of DADT."

http://www.dallasvoice.com/hagel-iss...-10136652.html

OK so HRC didn't think his stated positions on gay issues merited any points for their scoring system. So what? It's a subjective scoring system and it was in a time when gay rights weren't really going anywhere. His views were more of the norm than the exception. He's apologized and vowed to fully oversea the repeal of DADT in the military. Until he doesn't do that, I'm going to take him at his word that he will do it and that he has changed his view on the issue.

"Despite his remarks toward Hormel, Hagel did not vote in committee against confirming him. In 2006, the latest Senate vote on the antigay Federal Marriage Amendment, Hagel declined to place a vote on the measure but publicly said marriage equality was a matter best left to the states. Hagel did, however, support the Defense of Marriage Act and a marriage ban in his home state of Nebraska."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/mil...-many-military

Liar Liar pants on fire.

Look it the fuck up, that took me 30 seconds to find. Seems there IS a trail of "official" discrimination.

Ummm did you read what you looked up. He DID NOT vote against confirming Hormel. He DID NOT vote for a federal marriage amendment. And despite your best efforts, he DID NOT vote for the Defense of Marriage Act, seeing as how it was passed on September 21, 1996 and Chuck Hagel wasn't in office until January 3, 1997. So you should LOOK IT THE FUCK UP and get the correct details before defending a misinformed position.

[TX-Beau]

LOL, YOU said he NEVER voted on ANYTHING related to gay marriage. You were factually in error,YOU scoffed about his record (which you apparently didn't bother to look up,) you said he never was officially discriminatory - all of which was FACTUALLY in error, so which was it ignorance or dishonesty?

[tigerfan482]

Please re-read what you wrote, re-read what I wrote, and then try again. He never voted on anything related to gay marriage.

[TX-Beau]

(emphasis mine)

Really?

"In the U.S. Senate, Hagel received a 0 percent rating with Human Rights Campaign and voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act. He was not in the Senate for the enactment or repeal of DADT."

http://www.dallasvoice.com/hagel-iss...-10136652.html


"Despite his remarks toward Hormel, Hagel did not vote in committee against confirming him. In 2006, the latest Senate vote on the antigay Federal Marriage Amendment, Hagel declined to place a vote on the measure but publicly said marriage equality was a matter best left to the states. Hagel did, however, support the Defense of Marriage Act and a marriage ban in his home state of Nebraska."

http://www.advocate.com/politics/mil...-many-military

Liar Liar pants on fire.

Look it the fuck up, that took me 30 seconds to find. Seems there IS a trail of "official" discrimination.

liar liar pants on fire. So yeah, pretty much done with this.

[JayHawk]

Oh I see, we need to sit in the back of the bus and wait - because ya know, that's how black people changed things, they waited fifty years for everyone to change their minds.

Silly me.

Wow lacking a grasp on reality much? That is not what I said. Factually the change to legal favoring gay marriage has been the quickest in American history. But congratulations on only seeing and hearing what you have pre-programmed in your head to see or hear.

[JayHawk]

So TX-Beau who do you suggest has been leading intellectually on the four tiers of defense that require the majority of our focus who is also a reputable personality that can lead defense through the necessary contraction without hampering our effectiveness? You certainly appear to have all the answers (in your own head) for why Hagel should not lead. Who should?

Even more curious why are we arguing a decision already made and almost certainly confirmed. Shall we go back and argue the pluses and minuses of every contentious appointment?

Do you think this somehow completely undermines the efforts for the LGBT community by President Obama? You know the guy who has done the most for us since... well since.... oh yeah EVER!

laughable that not even one singular decision by Obama merits any sort of consideration that maybe the guy doing the appointing has a damn good reason that he feels no need to share with you but so far he has done everything in our favor.... I guess that thought never crosses your mind...

For fucks sake. This is like clothes shopping with my Mother or fiscal discipline by republicans. IMPOSSIBLE!!

