I have not been on team anti-Chuck Hagel mostly because I didn’t know a lot about Chuck Hagel.
But what I’m finding out is deeply troubling — including David Brooks’ excellent post highlighted in my post Hagel the perfect foil to manage military’s decline over Republican objections.
Hagel seems like the perfect smash-mouth Obama nominee, someone who, like his possibly future boss, is more interested in smashing Republicans and dividing the opposition than strengthening our international standing. He’s a flip-flopper’s delight, for the war then self-righteously against it, on the wrong side of almost every issue (such as the Iraq surge) while claiming moral superiority every step of the way, as Bret Stephens demonstrated.
I warned repeatedly that in a second term Obama would bring the hammer down on Israel, and Hagel has the pedigree to do it with a smirk on his face.
Make no mistake. The problem is not Chuck Hagel in isolation, it’s what the nomination of Hagel says about where Obama wants our defense and foreign policy to go.
I’ll use this post to collect links on Hagel:
- Israel Matzav has several good sources in this post, Hagel tied to James Wolfensohn, purchaser of Gaza hothouses.
- Daniel Foster at NRO, Two Buck Chuck: “… Obama will give Hagel a mandate to be Hagel, the president’s second-term defense policy could end up being quite different from that of his first term.”
- Aaron Blake at WaPo, Why Republicans don’t trust Chuck Hagel — in 5 easy steps: “Republicans have long been skeptical that Hagel is truly one of them, and it’s not just because of his opposition to the Iraq war or his comments about Israel. In fact, there are several reasons dating back to before his first Senate campaign in 1996.”
- John Cornyn, Why I can’t support Hagel: “These comments and actions indicate that he does not fully appreciate the dangers of a nuclear Iran or the character of the Iranian regime…. Thus, by nominating Hagel for defense secretary, the president has sent the worst possible message to our closest Middle Eastern ally and our greatest Middle.”
- Ted Cruz: Why I expect to oppose Hagel.
- Via @GabriellaHoffman:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m guessing Hagel didn’t cover David Brooks’ bar tab one night at Le Cirque.
I’ll bet you’re right.
I so hate RINOs!
Hagel rhymes with Hegel just as Obama rhymes with Osama.
RINOs do so much more damage than Democrats. Was thinking the other day that if Romney were president we would be banning guns. At least with Obama proposing it we have some basis to fight back. Democrats love it when we do their dirty work for them.
Hagel’s statement on the video is disqualifying per se.
Most of the positions I have noticed Hagel take in the past have been self-serving, wrongheaded, egotistical – like he’s smarter than everyone else. Like Obama in white-face. . . Brooks is a snivelling butt boy for whatever establishment position he’s in line with at the time.
“self-serving, wrongheaded, egotistical” — This seems to describe almost every nominee that Obama has picked. He seems to consistently pick from the people considered the 2nd string – whose loyalty can be guaranteed. Power they have always wanted, but were unable to get.
Soon I expect Al Gore to be appointed for something – perhaps the next SCOTUS opening. The RINO’s would roll over in a heartbeat.
As Obama is a Muslim, Gore could be another FLOTUS. That’s a joke folks. Given his usual facial expression, he may enjoy being a bottom.
“Terrorism is a tactic.” True, as many conservatives have said in their critiques of the “war on terrorism” concept.
A tactic is an instrument toward a certain goal. And what’s the goal, Chuck? Let me answer: the goal is to force the world to submit to Islam.
Terrorism includes the Muhammad cartoon riots, the carbecues in France, the viscious deeds of Boko Haram, the attacks on Christians in Pakistan & Egypt, the epidemic of Islamic rape of British and Scandinavian girls & women, the Fort Hood massacre, the air of menace that pervades Muslim-dominated areas in major European cities ….
Then there’s soft terror, such as CAIR lawsuits and the OIC’s efforts to outlaw criticism of Islam globally.
Terrorism is a tactic. The motivating ideology is Islam. Muhammad is reported to have said, “I have been made victorious by terror.” And it has ever been thus.
I do know how to spell “vicious” if I slow down.
Don’t forget economic jihad, another form of terrorism, which began in earnest in 2001 and continues to the present with the complicity of US Powers-That-Be, elected, appointed and non-elected.
As for Hagel, any tool/shill/defender of Obama is an enemy of mine and Israel.
Obama to demand Israel give up its nuclear arsenal:
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/its-come-to-this-obama-to-demand-that.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Why not Pakistan?
It’s fascinating that Obama withdrew Susan Rice’s trial-balloon offer after a couple of weeks of hearing her hammered—though he’d stood up for her at a press conference—but he is sticking with Hagel, even after two weeks of substantive criticism by serious people.
How long before we miss Robert McNamara?
Oh. My. God.
You’ve heard the reviews.
Now, you’ve seen the trailer.
“When people have no hope … when there’s despair … little else matters.”
Life Imitates Art … and Dies !!!
Coming soon to a theater** near you!
** 1the·ater noun \ˈthē-ə-tər a place or sphere of enactment of usually significant events or action.
Action!
This is going to be interesting.
Personal prediction:
Before the end of the Obama administration:
(a) nuclear or chemical weapons will be used in middle-east (possibly including dirty-bomb – all depeends on how far along Iran gets)
(b) China at war with somebody in Asia
And Obama will either (1) sit on the sidelines or (2) get involved and lose, due to really small & demoralized military.
