So...... What do we think of Chuck Hagel? for Sec Defense?

[JMS]

A two term conservative Republican from Nebraska, who was a decorated inlisted ( Sergeant (E-5) ) combat soldier in Vietnam...

Seems like he's been fairly consistent while in office.... pretty much upsetting folks on the left and right.

• Folks on the left didn't like him cause he blocked an ambassador nomination on the basis of the candidate was "too gay".. which he has apologized for and some gay groups have publicly accepted his apology.
  
• Neo Con's don't like him cause he opposed the war in Iraq, and the surge and was an outspoken critic of the Bush administration for most of bush's term in office...
  
• John McCain doesn't like him cause he endorsed Obama over McCain for the Presidency in 2008.
  
• Pro - Israeli groups don't like him cause he once refereed to the pro-Israeli lobby as the "Jewish lobby" something the anti defamation league called anti Semitic in the same vein as they called former President Jimmy Carter such names.
  

“the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,”

“I’m a United States Senator, not an Israeli Senator,” Mr. Hagel told retired U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 2006. “I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I’ll do that.”

So the question is, are Chuck Hagel's comments offensive, or merely confrontational, throwing elbows in a rough game where many folks throw elbows, including the folks who are saying they have problems with Hagel?

[ixcuincle]

Good man

No problem

[wantarace17]

No problem with him.

[twa]

Not a fan,we could do better

[Stadium-Armory]

Sounds like everyone doesn't like him, which probably makes him a good candidate

Also, I've used the term "Jewish Lobby" and it never occurred to me that it could be considered anti Semitic.

[HSW]

I like him. He has a lot of enemies because he is not a sheep...

[zoony]

Sounds like everyone doesn't like him, which probably makes him a good candidate

Also, I've used the term "Jewish Lobby" and it never occurred to me that it could be considered anti Semitic.

Agree with your first sentence. As for your second sentence, I've never used the term, but I do agree and wonder how it could be anti-Semitic.

Maybe anti-defamation groups could just STFU once in a while and focus on the real stuff? Because THERE ARE real anti-semites out there that need a light shined on them

[JMS]

Agree with your first sentence. As for your second sentence, I've never used the term, but I do agree and wonder how it could be anti-Semitic.

Maybe anti-defamation groups could just STFU once in a while and focus on the real stuff? Because THERE ARE real anti-semites out there that need a light shined on them

I think their objection is based upon the fact it suggests Jewish People broadly have a divided loyalty to this country as it lumps all Jews into support of Israel, and all supporters of Israel to Jews, ( which we know isn't true)... This might be semantics given support for Israel in the Jewish Community, but it's a sore spot for the anti defamation league and Jewish supporters of Israel who do not find any light between supporting the United States and supporting Israel.

To put this in perspective... what if Chuck used the phrase "Fundamentalist Christian Lobby" instead of Israeli Lobby.... Would that still equate?

Would one say Pat Robertson has divided loyalty given he's a stanch supporter of Israel? ( as an example)..

Anyway I like Chuck because he has principles and he's stayed relatively true to them as the entire Republican Party changed around him... I am not sure about Sec Def; because I think the DoD is going to get Cut; and not sure if Chuck is the right guy to handle downsizing... Just like former Va Senator James Webb wasn't the right guy to handle downsizing the Navy under bush.

[zoony]

Vatican is referred to as the Catholic lobby I'm sure.

If Islam had a city state and a center of power for the entire religion, I'm sure it would be referred to as the Muslim lobby

[JMS]

Vatican is referred to as the Catholic lobby I'm sure.

If Islam had a city state and a center of power for the entire religion, I'm sure it would be referred to as the Muslim lobby

Only most Catholics don't support Vatican positions, and Islam is not centered in any one country; but mostly because Israel is a temporal power which by definition will make controversial decisions and conduct controversial activities. Judaism is a religion and as such is not bound to the same controversies... and as such has special protections under the constitution which Israel does not.

Juxtaposing Israel and Judaism thus doesn't make much sense.

[ixcuincle]

Lol at the criticism of Hagel just because he made comments CONSTRUED as being anti-Jewish

The jew plays a powerful part in the American politics

[Larry]

Pretty much everything I know about the guy, I got from reading this thread.

But I will say that, since his nomination, I think I've seen three newspaper headlines opposing to him. And all three of them, the objection has been because he wasn't pro-Israeli enough.

Which does cause me to reflect:

1) I was under the impression that the US was supposed to pick our SecDef.

2) I don't get people who so much as care how he feels about Israel. It's not like SecDef sets the US policy towards Israel. I kinda thought that his boss did that, with advice from SecState. (And probably other places, like DCIA.)

[thebluefood]

Sounds like everyone doesn't like him, which probably makes him a good candidate

Couldn't agree more. This guy seems like someone who won't push this nation into wars we don't need to be in and he won't blindly support Israel/rebuke Palestine.

