Skip to main content

John McCain will make one of his many appearances on the Sunday talk show circuit this weekend, no doubt telling us once again how dreadful a choice Susan Rice would be as secretary of state. She is not yet a choice that President Obama has made although all the connected people in Washington believe she's at the top of his list.

But while the media remain focused on the twisted mutterings of McCain and a handful of other senators about Rice's supposed misbehavior in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack and her unsuitability for the secretary's post, other people are being vetted behind the scenes for various high posts in Barack Obama's second term administration. One of these, according to The Cable at Foreign Policy, is Chuck Hagel. The former Nebraska senator is currently co-chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and, among other things, a board member of Chevron, the world's third largest oil company. One post Hagel is probably being considered for, if he actually is being considered, is one that he has previously been short-listed for: secretary of defense.

The Associated Press is also reporting late Friday that Hagel is a likely candidate for the defense post. And that the decision could be announced in December.

If there has to be a Republican in the highest reaches of foreign policy matters in the administration's second term, Hagel would certainly be a reasonable choice.

But not as secretary of defense.

That job is now held by Leon Panetta, the centrist Democrat who has given no indication that he is leaving any time soon. Although he'd like to get back to California, he says in public that he still has work to do in Washington: Afghanistan. The Pentagon budget. Force adjustments.

Remarkably, he is only the seventh Democrat to hold the job since it was created to replace secretary of war 65 years ago. All told, 16 Republicans have served for nearly 51 years in that job, while Democrats have served for only 13, with the avidly nonpartisan George C. Marshall in charge for one. No Republican has ever appointed a Democrat to the post. Every Democratic president save Jimmy Carter has appointed a Republican as secretary for at least one term of his presidency.

Why? Apparently because even Democratic presidents have bought into the Republican propaganda that you can't trust Democrats when it comes to the nation's defense. Remind me again about how well that Bob McNamara thing worked out?

As Ilan Goldenberg wrote in March 2008:

Appointing a Republican as Secretary of Defense could send a message that Democrats are still too uncomfortable with the military to take on the responsibility of defending our country by themselves. Moreover, there's no reason not to appoint a Democrat. The party has a deep defense bench that includes military and defense advisors for the Obama and Clinton campaigns—many of whom have served in the Pentagon in previous administrations.
That still holds true.

TRUMAN:

James V. Forrestal: Democrat (1947-1949)
Louis A. Johnson: Democrat (1949-1950)
George C. Marshall: Independent (1950-51)
Robert A. Lovett: Republican (1951-1953)

EISENHOWER

Charles E. Wilson: Republican (1953-57)
Neil H. McElroy: Republican (1953-59)
Thomas S. Gates: Republican (1959-61)

KENNEDY/JOHNSON

Robert S. McNamara: Republican (1961-1968)
Clark M. Clifford: Democrat (1968-1969)

NIXON/FORD

Melvin R. Laird: Republican (1969-1973)
Elliot L. Richardson: Republican (1973)
James R. Schlesinger: Republican (1973-1975)
Donald H. Rumsfeld: Republican (1975-1977)

CARTER

Harold Brown: Democrat (1977-1981)

REAGAN

Caspar W. Weinberger: Republican (1981-1987)
Frank C. Carlucci: Republican (1987-1989)

GWH BUSH

Richard B. Cheney: Republican (1989-1993)

CLINTON

Les Aspin: Democrat (1993-1994)
William J. Perry: Democrat (1994-1997)
William S. Cohen: Republican (1997-2001)

GW BUSH

Donald H. Rumsfeld: Republican (2001-2006)
Robert Gates: Republican (2009-2011)

OBAMA

Robert Gates: Republican (2009-2011)
Leon Panetta: Democrat (2011-Present)

It's past time for Democrats to always choose their own for this post. Not just any Democrat, of course. But there are plenty of ability to do the job.

Unlike John McCain for quite some time now, "maverick" is a term that actually applies to Chuck Hagel when it comes to matters of national security. Although he voted for the Iraq War in 2002 (as did a narrow majority of Senate Democrats), he later became a sharp critic of it and other elements of George Bush's foreign policy, shifting his voting record from 96 percent in line with Republicans in Bush's first term to 72 percent in his second. He has also been highly critical of some other Republican policies and the party's takeover by extremists. His views have gotten him called a RINO more than once. If there has to be a Republican in the highest reaches of Obama's administration for the next four years, Hagel would be a reasonable choice.

Steve Clemons, now at The Atlantic, told Josh Rogin:

"Hagel hides his keen understanding of complex strategic realities beneath an every-guy, aw-shucks veneer. He is one of the shrewdest, most well-informed, experienced national security hands who has served as a major force in GOP land in the legislative branch," Clemons said. "Hagel has been feeding tough-love messages to Obama for some time on the Middle East, on Russia, on China, on the design and missions of the armed forces and the intelligence ecosystem surrounding them."
All well and good. But for all his experience and shrewdness and willingness to butt heads with his own party, let's not be fooled by who Chuck Hagel really is.

His overall Senate voting record is anti-labor, anti-environment, anti-choice, anti-gay. Outside the foreign policy realm in Bush's second term, he mostly toed the Cheney-Bush line, something that can hardly be something ascribed to youthful indiscretion.

But if he is being considered, and there's every reason to believe he is, there is an empty space right now in Washington that would fit Hagel's skills and interests without giving him a Cabinet post: director of the CIA.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:04 PM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Perhaps (7+ / 0-)

    but the optics are too important on this post (Dems weak on national security and defense, blah, blah, blah)...

    I have no problem with Hagel replacing Panetta if Panetta is ready to leave.

    Director of the CIA...let me think about that one...

  •  What the Fuck (12+ / 0-)

    is the love affair with Republicans as Defense Secretarys?

    You want to mix it up?  Let's think of some qualified women for the job.

    Any ideas?

    Before you win, you have to fight. Come fight along with us at Texas Kaos.

    by boadicea on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:15:53 PM PST

  •  Un-uh. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    4Freedom, keeplaughing, blueoasis, elwior

    Why do Democrat's always buy into the idea the Republicans are the only ones who can take care of the military? Why does it have to be a former politican? why not someone from a non-profit like Paul from VoteVets? I forget his name....

