Skip to comments.There’s No Case for Hagel (Kristol)
Posted on 01/06/2013 11:22:53 AM PST by Brad from Tennessee
In the three weeks since Chuck Hagels name emerged as President Barack Obamas likely choice as the next secretary of defense, there's been a lively, if lopsided, debate about his qualifications for the job. The debates been lopsided because the arguments for Hagel have been so startlingly weak. Its not just that those arguing for Hagel form an unusually motley crew, even by the standards of the anti-Israel swamp in which many of them frolic. What's striking about the case for Hagel is its absence. 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.
The fact is that those legislative achievements, intellectual insights, or management triumphs don't exist. A long and comprehensive history of the Senate during Chuck Hagel's tenure there could be written that would barely mention him. A long and comprehensive account of American foreign and defense policy in the last thirty years would hardly note his existence. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Come out publicly, and unwaveringly in unconditional support for the 2nd Amendment.
“....Obama screwed up foreign policy, and is hiring Chuck Hagel to fire him.
Obama wants to blame the Republicans for his disasters....”
Right on the mark IMO.
They want him as Sec Def when the assaults on Israel get very hot.
Hagel was better known for what he voted against, something one might expect with Republicans, but he's not that different from many other Senators who co-sponsor but don't originate legislation.
They can quote no memorable speeches that Hagel delivered and can cite no profound passages from the book he authored.
We don't exactly live in an age of great oratory, but Bill's magazine certainly remembers -- or dug up -- interviews Hagel gave that they think memorable. Whether Hagel was right or wrong, he certainly made an impression on Bill and his staff, and they hope Hagel's comments will make an impression on the rest of us.
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.
Somehow I don't think Bill holds all nominees to that standard. Hagel has had some managerial experience in the public and private sector, and agree with him or disagree with him, he certainly has played a role in foreign policy discussion.
Should Hagel be Secretary of Defense? I don't know. Maybe not. But I really get the impression that Kristol is really stressing out over this -- going over the top rhetorically in trying to block it and saying things that aren't exactly true.
“...can cite no significant legislation for which Hagel was responsible...”
That’s one GOOD thing to say about Hagel. Why do we need these guys up there passing new & improved legislation to take away our freedoms? That being said, Hagel is no one I want representing my country in the administration. But that would make him fit in perfectly with Zero, Hillary & the rest.
Hagel will be around til the summer of 2014, and then quietly retire. He’s simply a brief fill-in...nothing more than that. He’ll realize he’s over his head within thirty days, and just try to play this game out for a year.
Looks like the best people don’t want to work for ob
“...has played a role in foreign policy discussion....”
The Muslim Brotherhood in control of the global muslim “zone” for the Middle East, is a bad idea. If he’s in on making the DOD bow down to Islam, he’s a treasonous wack job. If he’s in on globalism - making our troops into an international peace corps serving muslim snakes - he should not be in charge of the DOD. If he does not support the constitution and America’s national sovergnity, he should go away.
I love it when Kristol and the weakly standard folks dress up and act tough.
Does being wrong about major military decisions disqualify him? He said the surge in Iraq would not only not work but that it would be counter productive. His judgement sucked which just goes to show that one can honorably serve as a grunt but that doesn’t qualify the grunt to command our Armed Forces.
Contacting your sheriff is a good idea if you want to be a little closer to understanding if you have an enemy or ally on the local level.
Hagel's defenders would say that it was the combination of the surge with political and "nation-building" measures or that it was differences in strategy and tactics during the surge from what we'd one earlier that produced a positive result. I don't know. I'm not an expert.
Hagel was probably more right in 2003 than Rumsfeld was. And that's something that his critics should address, rather than simply ignore or dismiss it.
If hes in on globalism - making our troops into an international peace corps serving muslim snakes - he should not be in charge of the DOD. If he does not support the constitution and Americas national sovereignty, he should go away.
It would be nice if there were one party that was all against the Constitution and in favor of some global state and global police actions and one party that was in favor of our national sovereignty and opposed to meddling in foreign quarrels, but things aren't as clear cut as that. Whatever voters don't want -- foreign adventures, nation-building, globalism -- politicians talk against and we still get more of it whoever gets elected.
Hagel could be awful, but he should at least get a little credit for the times he was right and the conservative votes he cast in the Senate.