Skip to main content

Good evening, all!

I believe that Chuck Hagel is an excellent (presumptive) nominee for Secretary of Defense.  His experiences in Vietnam with his brother, his realism (in the foreign policy meaning of the word), his willingness to absolutely piss off Dick Cheney and other folks because he changed his mind and was honor-bound to own that fact loudly and publicly, and his willingness to work (in the areas of foreign policy and defense) proudly with people with whom he disagreed on nearly every other issue tells me he's a great choice.  As I said, I'm for Chuck Hagel.  I kind of wanted him back in 2009, truth be told.  I was also for keeping Bob Gates around (that's another story, though).

My preferences, however, matter little here.  It is for the President to decide who he wishes to put forward, and for the Senate to advise and, if they deem it so, consent as to the choice.  I made my choice when I voted (for the second time) for Barack Obama.  I trust his judgment in whom should advise him and carry out his policies.

You guys need to chill the fuck out on this one.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes I agree that the deficit and amassing debt are distant (if looming) problems and we have far more immediate ones (unemployment, protecting health care for all, Social Security, rebuilding New York and New Jersey, etc).  We shouldn't tank solving those problems in order to "fix the debt."  That said, we do need to address this problem over time.  This will involve cuts and tweaks that will absolutely enrage everyone at some point.

This brings me to Chuck Hagel.  There are two reasons why I'm confident he's the right man for this job.  The first is the fact that he felt honor-bound to do something once he realized he's supported a war in Iraq that simply wasn't sane to continue (certainly as it was at the time being fought).  He enraged his party and he kept at it.  The second reason is that he served with then-Senator Barack Obama.  President Obama knows this man and is apparently so convinced he's the right man, the one he can trust, to help pare down the Department of Defense to a more sustainable, cheaper, leaner, yet still more than sufficiently potent size and disposition.

I didn't vote for someone who only had the courage of my convictions and the ability to exercise my judgment.  If President Obama is convinced that Chuck Hagel is the right man to do this thing, I trust him.  

As to those who condemn him for his admittedly boneheaded, stupid, hurtful, tantamount to hateful comments on homosexuality?  My Dad used to say similar things around the same time.  He doesn't anymore.  Heck, I've made my own progress (with a shorter distance to justice I think).  Do you folks really believe that the President that ended Don't Ask Don't Tell is dumbass enough to pick someone who intends to reinstate it, whether de facto or de jure?  Do you think he'd leave Hagel in position if somehow he misjudged him?

Get over it.  And yes, I understand how arrogant and dismissive this sounds.  DADT is over.  Take yes for an answer.  We got the policy win. You and I and the rest of us can afford to be magnanimous when being that costs us nothing in terms of policy.  We don't need to re-repeal DADT.  We do need to pare down the DOD, we do need to make sure our defensive posture doesn't feed into a worldwide dynamic of violence and strife.

I cannot imagine the pain it must have been to grow up gay in this country.  I'm proud of our gains.  They aren't enough, I'll grant that easily.  More are coming, more yet need to come.  Blocking Chuck Hagel furthers none of them.  This country needs him (or someone very much like him) to keep us out of war in Iran and elsewhere.

Tags

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

  •  You're asking for it! (5+ / 0-)

    You won't get much positive response on DKos, but I respect your opinion. I remember thinking that Hagel was one of the few reasonable Repubs when he was in Congress. It did take nerve for him to buck his party and it cost him. I think he and Obama are similar -- pragmitists, centrists. I assume he'll follow Obama's lead on foreign policy. But there are problems with that -- the drones, the renditions, the unfailing support for Israel, Gitmo, and so on.

    The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

    by LiberalLady on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:21:07 PM PST

    •  Hagel is no centrist. He opposed the minimum (0+ / 0-)

      wage.  Total pig on economic issues and a long bigot on GLBT issues.  He is a Republican.  He got better on war and peace issues aftersupporting the invasion of Iraq. He may be ok as secdef, although a dem president should be able to find a dem for the job.  I don't oppose Hagel 's nomination but I 'll be damned if I praise that pig.  Literally he opposed anyminimum wage.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 04:42:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The minimum wage (6+ / 0-)

        Has zippity to do with defense policy, and he has apologized for his prior expressions of anti-LGBT bigotry, very sincerely to me ears and James Hormel's.

