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

[chance1]

seems like Chuck Hagel is in the running for SOD

saw Tom Coburn on FTN yesterday say "no way Jose" that Chuck does not have the mgmt. experience for the gig - running the Pentagon is too big a gig for Chuck

Dick Durbin (same program) extolled Hagel's military service, etc. ........ w/o saying why he was qualified

Barney Frank says no freaking way cause back in 1988 Hagel denounced a cabinet appointee as "aggressively gay"

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...se_692472.html

Others have said he's anti Israel (a plus for some)

That he's a "bipartisan" choice but really he's no longer a Republican as he endorsed Obama over McCain in 2008

Big job

Is he up to it ?

anyone better ?

[rareboy]

Please suggest someone.

[chance1]

LOL - is JayHawk available ? I imagine he fancies himself capable

I have no idea - I thought Leon Panetta did a sterling job - greater minds than mine on this board clearly

I was interested in the angle that Hagel made an anti-gay comment 20+ years ago and how people here feel about it

It wouldn't disqualify him on my watch - more concerned about anti-Israel bias

[JayHawk]

LOL - is JayHawk available ? I imagine he fancies himself capable

I have no idea - I thought Leon Panetta did a sterling job - greater minds than mine on this board clearly

I was interested in the angle that Hagel made an anti-gay comment 20+ years ago and how people here feel about it

It wouldn't disqualify him on my watch - more concerned about anti-Israel bias

While I would gladly serve. I would not be confirmed by Senate because when they ask me what I would do it would decimate most of the pork spending they all require to stay in office. And of course be blocked at every turn by a aggressively recalcitrant congress.

Chuck Hagel, Senator, type one each - would be ripe for the job because he doesn't think we should be an arm of the Israeli military every moment of every day. He does think the military is bloated. One of the reasons Panetta is leaving is because he doesnt have the stomach to fight the different service chiefs to get them to cough up reasonable cuts. Oddly, while Rumsfield proved grossly inadequate at running a wartime DoD, his knowledge of capitol hill and his shut the fuck up i am the boss attitude is exactly what is needed in the job to manage the downsizing of the post war military budget.

[JayHawk]

FRIEDMAN: Defense would do well with Hagel at helm

The legitimate criticism of Hagel concerns his stated preferences for finding a negotiated solution to Iran’s nuclear program, his willingness to engage Hamas to see if it can be moved from its extremism, his belief that the Pentagon budget must be cut, and his aversion to going to war again in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, because he has been to war and knows how much can go wrong.

I think the world needs a strong America to maintain global stability. But the “fiscal cliff” tells you that our defense budget is coming down and we need to cut with a smart strategic plan. I think it would be useful to have a defense secretary who starts with that view and does not have to be bludgeoned into it.

I have read a few things from Salon and Slate that discuss those main ingredients. Wouldn't you rather have a leader at the Pentagon who has thought about cuts for a while and knows the services and how they think internally? Using a scalpel to remove fat instead of a cleaver?

Spot on with Iran as well. We need them like never before to at least be wary foes that are dedicated to a peaceful middle east.

[chance1]

While I would gladly serve. I would not be confirmed by Senate because when they ask me what I would do it would decimate most of the pork spending they all require to stay in office. And of course be blocked at every turn by a aggressively recalcitrant congress. Chuck Hagel, Senator, type one each - would be ripe for the job because he doesn't think we should be an arm of the Israeli military every moment of every day. He does think the military is bloated. One of the reasons Panetta is leaving is because he doesnt have the stomach to fight the different service chiefs to get them to cough up reasonable cuts. Oddly, while Rumsfield proved grossly inadequate at running a wartime DoD, his knowledge of capitol hill and his shut the fuck up i am the boss attitude is exactly what is needed in the job to manage the downsizing of the post war military budget.

Thanks - good stuffI guess what I'm getting is that with an expected military downsizing perhaps the best person for the job 10-20 years ago Is no longer I will defer to u on this As in this case I think u r eminently more qualified and I respect your POVNo probs with the "aggressively gay" ?

