Hagel for Secretary of Defense...Yay or Nay?

[catzmeow]

I have to admit, I'm a fan. It's been a while since we had a sec def who earned a purple heart on the battlefield.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yay. He's perfect for secretary of defense. He will make SURE the enemies of the United States understands how weak we intend to become. There's no one better for obama's administration of ineptocracy.

 

[Trajan]

His combat record is admirable, my hats off to him.

However, if that’s all it took, well, Dole, McCain anyone?

Sec def. is a very high level position with tremendous responsibilities. I am not saying hes not up to it, but he wasn’t exactly a ‘distinguished’ senator.

I am flummoxed at the nomination however in another sense; he has made some curious & problematic statements/comments as to gays, Iran, DADT, Jews, Abortion etc. I am at a loss as to how Obama can nominate him knowing all of this where in just this last election cycle for example, similar comments and views cost folks chances at election as they were roundly criticized by the very same now who appear to sppt. him in this administration.

 

[arKangel]

YAY!

I am completely stunned by this nomination.
Chuck Hagel is 100% Pro America & 100% Pro LIfe.

Which is the total opposite of Obama.

I have to admit, this truly is truly baffling.
I very much hope this isn't a ploy to discredit a Pro-American-Life Senator.

Yay. He's perfect for secretary of defense. He will make SURE the enemies of the United States understands how weak we intend to become. There's no one better for obama's administration of ineptocracy.

Are you confusing Chuck for an Israeli?
Just so you understand, Chuck is an American, not an Israeli.
Got it?

I would agree that this nomination is making Israeli infiltration of the American government look weak.

We can only pray this nomination passes and America regains control of it's sovereignty from Israel.

 

[AmyNation]

I'm good with Hagle. I'm pleasantly surprised it isn't Kerry.

 

[del]

His combat record is admirable, my hats off to him.

However, if that’s all it took, well, Dole, McCain anyone?

Sec def. is a very high level position with tremendous responsibilities. I am not saying hes not up to it, but he wasn’t exactly a ‘distinguished’ senator.

I am flummoxed at the nomination however in another sense; he has made some curious & problematic statements/comments as to gays, Iran, DADT, Jews, Abortion etc. I am at a loss as to how Obama can nominate him knowing all of this where in just this last election cycle for example, similar comments and views cost folks chances at election as they were roundly criticized by the very same now who appear to sppt. him in this administration.

bob dole is about to turn 90.

john mccain has never run anything bigger than a skyhawk.

ted kennedy was a *distinguished* senator.

hagel has held a number of high level admin positions,including deputy administrator of the va, but even if he hadn't, it's not the secdef's job to run the day to day of the dod. that's for career bureaucrats.

his comments regarding gays were made 15 years ago, and the kind of people who get their panties in a wad over the phrase *jewish lobby* really need to grow the fuck up.

 

[catzmeow]

His combat record is admirable, my hats off to him.

However, if that’s all it took, well, Dole, McCain anyone?

Sec def. is a very high level position with tremendous responsibilities. I am not saying hes not up to it, but he wasn’t exactly a ‘distinguished’ senator.

I am flummoxed at the nomination however in another sense; he has made some curious & problematic statements/comments as to gays, Iran, DADT, Jews, Abortion etc. I am at a loss as to how Obama can nominate him knowing all of this where in just this last election cycle for example, similar comments and views cost folks chances at election as they were roundly criticized by the very same now who appear to sppt. him in this administration.

bob dole is about to turn 90.

john mccain has never run anything bigger than a skyhawk.

ted kennedy was a *distinguished* senator.

hagel has held a number of high level admin positions,including deputy administrator of the va, but even if he hadn't, it's not the secdef's job to run the day to day of the dod. that's for career bureacrats.

his comments regarding gays were made 15 years ago, and the kind of people who get their panties in a wad over the phrase *jewish lobby* really need to grow the fuck up.

Amen, brother Del.

 

[Sallow]

I have to admit, I'm a fan. It's been a while since we had a sec def who earned a purple heart on the battlefield.

I like the fact he fought in an actual war on the ground and bled for this country.

I don't agree with everything the man has done..but that's sorta what makes a horse race. No?

 

[catzmeow]

He's an independent thinker, not a koolaid drinker. I rarely agree with everything a politician has ever done?

 

[Sallow]

His combat record is admirable, my hats off to him.

However, if that’s all it took, well, Dole, McCain anyone?

Sec def. is a very high level position with tremendous responsibilities. I am not saying hes not up to it, but he wasn’t exactly a ‘distinguished’ senator.

I am flummoxed at the nomination however in another sense; he has made some curious & problematic statements/comments as to gays, Iran, DADT, Jews, Abortion etc. I am at a loss as to how Obama can nominate him knowing all of this where in just this last election cycle for example, similar comments and views cost folks chances at election as they were roundly criticized by the very same now who appear to sppt. him in this administration.

Dole?

Really?

He would have been a fine choice 20 years ago.