        I love how he makes the Israel firsters apoplectic with rage.  To me that is definite evidence he is the right man for the job of US sec of defense, not Israel's damn puppet.

        Strongly support Hagel.  He is a soldier's soldier and as close to an anti-war republican (as a result of knowing it in bloody first hand detail) as you will find.

        Christ, dKos needs a new site slogan: "where the perfect is always the enemy of the good."

        Once again Obama needs us to have his back and here we go pissing on him instead.

        If you oppose war with Iran, Chuck Hagel is by far the best option we have as a credible defense secretary.  By far.  No dem will have his stature or authority short of maybe John Kerry, and he is going to state.

        Sad times on dKos.  Win an election and drift off into la la land, just like the tea party overreach after 2010 midterms.  

        We are in a war with the far right.  It's not close to over.  We didn't win be ause Obama won a second term.  

        •  We also don't win with Hagel. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          misslegalbeagle

          He is a fucking Republcian who fucked workers his whole career.

          As for "Israel firsters," I'm not sure what you man by that, but it seems to impugn th patriotism of Jewish Americans and I don't like it.

          He was a bigot and still would be if it were not impolitic.  He opposed Hormel's appointment because Hormel was gay.

          Anyone who opposes a minimum wage shows a lack of ethics and integrety and basic decency.  

          He is not a decent man.

          As for having "Barack Obama's back," that is the biggest load of bs I have heard in a while.  I think for myself.

          Hagel as Sec of Defense will do nothing to win a class war, which is what this war is.    And Obama makes war and peace policy.

          I said I did not oppose Hegal; I really don't give a shit about him.  But I will not applaud a pig and that is what Mr. Hagel is.  

          Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

          by TomP on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:27:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I repeat (0+ / 0-)

            This has nothing to do with being sec def.  in fact I hunk it might be good to have a bastard in that role.  He has also and clearly evolved on many issues.  He's a tough soldier, not a statesman.

            "Israel Firster" is a term in common use on the left blogosphere dude, surprised you haven't heard it.  And yes t does impugn the patriotism of anyone (including plenty of right wing evangelical types, and a minority of Jewish Americans) who considers the interests of Israel as coterminous with the interests of the US and commits the US to supporting a perpetual stateless and oppressed condition for Palestinians.  As a halfie member of the tribe, I dare you to tell me that I'm anti-Semtic when I point out that most of the opposition to Hagel, couched as it might be in concerns about his views on DOMA or the minimum freaking wage,  is coming from neocon and theocon Israel-firsters who want the US to go to war with Iran in defense of Israel, not in defense of the US.

          •  And your (0+ / 0-)

            "He is a republican therefore he is not a decent man" impugns the patriotism f a Purple Heart wearing veteran who was definitively heroic in battle.

            Of course he is a decent man. You should ver do as much in your life as Chuck Hagel has done for you, assuming you're American.

      •  "he may be ok as secdef" (0+ / 0-)

        Isn't that what he is being nominated to be? Yes, perhaps he didn't make the best votes when in the Senate, and he also ran his mouth off at times, but his position on Iraq, and standing up against it should be rewarded. I also think it is always a good idea to have a Sec of Defense that actually served and fought in a war. I actually liked John Kerry for Sec. of Defense, but am happy with him as Sec of State.

  •  May I propose a toast (9+ / 0-)

    To our new Secretaries of State and Defense....you have 5 purple hearts between you.  May that number prove to be greater than the total earned on your collective watches.

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

    by Spider Stumbled on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:21:41 PM PST

  •  Bravo. Well said. (9+ / 0-)

    Total understanding for the pains of the LGBT community, and the hurt of the 90s. But Biden, Reid, Clinton all supported DOMA, and nobody is going after them, and rightfully so.

    The success is because we are looking ahead, and taking yes for an answer from those who evolve. Focus on love, family, full equality ahead, and don't look behind.

    And finally, trust the president and vice president who ended DADT and ran after declaring support for gay marriage. Give them some latitude to get their choice to keep the country safe. They won't pick someone who will move things backwards.

    •  it's not just the 90s (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BentLiberal, TomP, Ian S

      0% fom the human rights campaign through 2007.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:35:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some facts on Hagel's anti-LGBT record (0+ / 0-)

      He served in the Senate from 1997 to 2009 and was voting against the LGBT community right up to the end. This isn't some isolated mistake from the 90's, his comments about James Hormel are part of a consistent pattern over a decade and a half of service in Federal office. Here are the facts from a comment I've made in several Hagel related diaries:

      When he "apologized" he said his 1998 comments don't reflect "the totality of my public record." His public record in the United States Senate spanning two terms from the 105th through the 110th Congress shows his 1998 comments were more in line with the "totality of [his] public record" than his terse "apology."

      Let's be clear, Hagel opposed what is commonly know as the Hate Crimes Bill (variously known by other names through its history). He never sponsored it, favored watered down hate crime language that excluded sexual orientation in the military's hate crimes regulations and voted to filibuster motions to invoke cloture on the Hate Crimes bills when they came up in the Senate.

      Hagel's "public record" on employment non-discrimination is just as bad. Not only did he refuse to sponsor or vote for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, he voted against adding sexual orientation to the anti-discrimination portion of the Senate's Standing Rules on Employment Practices and refused to adopt a non-discrimination policy for his senatorial office that included sexual orientation and gender identity.

      He voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed bills that would lessen the impact of DOMA on same sex couples such as the Permanent Partners Immigration Act, Uniting American Families Act and the Tax Equity for Domestic Partner and Health Plan Beneficiaries Act.

      On HIV/AIDS, he declined to cosponsor the Ryan White Care Act and twice opposed legislation designed to expand medicaid to provide assistance to low-income people with HIV. The only time he voted to help the victims of HIV/AIDS was his vote for the Tuberculosis and Malaria Reauthorization Act in 2008 (his last full year in Congress), which reauthorized PEPFAR, President Bush's global HIV/AIDS initiative to treat mostly non-American HIV/AIDS victims (i.e. not TEH GAYs who constitute most American HIV/AIDS victims).

      Out of the 6 HRC scorecards from the 105th to 110th Congress, Hagel got 5 ZEROS and one 20 (in the 110th entirely earned on his PEPFAR vote). That's on a 100 point scale. That spans over 40 votes spanning 12 years with just one yea for the LGBT position.

      Sorry, his "apology" to Hormel and the LGBT community is entirely too tardy and politically expedient. If he has truly had an epiphany on LGBT equality, then he needs to do more than just issue a 54 word apology for heinous comments made 14 years earlier that slandered an entire community.

      I don't trust Hagel and quite frankly I don't believe him. His comments and votes on LGBT issues are reason enough oppose Hagel's nomination without even taking into consideration President Obama's (R-1982) misguided reaffirmation of the notion that Democrats are not capable of running the Pentagon.

      "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

      by craigkg on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 09:27:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This isn't going to end well. (0+ / 0-)

    Coming to this place and telling people to get over Hagel and his DADT support isn't smart. A lot of folks here were affected by that hateful law he supported. Plus, his comments weren't a highlight either. Either you will be ignored or eaten alive. Then again, I think you're just a plant trying to puff up your guy.

    Thanks for playing.

  •  I thought this would be a real diary (4+ / 0-)

    about Chuck Hagel and why he'd be good. Then I got to this, and stopped reading:

    I made my choice when I voted (for the second time) for Barack Obama.  I trust his judgment in whom should advise him and carry out his policies.

    You guys need to chill the fuck out on this one.

    Please, in the interest of those of us who want to avoid Obama Rox/Obama Sux diaries - can't you just label it thuslyin the title?

    Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

    by BentLiberal on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:05:23 AM PST

  •  he got 0% ratings (6+ / 0-)

    from the human rights campaign through 2007, and an identical rating from naral. he got 17% from the lcv. the democratic party should not tolerate bigotry, and 2007 is not exactly ancient history.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:33:31 AM PST

  •  He's a Republican (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DeadHead, TomP
    •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheKF1
    •  Eh (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not decided on Hagel's nomination, but that in itself shouldn't be a disqualifier, especially since he broke with the rest of his party on many defense issues. Note Obama's Secretary of Transportation, Ray Lahood. Lahood is a conservative Republican, but for his work on transportation policy, he is rather popular here.