Can’t be a world power with a sheep in charge and a 2nd class military. I wonder how Obama will feel when people think of Canada’s Prime Minister as “Leader of the Free World”?
In fact, we Conservatives should start doing exactly that – that’s a statement for which there is no defense – Obama can’t exactly stand up and say “Hey, wait a minute – *I*’m the leader of the free world” without looking ridiculous.
Hagel is the perfect choice for Obama. They both hate Jews and neither will admit it (yet). They both want to emasculate our military. He is a tool which rhymes with fool.
I had no idea Chucky was so “out there” until seeing the video the Professor posted.
This administration’s message to some regimes is clear and has an historical reverb to it:
“If you start to take Israel, take Israel.”
LukeHandCool (who’d like to take a Viennese pastry to go with his coffee right now … comfort food … as he ponders the world his children and grandchildren will live in as adults when Luke is long gone … we’re making the prequels to this horror right now)
They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
Hagel, could have just as easily said this.
Hagel is not an anti-Semite, cause there are several peoples in the term. He just despises Jews.
Hey Chucky, if this gig fails, call Soros. Same kind of hateful person, just more money
Why the Professor’s repetitive, “Chuck Hagel Chuck Hagel Chuck Hagel” post title?
I wondered … and then it hit me like a dissertation:
On The Right-Wing’s New “Paul is Dead” Subliminal Attacks: Jacobsonian Backwards Messaging, Or, “I’m sorry. Paul isn’t here right now. But can YOU take this message?”
Remember, “Chucky, Chucky, Chucky, Chucky, Chucky … !!!” ??
I do. What the Professor is slyly saying is, Give Chucky the Gong !!!
I do believe that Obama’s single criterion for selecting nominees for any office is this: “Who offends conservatives the most?”
I’ll admit I didn’t know much about Hagel, but seeing this clip and there are many others on youtube.
this man is more lefty on foreign policy that Soetero.
Nope, cannot support this man. I liked Gates, I liked Panetta also, Hagel, no no no.
GOP needs to oppose him. I’ll calling Mc-connell’s office to voice my opposition.
Why would repubs ever support him? He’s never even run anything before, and in the NE race, he supported Bob Kerry OVER Debbie Fisher, who I thought was an excellent candidate, so I donated to her.
No to Hagel, he’s the perfect man to split conservatives even more, which Soetero of course knows.
Professor Jacobson writes that he is “deeply troubled” at the prospect of Hagel’s nomination; it does not bode well for our military or for Israel, the Professor believes. But the Professor should be even more troubled: despite a cannon of dispositive evidence of Obama’s ineligibility for the office, the Professor has maintained a resolute professorial silence in the matter. After four years of studious silence about Obama’s usurpation of the office, surely it is fair, it is accurate, to describe Professor Jacobson as one of the better known Obama enablers. After
four years of colluding in the silence of the Conservative MSM, Professor Jacobson is one of those who bear responsibility for Obama’s continued occupancy and Obama’s profoundly destructive policies. Professor Jacobson knows precisely how we can legally rid ourselves of this Marxist/Socialist, this extremist Islamic sympathizer, this acknowledged pursuer of complete unilateral nuclear disarmament, this betrayer of Israel, this leaker of national security secrets, this liar about Bengahzi, this
criminal mind. Why is the Professor silent? Why is he cowed?
Doesn’t he have tenure by now? Obama has intimidated our entire judiciary, our State and Federal Municipal, District, Appellate and Supreme Courts. (For those of you who are familiar with the past opinions Chief Justice Roberts, an extremely able jurist, you know that his poorly written, tortured, logic defying decision in the ACA (Obamacare) case was the result of an extra-judicial element.) Professor Jacobson and his colleagues and counterparts in the Conservative MSM should be making a noise such as has never before been heard by the Congress and the Courts. Some day a fair and accurate history of this period will be written; those who remain silent will not be treatd kindly.
Stephen Parker, BA, MA, MFA, Ph.D, past university professor, co-founder, CEO/Chmn. public communications CO.,
US Patent holder in the field,Conservative,deeply appalled.
“Abbreviation is the soul of wit.”
Thanks for mercifully condensing the 14-page resume at the end into abbreviated credentials.
I couldn’t read on much longer.
LukeHandCool:
I’m sure you couldn’t read on much longer. To paraphrase
T.S. Eliot, Human beings cannot bear very much reality.
But thanks for your sustantive comments on the merits of this issue. Too much reality for you, I guess.
“Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go.”
—T.S. Eliot
May you find the strength to bear the reality that when you excitedly cross that off your “T.S. Eliot-Inspired Things to do Today” reality list that the usual sense of satisfaction in accomplishment will be diminished by the side note in the crowded margin: “Found out! Not far!”
LukeHandCool, MA, MLA, RAC
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool
than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
—Various
p.s. The correct maxim is “Brevity is the soul of wit.”
Jeez, can’t you even get your maxims right?
No Kidding?? For Real??
Thanks for removing all doubt.
Another Obama enabler.
“Does anyone here know how to play this game?”
–Casey Stengel
[…] Legal Insurrection checks in on Chuck Hagel, and a website he probably didn't endorse. Posted by Mike at 2:46 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook […]