PDA

View Full Version : Sec. of Defense Nominee Hagel Stirring Tough Fight



Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 12:17 PM
Obama taps Hagel for Pentagon, Brennan for CIA

JULIE PACE

AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Monday will nominate Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary and counterterrorism adviser John Brennan to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, two potentially controversial picks for his second-term national security team.

Hagel, even before being nominated, has faced tough criticism from congressional lawmakers who say the former GOP senator is anti-Israel and soft on Iran. And Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran, withdrew from consideration for the spy agency's top job in 2008 amid questions about his connection to harsh interrogation techniques used during the George W. Bush administration.

The White House said Obama will announce both nominations Monday afternoon. Along with secretary of state nominee Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Hagel and Brennan would play key roles implementing and shaping Obama's national security priorities in a second term. All three men must be confirmed by the Senate.

In nominating Hagel, Obama signaled he is willing to take on a tough confirmation fight. Once Hagel emerged as Obama's likely nominee, GOP lawmakers began sharply questioning his commitment to Israel and his willingness to take a hard line with Iran over its disputed nuclear program.

Hagel, a 66-year-old moderate Nebraska Republican, has criticized discussion of a military strike by either the U.S. or Israel against Iran. He also irritated some Israel backers with his reference to the "Jewish lobby" in the United States. And he has backed efforts to bring Iran to the table for future peace talks in Afghanistan.

White House officials say Hagel's positions on Israel and Iran have been misrepresented. They cite his Senate votes for billions in military assistance to Israel and his support for multilateral sanctions on Tehran.

Ben Rhodes, Obama's deputy national security adviser, said Hagel will be "completely in line with the president" on both issues.

"The president has a record of unprecedented security cooperation with Israel and that's going to continue no matter who the defense secretary is," Rhodes said.

The National Jewish Democratic Council said Monday that while it has expressed concern in the past about Hagel, the group expects him to following the president's lead in "providing unrivaled support for Israel."

"President Barack Obama's unprecedented pro-Israel credentials are unquestionable, and setting policy starts and stops with the president," the group said in a statement.

But Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said Hagel's appointment "would be a slap in the face for every American who is concerned about the safety of Israel."

Hagel has also been criticized by some Democrats for saying in 1998 that a nominee for an ambassador post was "openly, aggressively gay." He has since apologized for those comments.

Hagel is the second straight Obama favorite for a top national security post to face criticism from Capitol Hill even before being nominated. United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew her name from consideration for secretary of state amid charges from GOP senators that she misled the public in her initial accounting of the attacks on Americans at a diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.

Obama returned to the White House on Sunday after a truncated family holiday in Hawaii. His week will also include a visit from Afghan President Hamid Karzai. And there's a bruising fight with Congress over spending and the federal deficit on the horizon, just days after Obama and Congress averted the fiscal cliff with a last-minute deal over the New Year's holiday. But rounding out his national security team in his first project.

Both Hagel and Brennan have close relationships with Obama, who values loyalty in his inner circle. Brennan, as the president's top counterterrorism adviser, was deeply involved in the planning of the 2011 raid that killed Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden. And he has led administration efforts to quell the growth of terror organizations in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa.

Brennan, 57, spent a quarter-century at the CIA. He served as station chief in Saudi Arabia and in a variety of posts, including deputy executive director, during the Bush administration.

His tenure at the agency during Bush's presidency drew criticism from liberals when Obama considered naming him CIA director after the 2008 election. Brennan denied being involved in what the government called "enhanced interrogation techniques" during the Bush administration, but still withdrew his name from consideration.

In a letter to Obama at the time, Brennan said he was "a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration, such as the pre-emptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding." Many people consider waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods to be torture.

White House officials say they don't expect Brennan to face similar trouble this time around given his four years of service in the Obama administration.

"The issue has been removed from the debate because the president and John Brennan, as his top counterterrorism adviser, brought those techniques to an end," Rhodes said.

However, Brennan's nomination will likely put a spotlight on the administration's controversial drone program. Brennan was the first Obama administration official to publicly acknowledge the highly secretive targeted killing operations.

Brennan has defended the legality of the overseas drone operations and has said they protect American lives and prevent potential terror attacks.

If confirmed, Brennan will succeed David Petraeus, who resigned in November after admitting to an affair with his biographer.

Deputy CIA director Michael Morell has been serving as the agency's acting director since Petraeus resigned and was considered by Obama for the top job. Rhodes said Morell will attend Monday's White House event and is expected to stay at the CIA.