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:38:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't wanna chill the fuck out (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP




    Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us.
    ~ Jerry Garcia

    by DeadHead on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 12:36:52 AM PST

  •  I don't know the guy. But Barack Obama (6+ / 0-)

    does. Every president gets to choose his cabinet, subject to confirmation. Yet for some inexplicable reason his every choice is debated here, as some here think that this president  cannot do his job without being micromanaged. Jesus Christ, the guy has earned the right to make these decisions, and has IMO earned the respect of those of us who elected him to lead us (twice).

    •  Obama gets to choose. The senate (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      johnny wurster, MRA NY

      advices and consents.   People here debate.  It is all ok.

      Join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news and views written from a black pov—everyone is welcome.

      by TomP on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 04:47:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Debating back and forth on the merits of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Vera Lofaro

        Hagel vs other candidates is fine. But the constant barbs directed at Obama (he's corrupt, stupid, docile, etc) are unwelcome by me.

        •  I have to say, after a week of this happening - do (0+ / 0-)

          you know where I most often see names such as stupid, corrupt, etc. attached to Obama? In comments saying people are tired of seeing them!

          I'm sure you can provide links to diaries and comments of that nature, but I would bet the comments reiterating those words are out there tenfold, at least!

          just seems I rarely see the original, but I see a hell of a lot of complaining about them - would probably serve everyone better if people could just ignore those comments.

          "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

          by MRA NY on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:30:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh come on. Right now, there (0+ / 0-)

            are diaries calling him even worse names, and comments galore. There is no shortage of Obama-hating going on here; it started up again in force within 48 hours of the election and has gotten worse since then. And no, I don't think it necessary to provide links, it's all out there and quite easy to find. He volunteered for this job, he could be making big bucks in a corporate law firm. He wants to make life better for all Americans, and yet some here seem to get off on ripping into him in public. Sad.

    •  I so agree with you on this point. Clearly our (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doc2

      President is not an idiot and has worked with Hagel, not just in the Senate but also as President. If he thinks he is the best man for the job, then he should be entitled to his choice, he will get plenty of opposition from the G.O.P. he doesn't need to get it from those of us who are supposed to be on his side. We as a nation have had much worse than Chuck Hagel for Sec. of Defense, I am also not so sure anyone of them also had a Purple Heart. I think Hagel with his record of service in Vietnam will have the respect of the majority of the troops, and I think that is not a bad thing for a Sec. of Defense..

      •  I see a lot of hand-wringing here (0+ / 0-)

        over random votes made in the past, etc. But almost nothing at all about why Hagel would not make a fine Sec. of Defense. As if that is not all that important a topic.

        •  Lots of people giving advice on how to do this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          doc2

          or that, they forget this President won re-election against all odds and has during his first term done some pretty incredible things. He is not perfect, and there are valid points, but his selection of Sec. of Defense is not one of them, so lets not make it so. The criticisms I have heard are about Hagel's comments about a gay ambassdor which he apologized for, against the strength of the Israeli lobby, which I agree with and against his vote on min wage, which as Sec of defense he will not face.

        •  Random votes? How about blocking the right of (0+ / 0-)

          servicewomen to get an abortion (paid with their own money) in military medical facilities, especially in countries where abortion is outlawed for civilians? Stating that he doesn't support rape or incest exceptions to his anti-choice beliefs because the amount of pregnancies related to rape is so small and ultimately "irrelevant"?

          His recent past has caused serious hardships and extra discrimination of servicewomen ever since he got to vote in Congress. Women make up almost 25% of the US military now and are subject to rape by a fellow American twice as many times as a civilian woman is. The majority of abortions for women in the military are performed on women who became impregnated because of rape. Yet Hagel insists rape cases are just so infrequent that banning people from paying for their own medical procedures is a-okay. His policies have caused many unwanted pregnancies in the military to be continued and caused incredible trauma to servicewomen, whom he obviously views as lesser beings than men, while also having caused the firings of dozens of valued members of the military because they made the hard choice of coming back to the US for a while to be able to get an abortion (knowing they were risking their jobs, of course). That's not some speculation or fixation on the guy's past views - that HAPPENED.