[rareboy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-...b_2385106.html

I have no problem going on record as saying that there must be someone out there who would be a better pick for SoD.

[eastofeden]

From what I have read Michele Flournoy seems to be a much better choice. I agree with Barney Frank's assessment of Hagel.

[Sausy]

On the anti gay statement, he'll slide with the New York Times lefty types because he has profusedly apologized for that ....he's very cool to Israel, not convinced about the toxicity of the Tehran regime and soft on Hamas so unprincipled lefties will love and back him. Leon Panetta is going to be missed...one of the rare Obama appointments that earned great respect and support throughout Washington.

[Kulindahr]

From what I have read Michele Flournoy seems to be a much better choice. I agree with Barney Frank's assessment of Hagel.

Wolfowitz likes her, which is a fair recommendation.

[Kulindahr]

On the anti gay statement, he'll slide with the New York Times lefty types because he has profusedly apologized for that ....he's very cool to Israel, not convinced about the toxicity of the Tehran regime and soft on Hamas so unprincipled lefties will love and back him. Leon Panetta is going to be missed...one of the rare Obama appointments that earned great respect and support throughout Washington.

He does seem to think Hamas can be turned into a political outfit and abandon the violence. Honestly, they might say the words, but they'll never stop being terrorists.

[JayHawk]

From what I have read Michele Flournoy seems to be a much better choice. I agree with Barney Frank's assessment of Hagel.

Flournoy was a distinguished research professor at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University (NDU), where she founded and led the university’s Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) working group, which was chartered by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop intellectual capital in preparation for the Department of Defense’s 2001 QDR. On December 12, 2011,

So she has experience finding fat in a measured and appropriate manner. However I would need to have some testimony or insider knowledge with the folks she worked with while undersecretary. Make no mistake I don't mean anything bad about this but the service chiefs are amazingly effective at protecting their own backyards. If she ran working groups and never had to push shitty decisions on unwilling alpha types then I dont know is she has the moxie to do the job. Still a very impressive offer.

[JayHawk]

He does seem to think Hamas can be turned into a political outfit and abandon the violence. Honestly, they might say the words, but they'll never stop being terrorists.

The current occupants will never stop terror. the organization can change with the right pressures. If Iran was suggesting they become the political power for that region and hold their extracurricular activities at bay then they would do it. Problem is Iran is a bridge too far.

I am still well on the fence compared to most of the western world. While proliferation of nucs is not a good thing, Iran having a bomb means nothing. If they use it then they would be found out because that shit has forensic fingerprints based off of the fissile material used. So it would be beyond genocide if they chose to use it in a terror related act but Iran would then cease to be a problem or a people in one flash of light. So that country knowing they would cease to exist -- all of them -- would set up a mutually assured destruction scenario that the Soviet Union and the US lived under for decades. Not fun but not the end of the world

[JayHawk]

Thanks - good stuffI guess what I'm getting is that with an expected military downsizing perhaps the best person for the job 10-20 years ago Is no longer I will defer to u on this As in this case I think u r eminently more qualified and I respect your POVNo probs with the "aggressively gay" ?

Had to be on a tablet or a phone cause no spacing is even worse than haiku.....

On the gay thing... I used to very earnestly believe that marriage didn't matter in any way whatsoever. I could vote for my pocketbook and didn't care to marry. It was selfish and self defeating but I believed it.

If I can permit myself to change then I will allow someone else to say they have changed. He certainly wont overturn the decision. The genie is out of the bottle and the services based all denial of benefits on DOMA. So when it falls we get benefits. The Secretary would neither be able to stop benefits. If they put a person massively supportive to gay rights as the defense executive leadership then that person could not grant benefits because it is against federal law.

So the gay aggressive comment is of no matter. Obama doesn't like unnecessary conflict however and Hagel wont get the nod is my feeling.

[Jack Springer]

Surprisingly Penneta has done a good job. I really don't know much about Hagel.

I'm just not a fan of Senators moving into executive jobs -- they don't know enough about managing huge departments like defense.