 

[Sallow]

He's an independent thinker, not a koolaid drinker. I rarely agree with everything a politician has ever done?

I don't like many people I agree with 100%.

It's sorta creepy.

 

[Defiant1]

Obama was re-elected. Unfortunately that can't be changed.
Having won he gets to choose his cabinet. I believe a president has the right to choose whomever he wishes, short of some tyrant or enemy of the USA.

I just wish people would change their party before they defect. Like Charlie Crist.

 

[del]

this is the text of his statement on the senate floor prior to the vote on the iraqi war in 2002. it is a matter of public record and not copyright protected. i would say that someone capable of this kind of thought will be a more than acceptable secretary of defense.

Madam President, the Senate is, by design, a deliberative institution. Over this past week, we have witnessed thoughtful debate and commentary on how to meet the challenge of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Ours is not an academic exercise; debate informs our decision whether to authorize the President to use force if necessary to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with Iraqi disarmament. There are no easy answers in Iraq. The decision to commit our troops to war is the most difficult decision Members of Congress make. Each course of action we consider in Iraq leads us into imperfect, dangerous, and unknown situations. But we cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The President cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The risks of inaction are too high. We are elected to solve problems, not just debate them. The time has come to chart a new course in Iraq and in the Middle East.

History informs our debate and our decisions. We know tyranny cannot be appeased. We also know our power and influence are enhanced by both a nobility of purpose and the support of allies and institutions that reinforce an international commitment to peace and prosperity. We know war has its own dynamic, that it favors neither ideology, nor democracy, nor tyranny, that men and women die, and that nations and individuals who know war are never again the same.President Bush has rightly brought the case against Iraq back before the United Nations. Our problems with Iraq, as well as terrorism and the worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are not America's alone. Israel, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq's own Kurdish population, and other nations and peoples are on the front lines of Saddam Hussein's ambitions for weapons of mass death.

The United Nations, with American leadership, must act decisively to end Saddam Hussein's decade-long violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions. America's best case for the possible use of force against Iraq rests with the American and international commitment to enforcing Iraq's disarmament. The diplomatic process is not easy, and we face the competing interests and demands of Russia, France, China, and others, whose interests in Iraq may not always be the same as ours. A regional and international coalition is essential for creating the political environment that will be required for any action we take in Iraq, and especially for how we sustain a democratic transition in a post-Saddam Iraq. We cannot do it alone.

America-including the Congress-and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism. Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions. Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new. American doctrine involving the preemptive use of force. America's challenge in this new century will be to strengthen its relationships around the world while leading the world in our war on terrorism, for it is the success of the first challenge that will determine the success of the second. We should not mistake our foreign policy priorities for ideology in a rush to proclaim a new doctrine in world affairs. America must understand it cannot alone win a war against terrorism. It will require allies, friends, and partners.

American leadership in the world will be further defined by our actions in Iraq and the Middle East. What begins in Iraq will not end in Iraq. There will be other ‘‘Iraqs.'' There will be continued acts of terrorism, proliferating powers, and regional conflicts. If we do it right and lead through the U.N., in concert with our allies, we can set a new standard for American leadership and international cooperation. The perception of American power is power, and how our power is perceived can either magnify or diminish our influence in the world. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility and an institutional obligation in this effort.

Federalist Paper No. 63 specifically notes the responsibilities of the Senate in foreign affairs as follows:
An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is that, in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can always be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?

Remarkable words. The resolution before us today should be tried in that same light as the Federalist Papers points out. The original resolution proposed by the Bush administration, S.J. Res. 45, would have been a setback for this institution. It did not reflect the best democratic traditions of either Congressional-Executive relations, or the conduct of American foreign policy. S.J. Res. 46, sponsored by Senators LIEBERMAN, WARNER, MCCAIN, and BAYH, is a far more responsible and accountable document than the one we started with 3 weeks ago. I congratulate my colleagues, especially Senators LUGAR, BIDEN, and DASCHLE, and the four sponsors of this resolution, for their efforts and leadership in getting it to this point.
S.J. Res. 46 narrows the authorization for the use of force to all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defending our national interests against the threats posed by Iraq. It includes support for U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.; a requirement that, before taking action, the President formally determines that diplomatic or other peaceful means will not be adequate in meeting our objectives; reference to the war powers resolution requirements; and periodic reports to Congress that include those actions described in the section of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 regarding assistance and support for Iraq upon replacement of Saddam Hussein. This resolution recognizes Congress as a coequal partner in dealing with the threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

If disarmament in Iraq requires the use of force, we need to consider carefully the implications and consequences of our actions. The future of Iraq after Saddam Hussein is also an open question. Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world.

How many of us really know and understand much about Iraq, the country, the history, the people, the role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism, and a bit more humility. While the people of the Arab world need no education from America about Saddam's record of deceit, aggression, and brutality, and while many of them may respect and desire the freedoms the American model offers, imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice. A democratic effort cannot be maintained without building durable Iraqi political institutions and developing a regional and international commitment to Iraq's reconstruction. No small task. To succeed, our commitment must extend beyond the day after to the months and years after Saddam is gone. The American people must be told of this long-term commitment, risk, and costs of this undertaking.