    "Let us never forget that doing the impossible is the history of this nation....It's how we are as Americans...It's how this country was built"- Michelle Obama

    by blueoregon on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:16:33 PM PST

  •  I've also heard rumors he might be in consideratio (6+ / 0-)

    n for Sos. I think that's just a head fake to tell them to stop suggesting Kerry as the alternative to Rice, if they think in doing so they will free up that SEnate seat

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:16:46 PM PST

  •  ha...i was wandering around georgetown u. the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eXtina, elwior

    other day and i wandered into chuck hegel's office...

    i'm not used to the DC thing yet

    I've already forgotten who the Republican candidate was in 2012

    by memofromturner on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:18:02 PM PST

  •  It also says he is under consideration (7+ / 0-)

    for Secretary of State.

    But I agree, I think CIA director would be the ideal spot, and it wouldnt surprise me if he was nominated for that position.

  •  Hagel is getting a job.... (7+ / 0-)

    he has been in the inner circle a while..I was actually surprised he didn't speak at the DNC. That is how much I think Obama like him.

    I have been predicting this for a while.  I wonder if it will come true.

     Chuck Hagel is definitely one.. (8+ / 0-)

    A win and he will likely be SoD or National Security Advisor...or something else high...

    I doubt Huntsman has given up on his chances in 2016...so he is out...

    I suspect Colin Powell is a potential option....

    by justmy2 on Sat Aug 11, 2012 at 07:28:26 PM EDT

    Not sure if you read WaPo (1+ / 0-)

    but Al Kamen has been saying for weeks that Obama is prepping to add Hagel to a second term position....possibly even replacing Gates earlier...

       Former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel (R), a senior administration official-in-waiting either later this term or in President Obama's second term (if there is one), is taking another step into Obama's national security team. We're hearing Hagel is in line to co-chair the important President's Intelligence Advisory Board (formerly known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board).
    Are there not any Democrats capable of running defense?  It has been almost 16 years...

    "Republicans drove the country into a ditch and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck"-Jim Cornette

    by justmy2 on Fri Sep 04, 2009 at 10:10:03 AM EDT

    "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

    by justmy2 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:24:24 PM PST

    •  I like Hagel too. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KenBee, mangusta

      In military circles he is generally well-liked and trusted. Wes Clark, not so much. I think this is important for the post of Defense for many reasons, but especially when it comes to cutting the budget.

      I don't think it matters that he's a Republican.

      "The pessimists may be right in the end but an optimist has a better time getting there" -- Samuel Clemons

      by native on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:46:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Still hoping that General Clark could contribute (11+ / 0-)

    as a cabinet officer.  I wouldn't mind him as Defense Secretary.

    •  Agreed CT! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ancblu, ColoTim, bunnygirl60, oxfdblue

      There isn't a more qualified candidate in the nation than General Clark.
         No-one even close.

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:32:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clark (0+ / 0-)

      Not sure I'd like a military guy in charge of the military.  That's one area I'd feel more comfortable with civilian leadership.

      History will be kind to us because we will write it.

      by Sky Net on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:52:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He's ex-military now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ColoTim

         He's been a civilian for over a dozen years now.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:00:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nevertheless (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim

          He's career military who spent most of his life there.  He's more military than civilian.

          History will be kind to us because we will write it.

          by Sky Net on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:13:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I kinda think of that as a plus in this job, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ColoTim

            particularly when you're considering a bold progressive like Wes Clark.

            "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

            by elwior on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:18:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I like him, too (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim

              And backed him for a while in 2004.  But my concern is whether he would identify more with what's best for the military than what's best for the country.  How do you change a system that you ate, lived and breathed in for almost your whole life?  That made you what you are?

              History will be kind to us because we will write it.

              by Sky Net on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:25:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  But take some time to look at what he did with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laurnj

            his time as a soldier. He spent a lot more time making peace and preventing hot wars than he ever did fighting. One of the biggest blind spots many liberals have is that they believe all soldiers are a single stereotype. It's no better and just as wrong as the way conservatives see us.

            I want someone at Defense who knows how to keep peace on the ground. Once State fails, everything falls to Defense and there is more than one way to fight a war. Clark is more likely to be able to do that than anyone else who might be available.

            "When in doubt, do the brave thing." - Jan Smuts

            by bunnygirl60 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:03:09 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Kucinich (11+ / 0-)

    As far as I know, he would be available.  

    Let's take a page from the Republicans, where they appoint a sworn enemy of a Cabinet department so that they can start dismantling it.  

    I can dream, can't I?

  •  I didn't even know Leon Panetta wanted to leave... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    buddabelly, elwior, Aquarius40

    ... and he hasn't been at DoD all that long since he left the CIA. Sorry if I am just behind the times on this, but since when did it become necessary to push him out the door? From what I can tell, Panetta hasn't been doing too badly. I mean, at least he's implemented the repeal of DADT pretty smoothly, and from what I hear he is supporting the president's plan to get us out of Afghanistan (though the pullout isn't scheduled fast enough for me).

    Can someone here explain to me why Panetta needs to be replaced at all? Maybe I just missed it, but I never heard him say that he wants to go.

    •  From my diary: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, Brooke In Seattle, KenBee, annieli
      That job is now held by Leon Panetta, the centrist Democrat who has given no indication that he is leaving any time soon. Although he'd like to get back to California, he says in public that he still has work to do in Washington: Afghanistan. The Pentagon budget. Force adjustments.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:46:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think Obama needs Panetta for an intel job. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, chipoliwog

      He's going to need a new Director of National Intelligence (James Clapper appears to be leaving) and, now, a new Director of Central Intelligence.  I don't think it's a matter of pushing him out of DoD, but of pulling into the DNI position.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:20:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like the CIA suggestion. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Brooke In Seattle, Sky Net, askew
  •  Chuck Hagel is one dirty son of a gun. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    certainot

    From Mother Jones:

    In 1992, investment banker Chuck Hagel, president of McCarthy & Co, became chairman of AIS. Hagel, who had been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 1993, was again on the list of likely GOP contenders heading into the 1996 contest. In January of 1995, while still chairman of ES&S, Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald that he would likely make a decision by mid-March of 1995. On March 15, according to a letter provided by Hagel's Senate staff, he resigned from the AIS board, noting that he intended to announce his candidacy. A few days later, he did just that.