Hagel would replace retiring Pentagon chief Leon Panetta at a time when the Defense Department is facing potentially deep budget cuts. Hagel would also be tasked with overseeing the military drawdown in Afghanistan, where the U.S.-led war is scheduled to end in two years.

Hagel is likely to support a more rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan than some military generals.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican, said Sunday he was reserving judgment on whether to support Hagel but predicted the former senator would face serious questions.

Any nominee must have "a full understanding of our close relationship with our Israeli allies, the Iranian threat and the importance of having a robust military," McConnell said on ABC's "This Week."

The second-ranking Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, said in a statement that making Hagel defense secretary would be "the worst possible message we could send to our friend Israel and the rest of our allies in the Middle East."

Some congressional Democrats also share the GOP concerns, including Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin, who called the pick controversial and said Hagel needs to clarify his comments on Iran and Israel.

"There are Democrats including this senator who have questions that have to be answered before I can support him," Cardin said in an interview with Current TV's "Bill Press Show." He added that the Senate will probably confirm Hagel.

While Hagel will face opposition, Democrats privately say they do not foresee a long, protracted fight similar to what President George H.W. Bush faced in 1989 when he selected former Sen. John Tower to serve as defense secretary. Democrats led the charge in scuttling that nomination, a rare defeat for a new president. Questions about Tower's drinking and womanizing sank his nomination.

Monday's nominations leave Obama without a woman in line for a top administration post, a fact that has irked some Democratic women. The president will soon name a new treasury secretary, but current White House chief of staff Jack Lew is the front-runner for the post.

___

Associated Press writers Robert Burns, Donna Cassata and Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

Source: The Buffalo News (http://buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130107/WORLD/130109478)

Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 12:19 PM
Hagel, even before being nominated, has faced tough criticism from congressional lawmakers who say the former GOP senator is anti-Israel and soft on Iran. And Brennan, a 25-year CIA veteran, withdrew from consideration for the spy agency's top job in 2008 amid questions about his connection to harsh interrogation techniques used during the George W. Bush administration.
...
Hagel, a 66-year-old moderate Nebraska Republican, has criticized discussion of a military strike by either the U.S. or Israel against Iran. He also irritated some Israel backers with his reference to the "Jewish lobby" in the United States. And he has backed efforts to bring Iran to the table for future peace talks in Afghanistan.
...

I like him already... :)

ELVIS
01-07-2013, 12:20 PM
Sounds like the wars and the drone murders are about to go warp speed...

Yay Obomba, the peace prize fraud...


:elvis:

Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 12:21 PM
Sounds like the wars and the drone murders are about to go warp speed...

Yay Obomba, the peace prize fraud...


:elvis:

What does Hagel have to do with either? He's actually spoken out against waterboarding and is a "Dove" relatively speaking...

Oh yes, I forgot you have to throw out your knee-jerk bullshit. Maybe next time read the article first, dummy...

ELVIS
01-07-2013, 12:47 PM
Did this heavenly white "dove" speak out against drones murdering women, children and "terrorists" ??

Didn't think so...

ELVIS
01-07-2013, 01:42 PM
And what about Brennon ??

dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director nomination

Obama's top terrorism adviser goes from unconfirmable in 2008 to uncontroversial in 2013, reflecting the Obama legacy

Glen Greenwald (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/07/john-brennan-dishonesty-cia-director-nomination)

Prior to President Obama's first inauguration in 2009, a controversy erupted over reports that he intended to appoint John Brennan as CIA director. That controversy, in which I participated, centered around the fact that Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program. As a result, Brennan withdrew his name from consideration, issuing a bitter letter blaming "strong criticism in some quarters prompted by [his] previous service with the" CIA.

This "victory" of forcing Brennan's withdrawal proved somewhat Pyrrhic, as Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser, where he exerted at least as much influence as he would have had as CIA Director, if not more. In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year. He also spouted complete though highly influential falsehoods to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Osama bin Laden killing, including claiming that bin Laden "engaged in a firefight" with Navy SEALS and had "used his wife as a human shield". Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in Yemen - targeting people without even knowing who they are - and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for execution without any due process, oversight or transparency.

As it typically does in the US National Security State, all of that deceit and radicalism is resulting not in recrimination or loss of credibility for Brennan, but in reward and promotion. At 1 pm EST today, Obama will announce that he has selected Brennan to replace Gen. David Petraeus as CIA chief: the same position for which, four short years ago, Brennan's pro-torture-and-rendition past rendered him unfit and unconfirmable.