We should not be seduced by the expectations of ‘‘dancing in the streets'' after Saddam's regime has fallen, the kites, the candy, and cheering crowds we expect to greet our troops, but instead, focus on the great challenges ahead, the commitment and resources that will be needed to ensure a democratic transition in Iraq and a more stable and peaceful Middle East.

We should spend more time debating the cost and extent of this commitment, the risks we may face in military engagement with Iraq, the implications of the precedent of United States military action for regime change, and the likely character and challenges of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions.

We need only look to Afghanistan where the Afghan people joyously welcomed our liberation force but, months later, a fragile transition government grapples with rebuilding a fractured political culture, economy, and country. However, Iraq, because of its resources, geography, capabilities, history, and people, offers even more complications and greater peril and, yes, greater opportunities and greater promise. This is the vast unknown, the heavy burden that lies ahead.

The Senate should not cast a vote in the hopes of putting Iraq behind us so we can get back to our campaigns or move on to other issues next year. The decision to possibly commit a nation to war cannot and should not ever be considered in the context of either party loyalty or campaign politics. I regret that this vote will take place under the cloud and pressure of elections next month. Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in political campaigns. It might have been better for our vote to have been delayed until after the elections, as it was in 1990. Authorizing the use of force against Iraq or any country for any purpose should always be weighed on its own merits, not with an eye on the politics of the vote or campaign TV spots. War is too serious, the human price too high, and the implications unforeseen.

While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control.

In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours.

America cannot trade a new focus on Iraq for a lesser effort in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians continues, and the danger mounts. Stability in Afghanistan is not assured.
We must carry through with our commitment. Stability in this region depends on it. America's credibility is at stake, and long-term stability in central and South Asia hangs in the balance.

We must also continue to pay close attention to North Korea where there is no guesswork about nuclear weapons. There on the Korean peninsula reside nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and 37,000 American troops. Despite setting the right course for disarmament in Iraq, the administration has yet to define an end game in Iraq or explain the extent of the American commitment if regime change is required, or describe how our actions in Iraq might affect our other many interests and commitments around the world.

I share the hope of a better world without Saddam Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world. America has continued to take on large, complicated, and expensive responsibilities that will place heavy burdens on all of us over the next generation. It may well be necessary, but Americans should understand the extent of this burden and what may be required to pay for it and support it in both American blood and trade.

As the Congress votes on this resolution, we must understand that we have not put Iraqi issues behind us. This is just the beginning. The risks should not be understated, miscast, or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts.

We in the Congress are men and women of many parts. For me, it is the present-day Senator, the former soldier, or concerned father who guides my judgment and ultimate vote? It is pieces of all, for I am pieces of all. The responsibilities of each lead me to support the Lieberman-McCain-Warner-Bayh resolution, for which I will vote.

In the end, each of us who has the high honor of holding public office has the burden and privilege of decision and responsibilities. It is a sacred trust we share with the public. We will be held accountable for our actions, as it must be.

Madam President, I yield the floor

Chuck Hagel Iraq War 2002 - Chuck Hagel On The Iraq War - Esquire

 

[arKangel]

Obama was re-elected. Unfortunately that can't be changed.
Having won he gets to choose his cabinet. I believe a president has the right to choose whomever he wishes, short of some tyrant or enemy of the USA.

I just wish people would change their party before they defect. Like Charlie Crist.

Who cares about party? They are both Anti-American and Anti-Life.

The real story is how can someone who is clearly Pro-American-Life be nominated by an administration that is Anti-American-Life?

This is the most bizarre politics I've ever seen.
I smell a set-up.

 

[saveliberty]

Republicans better focus on the big issues. He's not Republicany enough? Get over it. The guy has to follow policy, not make it.

 

[Sunni Man]

100% Yay........

 

[Wolfsister77]

Yep, he's a good choice.

 

[skye]

100% Yay........

Now Iran can get the nuclear bomb with no more problems from US


yay indeed


Stupid Obama the most anti-american President on record! What a disgrace!

 

[catzmeow]

Obama was re-elected. Unfortunately that can't be changed.
Having won he gets to choose his cabinet. I believe a president has the right to choose whomever he wishes, short of some tyrant or enemy of the USA.

I just wish people would change their party before they defect. Like Charlie Crist.

Who cares about party? They are both Anti-American and Anti-Life.

The real story is how can someone who is clearly Pro-American-Life be nominated by an administration that is Anti-American-Life?

This is the most bizarre politics I've ever seen.
I smell a set-up.

Perhaps your entire paradigm is wrong.

 

[skye]

100% Yay........

Now Iran can get the nuclear bomb with no more problems from US


yay indeed


Stupid Obama the most anti-american President on record! What a disgrace!

XXXXXXX

hehe