[Kulindahr]

So she has experience finding fat in a measured and appropriate manner. However I would need to have some testimony or insider knowledge with the folks she worked with while undersecretary. Make no mistake I don't mean anything bad about this but the service chiefs are amazingly effective at protecting their own backyards. If she ran working groups and never had to push shitty decisions on unwilling alpha types then I dont know is she has the moxie to do the job. Still a very impressive offer.

It would be worth knowing her record as professor. Primarily I'm thinking whether she held a department chair and if so how she did. As a research professor she may also have been involved in fighting for grant money, which is a great way to learn bureaucratic combat.

Besides that, I think it would say something about our view of equality to have a woman as chief over the warriors.

[Kulindahr]

The current occupants will never stop terror. the organization can change with the right pressures. If Iran was suggesting they become the political power for that region and hold their extracurricular activities at bay then they would do it. Problem is Iran is a bridge too far.

I am still well on the fence compared to most of the western world. While proliferation of nucs is not a good thing, Iran having a bomb means nothing. If they use it then they would be found out because that shit has forensic fingerprints based off of the fissile material used. So it would be beyond genocide if they chose to use it in a terror related act but Iran would then cease to be a problem or a people in one flash of light. So that country knowing they would cease to exist -- all of them -- would set up a mutually assured destruction scenario that the Soviet Union and the US lived under for decades. Not fun but not the end of the world

I made that point once before: if Israel and the Saudis knew that a nuclear explosion had come from Iran, there would be no more Iran.

But I don't think that would be enough to deter the ayatollahs if they thought they had a chance to eliminate the Jews.

[JayHawk]

@ Jack Springer - Did you argue about Kerry taking on a equally large job at State? Or did his years of making definitive spending decisions for those executives make him capable of understanding the purpose and challenges of the organization.

I agree with the idea that merely being a Senator does not prepare you for the executive demands.

BUT executive jobs do prepare you for executive jobs.....

After leaving government employment, Hagel co-founded Vanguard Cellular, a mobile phone manufacturer that made him a multi-millionaire.[12] While working with Vanguard, he served as president and chief executive officer of the United Service Organizations and the Private Sector Council, as deputy director and chief operating officer of the 1990 G7 Summit, and on the board of directors or advisory committee of the American Red Cross, the Eisenhower World Affairs Institute, Bread for the World, and the Ripon Society. He also served as Chairman of the Agent Orange Settlement Fund and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[13]

Although he was pressured by some to run for Governor of Virginia, where he had lived for 20 years, in 1992 Hagel moved back to Nebraska to become president of the McCarthy Group, an investment banking firm.[14] He also served as a Chairman and was CEO of American Information Systems Inc. (AIS), a voting machine manufacturer.[15]

In 1992, as President of investment group McCarthy & Co., Hagel assumed ownership and became Chairman of American Information Services (AIS), later known as Election Systems & Software, a manufacturer of computerized voting machines.[13] On March 15, 1995, Hagel resigned from the board of AIS as he intended to run for office.[16] Michael McCarthy, the parent company’s founder, was Hagel’s campaign treasurer.[17] Until at least 2003, he retained between $1 million and $5 million in stock in Election Systems & Software's parent company, the McCarthy Group.[18]

Additionally, it is well known that defense works hand in hand with our foreign policy leaders in State. We simply cannot accomplish what we do as separate entities. Former Ambassadors endorse Hagel for the job.

Friends of Chuck: the case for Hagel begins; Why the QDR may be significant;

Finally this is a critical time frame. We will be conducting the QDR that will lay the basic blueprint for strategy. That will filter in to what is cut and what is supported.

The next Quadrennial Defense Review isn't due until 2014, but the services are going to get serious about it in January. The QDR, the every-four year study of strategy, resources, and programs, oftentimes only amounts to a bureaucratic exercise, albeit an expensive and all-consuming one. But the 2014 edition could actually have some significance. The drastic changes to the budget (the extent of which is still unclear), the pivot to Asia, and a new defense secretary will all contribute to making the review a big focus of the new year.