Although I actively opposed Brennan's CIA nomination in 2008, I can't quite muster the energy or commitment to do so now. Indeed, the very idea that someone should be disqualified from service in the Obama administration because of involvement in and support for extremist Bush terrorism polices seems quaint and obsolete, given the great continuity between Bush and Obama on these issues. Whereas in 2008 it seemed uncertain in which direction Obama would go, making it important who wielded influence, that issue is now settled: Brennan is merely a symptom of Obama's own extremism in these areas, not a cause. This continuity will continue with or without Brennan because they are, rather obviously, Obama's preferred policies.

Still, this is worth commenting on because the drastic change between the reaction to Brennan in 2008 and now is revealing. The New York Times article this morning on the appointment claims that "it is uncertain whether the torture issue will now cause any problems for Mr. Brennan." Of course, there is nothing at all uncertain about that: "the torture issue" won't cause any problems for Brennan, as it did in 2008, because Obama has buried that issue with his "Look Forward, not Backward" decrees; because most people who claimed concern over such issues back in 2008 have resigned themselves to Obama's posture in this area; and because, with very rare exception, there are no more serious campaigns mounted against Obama's decisions except from the American Right.

It is a perfect illustration of the Obama legacy that a person who was untouchable as CIA chief in 2008 because of his support for Bush's most radical policies is not only Obama's choice for the same position now, but will encounter very little resistance. Within this change one finds one of the most significant aspects of the Obama presidency: his conversion of what were once highly contentious right-wing policies into harmonious dogma of the DC bipartisan consensus. Then again, given how the CIA operates, one could fairly argue that Brennan's eagerness to deceive and his long record of supporting radical and unaccountable powers make him the perfect person to run that agency. It seems clear that this is Obama's calculus.

There's one more point worth noting: the reason Obama needs a new CIA chief is because David Petraeus was forced to resign. Here we see the ethos and morality of imperial Washington: past support for torture and rendition does not disqualify one for a top national security position; only an extramarital affair can do that.


:elvis:

ZahZoo
01-07-2013, 02:34 PM
Hagel is likely to support a more rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan than some military generals.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, the top Senate Republican, said Sunday he was reserving judgment on whether to support Hagel but predicted the former senator would face serious questions.

Any nominee must have "a full understanding of our close relationship with our Israeli allies, the Iranian threat and the importance of having a robust military," McConnell said on ABC's "This Week."

The second-ranking Senate Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, said in a statement that making Hagel defense secretary would be "the worst possible message we could send to our friend Israel and the rest of our allies in the Middle East."

Sounds like a perfectly good candidate to me... heaven forbid we put someone in a leadership position that isn't gung-ho to go off and start the next military conflict these idiots are trying to position us for.

jacksmar
01-07-2013, 02:57 PM
He's fine. Get him in and get it done.

Nickdfresh
01-07-2013, 05:29 PM
Brennan also said this:


In August 2009, Brennan criticized some Bush administration anti-terror policies saying that waterboarding had threatened national security by increasing the recruitment of terrorists and decreasing the willingness of other nations to cooperate with the U.S.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan#Counterterrorism_advisor_to_Obama

BigBadBrian
01-08-2013, 08:02 AM
I like him already... :)

Considering he's been way off base on most major DoD decisions in the past decade, I don't doubt that.

Nickdfresh
01-08-2013, 08:16 AM
Considering he's been way off base on most major DoD decisions in the past decade, I don't doubt that.

You mean like saying the Iraq War would turn into a costly disaster and long term occupation? Geez, what a buffoon!

ELVIS
01-08-2013, 09:50 AM
That was the plan...

FORD
01-15-2013, 08:22 PM
Not exactly a big fan of Hagel, due to his involvement with ES&S electro-fraud systems.

But if he pisses off the AIPAC/Likud propaganda lobby, I'll personally hold the Bible to swear him in as Secretary of "Defense".

Being opposed to war in Iran should be the #1 requirement for that job.

ELVIS
01-15-2013, 08:51 PM
I'm sure they'll make him see the light...

Nickdfresh
01-31-2013, 11:13 AM
Hagel's being grilled right now by McCain on his comments on "The Surge", but McCain likes to forget his own comments prior to the abortion that was The Iraq War in 2002-2003...

Hardrock69
01-31-2013, 04:00 PM
You know what could end the nuclear problems with Iran and North Korea?

Give them solar power technology.

They claim they are doing nuclear research solely to provide power to their respective countries.

Well, just give them solor and other power related technologies with the caveat that they dismantle their nuclear research programs.

We give them enough power technology, they will not be able to use "for peaceful electricity generation" as an excuse.

ELVIS
01-31-2013, 04:14 PM
So, just replace their corrent electricity grid with solar power ??

Nitro Express
01-31-2013, 04:22 PM
You know what could end the nuclear problems with Iran and North Korea?