    A little less than eight months after steppind down as director of AIS, Hagel surprised national pundits and defied early polls by defeating Benjamin Nelson, the state's popular former governor. It was Hagel's first try for public office. Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. That vote is still angrily disputed by Hagel's Democratic opponent, Charlie Matulka, who did try to make Hagel's ties to ES&S an issue in the race and who asked that state elections officials conduct a hand recount of the vote. That request was rebuffed, because Hagel's margin of victory was so large.

    Chuck Hagel doesn't belong running for dog catcher, let alone a cabinet position.

    It has been well said that a hungry man is more interested in four sandwiches than four freedoms. ~ Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.

    by 4Freedom on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 02:40:45 PM PST

  •  If Panetta accepts to be Sec of Defense (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, KenBee, joe from Lowell

    in the future, why would Obama even want to replace him?

    I don't understand who wants what here, neither what Obama wants nor what Panetta wants.

    I want Panetta to stay and both to bring home troops asap and stop these drone wars and stop messing around with handing out weapons.

    I want H.Clinton out and though I like Rice in I don't know enough where she stands politically. Is she as hawkish as H.Clinton?

  •  McNamara. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, elwior, Sky Net, pademocrat

    Registered as a Democrat in 1978.  But yes, he was a Republican--a nominal one, at least--during his term.

    •  Yeah, I didn't realize he was Republican (0+ / 0-)

      When he was appointed at least.  But I don't think Kennedy made the decision based on wanting to have a Republican in the job, he just thought McNamara was brilliant, which he was.  Except for that whole Vietnam thing, of course.  I just flipped through my copy of Best and the Brightest and no mention of McNamara's political leanings as a factor in whether to give him the Defense job.

      History will be kind to us because we will write it.

      by Sky Net on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:55:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I totally agree. Great post, MB. (6+ / 0-)

    We also need a Dem to run the fed next year when Bernanke's term is up.  Filibuster reform is important to just get people in appointed positions.  Boehner can defeat all the bills he wants, but advice and consent is the senate only.

    I'm glad Barack Obama is our President.

    by TomP on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:20:45 PM PST

  •  My knee jerk reaction to this diary was why (5+ / 0-)

    not Hagel?  He seems fit for the post but I now wholeheartedly agree.

    Obama, by virtue of overseeing the dispatch of most of Al-Qaeda and OBL has helped the Democrats gain some foothold on the guns side of the guns and butter spectrum and we should NOT CEDE IT BACK!!

  •  Agree Director of CIA would be a good fit for... (7+ / 0-)

    Hagel, especially since Republican politicians, mainly McCain,  Graham, and Issa have created a security disaster for the United States. with their mad-dog attacks on the Obama Admin/ Ambassador Rice over the Benghazi tragedy:  

    A document dump by Congressman Darrell Issa outed the identities of Libyans working with the US...

    Now, it has come out that the annex of the Benghazi consulate was a Central Intelligence Agency HQ...

    The republicans have been screaming for public details of what happened at Bengazhi, even though by this time they must know that Ambassador Steven's mission in Benghazi was "At it's Heart a CIA mission".

    IMHO, someone needs to get those jerks to STFU, and Hagel seems to be someone who could get them to stop announcing to the world what the CIA and it's agents are up to.  

    Whoever takes over the CIA will also have to do damage control now that the republicans have again blown the cover of covert operatives, and getting heavy weapons out of the hands of Libyan extremists would seem to still be an operation that would be in the best interest of Libya, the US, and the region--that is if the GOPers haven't made that impossible with all their security leaks, and their demands for a public accounting of a covert mission.

     

    •  This....why the hell is it ok for republicans to (14+ / 0-)

      blow their mouth off about CIA at the Operations level?

       Since when has the CIA ever allowed a press conference to release information that would be damaging to their mission in general and ongoing operations especially. They tell whatever poor sap gets stuck in front of the camera what they want disseminated period.  

      It is Valerie Plame all over again except this time they are even more blatant about it and reveling in it for FSM sake.

      I thought this kind of shit was supposed to get you arrested or something, not TV time to continue to reveal covert operations.  It truly is ridiculous that this type of crap is allowed to continue while the security theatre continues to grow.

      Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
      I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
      Emiliano Zapata

      by buddabelly on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:41:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It should & does get people arrested--except for.. (10+ / 0-)

        apparently republican US Senators who made sure by their incessant demands for "the facts" that they, the Libyan extremists and the entire world found out that Ambassador Steven's mission that night was part of the covert operation of:  

        Finding and repurchasing heavy weaponry looted from Libyan government arsenals...of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles, the bulk of which were SA-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles...
        and that...
        ...Stevens was in Benghazi "to negotiate a weapons transfer in an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists..."

        If say a lowly PFC in the Army dumped documents revealing these things, he would likely be in jail, no?

        As this article noted:  

        "...After the killings, intelligence officials concerned about exposing the extent and methods of the large C.I.A. presence in the city would say little to reporters for publication.
        ...But, apparently the republican politicians aren't at all concerned about "exposing the extent and methods of the large C.I.A. presence in the city...":  
        Conservative critics of Mr. Obama seized on a series of reports by Fox News and other outlets to make the incendiary charge shortly before the election that four Americans had died because of the administration’s negligence..."

        Well, then, it must be okay--since there was an election coming up--so the GOPers felt justified to out the CIA mission--and operatives in Bengazhi.  

        Imagine how those same hypocritical traitors would react if Democratic politicians demanded public details of covert CIA missions if a republican were POTUS.  

        •  It really is mindblowing to me, I grew up at the (7+ / 0-)

          end of the Cold War and remember the Nuclear Attack Drills and what would happen then if someone esp a Senator or Congressman revealed that type of hypersensitive information to the possible enemy....they would be at least vilified by the public if not arrested and jailed...

          Again just  like Plame, an Agent working on actually recovering working heavy (in the Plame case Nuclear) armament from hands it did not nesc belong in is outed along with their network and tactics and the treasonous bastards doing the outing are praised by the supposed America Loving Right......Their release of this information will be killing our guys in Afghanistan shortly if the buyers arent already in country.  