          Would you call a Secretary of Defense who doesn't recognize the rights of almost a quarter of the people serving in the military a good idea in any way?

          Other stuff to chew on if you see "almost nothing at all about why Hagel would not make a fine Sec. of Defense": He scored a fantastic zero percent with the Human Rights Campaign Senate's scorecard spanning from 2001 to 2006. He voted with Bush a whopping 95% (!) of the time and was a finalist for Bush's VP pick list. Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods, on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. The list goes on and on.

          Do you have one good reason why, as a supposed progressive, you'd want this guy to be SoD? Don't say "because it seems to rile up Republicans".

          •  Yes, I have a very good reason. (0+ / 0-)

            Barack Obama knows the man and has decided (apparently) to choose him to be Sec. of Defense. I find that to be much more compelling than anything written here by a bunch of bloggers.

            •  Okay... (0+ / 0-)

              I'm not one of those people who call others "cheerleaders" or anything like that, I haven't really criticized President Obama's decisions that much over the years and wasn't enraged over the fiscal cliff deal at all.

              But what the hell? Given Hagel's track record, this answer baffles me. The guy has a lot of connections in Washington and the President met him a couple of times. Wow! If the Prez were working for Defense 100% of the time I'd trust his choice more but he obviously can't - he's in charge of all policy, domestic and foreign. He still has to rely on advisers to appoint members for different positions because he can't be extremely knowledgeable on every single candidate and their suitability for the job at hand - no matter if he personally likes/trusts the person or not. The President is an amazingly intelligent, empathetic and hard-working man but he's only human like the rest of us. I admire him for a lot of things but I don't kid myself or attribute superpowers to him. Hagel has done damage to the group which now makes up 25% of the people serving in the military and treated them like dirt because of his extremist convictions. His past indicates nothing that could point to him being an improvement for the job and it also shows that he should not be serving as a SoD in a Democratic administration.

              •  Seems that youve convinced yourself (0+ / 0-)

                that you are more able than Pres Obama is to make this call. You trust your own judgment, not knowing nearly as much about the situation as he does. Obama has firm ideas as to what changes he'd like to see in our military, and has chosen based on that vision. But you have convinced yourself that your own vision trumps his. Either you have an enormous ego or just think Obama a fool.

                •  No, I don't know the situation better than him. (0+ / 0-)

                  That's quite obvious. I do reserve the right to criticize the person he appointed and ask why a man with such a record should be SoD in a liberal administration. I'm legitimately concerned about how servicewomen will be treated in the upcoming years (sure, he'll follow Obama because he has to, but still) and that's where the criticism comes in. It's not even criticism of Obama, no more than saying "nobody is infallible even if they're awesome" is. I am, however, enraged at the facts regarding Hagel's track record and don't see evidence of him having pulled a 180° on every extreme position he's always stood by in a few years' time.

                  And don't make me laugh with the "enormous ego or think Obama is a fool" comment. It's neither. I'm just being level-headed and practicing first amendment rights. ;)

  •  Oh goody! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox, craigkg, misslegalbeagle

    Another "Democrat" in support of a homophobic anti-choice Republican worried about the "Jewish Lobby."  

    As for relevance in DoD:

    Homophobic- far more than DADT. Right now, gay spouse slack equal rights in all military benefits, from death to the ability to use the commissary.

    Anti-choice- google "rape in the military" and get back to me.

    "The Jewish Lobby" - Whatever your feelings about Israel, anybody who has demonstrated bias against Jews does 't belong at the top of our military. Just look at what Evangelicals are doing to anybody not if their ilk in the military, how close they have come to total takeover of the officer corps, then google "Medal of honor  bias" and discover a long history of Jews, blacks, Asians, and others getting lesser medals and hitting promotion ceilings.

    As for your "chill the fuck out," I offer back a hearty "fuck the heck off."

    Cheers!