Give them solar power technology.

They claim they are doing nuclear research solely to provide power to their respective countries.

Well, just give them solor and other power related technologies with the caveat that they dismantle their nuclear research programs.

We give them enough power technology, they will not be able to use "for peaceful electricity generation" as an excuse.

Pakistan is completely unstable and they have nukes. Frankly I can't blame Iran for wanting nukes. They are wonderful defensive weapons. If you have nukes you don't get invaded. If Saddam had them we wouldn't have messed with Iraq. Iran wants nukes because of it's neighbors and because of us.

Hardrock69
01-31-2013, 04:55 PM
I am not talking about WHY they have them.

I am saying "Remove any excuse for having them".

If they had all the electrical power they needed, they could not claim they are using nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes".

It is a completely unrealistic suggestion, as Iran and/or North Korea are going to be invaded/destroyed much sooner than such a ridiculous idea could be put into action.

North Korea is not so open about it. Iran claims they are using nuclear power to power their grid.

If they had a means of generating electrical power without nuclear energy, they would have only one excuse for nuclear research...making bombs.

I think it will eventually boil down to the US asking China: Do you want US to invade North Korea? Or do you want to do it yourself?

And if it gets to that point, I think China would be willing to do it themselves, rather than have the US right on their border.

Va Beach VH Fan
01-31-2013, 05:26 PM
At least Hagel served honorably in a war in which many of his contemporaries (both Democrat and Republican) chose to run away from.....

And in terms of "The Surge", I haven't read up on it in a few years now, but wasn't a significant reason for the success due to the paying off of the Sunni's ??

Nitro Express
01-31-2013, 05:58 PM
I am not talking about WHY they have them.

I am saying "Remove any excuse for having them".

If they had all the electrical power they needed, they could not claim they are using nuclear energy for "peaceful purposes".

It is a completely unrealistic suggestion, as Iran and/or North Korea are going to be invaded/destroyed much sooner than such a ridiculous idea could be put into action.

North Korea is not so open about it. Iran claims they are using nuclear power to power their grid.

If they had a means of generating electrical power without nuclear energy, they would have only one excuse for nuclear research...making bombs.

I think it will eventually boil down to the US asking China: Do you want US to invade North Korea? Or do you want to do it yourself?

And if it gets to that point, I think China would be willing to do it themselves, rather than have the US right on their border.

China is just running the clock out on us. We are on the downhill slope. We aren't going to be dictating anything to them in the near future.

Va Beach VH Fan
01-31-2013, 06:01 PM
If you think Sarah Palin is qualified to be VP but Chuck #Hagel isn't qualified to be DefSec, you might be a Republican. #McCainβ€” Chris (@TheOddDominion) January 31, 2013

FORD
01-31-2013, 07:18 PM
So, just replace their corrent electricity grid with solar power ??

It's a fucking desert! The whole country could be a solar grid.

Warham
01-31-2013, 11:20 PM
Why didn't the guy just answer the fucking questions. McCain said give him a straight fucking answer. If he didn't think the surge was a good idea, just fucking say so. Why was he beating around the bush? Just say "You know what, John, I didn't think it was a good idea then. I fucked up! Have you ever said anything stupid before? Like saying your were suspending your campaign to save the economy?"

FORD
01-31-2013, 11:25 PM
Why didn't the guy just answer the fucking questions. McCain said give him a straight fucking answer. If he didn't think the surge was a good idea, just fucking say so. Why was he beating around the bush? Just say "You know what, John, I didn't think it was a good idea then. I fucked up! Have you ever said anything stupid before? Like saying your were suspending your campaign to save the economy?"

Or that Moosealini would be a great vice president?

Warham
01-31-2013, 11:27 PM
When you need Senators in the panel trying to cover for you, you know it's a bad day.

FORD
01-31-2013, 11:35 PM
Hagel realized that the Iraq war wasn't at all what Chimpy and PNAC made it out to be. So even though he followed the party line initially, he changed his mind. Nothing wrong with that.

(And remember, I don't really like this guy because he used to make electro-fraud machines, and rigged his own Senate election with them. But as far as him changing his mind on the BCE's war, I can't blame him at all for that.)

Va Beach VH Fan
02-01-2013, 09:02 AM
Why didn't the guy just answer the fucking questions. McCain said give him a straight fucking answer. If he didn't think the surge was a good idea, just fucking say so. Why was he beating around the bush? Just say "You know what, John, I didn't think it was a good idea then. I fucked up! Have you ever said anything stupid before? Like saying your were suspending your campaign to save the economy?"