          An RPG-7 can do nasty shit....

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:06:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  oh shit, even freakin worse, I misread your post (7+ / 0-)

          these were fucking SA-7 Surface to Air heat seekers, a thousand times worse from an anti terrorist perspective....

          Fucking Treasonous Bastards.....

          Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
          I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
          Emiliano Zapata

          by buddabelly on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:15:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes it is mindblowing and... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, buddabelly, bunnygirl60, laurnj

            who knows what kind of damage these guys have already caused.  

            The above linked Business Insider article:  There's A Reason Why All Of The Reports About Benghazi Are So Confusing reports that

            ...there's evidence that U.S. agents—particularly murdered U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens—were at least aware of heavy weapons moving from Libya to Syrian rebels..

            ...Given that most of the weapons going to hard-line jihadists in Syria are U.S.-made and are being handed out by the CIA, it's not a stretch to wonder if the CIA is indirectly arming Syrian rebels with heavy weapons as well.

            ...If President Obama's position is to refrain from arming rebels with heavy weapons, but regime change in Syria is advantageous, then a covert CIA operation with plausible deniability seems to be the only answer. It's a dicey dance, especially if it's exposed.

            McCain, Graham, Issa, etc don't seem to be concerned about "exposing" things that could put the US in an awkward position at the very best.
            •  So where is the outcry from DoJ and Dem Senators? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kurious, laurnj

              I want a hearing into what operational information was leaked by McCain and company. I want Justice to figure out if this is treason and, if so, to prosecute the bastards. Where is the outrage?

              "When in doubt, do the brave thing." - Jan Smuts

              by bunnygirl60 on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 12:13:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's what I've been wondering since the reports (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                laurnj, buddabelly

                ...began hitting the media.  If you read the different reports, it becomes obvious that the Administration couldn't send Susan Rice onto national TV to blab the fact that the Consulate in Bengazhi was a CIA HQ and that it would take some time to find out whether--

                - the attack had something to do with the deliberate disruption of a covert mission --

                -or if it was attacked because Libya is only one year post-civil war, with the security situation still far from srtabilized with an ongoing pattern of attacks on western interests--

                - or the taking advantage of some combination of the above--

                - etc.  

                Whatever the reasons for the attack, the fact that the Consulate was a CIA HQ should have tipped the republicans off that if they wanted information about the attack, they should be asking them in closed door security sessions-- asking those questions and waiting for the investigations to be completed--and shutting up in public in the meantime.    

                They were and are totally irresponsible, and either stupidly or deliberately are putting the US covert missions in Libya/ Syria/ who knows where else into jeopardy with their narcissistic political games played out before worldwide TV cameras.

                While they are blabbing in front of cameras--demanding "the truth about the mission, etc" they know darn well that the Administration can't and won't further endanger the mission by publicly exposing the covert locations and covert missions:

                ...It is now clear why the Obama administration has been hampered in replying to the charges of Republican gadflies. They risked outing the CIA operations there. Obama quite admirably decided not to release information on an ongoing covert operation, even though he might, by doing so, have gained some political advantage. Certainly Karl Rove and George W. Bush would not have hesitated to out their own covert operation for political gain...
                If the Democrats started publicly calling out the GOPer saboteurs, it could lead to investigations that would bring out even more details of covert missions, covert operatives, and, of course, let the Libyan extremists, Syrian government--and its supporters--know what we have been doing, what we are currently doing, and what we are planning to do.  

                OTOH, if I were the POTUS, I'd do all in my power to drill into to the GOPer saboteurs in clear detail exactly how many national security laws that they are violating and how many people they are jeopardizing.  

                If at all possible, I'd pull as much of their security clearances and access to sensitive data as possible, and investigate them to find out exactly why they are risking national security.

        •  it's clear the repubs would welcome airliners brou (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          laurnj, buddabelly

          brought down by SA7's so they could blame it on Obama.

          Extremely clear.

          A diary titled "Why do John McCain and Lindsay Graham and Kelly Ayotte want airliners brought down by SA-7 missles?"

          might be a problem here..unless the logic is clearly laid out...

          and if it were to happen, pray ot does not, I hope they are blamed for helping the terrorists for their efforts in outing ongoing activities othe CIA and this president to eliminate these from the hands of terrorists.

          And LBJ style they have to defend themselves against such claims....these bastards.

          This machine kills Fascists.

          by KenBee on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:48:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'd prefer Valerie Plame n/t (5+ / 0-)

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:31:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why, why should Dems promote the career (0+ / 0-)

    of even one, single Repub? in any way whatsoever?  Typical Dem stupidity.

    Don't do it!

    The elevation of appearance over substance, of celebrity over character, of short term gains over lasting achievement displays a poverty of ambition. It distracts you from what's truly important. - Barack Obama

    by helfenburg on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:41:23 PM PST

  •  Good hell. John Kerry. Jack Reed. Adam Smith. (5+ / 0-)

    That's just off the top of my head.  The party has plenty of smart, capable people to head the Pentagon.  People who could be appointed without either ceding the "national security/defense" card to the GOP, or without endangering a democratically-held house or Senate seat. Smh.

  •  Well, if he's going to go putting republicans (7+ / 0-)

    as members of his cabinet, how about finding a spot for Dr/Gov Howard Dean?

    Enough with the rethugs already. let's spotlight some democrats who should've been included last time around.

    "Say little, do much" (Pirkei Avot 1:15)

    by hester on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 03:56:33 PM PST

  •  I bet it's for Secretary of State not Defense... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, joe from Lowell

    Sec. Clinton wants to leave in February, Panetta is willing to stay on for awhile yet (if he's saying the same thing privately as he is publicly) - so replacing Clinton is priority#1.  

    Only names we've heard otherwise are Kerry who can't leave the Senate seat to Brown, and Fireign Services chair to Menendez.  And Susan Rice and I don't know if she could get the necessary support usually given to the SOS - Clinton got 92 votes in support, Condi Rice got 85, generally the Senate likes to give SOS's strong bipartisan backing so they have credibility in the position when traveling the world and meeting leaders etc.  Rice could get 60, but I don't know how much more than that.  