I like this guy's style. I think he's an excellent choice.

[JMS]

It's not like SecDef sets the US policy towards Israel. I kinda thought that his boss did that, with advice from SecState. (And probably other places, like DCIA.)

SecDef is pretty important guy to Israel because of the tight coordination between the US and Israeli military. In passed years when Sec Def Rumsfeld refused to host any Israeli civilian leadership at the Pentigon due to their sale of the Harpy UAV to China, it was a significant hardship for Israeli administrations. And this was under George W. Bush arguable the most Pro Israeli President in the history of the country.

[Larry]

SecDef is pretty important guy to Israel because of the tight coordination between the US and Israeli military. In passed years when Sec Def Rumsfeld refused to host any Israeli civilian leadership at the Pentigon due to their sale of the Harpy UAV to China, it was a significant hardship for Israeli administrations. And this was under George W. Bush arguable the most Pro Israeli President in the history of the country.

And you think Rummy did that against his boss's wishes? (Or were you agreeing with me?)

[JMS]

And you think Rummy did that against his boss's wishes? (Or were you agreeing with me?)

I certainly agree with you that the Sec Def doesn't set foreign policy... Aid budgets, military support... etc is absolutely set by the President.

But I was pointing out that there are many coordination issues, like the visits of staff and non executive staff, attendance at important events which are not on the white house's radar.

I don't think Rummy checked with Bush before he started boycotting Israeli participation at US defense meetings or before he started denying them visitation to the Pentagon...

I just don't think the White house get's involved at that level....

I could be wrong though because Israel was also dropped from involvement on the international team developing the J-35 Joint Strike Fighter around the same time and for the same reasons..

That too may or may not be on the white houses radar; although that would seem to be a bigger deal than denying Israeli dignitaries visitor badges at the Pentagon.

Likewise, all of these actions were temporary, They were not major policy decisions. They were temporary, punitive actions taken by defense officials starting with the Sec Def.

[twa]

maybe I'm being too critical, he does have his good points

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/as-senate-candidate-hagel-opposed-abortion-even-i

As Senate Candidate, Hagel Opposed Abortion Even In Cases Of Rape Because It Was "Rare"

“I don't think those two exceptions are relevant.”

[Redskins Diehard]

I think I typically agree with the folks that say if everyone has a problem with him then that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[JMS]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/14/chuck-hagel-accusers-who-allege-anti-semitism-getting-pushback.html

Chuck Hagel Accusers Who Allege Anti-Semitism Getting Pushback

Critics from Elliott Abrams to The Wall Street Journal have been attacking Obama’s defense secretary nominee as ‘anti-Jewish’ or ‘anti-Israel,’ but are sounding a retreat after being hammered by the likes of Thomas Friedman and Richard Haass.

From the beginning, Chuck Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense has been about more than just the policies he’d pursue at the Pentagon. It’s been about the terms of legitimate discourse in Washington, D.C. And in this regard, even though he’s yet to be confirmed, Hagel is already proving an agent of change.

Former senator Chuck Hagel appears on "Meet the Press" in Washington, D.C., July 24, 2011. (William B. Plowman/NBC via Getty)

He’s proving an agent of change because over the past week or so, for the first time I can remember, the Jewish right’s tactic of calling people they disagree with on Israel policy anti-Semitic has begun to backfire.

In the beginning, the script seemed to be playing out in familiar ways. On Dec. 13, after reports surfaced that President Obama might pick Hagel, an anonymous Senate aide emailed the Weekly Standard to warn: “Send us Hagel and we will make sure every American knows he is an anti-Semite.” The aide added, “Hagel has made clear he believes in the existence of a nefarious Jewish lobby that secretly controls U.S. foreign policy. This is the worst kind of anti-Semitism there is.”

That’s how it started: an anonymous attack on Hagel for something he never said. Hagel had never said the “Jewish lobby secretly controls U.S. foreign policy.” He had said the “Jewish lobby”—an imprecise but hardly offensive term given that American Jewish officials use it themselves—“intimidates a lot of people up here.” That statement, which was praised for its honesty by the man Hagel said it to, the (Jewish) former Clinton administration peace processor Aaron Miller, is anti-Semitic only if you believe it is anti-Semitic to suggest that AIPAC—like every other major lobby group in Washington—cultivates the impression that consistently disagreeing with them could cost members of Congress their seats. If AIPAC doesn’t cultivate that impression, it’s not doing its job.

Four days after that, in a column entitled “Chuck Hagel’s Jewish Problem,” Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal wrote that when Hagel “carries on about how ‘the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here,’ the odor [of prejudice] is especially ripe.” The next day, The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin accused Hagel of “rank prejudice against American Jews.” She also quoted the Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman as stating that “the sentiments he’s [Hagel’s] expressed about the Jewish lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.”