So in the end the decision is huge and this untested under secretary that was a political appointee for a four year first term may not have the gravitas to lead that effort. Hagel may. We will find out I suppose who it is when Obama announces it.

[JayHawk]

Besides that, I think it would say something about our view of equality to have a woman as chief over the warriors.

I have worked for Female Superior Naval Officers and they are quite possibly the harshest people on earth. Most of the folks I would work for are way ahead of me in time so a female coming up through the ranks over the last thirty years dealt with a LOT of shit so i understand the aggressiveness.

All of that aside nothing in her background suggest she possesses that sort of Moxie. I keep waiting for one of our beloved heretics to accuse me of misogyny for having a well researched opinion.

[JayHawk]

Oh by the by if any of you are interested try reading the following if you want some in depth reasoning why the time is now to engage Iran.

Former officials in the CIA, State Department, and National Security Council between the two of them, Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett have long called for the United States to engage with Iran. After heightened rhetoric from Israeli and U.S. politicians and commentators in 2012, the Mann Leverett duo's sure to be controversial new book argues that concerns about Iran's nuclear program have been overblown. The country is ready for a change, they say, calling for a bold overture from the United States akin to Richard Nixon's historic visit to China.

[Kulindahr]

Oh by the by if any of you are interested try reading the following if you want some in depth reasoning why the time is now to engage Iran.

I think it's time for a bold new effort to put nuclear energy on an international footing, with a commission overseen not by the nuclear powers but by small countries which not merely have no hopes of having nukes, but which would stand to lose a great deal if anyone started tossing such weapons about. Let ALL nuclear facilities everywhere be open to them to inspect, at will, without warning, so they can report to the world on the peaceful (or non-peaceful) intentions of those with the power.

Starting the ball rolling on that by an initiative with Iran would be a good beginning.

[JayHawk]

I think it's time for a bold new effort to put nuclear energy on an international footing, with a commission overseen not by the nuclear powers but by small countries which not merely have no hopes of having nukes, but which would stand to lose a great deal if anyone started tossing such weapons about. Let ALL nuclear facilities everywhere be open to them to inspect, at will, without warning, so they can report to the world on the peaceful (or non-peaceful) intentions of those with the power.

Starting the ball rolling on that by an initiative with Iran would be a good beginning.

While bold that is simply wistful thinking. The powerful do not simply relinquish that control. You would never get China or India to the table much less Iran. Israel still fails to admit they have the capability. If, of course, they do.

No we need to visit Iran on their terms and accept the government that is there. We could do that and still maintain our 12nm // freedom of the seas enforcement that makes China grumpy too.

See the thing is we are treating one of the oldest civilizations on earth as if they are the children in the game. Perhaps it is time we extended a hand. We may find we draw back a bloody stump but we must try that first. Unfortunately that will not happen until after 2016. There is no way this President has the political capitol to work with Iran and not have the right go fucking bonkers. Equally if he were to use his last few years doing it then a potential replacement on the Dem side would have to defend or take such a hard stance it would be for naught.

So in dealing with Iran we are kinda screwed for another four years. Then if we try to negotiate they will claim it is because they have the bomb and every third world do digga do country will want the same status.


Sorry really just musing here. It is a tough egg.

[Jack Springer]

@ Jack Springer - Did you argue about Kerry taking on a equally large job at State? Or did his years of making definitive spending decisions for those executives make him capable of understanding the purpose and challenges of the organization.

I agree with the idea that merely being a Senator does not prepare you for the executive demands.

BUT executive jobs do prepare you for executive jobs.....



Additionally, it is well known that defense works hand in hand with our foreign policy leaders in State. We simply cannot accomplish what we do as separate entities. Former Ambassadors endorse Hagel for the job.



Finally this is a critical time frame. We will be conducting the QDR that will lay the basic blueprint for strategy. That will filter in to what is cut and what is supported.