    They have the billionaires, We have the Big Dog!

    by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:02:39 PM PST

  •  I'd rather have Pat Schroeder as Sec Def (5+ / 0-)

    It would be a nice change from all those Guyz.

    But honestly since Panetta---an ex Republican--- doesn't seem anxious to leave, let's leave him there.

    And while I'm at it, let's go back to what the agency was originally called---Department of War. Truth in advertising and all that.

    Resist much, obey little. ~~Edward Abbey, via Walt Whitman

    by willyr on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:14:22 PM PST

  •  Maybe he's being vetted to take over Petreus' job. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, annieli

    Just a thought.

  •  We just tried an ex-military man at CIA (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, elwior

    I believe it didn't work out so well. I've got to wonder what Hagel's views on military programs and cutbacks are. If he's as serious as he's said to be, he realizes that it has to be scaled back at least 10% (and ideally much, much more, phased in over a decade or more to lessing the human and economic impact).

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:32:58 PM PST

  •  Hillary Clinton is still SoS. (0+ / 0-)

    I expect her to remain so for quite some time. She is unlikely to leave, I think, until we settle the budget issues and the new Congress is in place. When McGraham is all talked out, then Hillary may come down to the hill and show how it's done.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:51:04 PM PST

  •  Chuck Hagelianism's not the Hegelianism we need nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Egalitare, elwior, Matt Z

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 04:59:28 PM PST

    •  The Young Hegelians: 19th C. doo-wop group (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior, ancblu, Matt Z, laurnj
      The German philosophers who wrote immediately after the death of Hegel in 1831 can be roughly divided into the politically and religiously radical 'left', or 'young', Hegelians and the more conservative 'right', or 'old', Hegelians. The Right Hegelians followed the master in believing that the dialectic of history had come to an end (Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit reveals itself to be the culmination of history as the reader reaches its end). This meant that reason and freedom had reached the absolute maximum and were embodied by the Prussian state which, although possessing extensive civil service, good universities, some industrialization and high employment, was actually rather politically backward compared with the far more liberal constitutional monarchies of France and Britain. The Young Hegelians drew on Hegel's veneration of Reason and Freedom as the guiding forces of history, and his idea that the 'Spirit' overcame all that was opposed to these and to itself. They believed Hegel's apparent belief in the end of history conflicted with other aspects of his thought and that it was painfully obvious that the dialectic was not complete given the irrationality of certain (later all) religious beliefs and the empirical lack of (especially political and religious) freedom in Prussian society as it existed at the time.

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:26:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish they would just have done with it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, elwior, joe from Lowell, Matt Z

    and change the name back to "Department of War"... It hasn't been about defense for many a decade.



    Those who do not move, do not notice their chains. Rosa Luxemburg

    by chuckvw on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:05:04 PM PST

  •  I didn't realize this. Thank you. (4+ / 0-)
    All told, 16 Republicans have served for nearly 51 years in that job, while Democrats have served for only 13
  •  Unless I'm Missing Something (6+ / 0-)

    I got no problem with Hagel for SecDef.

    He was my pick 4 years ago.

    Either you're wit' us or a Guinness -- Brilliant!

    by Unforgiven on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:17:54 PM PST

  •  I see no need to "make gestures"... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Andrew C White, laurnj

    ...by placing Republicans at any of the top Cabinet positions.

    We have been operating the West Wing for 12 of the last 20 years and we have people who are knowledgeable, experienced and respected on our "bench."

    When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

    by Egalitare on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:34:27 PM PST

  •  Geezus H Motorboat! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    Can we stop with the fucking idea of Republicans in defense and intelligence positions in Democratic administrations already? The 60's are fucking over. McGovern is dead ferchrissakes! There plenty of war fucking happy democrats available. Pick one!

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:41:33 PM PST

  •  Pick a fucking Republican for (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    Kucinich's department of fucking peace!

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:42:21 PM PST

  •  He seemed to break with the past in his last (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, R30A, Matt Z

    couple of years in the Senate.
    He also seemed sincerely pro-troops, pro-veterans.
    If he is, that's a good thing. It will help keep us out of another war.
    I'm still favoring the Rice/ Kerry idea, but I did think of Hagel as a nose-thumbing at the gop.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 05:57:53 PM PST

  •  Environment, labor and choice.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    native, R30A

    ....doesn't have a lot to do with Sec Def.

    I assume they'll make sure he got over the anti-gay thing.

    Show us your tax returns !!!!!!

    by Bush Bites on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:02:12 PM PST

    •  Uh, no (0+ / 0-)

      It's hard to think of an institution on the planet with a larger environmental footprint than the US military.  And they employ a bit of labor too...

      Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four.  If that is granted, all else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984. Now on Twitter.

      by kindler on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:17:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  excellent sir (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, HarryParatestis

    short for: why I come to dkos for 99.9% of my news and views.

    This machine kills Fascists.

    by KenBee on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:02:19 PM PST

  •  Panetta sez he's staying "in Washington." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, R30A, askew

    I looked carefully at that link, and he didn't specify that he's staying at DoD.  He also says he thinks his immediate DoD task, the transition agreement with the Afghan government, will be over "in a few weeks."

    I think he's going to become DNI, and Defense will open up.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:04:30 PM PST

  •  I would like to see Hagel in the administration. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior

    but not as SecDef for this very reason.  Maybe he'd be a good choice to replace Suan Rice as UN Ambassador.

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:35:13 PM PST

  •  How about Wesley Clark for Sec Def? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Matt Z, laurnj

    He's been out of uniform long enough by now, hasn't he?

  •  WTF? Why would he hire someone who voted, (0+ / 0-)

    spoke, and/or worked to defeat Obama.  This is just fantasy.  You mean to tell me there is not a Democrat that can fill the post?  This is absurd.  More than half the country votes Democrat, and you can't find one out of tens of millions?  Who whispered out this nonsense?  Hagel?

    There is no hell on earth appropriate enough for those who would promote the killing of another person, in the name of a god.

    by HarryParatestis on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:41:50 PM PST

  •  And not to forget (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, elwior, pademocrat

    that once upon a time Leon Panetta was a Republican, which I absolutely do not hold against him...he also represented the 16th congressional district, near where I grew up (as a Democrat).

