Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hagel likely to be nominated for Defense Secretary next week

1 hour ago

By NBC’s Chuck Todd

Multiple sources on Capitol Hill and in key special-interest groups involved in national security issues say they have been told to be prepared for a Chuck Hagel nomination for Defense Secretary, either as early as Monday or perhaps more likely Tuesday of next week.

While it's still possible for the president to have a change of heart, all signs are pointing to a Hagel nomination.

That said, a White House spokesperson tells NBC News pretty emphatically that the president has not made a final decision and does not expect the president to make a final decision until he gets back from Hawaii.

The White House spokesperson adds, the "chatter" about Hagel-as-the-pick in the national-security and Capitol Hill communities is "premature." That said this spokesperson acknowledged Hagel is a "leading contender."

For what it's worth, the reason a lot of outside sources are being given a heads up on Hagel is that the White House knows if Hagel is indeed the president's choice, it's going to be a real fight.

Hagel's 2008 statement that "the Jewish lobby" intimidates many lawmakers has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle, and some have painted him as weak on defense issues. Democrat Chuck Schumer of New York, a top-ranking Jewish senator, passed on the opportunity to offer an endorsement for Hagel during an appearance on Meet the Press, while Republican Sen. John Cornyn called his positions on Iran and nuclear weapons "unacceptable."

Hagel also recently apologized for his 1998 opposition to an ambassadorial nominee whom he described as "openly, aggressively gay."

There are as many as 10 Democratic senators who could vote no, Capitol Hill sources say. But Hagel has some big backers besides the president who would become the key point people in getting Hagel over the finish line – Vice President Joe Biden and Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, both of whom are huge proponents of Hagel.

Asked on MSNBC’s Morning Joe about the opposition to Hagel, Obama political adviser David Axelrod defended the former Republican Nebraska senator.

“It speaks to the larger problem that we’re talking about, which is, we have to get the point, where, first of all, independence is admired and not discouraged, and we can disagree on some things and still work together on others,” Axelrod said. “And the notion that we demonize people because of a position that they’ve taken and disqualify them on that basis is what’s destroying the ability to get things done in this town.”

Bottom line: It appears to be Hagel, but the White House says no final decision has been made.

News of the expected nomination was first reported by Foreign Policy magazine's The Cable blog.

by Anonymousreply 4301/07/2013

[quote]The White House has told members of Congress to expect Hagel nomination. Gloria Borger will be live on @CNN with more in a moment.

by Anonymousreply 101/04/2013

His putative nomination faces long odds.

by Anonymousreply 201/04/2013

Leftist liberal Obama strikes again!

by Anonymousreply 301/04/2013

Obama will nominate the person the repukes tell him to nominate just like he is doing with Kerry. He has turned into the pussy in chief.

by Anonymousreply 401/04/2013

If the Republicans dislike Hagel, isn't that a good sign?

by Anonymousreply 501/04/2013

Are you sure about this OP? I haven't heard anything from my agent.

Oh, wait....never mind.

by Anonymousreply 601/04/2013

Some gays think he's a homophobe, but I am not one. The comment he made re: Hormel's ambassadorship was made lone ago and people's positions evolve over time (i.e., Obama!). Hagel is a mderate Republican and a very intelligent man, so his views may even be somewhat more Democratic than Republican. (Plus, when he was in Congress, I thought he was a very hot masc daddy!)

by Anonymousreply 701/04/2013

Sure, r7 - I bet Obama was saying shit like this all the time in the prehistoric days of 1999.

[quote]“They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job.”

by Anonymousreply 801/04/2013

If the Republicans are opposed to Hagel, that's a good sign.

I'm behind him on this one.

by Anonymousreply 901/04/2013

Let's keep something in mind: The Log cabinettes put out some bullshit about being anti-Hagel because of his anti-gay statement 15 years ago...yet they supported Romney-Ryan? Give me a break. The opposition to Hagel is all about AIPAC.

The fact that neocons are against him -including oh so "pro-gay" Republican Senators like John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham and John McCain- should make you want him as Defense Sec.

The people whose foreign policy ideology you oppose (if you're not a neocon) dislike Hagel; that should be enough for him to get your support. The anti-gay nonsense is a red herring, a diversion because only an idiot would think he'd do anything "anti-gay."

R3, he came out against the Iraq war long before so-called liberals in our government.

by Anonymousreply 1001/04/2013

I agree with R10

by Anonymousreply 1101/04/2013

Pat Buchanan came out against the Iraq war right away as well, and is a foe of AIPAC too. So is David Duke.