So in the end the decision is huge and this untested under secretary that was a political appointee for a four year first term may not have the gravitas to lead that effort. Hagel may. We will find out I suppose who it is when Obama announces it.

Like I said i don't (didn't) know much about Hagel. I'm glad he has had some experience managing a huge budget. As a person that manages a big budget, I know what a huge responsibility it is doing the right thing.

I really don't feel comfortable with Kerry at SOS. I've never really liked the guy.

[chance1]

William Kristol suggests that there is NO positive case FOR Hagel

His backers can cite no significant legislation for which Hagel was responsible in his two terms in the Senate. They can quote no memorable speeches that Hagel delivered and can cite no profound passages from the book he authored. They can summarize no perceptive Hagelian analysis of defense or foreign policy, and can appeal to no acts of management or leadership by the man they'd have as our next secretary of defense.

host of individuals who've served in the Pentagon during President Obama's first term—like Deputy Secretary Ashton Carter, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, and former Undersecretary for Policy Michèle Flournoy—are more qualified than Chuck Hagel to serve as the next secretary of defense. So are Clinton administration Defense Department veterans like Richard Danzig, John Hamre, and Joseph Nye. So are former legislators like Olympia Snowe, Sam Nunn, Dick Gephardt, and Bill Bradley. So are others from the private and public sector.

No one would care if the president wanted to send Hagel off to openly and aggressively make the case for Obama's foreign policy as ambassador to Luxembourg. But the secretary of defense has real responsibilities. Even his nomination has real consequences.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...el_693692.html

[T-Rexx]

The Republicans are eating their own, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

Nevertheless, they are correct that Hagel should not be approved. He is a homophobic bigot who cannot be trusted to shepherd the nation's military responsibly. The potential human cost of Hagel is too great. The president should not nominate such an unenlightened person to such an important position.

[genthree]

America has its hands full at the moment both at home and abroad and has neither the appetite for another war nor the finances, so if anyone, including Israel, wants to kick up a fuss, tell them to go for it, they are on their own.

[chance1]

another POV - from a gentleman who knows him well - says that Chuck is the perfect choice

I found this the most compelling

Chuck Hagel understands the confluence of the military, power politics and the values of this nation. A highly decorated veteran who served with his brother in the most unpopular war in U.S. history, a Secretary Hagel will have no fear in cutting the fat out of the Pentagon, in taking on the giant military-industrial complex that revives dead projects purely for profit and politics. He'll force the U.S. Government to examine the role of the military for the next few generations. No one inside the complex can doubt his bona fides. They may not like his conclusions, but they'll have to work with him, not against him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-j...b_2423695.html

[palbert]

Obama's choice.

[chrisrobin]

I really don't feel comfortable with Kerry at SOS

You really don't feel comfortable with anyone, especially any Obama nominee.

I've never really liked the guy.

Share with us someone you do like. Enquiring minds want to know.

[Jack Springer]

^^^

If Hagel can cut the fat out of the Defense Department while keeping what is important to protect the US -- he'd be OK with me.

[palemale]

The Log Cabin Republicans should get an award for first rate hypocrisy on this one. They endorsed Romney and gave him a complete pass despite his anti-gay rights stances, yet are running ads criticizing Hagel for one statement he made 15 years ago. Once again, the Log Cabin Republicans have disgraced themselves and revealed themselves to be nothing more than partisan Republican hacks who, because they suck cock, can criticize others for alleged, gay rights transgressions.

[chrisrobin]

The Log Cabin Republicans should get an award for first rate hypocrisy on this one. They endorsed Romney and gave him a complete pass despite his anti-gay rights stances, yet are running ads criticizing Hagel for one statement he made 15 years ago. Once again, the Log Cabin Republicans have disgraced themselves and revealed themselves to be nothing more than partisan Republican hacks who, because they suck cock, can criticize others for alleged, gay rights transgressions.

The Log Cabin Republicans should get an award for first rate hypocrisy on this one.

Sycophant: A sycophant is a person who tries to gain attention by flattering wealthy or influential people.