    Panetta switched to the Democratic Party in 1971, because he thought that the Republican Party was moving away from the political center.

    "like a roofer or a dancer or a cheese cutter or a lumber jack" " rubyr Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 12:24:28 AM PDT

    by sometv on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:45:59 PM PST

  •  Hagel Is A Mixed Bag.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, R30A

    In 1982 he resigned as Deputy Administrator of the VA over a disagreement w/ the Administrator.  That Administrator wanted to cut funding to the VA, referred to the vets as "greedy" & Agent Orange "as no worse than teenage acne".  That was it for Hagel.  He quit.

    But he voted for Iraq & the Patriot Act & voted against McCain Feingold.

    Yet.....he voted for the Iraq pullout & by 2005-2007, was openly criticizing George Bush for his Iraq mismanagement.

    Obama doesn't have to do bipartisan anymore.  He's in.  He's in the WH & that's where he'll stay for the next 4 years.....whether Republicans like it or not.  

    •  The President IS bipartisan. It isn't a show. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      R30A, mangusta

      I love that people voted for a guy that always talked about being bipartisan and then they expect him not to act bipartisan.

      Did you enthusiastically support a guy you thought was lying through his teeth?

      http://www.freakonomics.com/

      by Common Cents on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:03:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I Voted For A Guy Who Has Learned..... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laurnj

        that bipartisan means something completely different in Washington DC.  It is as rare as unicorns, tooth fairies, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow & Santa's workshop.

        There are NO bipartisan elves in DC.  Obama has things to do in his 2nd term including climate change, closing Guantanamo, fully implementing the Affordable Care Act & beefing up the economy......with or without their help. Either way, he has to move on.  

        The ball is in their corner.  They can slice it back out of bounds or they can bat it back according to the rules.  It's up to them.

        I wouldn't trust Republicans for a second.  I hope he's learned not to trust them either.  

        •  Ran across a comment about that today: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snapples, laurnj
          Where there is no democracy there is only partisan interest, the interest of those in power. National interest may or may not get addressed. These current impasses are a 'test' of our political system. It is possible that we can no longer afford democracy.


          A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

          by Pluto on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:43:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  This may not be the best possible arguement. (0+ / 0-)

    The Secretary of Defense is more easily watched than the Director of Central Intelligence.

  •  so how crazy would this be? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, Sky Net, Matt Z

    Jim Webb for SecDef?

    --United Citizens defeated Citizens United...This time. --

    by chipoliwog on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:50:01 PM PST

    •  Love Jim Webb. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      Think he would be great. Wasn't he Sec of Navy or something?

      He's a vet and cares about vets.  I think the troops would dig him.

      Did not run for re-election, may be too sick of politics to come back in.

      "What everyone wants is a job and some hope."--RFK

      by For Dean in Dixie on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:24:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  a little bit of de-militarization (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pluto

    would have been a great historic change.  guess we are going to have to wait for that.

    the republicans at their convention tried to say obama had cut the military, weakened it, presumably this debt ceiling agreement is what they were trying to spin as his idea in such a way that low information voters would think it had already happened.  any look at any defense spending graph shows obama admin spending rising at least as fast as bush's. nominating a republican for defense seems a huge cave to the military industrial society, nothing at all like the change i had hoped for, once upon a time.

    war is immoral. both parties are now fully complicit in the wars. bring everyone home. get to work.

    by just want to comment on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:50:31 PM PST

  •  There's plenty of former Democratic senators (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, winsock, Pluto, Matt Z, laurnj

    available for SecDef. Just a random list - maybe even some good choices:

    Al Gore
    Ben Nelson
    Evan Bayh
    Jeff Bingaman
    Kent Conrad
    Jim Webb
    Chris Dodd
    Byron Dorgan
    Russ Fiengold
    Bob Graham
    Fritz Hollings
    Tom Daschle
    Max Cleland

    Filibuster reform now. No more Gentleman's agreements.

    by bear83 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:52:47 PM PST

  •  Republicans good at national defense? A MYTH... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elwior, Eric Nelson, laurnj

    From the diary: "Apparently because even Democratic presidents have bought into the Republican propaganda that you can't trust Democrats when it comes to the nation's defense."

    Possibly true that...and based on complete green and blue horseshit.

    The plain and simple fact...no Republican administration has actually WON a war since 1898...The Spanish-American War.

    Constantly whining, talking tough, and acting like you know what to do doesn't win wars. Why anybody thinks Republicans know anything about protecting this country is beyond belief.

    It's past time to educate Americans about history and fact.

    "Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?" - General Jack D. Ripper

    by wilder5121 on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 06:53:15 PM PST

  •  How is Hagel's social views relevant? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    winsock, Pluto, R30A, mangusta, pademocrat

    He was on the front end of the Iraq revolt in Congress along with guys like Murtha and Biden.

    Chuck Hagel not only props up the president's cred as the reasonable mainstream moderate, but it also would be an excellent buffer for Republican partisanship on defense issues.

    http://www.freakonomics.com/

    by Common Cents on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:01:33 PM PST

  •  Hagel is not a bad choice (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    R30A, mangusta

    Better than pulling a Dem out of the senate (e.g. Kerry or Levin).  I do like the fact that while Hagel served with distinction in the U.S. Army, he served as an enlisted man -- Sergeant.

    I'm sure Obama could find a Dem who would be perfectly qualified.  But I'll defer to the President's prerogative to make the right choice.

    Things work out best for those who make the best of the way things work out.

    by winsock on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:08:28 PM PST

  •  Bad, Bad, Bad, reward (0+ / 0-)

    I'm 61.
    The problem with Democrats has always been they don't seem to react to negative.
    They don't realize & utilize what a simply popular Democrat is.
    Obama's now in his second term, elected with a popular & EV vote the media if it was a repuke would be repeating every week til summer as a mandate.
    Point 1: We've had 2 years of mind numbing stonewalling. So because we are Democrats we are going to cave, reach out, etc., reward them. I wouldn't mind an appointment, if they had been good. NOT NOW! My own personal thoughts to any repuke appointment to defense & security is I WILL NOT FORGET gen. westmoreland!
    Point 2: General Clark is liked by everybody, i.e. the public. Appoint him to anything.
    Howard Dean is liked by everybody. If Democrats would simply utilize their simply good liked people.
    I love that Panetta is CIA director, he's always been a simple, nice, good, strong Ca. Democrat. There haven't been any scandals in the CIA. The moral is high. How hard is that to figure out?

