Obama expected to nominate Chuck Hagel as secretary of Defense
By David S. Cloud and Brian Bennett
January 4, 2013, 2:06 p.m.
WASHINGTON — President Obama is expected to nominate Chuck Hagel, a former Republican senator and Vietnam veteran, to be secretary of Defense, officials said, setting up a confirmation battle with lawmakers and interest groups critical of his views on Israel and Iran.
White House officials said Friday afternoon that the president hadn’t formally offered the job to Hagel, but others familiar with the process said that the announcement could come as soon as Monday
More at source
will AIPAC allow this to happen?
It is a tough spot. If they don’t (this all assuming they actually have an effective veto) it would only serve to add validation to Hagel’s assertion about “The political reality is … that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here”.will AIPAC allow this to happen?
It is a tough spot. If they don’t (this all assuming they actually have an effective veto) it would only serve to add validation to Hagel’s assertion about “The political reality is … that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here”.
I personally expect he will get a rougher ride for one of the main reason that I suspect Obama is bringing him in. He thinks poorly of war (due in large part to his personal experiences on the battlefield) and he thinks the Pentagon’s budget needs down-sizing.
This is fairly huge IMO.
They won't be happy but perhaps they feel they may have to give in on this one:
They are decidedly good things to have in a candidate if you are interested in enacting overall policy that includes deficit reduction, and not pissing away this country’s wealth on unnecessary war.Which seems like a bad thing to have in someone who will be advising the President on defense policy.
For crying out loud he is a Republican, or is your dictionary at the cleaners? Further, you want someone without any opinion?We don’t need someone with partisan or personal politics in that position.
Because everyone in the DoD is a yes-man toady that has no opinion or “personal politics”?Pulling someone from within the dept would have been a better choice.
Given the current changes occurring with military rules regarding homosexuality, I do think the matter does have some relevance. But it isn’t like he is a card carrying member of the Westboro Baptist Church…or made those particular comments during this century. *shrug*He's a solid choice, even though I disagree with his social policies; he's possibly the Secretary of Defense, not the Speaker of the House. His social policies don't matter.
They are decidedly good things to have in a candidate if you are interested in enacting overall policy that includes deficit reduction, and not pissing away this country’s wealth on unnecessary war.
You have a job to do, which person are you going to put in place to get it down; “I see no way that can be done” or “I have a vision for how that can be accomplished”?
For crying out loud he is a Republican, or is your dictionary at the cleaners? Further, you want someone without any opinion?
Because everyone in the DoD is a yes-man toady that has no opinion or “personal politics”?
:roll:
Congratulations!I dont do split quotes. :2wave:
I think this may be one of the Pres Obama's best decisions. I fully support Hagel as the nominee for SecDef. That establishment neocons are opposing it so vehemently only furthers my support. I really hope he is voted in. I think it would be great for us. By us I mean servicemembers. The past 2 SecDef's we've had have been either a neocon themselves (Gates) or a wimp (Panetta). I will be writing a letter to my Senator urging him to vote in favor of Hagel.He thinks poorly of war (due in large part to his personal experiences on the battlefield) and he thinks the Pentagon’s budget needs down-sizing.
Yeah, his stance of homosexuality will have no effect on current policies. Can anyone really imagine a scenario where DADT or something even more strict is instituted? Me either.Given the current changes occurring with military rules regarding homosexuality, I do think the matter does have some relevance. But it isn’t like he is a card carrying member of the Westboro Baptist Church…or made those particular comments during this century. *shrug*
Yes, and Congress does a wonderful job in all of it's other duties as well lol.I am not sure if there are better people for the job, but I have no problem with his nomination. SecDef's job is not to determine foreign policy, so most of that stuff in his record I could not care less about. I have always sided with the idea that unless some one is clearly unqualified, or has legal issues(see Geithner), then it is the presidents choice. Congress is there to protect against those 2 issues.
Yes, and Congress does a wonderful job in all of it's other duties as well lol.eace
I am not sure if there are better people for the job, but I have no problem with his nomination. SecDef's job is not to determine foreign policy, so most of that stuff in his record I could not care less about. I have always sided with the idea that unless some one is clearly unqualified, or has legal issues(see Geithner), then it is the presidents choice. Congress is there to protect against those 2 issues.
Congratulations!
That and NOT posting nonsense will get you a cookie! Sadly, at this point you are going to have to go entirely cookie-less…for the reasons I clearly laid out above.
My comments are in context. It is laid out as such to help the read identify which parts are talking about which sections of your post.Lay them out in context, and I will.
Then either skip the parts that offend your senses or stop saying stupid ****. Either one will get you the results.Im not interested in reading your rhetoric and rolleyes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?