[tigerfan482]

liar liar pants on fire. So yeah, pretty much done with this.

Dude. He wasn't even in office when DOMA was passed. There is absolutely NO WAY he could have voted in favor of DOMA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOMA

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman for federal and inter-state recognition purposes in the United States. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

In office
January 3, 1997 – January 3, 2009

It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for him to have voted for DOMA. So yeah, we are pretty much done with this and you are indeed the liar liar, pants on fire. Your link is factually incorrect and your continuing to argue it while not checking the facts (even after chastising me for not checking the facts) makes you look uninformed at best.

[TX-Beau]

"Hagel was first elected to the Senate in 1996"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

Liar liar pants on fire.

[TX-Beau]

So TX-Beau who do you suggest has been leading intellectually on the four tiers of defense that require the majority of our focus who is also a reputable personality that can lead defense through the necessary contraction without hampering our effectiveness? You certainly appear to have all the answers (in your own head) for why Hagel should not lead. Who should?

Even more curious why are we arguing a decision already made and almost certainly confirmed. Shall we go back and argue the pluses and minuses of every contentious appointment?

Do you think this somehow completely undermines the efforts for the LGBT community by President Obama? You know the guy who has done the most for us since... well since.... oh yeah EVER!

laughable that not even one singular decision by Obama merits any sort of consideration that maybe the guy doing the appointing has a damn good reason that he feels no need to share with you but so far he has done everything in our favor.... I guess that thought never crosses your mind...

For fucks sake. This is like clothes shopping with my Mother or fiscal discipline by republicans. IMPOSSIBLE!!

Oh fucking spare me. Hagel is not the sole qualified person on the planet and Obama nominated him BECAUSE he's an old white male conservative - nothing more. While I applaud Obama and his pandering of us - and I think he has no issue with us - that ONLY CAME because the demographics in this country changed, not because he's ever been some kind of tireless gay crusader. NOTHING MORE.

[TX-Beau]

"Hagel’s vote for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, his support for Nebraska’s constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, his 1999 opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and his opposition to a judicial ruling in 2005 that the Nebraska marriage ban was unconstitutional."

http://blog.timesunion.com/politicss...mination/4203/

[tigerfan482]

"Hagel was first elected to the Senate in 1996"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

Liar liar pants on fire.

Do you know nothing of American politics? He DID get elected in 1996 and was sworn in January 3, 1997 (AFTER the vote on DOMA.) Before you're sworn in, you're not a Senator and you can't vote!

"Hagel’s vote for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, his support for Nebraska’s constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, his 1999 opposition to repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and his opposition to a judicial ruling in 2005 that the Nebraska marriage ban was unconstitutional."

http://blog.timesunion.com/politicss...mination/4203/

Again, your blog source is wrong. Here is a link to the vote count for DOMA. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/s280As you can see, Chuck Hagel's name is not on there because he wasn't a senator yet. I don't understand how it is so hard for you to verify these EASILY ACCESSIBLE facts that are a matter of public record. All you seem to be able to do is get your information from blogs, that are factually inaccurate.

[JayHawk]

Oh fucking spare me. Hagel is not the sole qualified person on the planet and Obama nominated him BECAUSE he's an old white male conservative - nothing more. While I applaud Obama and his pandering of us - and I think he has no issue with us - that ONLY CAME because the demographics in this country changed, not because he's ever been some kind of tireless gay crusader. NOTHING MORE.

LOL apparently Wikipedia is wrong.

I have spared you. Now answer a substantial question without dodging it to play some childish game of gotcha. He is by far the most qualified for what is going to be the DoD's future AND the guy YOU presumably elected selected him, because he wants him. Now everything Obama has done is simply because he just had to? You need to go join the republican party where rejection of reality is celebrated.

P.S. Why do you reject reality so? I thought you weren't going to post. That you had made your final decree in this thread. Perhaps it would be better for you if you refrained from throwing yourself on your alter over and over.