    •  General Clark is liked by everybody? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sky Net

      I always read he was a hard to get along with know-it-all.  

      Panetta is current Secretary of Defense.  

      They have the billionaires, We have the Big Dog!

      by Jacoby Jonze on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:21:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apology (0+ / 0-)

        That's so funny to me…
        I'm a natural ditz.
        Apologies all around...
        All these years & I thought Panetta was the Director of the CIA.
        I thought Patraeus was just a General.
        Patraeus & CIA, who'd of thunk?
        Now if the Secret Service are under the umbrella of the CIA, the Mexican hookers story (big scandal) makes sense?
        Goodness Gracious, me oh my.

        •  Homeland (0+ / 0-)

          I googled & Secret Service is a department of Homeland Security.
          I think what I've was trying to say in my reply posts is unfortunately because mainstream media has turned asking the public into an embarrassment, that if you asked on the street, "Do you know who General Wesley Clark is? Do you like him?
          I don't think asking on the street is utilized enough in Democratic campaigns.
          How do most regular people think?

  •  If you say so. (0+ / 0-)

    I, for one, would welcome the first SOS who was not such a total imbecile that they fell for Bush's clearly phony nation-wanking Iraq war.

    Someone not so stupid or craven (as the SOSs of the past 15 years) might be a Secretary of State that could bring peace.


    A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

    by Pluto on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:13:43 PM PST

    •  Make that SOD (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      laurnj

      Same standard holds for both. I am sick unto death of the Iraq War imbeciles.


      A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

      by Pluto on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:18:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Hagel DID fall for Bush's war. He wised up... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, Eric Nelson, laurnj

      ...but he was on board in 2002 and it took him quite a while to change his mind. And the general view seems to be SecDef, not SOS. But we shall see.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:22:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

        I believe in redemption, but you had to be pretty corrupt or seriously stupid to go down for the count for that piece of shit war. So nix on Hagel. He's too dumb.


        A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five. -- Groucho Marx

        by Pluto on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:33:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's Wes Clark (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, KenBee, Matt Z, laurnj

      He was totally against the Iraq invasion and he also helped broker the Dayton Peace Accords.

      White-collar conservatives flashing down the street, pointing their plastic finger at me..

      by BOHICA on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:23:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure that (0+ / 0-)

        ...someone affiliated with the Project for National Security Reform would be the right person at DoD.  Even though I see they just folded their tents around the time of the election.

        The national security instittutions of the US have not had a major change in 65 years.  They have become a bloated national security state that wastes money, creates more overseas enemies, and threatens domestic civil liberties.

        We need someone at DoD with the vision to transform the national security institutions so that they actually serve the purposes of a democratic society.

        Wesley Clark seems to still believe in an expansionist military.

        50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

        by TarheelDem on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:47:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  No no no no no no no n/t (0+ / 0-)
  •  He bears some blame for the failure of Kyoto (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    Hagel engineered a Senate resolution condemning certain aspects of the Kyoto Accords, which garnered a huge majority -- and afterward, was endlessly pointed to by the Bush administration and others in the do-nothing-about-climate-change camp as proof that it would be futile to ever submit the treaty for Senate ratification.  

    I sure hope he recognizes and regrets the major damage he inflicted on the world in the process, as we continue to avoid this issue which is already coming to bite us hard in the butt.

    Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four.  If that is granted, all else follows. -- George Orwell, 1984. Now on Twitter.

    by kindler on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:22:27 PM PST

  •  No, not Hagel or any Republican (0+ / 0-)

    If not Panetta, Al Gore or Susan Rice. (Yes, I want a trio of Republican Senators' heads to explode)

    My preference is to see Panetta at DNI, now that Petraeus is out of CIA.  A budget wonk with experience in DoD and CIA is what we need there.  Otherwise Susan Rice as DNI; make a little history.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 07:39:07 PM PST

  •  Democrats won a mandate ... for crying out loud (0+ / 0-)

    and they already compromising, before the whole thing even started? Are we serious?
    We don't need no stinking Republicans or Blue Dog Democrats. So people like Evan Bayh have NO business near Obama.
    These are people who couldn't campaign with him. These are people who couldn't vote any piece of legislation he offered. They wouldn't dare want to be seen with him. Now that he won, they all want to get near him...
    Opportunism is really pathetic.

  •  bigger issue (0+ / 0-)

    the one thing you never see is a Republican President
    do appoint a democrat in a cabinet post?

    I think every democrat since truman has had a republican serve in cabinet

    can anyone tell the last Democrat to serve in a Republican administration

    Reagan had William Bennett who switched parties !

    "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill

    by smartone on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 08:05:11 PM PST

    •  That would be Norman Mineta in GW Bush's... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Cabinet, secretary of transportation until 2006. George H.W. Bush had Lauro Cavazos as secretary of education. Ronald Reagan had Jeane Kirkpatrick as U.N. envoy (she switched to Republican in 1985, the year she left office). Nixon had John Connally as secretary of the Treasury (he switched parties after he left office in 1973). Nixon also had Cliff Hardin as secretary of agriculture. Eisenhower had Oveta Culp Hobby as secretary of health, education and welfare.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 02:09:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  he used vote flipping ES&S exclusively (0+ / 0-)

    for his elections!

    Hagel was an owner, and ES&S was the ONLY company whose machines counted his votes when he ran for election in 1996 and 2002.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

    We have a lot we have to settle, but there’s one thing we should all agree on and that’s the middle-class tax cut should be made permanent. I think it’s important Congress acts now, I mean right now. - V.P. Joe Biden

    by anyname on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 10:29:25 PM PST

  •  I have no problems with Hagel but PREFER Wes Clark (0+ / 0-)

    by a huge margin.

    That's just my opinion, though.

