Chuck Hagel And Liberals: What Are The Priorities?

[Purveyor]

Last edited Fri Jan 11, 2013, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

By Glenn Greenwald
OpEdNews Op Eds 1/6/2013 at 14:01:04
(updated below [Sun.])

Numerous reports from Friday indicate that President Obama, possibly as early as Monday, will name Chuck Hagel as his nominee to replace Leon Panetta as Defense Secretary. Many of the most right-wing GOP Senators have already categorically vowed that they will oppose the nomination of this decorated combat veteran and two-term GOP Senator from Nebraska, claiming he's hostile to Israel, "soft" on Iran and anti-military. Hagel's confirmation thus likely hinges on the willingness of Democrats to support it.

But before Hagel is nominated, numerous Democratic partisans and various liberals already expressed reservations or even outright opposition. Some of those, such as Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Eliot Engel, are driven (as usual) by the same mentality driving neocons: they're worried that Hagel is a dissident when it comes to the bipartisan DC orthodoxy mandating lockstep, unquestioning support for the militarism and aggression of the Israeli government. There will be ample debate on these questions coming soon (I discussed those issues a couple of weeks ago on Chris Hayes' show).

But for other progressives, concerns over Hagel have nothing to do with Israel. They have instead expressed two unrelated objections: (1) back in 1998 -- 15 years ago -- Hagel voted against James Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg on the ground that Hormel, as Hagel put it, was "openly, aggressively gay" (for that concern, see Barney Frank, who completely reversed himself on Hagel from two weeks ago, and Rachel Maddow); and (2) Hagel is a Republican, and Obama should nominate a Democrat in order to show that Democrats are capable of running the Pentagon and military policy (see Markos Moultisas and Daily Kos).

For the moment, let us concede that there is validity to both concerns. In context, how significant are they?



About Glenn Greenwald

For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot Act?, a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released May, 2006.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Chuck-Hagel-And-Liberals--by-Glenn-Greenwald-130106-828.html

[Sekhmets Daughter]

1. I hope you read Michael Moore's reply to Kristol...It was priceless!

Thanks for posting this.

[DearHeart]

2. Makes some very valid points. Plus, the fact that the neocons seem to hate him

maybe we should give him a second look.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Wow. He calls Hillary's vote for the Iraq War a worse offense, but Greenwald himself supported the

invasion of Iraq. Additionally, Chuck Hagel also voted for the Iraq War, and Greenwald sort of leaves that out. He says 'Hillary Clinton, who in 2002 voted to authorize George Bush's attack on Iraq, surely a far worse offense than Hagel's ugly comments about Hormel..' but fails to point out that Hagel also voted for the Iraq War. Very interesting tactic there. Not at all honest, but interesting.
Here is Greenwald explaining why he was a cheerleader for the Iraq Invasion:
" Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country."

Anyone here feel that way about Bush at that time?

[still_one]

4. The president has made his stance known on gay rights. It is not the

Secretary of defense who decides that. What if hagel's views have changed on that?

Obamas views did. McCain said he was wrong to vote against a holiday honoring MLK

Do we say that everyone who changes his mind is not sincere

ACA would not have passed without Roberts, who everyone "knew" would vote against it

What lies in the hearts of a person?

Hagel is not running for election in a conservative state this time

The "positions" he took then are not for reelection

Interesting times for sure