[palbert]

The case against Chuch Hagel is being made at chuckhagel.com:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/g...-election.html

A group critical of President Barack Obama's choice of Chuck Hagel to be secretary of defense on Monday purchased the Web site domain ChuckHagel.com to oppose the former Nebraska senator's nomination.

The Emergency Committee for Israel, an advocacy group led by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, is sponsoring the new site and has already produced television ads against Hagel's nomination.

[tigerfan482]

I think Hagel is a good decision. He is a middle-of-the-road person who has experience in war (something I think a person who helps make a decision whether to go to war should have.) He believes war should be a last resort and is committed to trying to find peaceful/diplomatic solutions to problems we face. He also believes is making the DoD efficient and trimming unneeded spending/programs which is a major plus.

While I don't agree with the seemingly anti-gay comments he made years ago, he has apologized for them. As far as his Israel stance, I find there is a difference in being anti-Israel and not extreme pro-Israel. I would classify him as not extremely pro-Israel but not anti-Israel. He takes a stance that I think we as a country should take - they are our allies and we should treat them as such, but we also should not be their military puppets that go out and do their bidding for them. They're like a kid that goes around teasing others and then runs and hides behind the adults when someone tries to retaliate.

[Virgil Woolf]

I think Chuck Hagel is a good pick and I trust Obama's instincts on this as I do on most other things. As a former enlisted man myself, it's good to see one of the grunts finally make it to the top. What I don't understand is why Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has her panties in such a twist over this one?

[TX-Beau]

"Seemingly" anti-gay comments? He didn't apologize he expressed regret those "seemingly anti-gay" comments have come back to haunt him. He opposed letting gay people serve, he opposed anti-discrimination laws, he opposed federal hate crime laws including gay people, his record is DECIDEDLY ant-gay. Yes he went of on a homophobic rant over one gay guy - but that was really just the symptom.

The real tragedy here is that we as gay people are expected to just STFU and accept him when if he had said half of the bile he said about us about black people or Hispanics or women - he never would have even been considered.

Obama would NEVER have nominated a Republican white guy who was anti-negro in the army no matter how many insincere mea culpas he tossed out to get a promotion.

[MisterMajestic]

Take'em or leave'em as far as I'm concerned....Obama is obviously ready to fight for the Ol'boy....And I Love how everyone is running to the Cameras and declaring he'll get a fair hearing...Blah,blah,blah....

[tigerfan482]

"Seemingly" anti-gay comments? He didn't apologize he expressed regret those "seemingly anti-gay" comments have come back to haunt him. He opposed letting gay people serve, he opposed anti-discrimination laws, he opposed federal hate crime laws including gay people, his record is DECIDEDLY ant-gay. Yes he went of on a homophobic rant over one gay guy - but that was really just the symptom.

The real tragedy here is that we as gay people are expected to just STFU and accept him when if he had said half of the bile he said about us about black people or Hispanics or women - he never would have even been considered.

Obama would NEVER have nominated a Republican white guy who was anti-negro in the army no matter how many insincere mea culpas he tossed out to get a promotion.

While I don't believe what he said was right, he was a Senator at the time and was charged with defending what his constituents saw as right. I don't think it affects the current position he is nominated for because it is not the Secretary of Defense's job to create law, only enforce it at it relates to the military. DADT has been repealed and so there is no question on whether he has to uphold that, regardless of his personal beliefs. The President was anti-gay marriage at one point and now his position has changed.

I am more concerned about Chuck Hagel's views on the military, its budget, and its appropriate uses since it is the job of the Secretary of Defense to advise on military matters. His views are in line with what I believe, so as Secretary of Defense, I think he is a good pick. Now if he were being nominated for Secretary of Gay Rights, then I would have a problem with that.

[CoolBlue71]

Why Chuck Hagel terrifies hawks, GOP

By David Sirota
Jan. 7, 2013 | http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/why_...ies_hawks_gop/

In a political cauldron where extreme rhetoric and policy positions are now utterly mundane, sure, it’s entirely possible that some believe such nonsense.* However, just as likely is the possibility that many of these critics are generating such over-the-top charges knowing full well that Hagel’s nomination has a better-than-average chance of being defeated not because of the issues in the headlines — but because of what positions he is perceived (and I stress “perceived”) to hold about defense spending.