    A village can not reorganize village life to suit the village idiot.

    by METAL TREK on Fri Nov 30, 2012 at 11:06:06 PM PST

  •  What's the problem with Hagel? (0+ / 0-)

    He doesn't seem like the type to start wars on his own, or reversing current policies, like repealing don't ask, don't tell. I don't see him fighting against the tide of cutting defense spending, either.

    He would be serving at the pleasure of the President. In other words, he does the job subject to Obama's approval. I would think that Hagel would have been vetted and interviewed by Obama, and would have agreed to his policies, agenda, strategy and outlook.

    If he screws up, or does something that Obama doesn't approve of, he's gone.

  •  The speculation in this diary is unbelievable (0+ / 0-)

    All that was announced was that Chuck Hagel was being vetted for a "possible National security" position. That's all.

    And yet here on our so-called "reality-based" bsitelog, we take that and run with it into an all out indictment of the President for entrenching a tradition of Democratic Presidents appointing Republicans to the top Defense post.

    Where is the evidence of this assertion in this round of potential appointments? None. But the pre-condemnation of Pres Obama proceeds anyway whether he has actually done what the diarist alleges or not. Sheesh.

    All this in spite of the fact that Pannetta has not indicated that he is leaving. So what gives?

    "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

    by zizi on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 04:43:25 AM PST

    •  Show me the (pre)condemnation of Obama... (0+ / 0-)

      ...or indictment here. There is none. It's a ridiculous accusation.

      I have stated my reasons, respectfully, for saying that choosing Chuck Hagel, if the president decides to do so, would not be a good move and laying out my reasons. Some commenters have stated their reasons for disagreeing, arguing that he would be a good choice.

      As for the evidence, obviously there is nothing out of the president's mouth directly, nor is there likely to be until he actually announces his decision. It's uncertain, as I make clear in the diary more than once, Hagel may well be being considered for other posts in the administration, just as he has been since 2008. That includes secretary of defense.

      You are wrong about Panetta, by the way:

      Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has made clear he did not intend to stay for a second term but he has never publicly discussed the timing of his departure, widely thought to be down the road in 2013. Yet Obama’s thinking on Panetta’s replacement has quietly advanced, aided by a strong list of candidates, officials said.

      One senior U.S. official said Panetta is expected to stay on the job at least through the Jan 21 inauguration ceremony for Obama, another sign that the president is close to naming a new defense chief. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal White House thinking.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 01:48:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Maybe Obama just thinks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mangusta

    Hagel is the best man for the job.

    "What do you mean "conspiracy"? Does that mean it's someone's imaginings and that the actual polls hovered right around the result?" - petral

    by conspiracy on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 06:35:01 AM PST

  •  Sleeping with the Enemy (0+ / 0-)

    Appointing Chuck Hagel to a high-profile position in the cabinet seems to give President Obama an opportunity to score some bi-partisan capital with both the electorate and the opposing party.

    Keeping in mind that the president has the benefit of testing Hagel's counsel while serving on his Intelligence Advisory Board, and that it will remain incumbent upon Hagel to execute the commander-in-chief's policies - not his own, such an appointment seems low risk.  Following in the steps of Bill Clinton with his selection of William Cohen, the president is both reaching-out to republicans in congress, as well as heeding the call of voters to rise-above the antics of obstructionism.

  •  Clemons has been a googly-eyed fanboy of Hagel (0+ / 0-)

    for a long time now.  And as such, he consistently ignores all that is wrong with Hagel.

    When  historical disasters like McNamara and Rumsfeld are Republicans, the myth that Republicans are "stronger/more capable on defense" is laid bare.  (At least McNamara has enough intelligence and honesty to admit to his mistakes decades later.  I'm guessing Rumsfeld will bitterly cling to his delusions about his own performance until the grave.)

    It's far past time Democrats start pushing their own up this particular ladder.  We'll almost assuredly still get the same warmongering and farcically bloated Pentagon (i.e. Panetta), but if the SoD has a "D" after their name it helps change the public's perception of Democrats in their favor.

    What's wrong under Republicans is still wrong under Democrats.

    by gila on Sat Dec 01, 2012 at 10:09:59 AM PST

  •  He'd be a terrible choice for Sec of State too (0+ / 0-)

    Why do we have to pretend to be bipartisan. The Republicans are NEVER bipartisan.

kos, norm, bink, JekyllnHyde, Alumbrados, Angie in WA State, Sylv, vicki, Bill in Portland Maine, Radiowalla, itsbenj, hester, native, mimi, bosdcla14, willyr, xynz, alain2112, CoolOnion, themank, chuckvw, Frederick Clarkson, jalbert, ctsteve, navajo, Redfire, ksuwildkat, wdrath, defluxion10, Calidrissp, econlibVA, eztempo, Sybil Liberty, Longwing, Brecht, marina, tle, democracy inaction, Simplify, Brooke In Seattle, YucatanMan, Dobber, Laurence Lewis, Phil S 33, Jim R, begone, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, keeplaughing, dopper0189, rl en france, KenBee, Magnifico, blueoasis, 4Freedom, justiceputnam, democracy is coming, CA Nana, means are the ends, blueoregon, kurt, kurious, ms badger, BentLiberal, old wobbly, BeninSC, Cronesense, greytdog, devis1, ColoTim, gloriana, flumptytail, dclawyer06, certainot, deepeco, Midwesterners, bobswern, jnhobbs, leonard145b, TomP, Senor Unoball, Involuntary Exile, elwior, brooklynbadboy, VL Baker, jamess, tofumagoo, 207wickedgood, enemy of the people, rubyclaire, divineorder, ewmorr, dharmasyd, MKSinSA, papahaha, lastman, Denise Oliver Velez, kevinpdx, sfarkash, Little Flower, astral66, citisven, smileycreek, flitedocnm, Lost and Found, renzo capetti, womankind, dustb, ItsSimpleSimon, paradise50, Betty Pinson, no way lack of brain, annieli, Maximilien Robespierre, allenjo, UtahLibrul, laurnj, enhydra lutris, peregrine kate, VTCC73, cjo30080, Monsieur Georges, quill, stormicats, Eric Nelson, This old man, marty marty, Glen The Plumber, Hammerhand, remembrance, poopdogcomedy, Jim Abbotts Right Hand Man, pipercity1

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site