Or, "Golly gee whiz John, if you thought I was such a fuck up, why did you have me run your 2000 Presidential campaign ??"

This is nothing but political grandstanding as usual....

ELVIS
02-01-2013, 09:12 AM
It's called putting on a show...

Nickdfresh
02-01-2013, 11:41 AM
It's a "show." But firstly, McCain looks horrible. He must be on steroids of some sort and heavily medicated in general. Secondly, while I think Hagel waffled a bit on his answer, he should have shot back that McCain cheerleaded for Bush's Iraq War debacle and was far more "wrong" than anyone...

Seshmeister
02-01-2013, 06:19 PM
Surely it's time to rename this post Secretary of Attack?

Or as a bare minimum go back to calling it Secretary of War...

FORD
02-16-2013, 02:45 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHn3Lr9xHc8

LoungeMachine
02-16-2013, 04:32 AM
He's fine. Get him in and get it done.

:clap:

And FUCK YOU ELVIS.....you tin foil wearing moron....

:gulp:

If JerkSmear gets it, surely you can pull your head out too, you fucking hillbilly.

Nitro Express
02-16-2013, 06:15 AM
Surely it's time to rename this post Secretary of Attack?

Or as a bare minimum go back to calling it Secretary of War...

I think they should rename the Department of Defense to the Department of Offense or The Department of Banking War Rackets. Hell, with the drones and presidents no longer feeling the need to get permission from congress to go to war, we probably are attacking people in places we have no idea. Maybe we should put mushrooms on our flag because our so called leaders feed us shit and keep us in the dark.

Nitro Express
02-16-2013, 06:18 AM
It's called putting on a show...

Everything in Washington DC is a soap opera. It's one big paper tiger. Unfortunately that tiger has killed lots of people overseas and now it acts like we smell good.

FORD
02-21-2013, 05:35 PM
The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

FORD
02-21-2013, 05:35 PM
The Daily Show with Jon StewartGet More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

FORD
02-26-2013, 06:57 PM
Senate confirms Hagel for defense secretary
By Michael O'Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News



The Senate voted to confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel as President Barack Obama's next secretary of defense following weeks of dogged opposition by Republican senators to their erstwhile colleague.

The Senate voted 58 to 41 to formally confirm Hagel, on the heels of a procedural vote earlier in the day that cleared the way for Tuesday afternoon's final vote.

That earlier vote dispensed with a filibuster that Senate Republicans had waged for a week and a half against Hagel, whose confirmation was delayed by Republicans past the President's Day recess in order to allow for more time to dig into the former Nebraska senator's background.

A number of Republican detractors — including Sens. John McCain, Ariz., Lindsey Graham, S.C. and Kelly Ayotte, N.H. — reversed their votes on Monday in order to allow the Hagel nomination to move forward.

The Senate voted 71 to 27 to move forward with Hagel's nomination, clearing the 60-vote threshold needed to end the GOP filibuster. A handful of the Republicans who allowed Hagel's nomination to come to a final vote ultimately voted against confirmation.

In the end, Obama was able to win confirmation for Hagel, his choice to succeed outgoing Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon. But not before Republicans were able to drag out the confirmation fight and, in the process, ding Hagel, their onetime GOP Senate colleague from the Cornhusker State.

Republicans had fought strenuously to defeat Hagel, accusing him at points of harboring hostilities toward Israel, and sympathies for the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

Tied into Hagel's nomination as well have been Republicans' long-running effort to ding Obama and his administration over their handling of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"What has their filibuster gained my Republican colleagues?" Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked on the Senate floor. "Twelve days later, Senator Hagel's exemplary record of service to his country remains untarnished."

Reid added: "Senate Republicans have delayed for the better part of two weeks for one reason and one reason only: partisanship."

Hagel didn't necessarily help his cause during a combative confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Republicans aggressively questioned Hagel on a variety of matters during the Jan. 31 hearing.

Even still, Democrats held firm in their backing for the former Nebraska senator, helping to move his nomination forward. Republicans, though, managed to buy themselves more time — they said, to more fully investigate Hagel's background — by waging a filibuster against the nomination on Feb. 14.

Democrats angrily protested the delay, especially as current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta planned to leave the job, as dangerous and unprecedented. Republican opponents of Hagel, though, said at that time that they would drop their objections to holding a confirmation vote after last week's recess.

FORD
02-26-2013, 06:59 PM
As I've said, I certainly have my own problems with Hagel, given his past ties to the banking industry and electro-fraud machines.

But if putting him in charge of the Pentagon is a roadblock to the PNAC/Likud insane crusade to start World War III, then I suppose that's a net gain.