Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Report: Former GOP Senator Chuck Hagel to Be Nominated as Secretary of Defense

Posted 1 year ago on Dec. 13, 2012, 4:45 p.m. EST by Savimbi (-10)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Hans Nichols at Bloomberg reports that former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and one of the few early GOP converts against the Iraq War, is the leading candidate to replace Leon Panetta at the Department of Defense.

Hagel, who served as an enlisted Army infantryman in Vietnam, has passed the vetting process at the White House Counsel’s office, said one of the people. The former Nebraska senator has told associates that he is awaiting final word from the president, said the other person. Both requested anonymity to discuss personnel matters.

Other contenders are Michele Flournoy, former defense undersecretary for policy, and Ashton Carter, deputy defense secretary, administration officials have said.

Obama invited Hagel to the White House on Dec. 4 to discuss the position with him, according to an administration official. The president hasn’t made a final decision, said another official. Both asked for anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

Hagel did support the invasion of Iraq, along with Joe Biden, John Kerry and a substantial portion of the Democratic elite class. But Hagel broke with the policy and voted for withdrawal in the Senate as early as March 2007. He actually said that the US was losing in Iraq all the way back in 2005. So he did show a reality-based viewpoint on that signature issue. Hagel appears to have far more concern for the enlisted man than the foreign policy mandarins who want to continue prosecuting wars.

Hagel favors what the right-wing Washington Times calls “crippling budget cuts” at the Pentagon, which in reality would make the US military only slightly smaller than all the rest of the nation’s armies combined, instead of slightly bigger. Several House Republicans now support defense cuts, and Hagel seems to line up with them. If you’re going to have a budget-cutter in the cabinet, put them at DoD.

There’s one argument that elevating Hagel is a bad idea because of the trend of Democratic Presidents putting Republicans in place at the Pentagon, with the perception that Democrats cannot handle military affairs and must resort to a “GOP daddy” to handle it all. President Clinton had William Cohen as one of his Secretaries of Defense, and President Obama started out with Robert Gates (who eventually became a political independent). I don’t have a strong opinion on this. If Hagel is both qualified and less psychopathic than others, his party affiliation doesn’t mean much to me. Maybe all things being equal, I’d prefer a Democrat. And breaking the gender ceiling with Michele Flournoy running the Pentagon would have a certain power. But Hagel’s selection, if true, doesn’t bother me all that much. He has the right enemies – Dick Cheney and the neocons, for one.

Anyway, everyone knows that the CIA runs our wars these days, so maybe the choice for that position ought to be more scrutinized.

32 Comments

32 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

I think your evaluation is very solid

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (8719) 1 year ago

I don't know why the American people should pay for a bloated military that for the last 65 years has been nothing but a tool for international business interests. We should demand that international business interests not only foot the bill for a drastically reduced military budget, but pay the treasury for all the wars the people of this nation have been conned into buying for their financial interest, post 1945, plus interest. . . And that they pay reparations to the victims of those wars.

Then we wouldn't have iternational cartel interests anymore and the whole world would be better off.

But since the American people are unlikely to be counted upon to show any guts on this issue, we'll probably get stuck with Hagel.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Chuck Hagel = Anti-gay + Pro-War + Pro-big oil + Pro-Fracking + Pro-Patriot Act and spying on Americans.

I'm from Nebraska and I have to say "Fuck Chuck"

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

There’s one argument that elevating Hagel is a bad idea because of the trend of Democratic Presidents putting Republicans in place at the Pentagon, with the perception that Democrats cannot handle military affairs and must resort to a “GOP daddy” to handle it all.

Once upon a time this wasn't a football game. You (general) have to either be really young or have not been paying attention to not know this.

[-] -1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Sorry, but no one in their right mind votes for a preemptive war.

Preemptive war. Think about that term for a second.

[-] -2 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

If hitler would have been stoped after he invaded poland( 1939) it would have the saved the world a lot of grief.

[-] 1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

That is very likely untrue; we would have still faced world war.

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

Not if hitler ws stopped in 1939 and the same with japan after they invaded manchuria in 1931.

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Shit we should probably start bombing China before it's too late.