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 04:37:53 AM PST

  •  President Obama has the right to his choice as (5+ / 0-)

    Secretary of Defense. I trust his judgement much more than my own. I voted for him twice and support him in his decision to nominate Chuck Hagel as his Secretary of Defense.

    I'm a gay navy veteran and respect Chuck Hagel's Vietnam service. He is a combat veteran with Purple Hearts. He is not a chickenhawk and will be a fine steward for our military and our veterans.

    I accept Hagel's apology for his anti-gay remarks and grant him the same human right to evolve on this issue as I granted to President Obama as his views on gay marriage evolved. He came to the right conclusion and I imagine Hagel is enough of a realist to see that ending DADT strengthened our military and did not weaken it.

    I am not going to play into the hands of those Republicans who are trying to deny President Obama his choice as Secretary of Defense. President Obama has made his decision, and I support him fully in that choice.

    •  He may have personal views (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye54

      That are against our own on women's rights and gay rights, but I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, he'll follow Obama's orders on those issues in regards to policy.

      Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

      by MrAnon on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:40:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm not against him. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony

    His reactionary positions don't matter in that they're superseded by events (DADT) or irrelevant (economics in general). His more-progressive positions, on our military-footprint and on the Middle East, are super-relevant. On the purely political-dynamics side, what we lose by resuscitating the notion that Republicans have some magical credibility on military matters is more than countered by how his nomination splits the Republican party.  So I'm OK with him. But I was OK with Robert Gates, who I thought was a great Secretary of Defense.

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:34:01 AM PST

  •  AMEN!!! (4+ / 0-)

    As a 'Nam Vet I'm with you, especially with Kerry at State, sense continues to be brought in since the almost total destruction of that so call National Security which the next generations will still be dealing with but the hatreds towards us, All, are not as strong as they were four years ago and going into the fifth, thankfully!

    As also the coming generations will be paying down the costs, not only for the two wars of choice as the rubber stamping and rapid deficit rise started Before 9/11, as to the results of not only the near destruction of National Security but the Human Costs for the very few who actually Sacrificed!!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:44:02 AM PST

  •  Well, I guess when you have not a single... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FloraLine, misslegalbeagle

    Democrat in existence capable of running the DOD, of course you have to choose a Republican even if that Republican falls short on such minor quibbles as lgbt rights, women's rights and economic rights. /snark

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 06:44:01 AM PST

  •  as with everything else (0+ / 0-)

    the push against from the opposite side should be a sign that the nomination has weight. the republicans will turn up the heat.

    hagel took on his own party early on over Iraq and he vehemently was against the surge.

    Decorated military vet, he has the testicular fortitude to take implementation of defense cuts.

    Relative to his social views, in an earlier post (above) a gay, Navy vet put his support behind Hagel whole heartedly. I am cool with that.

    We're human beings. I know I am not proud of some of the positions took earlier in my life but I have worked to be opened minded and at least listen to other points of view and I know many of my own views have changed and I am apologetic for my past where I need to be.

    It's never either or. sorry. if this is what is best for the greater good of the country, that's all I need to know.

    mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

    by wewantthetruth on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:19:35 AM PST

  •  I like many of his defense positions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    misslegalbeagle

    But I'm not sure I can support him unless I get word on his position on women's rights. He got a 0% rating from NARAL, and military access to abortions and other women's services is a rather important (though underreported) issue at the moment.

    Republicans are far more socialist than Democrats. Just because they want to redistribute the wealth upwards does not make it any better.

    by MrAnon on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:33:39 AM PST

  •  I generally would prefer a Dem, even if Hagel (0+ / 0-)

    didn't have the marks against him that he does.  But I too think it's a choice that Obama has a lot of credibility to make.  I did sign the petition for a Dem, but won't lose sleep over Hagel.

    Tipped, but not rec'd because of the 'chill the fuck out' line/attitude.

    "Don't Bet Against Us" - President Barack Obama

    by MRA NY on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 07:35:24 AM PST

  •  I also support Hagel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary Norton

    I happen to think he is a great choice.
    On social issues, such as LGBT and abortion, I predict that he will follow Obama's lead on these issues. Clearly Obama has discussed these with him, otherwise he would not be appointed.
    As far as not being a Democrat, whatever. At least the Republicans seem to dislike him.