Isolationism and anti-Zionism aren't liberal positions, r10. Being pro-gay rights is.

Nice to see what your priorities are, you paleocon douche.

by Anonymousreply 1201/04/2013

R12 totally misses the central points R10 was trying to make.

by Anonymousreply 1301/04/2013

[quote]Isolationism and anti-Zionism aren't liberal positions

Imperial war-mongering for Oil and Israel isn't a liberal position either. It's the Neo-con position.

by Anonymousreply 1401/04/2013

Yep, every word of that could have been written by David Duke, r14.

by Anonymousreply 1501/04/2013

R12, what an idiotic response. How are you not embarrassed?

So your argument is that since two anti-semites were against the Iraq war, no one else is allowed to have opposed it because that would also make them antisemites? So by your logic, since Hitler loved dogs, anyone else who loves dogs wants to kill Jews?

Hagel voted FOR the Iraq war and then when he saw it was a mistake said so. Now what in the hell does that have to do with Pat Buchanon and David Duke? Oh, that's right, anyone who is even a tad critical of Israel is an anti-semite and people like you will pretty much turn into a hyperbolic, hysterical asshole who attempts to shutdown any debate if there's even a whiff of anything less than total fealty to the Likud and Zionist lunatics like you.

You pretty much exemplify the toxic mindset of anyone who dares to call out AIPAC. You do no favors for Israel. Tell everyone what Hagel did wrong. Go on.

I just gave you the names of three senators who are opposed to Hagel. Three, rightwing, neocon Republicans who have made no secret of wanting another war. John Bolton is also against Hagel. As is Ari Fleischer and Dan Senor - people who were all part of the disaster known as the Iraq war. So my question to you is: How exactly are they better than Pat Buchanon or David Duke?

I guess it's safe to say that you want more war based on lies.

[quote]Isolationism and anti-Zionism aren't liberal positions, [R10]. Being pro-gay rights is.

Fucking moron.

by Anonymousreply 1601/04/2013

Get over Hagel' past foot and mouth disease. Obama needs a Republican at the helm at the State Department when he slash their funding. Just like he needed Gates for Don't Ask Don't Tell. But it was the former JCS that really pushed the needle on that issue. But he wasn't a bleeding liberal either.

by Anonymousreply 1701/04/2013

R12, I'll ask again in case you didn't see it in the other post:

What is your opposition to Chuck Hagel being US Sec. of Defense. Tell everyone.

Yes, the horror of a man who wouldn't be so quick as to send kids to die for yet another bullshit war. A man who believes in nonproliferation:

[quote]Hagel is a Vietnam War veteran, having served in the United States Army infantry, attaining the rank of Sergeant (E-5) from 1967 – 1968. He served as an infantry squad leader in the 9th Infantry Division.[8] While serving during the Vietnam War, Hagel received the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, two Purple Hearts, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge

You're a fucking neocon, so of course you hate him. All you guys believe in is never serving and sending kids to die in Mideast wars.

by Anonymousreply 1801/04/2013

[quote]Yep, every word of that could have been written by David Duke

Fuck you. The Neo-cons are openly, publicly, outspokenly all about Oil and Israel. The are war-mongers whether we say so or not.

by Anonymousreply 1901/04/2013

Let me spell it out for you, r10: your ONLY arguments for claiming that Hagel is in any way, shape or form liberal, and thus should be supported, are his opposition to the Iraq war and his tough stance toward Israel. Both of these postions are also held by David Duke - thus exposing your argument that these positions are inherently "liberal" for the bullshit it is. When the only thing that gives a Republican politician his supposed liberal credentials are positions where he's in agreement with David Duke, then his liberalism is clearly a phantasm.

You're just like rich gay Republicans who are so focused on their financal benefit that they disregard the Republicans' homophobia. The only difference is that for you, it's not fiscal issues, but your obsession with Israel that trumps gay rights.

And yes, if you make claims that the most powerful nation in the world goes to war "for" the tiny state of Israel, you're recyciling ancient anti-Semitic tropes, whether you like to admit it or not. Maybe you should question why you have a fondness for these tropes, instead of attacking those who point them out to you.