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

I don't really agree with this; it ignores the economic state of affairs.

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

the great depression hit the entire world. why were only germany and japan the only countries trying for world wide domination by invading and taking over other countries?

[-] -1 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

That's a question you must pose to history. Because it's one of those that no one will ever satisfactorily answer for you, you yourself must discover to your satisfaction.

How did the depression effect Germany?

[-] 0 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

The same way it affected other countries. The only difference was that germanys feelings were hurt by losing WWI.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Theeighthpieceuv8 (-32) from Seven Sisters, Wales 1 year ago

Since they were one people, largely village, town, or city oriented, I'm not sure I agree with this.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Are we comparing borderline 3rd world Iraq with world superpower Germany?

Germany almost beat the entire planet. They literally took on the planet and almost won.

Are we really making that comparison?

[-] -3 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

germany superpower? Wrong. germany almost beat the entire world? You must have missed the other axis countries, japan and italy. they took on the planet an almost won? though hitler had global intentions, he never got any farther than continental europe and north africa. I repeat, if hitler hade been stopped when germany invaded poland in 1939, it would have saved the world a lot of grief.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Another person comparing Germany WWII with Iraq 2002. What is this, 2003 all over again?

Italy? Really?

[-] -1 points by town (-374) 1 year ago

italy was part of the axis of powers. italy, germany and japan.

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Right. And "spain" was part of the "coalition of the willing".

True, but irrelevant.

[-] -2 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

They're in their right mind if they wise up to the blunder. Hagel may not be any Ron Paul - but he's the best chance we have of dodging a war with Iran, or God knows where.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

Here, I disagree with you slightly - we will NOT go to war with Iran or Syria - unless cheney or rove or a koch stooge gets the job

[-] -1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

I hope you're right. That didn't stop them from bombing Libya and increasing the war in Afghanistan though.

And if you want to make the case that it was about "saving civilians".... why isn't anything being done about the tons of people dying in Congo? In regards to Libya, truth speaker Dennis Kucinich said "they bombed civilians in the name of saving civilians." Libya is an absolute mess right now. Destabilization and fight off anyone who poses a threat to the dollar and oil trade. The war agenda runs deep.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Anyone that voted for the Iraq war cannot be trusted to run foreign policy. A mistake war resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians is the kind of mistake that should get you removed from Government FOREVER.

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Under the circumstances, this the best your gonna do so be grateful for it.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Fuck that. The circumstances need to be changed and it starts with people speaking out against that mass conformity style of thinking.

[-] -1 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Sure, Hagel made some bad calls. It's important to remember that they were made during a campaign of disinformation emanating from the Bush administrations neocon fifth column... The same gang of filthy traitors who opposing his nomination now. Don't let them snow you again.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Supporting Chuck Hagel is getting snowed.

Chuck Hagel is the following

Anti-gay

Pro-war based on obvious lies, if I knew it was a war of aggression at age 16, Chuck Hagel should have known that as a Senator.

He also has voted in favor of spy programs on American citizens

You know I'm glad he doesn't want the US to go to war in Iran. But there are millions of people who don't want to go to war in Iran... and they're all better than Chuck Hagel.

Wow now I'm getting downvoted for speaking against republicans on this forum? LOL

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

If Hagel, the career politician, is our best hope, we are screwed and so is Iran.

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

Politics hasn't been his only career. He is a Vietnam vet who started working in the VA. He resigned from that position because he disagreed with cuts to programs assisting veterens.

After that he made his bread in the privet sector, founding a company manufacturing mobile phones.

Until the recent announcement, he's been an academic at Georgetown.

He served two terms in the Senate. That hardly qualifies as a career considering all his other accomplishments.

[-] 1 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I guess I just assumed if a group of war criminals thinks he's a good fit, theres a reason for it.

Whats up with all these Vietnam vets in Congress voting for Iraq War? Most of em I know/knew were totally against it. Guess thats just part of the cost of admission.

[-] 0 points by Savimbi (-10) 1 year ago

I guess it's no fun being a war criminal when you're losing the war.

Chickenhawks specialize in leading us into war... It takes a real soldier to lead us out of one.