    And look at the advantages of Hagel.
    - Ex-Senator, so he knows his way around politics.
    - Not beholden to pro-Israel lobby. Has even said that he might oppose war with Iran.
    - Military experience.
    - Interested in nuclear arms reduction.
    - Interested in military budget cutting.
    - Has spoken out against the war in Afghanistan.
    - friend of Obama, so Obama trusts him.

    If I made a list of candidates, he would be in my top 5. And at that point, I think it has to be up to Obama's discretion.

    Obama 2012...going to win it with our support!!!

    by mattinjersey on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 08:23:20 AM PST

    •  So many here seem to overlook the genius of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Gary Norton

      our President. There were calls for him to end DADT by executive order and criticism because he wouldn't. He said all along he wanted DADT repealed by law, and that is what happened, it is now codified and is the law of the land, hopefully can not be overturned by another President who doesn't agree with it.
      I am not saying to STFU and don't let the President know how you feel, but cut him some slack and have confidence in his decisions and wait and see how they turn out. DADT turned out pretty good, in my opinion.

      •  DADT had been overturned by the courts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        craigkg

        It was inevitable.   Some people in Congress take credit for making it change, but the courts were going to change it anyway. The President and Congress got it delayed and the that let the military set up a plan to phase it in -- which may or may not have been needed depanding on one's POV, but it was fine.  But I don't give them much credit for changing it -- they just polished it up a bit after it was inevitably going to be changed by teh courts.

        Self-described political "centrists" believe the best policy is halfway between right and wrong. — @RBReich via web

        by BentLiberal on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 03:22:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Incorrect!! (0+ / 0-)

        DADt is repealed by law, but because they refused to include a non-discrimination clause in the repeal, any President can bring DADT (or worse) back by executive order or the Pentagon could simply do it by DOD policy. There is no law preventing that. There is no law protecting LGBT service members from discrimination or harassment in the military. If some officer wants to deny a promotion to a LGBT service member because he or she is LGBT, there is no law against that, but there is a law against it if the basis is race, sex, ethnicity, etc.

        President Obama won't even issue an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, yet FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ did to ban racial discrimination. And just FYI, 22% of the American workforce works for a company that is a federal contractor.

        "Lesbian and gay people are a permanent part of the American workforce, who currently have no protection from the arbitrary abuse of their rights on the job." --Coretta Scott King

        by craigkg on Sat Jan 05, 2013 at 05:58:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hagel is the wrong choice period. (0+ / 0-)

    His record is what he made it to be. It's not positive on the issues and people we support in this space. I don't care that he apologized at the 11th hour when he knew the nomination might be coming.

    And yes, you are a plant in support of your guy.

  •  Some Democrats were complicit in an unnecessary (0+ / 0-)

    war that killed 4500 Americans, crippled thousands for life and took $3 Trillion that could have been used to help our poor and unemployed.

    Hagel is Obama's choice for Secretary of Defense -- so the question is whether Hagel will help reduce the huge Defense budget and whether he will resist the $150 Million influence of billionaires like Sheldon Adelson who want to drag us into an even more bloody and expensive war.  

    Another unnecessary war  in support of the same Bibi who helped lie us into Iraq in 2002 by telling us that we needed to take out Saddam before Saddam used his nukes on us.   Did Mossad ever find those nukes?   How many IDF soldiers lost their lives in overthrowing that enemy of Israel?

    Why are some alleged defenders of gay rights so indifferent to the Americans who died in Iraq --and to the servicemen who face the prospect of dying in Iran? Especially when some of  those servicemen are gay?

    Hagel's nomination in no way affects gay rights -- Obama is the Commander in Chief.  So why are people grinding that particular irrelevant ax to attack Obama's choice.?  

    I mean, if we are going to talk about "plants" it seems to me that that is something an Israel Lobby activist would do.  I think gays  care about their  fellow Americans. Americans who have unselfishly fought for the rights of their gay countrymen  even though they themselves are straight.

    Loyalty is a two-way street.  Anyone who would send another 4500 Americans to their death just to throw a hissy fit over an irrelevant issue is not someone who deserves my support or attention.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site