And the fact that you seriously ask "how exactly" Ari Fleischer and Dan Senor are better than David Duke removes all doubt that you're simply a bigoted, Jew-obsessed kook.

by Anonymousreply 2001/04/2013

R12, did you by any chance provide Colin Powell with the empty vial he waved at the UN to describe the threat represented by Saddam Hussein's vast mythical aresenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction?

by Anonymousreply 2101/04/2013

Ok, r18, let's igore Hagel's homophobia (which, strangely enough, we only do in his case - if someone on DL suggested to ignore another Republican's homophobia and focus on his "sound fiscal policies", he'd be met with nothing but contempt, and rightly so - but anyway, let's humour you) and focus on his foreign policy positions:

He refused to designate either Hezbollah or Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorist organizations, while making ominous remarks about politicians being intimated by the "Jewish Lobby". Of course, this doesn't in any way suggest that he's anti-Semitic. Just like a Senator who mumbles about being intimidated by the "black lobby" while voting against designating the KKK as a hate group doesn't give reason to think he might be racist - right?

by Anonymousreply 2201/04/2013

R12/R14/R20. Wow. You're mentally ill. You're a caricature.

I initially mentioned three, non-Jewish Senators -all of whom have mentioned their opposition to Hagel, that's why I named them. I also mentioned John Bolton.

Fleischer and Senor have both stated their opposition to Hagel, and were a part of Bush's Iraq War - that's why I mentioned them. If Cheney said anything, I'd bring him up, too, you demented fuck. Did I mention Wolfowitz? Perle? Feith? No. If I had, then you'd have a point. If you want to keep a tally (being the freak that you are) I mentioned the names of two Jewish people and four who are not Jewish. And I didn't even name them because they were Jewish, you moron. I named them because they specifically came out against Hagel, and the fact that they were a part of one of the greatest debacles in this country's history is why I did, idiot.

Oh, and you used "paleo con" as a pejorative? Yes, the horror of the days when we actually had a few, rational Republicans who actually embraced intelligence and compromise.

Congratulations on having people like Michelle Bachmann and Newt Gingrich on your side because Hagel is clearly the problem. You only turn off more and more people when you attempt to defend the neo con ideology.

Stop deflecting, asshole: WHAT IS YOUR OPPOSITION TO HAGEL? What specific policies? The fact that he wants to cut the bloated defense budget? Non-proliferation? Thinking before acting when it comes to war?

BTW, you know why the homophobia is a red herring? BILL CLINTON is the reason we had DADT, yet you seem to forgive that, right? Robert Byrd was a member of the fucking KKK, but people forgave him.

We recognize a disingenuous attack when we see it, R12. When you have Gay Republicans -who support the current day anti-gay GOP- screaming about a comment made 15 fucking years ago, then you know it's bullshit. And I sure as hell know it's bullshit from you.

Argue with yourself, asshole. I'm done.

by Anonymousreply 2301/04/2013

Slap him, R23!!

by Anonymousreply 2401/04/2013

[quote]And I didn't even name them because they were Jewish, you moron.

The point isn't whether they're Jewish or not. The point is that you compare rational, moderate politicians with David Duke.

[quote]Oh, and you used "paleo con" as a pejorative? Yes, the horror of the days when we actually had a few, rational Republicans who actually embraced intelligence and compromise.

At least now you admit your admiration of Pat Buchanan (he is synonomous with the term paleocon).

[quote]Thinking before acting when it comes to war?

Do you actually think that the mainstream position is clamoring for going to war with Iran? Is that why Iran has been able to play a waiting game for ages, during 2 different administrations? Where have you been the last five years? No, the mainstream position - Obama's position (and mine as well) - is to put strong economic pressure on Iran, and keep the military option open as a last resort. Hagel opposes this. He opposes this because he is an old-school America First isolationist who wouldn't give a fuck if Israel was wiped out. (I guess in your eyes, this just means that he's "standing up to the Zionist lobby").

[quote]BILL CLINTON is the reason we had DADT, yet you seem to forgive that, right?

What a desperate argument. At the time Clinton introduced DADT, it was a marked liberalization.

[quote]Robert Byrd was a member of the fucking KKK, but people forgave him.

I didn't. (And it was 50 years ago, not 10 years ago.) Btw, I had a good laugh when Democracy Now titled his obituary "From Ku Klux Klan Member to Iraq War Opponent" - priceless! (Of corse, the KKK came out passionately against the Iraq war...)

by Anonymousreply 2501/04/2013

Breaking my promise not to respond because you're just so irresistible:

[quote]The point isn't whether they're Jewish or not. The point is that you compare rational, moderate politicians with David Duke.

Likudniks are not moderates, nor rational.

Had Hagel sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb Israel," you'd be right here screaming about it, but since you're a lunatic who thinks the radical rightwing of Israel's interests should supersede that of the US, you view the likes of those I mentioned as being rational and moderate when they are neither. You view all of them as rational and moderate solely because they hold the same Likudnik ideology as you which is again, neither rational nor moderate.