Specifically, at the very moment that the defense industry’s army of lobbyists is already in a full-on panic about mild sequestration cuts to the Pentagon, Hagel is viewed by the defense-coddling D.C. establishment as a threat to defense spending — thanks to two previously little-noticed comments he made in 2011. In an interview that year with the "Financial Times" about a defense budget that is bigger than most of the rest of the world’s combined (and one that can’t account for $2 trillion), he dared to say that said budget “has been bloated” and “needs to be pared down.”

[kayman23]

Take'em or leave'em as far as I'm concerned....Obama is obviously ready to fight for the Ol'boy....And I Love how everyone is running to the Cameras and declaring he'll get a fair hearing...Blah,blah,blah....

Yeah, they are like on cue, and I'm like, "And Action!"

[kayman23]

Why Chuck Hagel terrifies hawks, GOP

By David Sirota
Jan. 7, 2013 | http://www.salon.com/2013/01/07/why_...ies_hawks_gop/

Slice and dice, good! Maybe now we can reduce some of this deficit spending on bullshit that they grease their palms with annually for "defense"...

[TX-Beau]

While I don't believe what he said was right, he was a Senator at the time and was charged with defending what his constituents saw as right. I don't think it affects the current position he is nominated for because it is not the Secretary of Defense's job to create law, only enforce it at it relates to the military. DADT has been repealed and so there is no question on whether he has to uphold that, regardless of his personal beliefs. The President was anti-gay marriage at one point and now his position has changed.

I am more concerned about Chuck Hagel's views on the military, its budget, and its appropriate uses since it is the job of the Secretary of Defense to advise on military matters. His views are in line with what I believe, so as Secretary of Defense, I think he is a good pick. Now if he were being nominated for Secretary of Gay Rights, then I would have a problem with that.

Oh I see, silly me, he was ONLY anti-gay for his constituents. Not like he completely agreed with them or anything.

Hagel is not the only qualified person for the job.

[TX-Beau]

Slice and dice, good! Maybe now we can reduce some of this deficit spending on bullshit that they grease their palms with annually for "defense"...

How exactly is he going to reduce the military budget?

[tigerfan482]

Oh I see, silly me, he was ONLY anti-gay for his constituents. Not like he completely agreed with them or anything.

Hagel is not the only qualified person for the job.

I'm not saying he may not believe what he says, but I'm saying it doesn't really make a difference in the position he is being nominated for.

There may be other people, but he is the one who is nominated. Out of curiosity, what qualified person would you nominate?

[MisterMajestic]

Yeah, they are like on cue, and I'm like, "And Action!"

Exactly..They're all a bunch of Drama Queens...

And just as a side note...Speaking of Queen....Whoever is doing Obama's makeup need to be FIRED yesterday...His face was so Damn shiny during that Hagel Press conference earlier today....Looks like someone smeared a whole bottle of Vaseline over his face before he went out there...Powder the man's Face why dont'cha....

[TX-Beau]

I'm not saying he may not believe what he says, but I'm saying it doesn't really make a difference in the position he is being nominated for.

There may be other people, but he is the one who is nominated. Out of curiosity, what qualified person would you nominate?

I'm saying that if we in the gay community aren't willing to expect the same kind of standards for public servants that other minorities expect in their communities - we deserve to get fucked over by every other 'phobe that comes along.

Do you actually think that an Anti-Semite who made a half ass "I'm sorry it's in my way," apology, he'd get a nomination? Hell, he wouldn't have GOTTEN to the apology because no one would have gone near him. Would Jews be completely ridiculous to object? Right.

We overwhelmingly supported Obama, that doesn't mean he gets a pass for nominating homophobes.

[tigerfan482]

I'm saying that if we in the gay community aren't willing to expect the same kind of standards for public servants that other minorities expect in their communities - we deserve to get fucked over by every other 'phobe that comes along.