Foxman never bothered to explain why such comments border on anti-Semitism, or what Mearsheimer, Walt, and Carter had said that qualified them for the epithet too. In fact, Mearsheimer and Walt have explicitly rejected the term “Jewish lobby.” As for Carter, it’s hard to see why he’s relevant to the conversation at all, since his most controversial Israel-related comments have nothing to do with the “Jewish” or “pro-Israel” lobby. What’s gotten Carter in trouble is his claim that Israel risks becoming an “apartheid state” if it makes permanent its control of the West Bank (something Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert have warned of too). But while leveling his drive-by accusation of anti-Semitism against Hagel, Foxman threw in Carter for good measure.

Then, on Jan. 7, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Elliott Abrams told NPR that Hagel “appears to be … frankly an anti-Semite.” Abrams based this conclusion not only on Hagel’s “Jewish lobby” quote, but on what Abrams called “the statements by the Nebraska Jewish community—about his unresponsiveness to them, his dismissal of them, his hostility to them.” Abrams’s source appeared to be an article in the Jewish newspaper Algemeiner, which quotes some Jewish Nebraskans grumbling about Hagel’s unresponsiveness. The problem with that assertion, as The Forward has since detailed, is that while people in Nebraska’s Jewish community’s differ in their views on Hagel, “Jews in Nebraska on both sides of Hagel’s confirmation fight emphatically refute the [anti-Semitism] charge.”

So far, so familiar. Over roughly the last year, hawkish Jewish officials and pundits have hurled the anti-Semitism charge at several left-of-center institutions and columnists. Rubin and the Anti-Defamation League have wielded it against the Center for American Progress. Abrams has accused Thomas Friedman and Joe Klein of “spreading the two major themes of contemporary American anti-Semitism.” The Weekly Standard has denounced “the anti-Semitism—the pure, unadulterated bigotry—witnessed at the Occupy Wall Street protests.”

Simply by being nominated, Hagel has dealt a blow to the silly, lazy charges of anti-Semitism that have grown commonplace in Washington in recent years.

What’s new about the Hagel case isn’t the promiscuous charge of anti-Semitism. It’s the pushback against it. One New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, has called the claim that Hagel is an anti-Semite “disgusting.” Another, Nick Kristof, has called it “shameful.” In The Washington Post, Richard Cohen has accused Stephens of “character assassination.” Abrams’s boss at the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, has forcefully rejected even the claim that Hagel is anti-Israel, let alone anti-Semitic.

And in response, lo and behold, the accusers are starting to retreat. In a statement last week, Foxman not only declined to repeat the anti-Semitism charge but said the ADL would not oppose Hagel’s nomination. In a new column about Hagel posted this weekend, Abrams, while still critical of the former Nebraska senator, writes, “I will avoid the term anti-Semitism, because it can mean too many different, particular things, and does not help illuminate the nature of the issue I discussed.” In an interview on Fareed Zakaria GPS yesterday, Stephens suggested that while he had claimed Hagel’s statements emitted “an odor of prejudice,” he had not called him an anti-Semite.

Why has the anti-Semitism attack stopped working? Two reasons. First, because when the president of the United States isn’t cowed, others take heart. By actually nominating Hagel, and calling the bluff of the Al Sharptons of the Jewish world, Obama revealed them to be less powerful than many had feared. Second, because the Hagel nomination isn’t really about Israel. It’s about the broader direction of American foreign policy. For years, the anti-Semitism charge has been used to marginalize not merely voices skeptical of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians, but voices skeptical of American war with Iran. By nominating Hagel, Obama is sending the message that the Iran debate is too important to be circumscribed by these kinds of attacks. Just as he didn’t let Benjamin Netanyahu force him to set a date for military action last fall, Obama is now rebuffing another effort to limit his freedom of maneuver on questions of war and peace.

What role Hagel plays in Obama’s Iran policy remains anyone’s guess. But simply by being nominated, Hagel has dealt a blow to the silly, lazy charges of anti-Semitism that have grown commonplace in Washington in recent years. And that alone is reason for enthusiasm.

[HSW]

I am frankly suprised at how many of our elected leaders have directly stated that anyone who is not a supporter of Israel is not fit to be in a leadership postion in our government...granted they should not be against one of our key allies but I do not think they should have to be a staunch supporter eithor.

[JMS]

I am frankly suprised at how many of our elected leaders have directly stated that anyone who is not a supporter of Israel is not fit to be in a leadership postion in our government...granted they should not be against one of our key allies but I do not think they should have to be a staunch supporter eithor.

Hagel has been a supporter of Israel his entire political career. So here the bar is even higher. It's if you have ever acknowledged the strong Israeli lobby in this country, while suggesting the best interest of the United States is not served by a policy that loby strongly favors (*) then you are anti Semitic.. or hate the Jewish people.

(*) Hagel is on the record opposing the Iraq war, and opposing sanction in Iran in favor of talks without threats.

[Special K]

Sad that at 31, I don't care about most anything in Washington anymore.

I'm sure Hagel will do just fine.