You're a hypocritical, selfish, myopic douchebag who still hasn't told us specifically why you oppose Chuck Hagel who IS rational and moderate. You're attempting to rationalize the smears against him.

Oh, so DADT was the "liberal" position back then? Oh, OK. Now come up with an excuse for why you just proclaimed that those who carry water for the ***current*** anti-gay GOP as "rational" and "moderate" like John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Dan Senor and Ari Fleischer?

Gee, I guess your concern about gay issues only comes to surface when shitting on a guy for what he said 15 years ago, but be a current day Republican asshole with their head up AIPAC's ass and they're called a moderate and rational. Who cares about the fact that the party is vociferously anti-gay? Right?

As for your comment on paleocons... John McCain also used to be one. Bob Dole is a paleocon. Jon Huntsman is a paleocon - which is why he had no shot.

Neocons are the ones who have destroyed the foreign policy of this country. Everyone knows it. Most of them are draft dodgers who never served and you're defending it. Just because Pat Buchanon is a paleocon, doesn't mean he is the only one, nor does it mean "antisemite." It means "old school" Republican. It doesn't mean isolationist, you lying sack of shit.

You're so full of shit, I could spread you on my garden and grow some amazing tomatoes.

by Anonymousreply 2601/04/2013

Just because a democrat president was the one that made DADT the law of the land, doesn't mean it was a liberal policy. What about Clinton' pushing DOMA or breaking Glas Stengal?Let alone the Iraqi vote. The Clintons hoodwinked the gay community and set back the movement for years. And we are still trying to undo their mess. The Clintons still have the gay community bamboozled. Bill and Hill are for Bill and Hill no one else.

by Anonymousreply 2701/04/2013

Obama's flat-out spineless cowardice in dealing with the military will go down in history as the single biggest failure of his regime.

by Anonymousreply 2801/04/2013

I opened this thread to post that, whatever his merits or demerits as a politician, Chuck Hagel is a scorching hot daddy, but you all have really killed my buzz.

by Anonymousreply 2901/04/2013

I'm not a fan of any Republican politician (I'm not the one advocating for a Republican to get a key position in Obama's cabinet, when there are many good Democratic candidates for the office around)- I'm simply pointing out that saying people like Ari Fleischer are "no better" than the racist extremist David Duke is grotesque. (Hillary Clinton was a passionate advocate of the Iraq war as well - does that mean she's "no better" than Duke as well? Do you now realize how insane you sound?)

No, Pat Buchanan is not the only Paleocon, but he exemplifies them in their pure form like nobody else - he's practically the Platonic ideal of a Paleocon.

I have already pointed out the concrete problem with Hagel: he is too soft on Iran - and by too soft, I don't mean softer than Likud; I don't mean softer than Labour either; I mean softer than the [italic]Democratic[/italic] consensus.

by Anonymousreply 3001/04/2013

I 'm sort of in love with R10.

by Anonymousreply 3101/04/2013

R30? You're the one who first brought up David Duke and Pat Buchanon, and you did so to conflate their opposition to the Iraq War with Hagel's, so don't attempt to turn this around to make this about me bringing up Duke. You brought the two of them up for a very specific reason.

[quote]Pat Buchanan came out against the Iraq war right away as well, and is a foe of AIPAC too. So is David Duke.

Why exactly did you mention the above in relation to Hagel's opposition to the war? I mean, you didn't mention Obama's opposition, right? No, you specifically mentioned two anti-semites because you clearly view Hagel as no different from those two solely because he doesn't kowtow to AIPAC. As if to proclaim that anyone opposed to AIPAC is automatically an anti-semite.

What other reason do you have for mentioning them in relation to the Iraq war unless you were trying to justify the war by pointing to the worst people who were against it while defending the worst people who were for/behind it?

Now you're trying to make this about me comparing Duke to the people I've mentioned?

You know the difference between Duke and the guys you call rational and moderate? Duke is a hateful, vile piece of shit who *doesn't* have the blood of thousands and thousands and thousands of people on his hands, nor is he looking for even more blood on his hands.

You're calling people "rational" and "moderate" solely because of their stance on Israel...we'll just ignore the warmongering, the lies told to push a false war killing hundreds of thousands of people and the fact that they're pushing for even more war and more death, and we'll also ignore the anti-gay policies of the party they represent, but we'll feign outrage when it comes to a 15 year old anti-gay comment by a guy whose US-centric outlook doesn't meet your approval.