Do you actually think that an Anti-Semite who made a half ass "I'm sorry it's in my way," apology, he'd get a nomination? Hell, he wouldn't have GOTTEN to the apology because no one would have gone near him. Would Jews be completely ridiculous to object? Right.

We overwhelmingly supported Obama, that doesn't mean he gets a pass for nominating homophobes.

What I'm saying is you're doing the exact thing that you're crucifying this guy for. You're saying that he isn't qualified to be Secretary of Defense because of a personal belief he has that has nothing to do with the job. It's the same as him saying that people who are gay aren't qualified to be ambassadors. You don't have to agree with what he says. There are many people in this world that you won't agree with. That shouldn't mean they should be disqualified for a position that is unrelated to their beliefs. The conduct of the Secretary of Defense towards gay people under his purview is governed by law. If Hagel says in his confirmation hearing that he can't uphold the law protecting gay people who are serving because of his personal beliefs, then I'll agree and say he isn't right for the position. But if he is able to maintain the separation between his legal duties and his personal beliefs, which he has every right to have whether or not any of us agree with them, then I say it has nothing to do with his being qualified or a good person for the position.

[TX-Beau]

That's some kinda twister you've got going there. You can stretch all you want - fact remains that people who wear pillowcases and "light" crosses are never considered for public office no matter their skill set, yet you seem fine with calling gay people hypocrites for expecting the same consideration.

Anti-Semites don't get to be secretary of the interior, people who hate Asians - can't run the FBI.

Because being a bigot is a disqualifier for every other minority, and NO ONE would nominate said bigot, then you say UNLESS you are a homophobe - then somehow it's peachy keen so long as it "doesn't affect" your job?

Please.

[tigerfan482]

That's some kinda twister you've got going there. You can stretch all you want - fact remains that people who wear pillowcases and "light" crosses are never considered for public office no matter their skill set, yet you seem fine with calling gay people hypocrites for expecting the same consideration.

Anti-Semites don't get to be secretary of the interior, people who hate Asians - can't run the FBI.

Because being a bigot is a disqualifier for every other minority, and NO ONE would nominate said bigot, then you say UNLESS you are a homophobe - then somehow it's peachy keen so long as it "doesn't affect" your job?

Please.

I can bet you there have been plenty of prejudiced people who have served at high levels of the government. For example, J. Edgar Hoover was believed by many to be racist, but he ran the FBI quite successfully. Everyone has a set of beliefs in terms of who and what they like and don't like. You may not know their about their beliefs because they didn't say anything, but that doesn't change the fact that they were prejudiced. You, for instance, have a problem with people that are anti-gay. As long as peoples' prejudices, whatever they may be, don't interfere with their official capacities, then they have a right to have those prejudices. I simply realize that this is the real world and people have their set of beliefs. I don't have to agree with those beliefs, but unless those beliefs translate into actions that take away my or others' rights, then I'm not going to punish people for having them.

And no, it's not a stretch. You being against Chuck Hagel because he is anti-gay is the same as him being against you because you're gay. And I extend that to all other prejudices as well. A person has the right to be a racist and not be punished for it as long as their racism doesn't affect others' rights. If Chuck Hagel hated black people but was able to be Secretary of Defense without his beliefs translating into actions against black people in the Department of Defense, then I'd be making the same argument.

[TX-Beau]

Give me a fucking break. In 1850 it was perfectly fine to be a ginromous racist and still be a President - so NOW that's fine so long as it doesn't interfere with your "duties?" In No fucking universe is that true.

You know it, I know it - no one who said the same things about black people Hagel said about us would EVER have even been considered. Being a bigot would have disqualified him immediately and there would have been outrage in the black community if the White House pursued it.

Evidently being a black person against the KKK is the same as being a cross burning Grand Dragon in the strange universe you seem to inhabit.

I suspect you took a position without thinking it through and now are just being obstinate because claiming that people who oppose bigotry are just really bigots themselves is frankly stupid.