You're a hypocrite and a coward (for not responding to the question about why Hagel shouldn't be SoD). Deal with it.


by Anonymousreply 3201/04/2013

You're really tiresome, r10/r32. I've already explained the "very specific reason" for bringing up Duke and Buchanan.

[italic]I[/italic] brought up Duke in order to point out that the very thing you like about Hagel, the [italic]only[/italic] thing that's supposed to distinguish him as a liberal, is something he has in common with the far, far-right-wing Duke - thereby showing that it's nothing liberal at all; I did not equate Hagel with him.

Whereas [italic]you[/italic] brought up Duke again in order to [italic]equate[/italic] people like Fleischer and Senor with him (simply because the were supporters of the Iraq war - like Hillary Clinton, Vaclav Havel, or half of the Iraqi population) - which is plainly ridiculous, and reflects quite poorly on your moral and/or intellectual judgment.

[quote]for not responding to the question about why Hagel shouldn't be SoD)

Please read my comments again - specifically the last paragraph of r30.

by Anonymousreply 3301/05/2013

[quote]Obama's flat-out spineless cowardice in dealing with the military will go down in history as the single biggest failure of his regime.


by Anonymousreply 3401/05/2013

Hagel is no friend of Israel's. Nominate him.

by Anonymousreply 3501/05/2013

Someone who will stand up to the lunatics who have increasing power in Israel is the best thing for Israel. I'd rather have US leaders who are willing to take a hard line with Likud.

by Anonymousreply 3601/05/2013

But of course you mean that strictly in an anti-zionist way, R37, since antisemitism is purely a paranoid delusion of the Jews.

by Anonymousreply 3801/05/2013

Sen. Harkin would have been a good choice too --

(2004) DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Sen. Tom Harkin pushed the name-calling in the presidential race to a new level, calling Vice President Dick Cheney a coward for not serving in Vietnam and cowardly for his criticism of John Kerry.

Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, recently said that if elected he would pursue a more effective and "more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Cheney, in campaign speeches, has been mocking that reference to sensitivity. Harkin, D-Iowa and a former Navy fighter pilot, said Monday, "It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had 'other priorities' at that time would say that."

He said President Bush and Cheney are "running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't." He said of Cheney, "What he is doing and what he is saying is cowardly. The actions are cowardly."

"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil," said Harkin. "He'll be tough, but he'll be tough with someone else's kid's blood."

by Anonymousreply 3901/05/2013

Why does Obama want Hagel?

by Anonymousreply 4101/05/2013

Perhaps because he is a moderate Republican who has been serving on his Intelligence Council and whose wife endorsed him in the last election?

by Anonymousreply 4201/05/2013

Attached is a great article on Why Obama will nominate Chuck Hagel. I always find it curious why liberals always buy the Rethugs political point of view. I thought the rethugs were an endangered species but not by media standards. We Liberals always argue on the Rethugs terms. Chuck Hagel is "anti gay". Tell me one military alpha male grunt who hasn't made disparaging remarks about gays? The fiscal clift? It was no such thing? Deficits and spending cuts during a recession. Who would of thought stimulus would be such a dirty word during these times. Its not like Americans really care about balancing the books- they never have before. And it took Japan over a decade to recover from their similar recession because they went the austerity route. Look what happen to austerity in Europe.

We were even going to go the route of Roe vs Wade for gay marriage rights. Liberals argued to settle the issue with the Supreme Court instead of with 50 state legislatures because the latter was too time consuming.

The reason why socially this country is becoming more liberal is not because of the liberal agenda; its despite it. And I'm sorry to say, Obama is the reason why the majority of Americans believed that raising taxes on the rich was ok after 30 years of believing the Republican dogma that tax hikes no matter what is wrong.

Part of the reason why the Democrats got shellacked in 2010 was their refusal to use raising taxes on the rich as an issue. Even liberal icon Russ Feingold argued with the White House against it. As if the citizens of Wisconsin cared more about climate change and campaign finance that the economy.

We always swallow what the right dishes. So much so we let a democratic President- Bill Clinton convinced us thru triangulation that Welfare Reform, NAFTA, DADT and DOMA were good policies.

Liberals are supposed to be smarter but the Rethugs are definitely more media savvy. This country will never become a liberal oasis thru our efforts, it will just thru the arc of justice. But it will take a long time and nothing we do can usher the oasis on because we are stupid when it comes to this.

by Anonymousreply 4301/07/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!