Chuck Hagel Will Survive Rough Treatment Of John McCain And Other Republicans On Senate Armed Services Committee, And Be Confirmed As Secretary Of Defense!

Former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel will survive his rough handling in the Senate Armed Services Committee and be confirmed to be the next Secretary of Defense, despite the efforts of Arizona Senator John McCain, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe, and newly minted Texas Senator Ted Cruz, to derail his nomination, more on vindictiveness than anything else. Here was a basically conservative Republican, who like Richard Lugar, had the nerve to be independent, and be willing to cross the aisle and work with Democrats, and even, in the case of Hagel, endorse Barack Obama in 2008.

Hagel is a man of principle, a man of courage and determination, a man of levelheadedness, a man who has served his country well during his years in the military, a man who has been a successful businessman which makes him able to handle the massive bureaucracy of the Pentagon, and a man who is able to deal with adversity as it already has visited him, with his two Purple Hearts while serving in Vietnam, including his bravery in saving his own brother when both were wounded at the same time.

Hagel has a steadiness about him that will make him an outstanding Secretary of Defense, and his criticism of the “surge” in Iraq in 2007, which killed 1200 soldiers and wounded thousands others will stand the test of time, long after John McCain and his hawkishness, which calls for constant military intervention and invasion, is repudiated, as having been the wrong choice for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, two “chicken hawks”, to make.

John McCain will be looked back upon as a man who, fortunately, we did not elect President of the United States, while we will look back upon Chuck Hagel’s service as Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama as one of the best cabinet choices ever made for the Pentagon, if not the best, since the agency was created in 1947!

18 comments on “Chuck Hagel Will Survive Rough Treatment Of John McCain And Other Republicans On Senate Armed Services Committee, And Be Confirmed As Secretary Of Defense!

  1. Maggie February 2, 2013 9:40 am

    Dr. Feinman would you discuss the relation between McCain and Hagel. Supposedly they were best friends. Mccain sppeared to be sewing his hatred in the hearing and to me Hagel appeared really thrown off by McCain’s vehemence. What exactly happened and when?

  2. Ronald February 2, 2013 9:54 am

    I think it is McCain’s fury that Hagel abandoned him, and endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008. McCain cannot forgive him for that. Also, Hagel disagreed with the “Surge” in Iraq. Plus I think McCain is a loose cannon, very unstable, always has been, as a result of his five and a half years of torture in Vietnam, and therefore, someone I always worried about, regarding his emotional stability to be President.

  3. Juan Domingo Peron February 2, 2013 1:52 pm

    It is interesting how the substance of the questioned posed to Hagel are not even mentioned. All that is done is to disqualify and insult those who dared to ask a few common sense questions to someone that is nominated to be Secretary of State.
    Hagel attempted to contextualize his comments about the intimidating “Jewish lobby” by noting that that was only time he used those words “on the record.” Later, in response to a challenge from Senator Graham to name one person or one “dumb” government policy negatively influenced by Jewish intimidation, Hagel drew a blank. When asked if he stood by an Al Jazeera interview in which he agreed with the characterization of the United States as “the world’s bully,” Hagel split follicles by noting that, “My comment was it’s a relevant and good observation. I don’t think that I said I agree with it.” He answered a question about his vote against designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group by claiming it would have been unprecedented to call an arm of “an elected, legitimate government” terrorists, “whether we agree or not.” An hour or so later, White House press secretary Jay Carney dodged a question about whether the president agreed.
    Hagel also ran afoul of the president — and perhaps of his wits — when he said that he “support[ed] the president’s strong position on containment,” rather than prevention, of a nuclear Iran. Later, after being handed a note, he said “I misspoke and said I supported the president’s position on containment. If I said that, I meant to say we don’t have a position on containment.” But this wasn’t quite right either, as pointed out by Senator Carl Levin (D., Mich.). “We do have a position on containment, and that is we do not favor containment,” Levin said. “I just wanted to clarify the clarify.”
    Mr. Hagel best summed up his eight hours ordeal when he assured his interlocutors that “if confirmed, I intend to know a lot more than I do.”
    Finally, with the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Obama’s choice to head up the Pentagon, the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism has taken a new direction and may very well be here to stay.

  4. Ronald February 2, 2013 3:01 pm

    Juan, give me a break! The Jewish organizations are not opposing Hagel openly, and they certainly could, and he has no record of any anti Semitic comments other than that one episode a long time ago. Have you not said things you regretted later, and also changed views over time? If there was an anti Semite in the Pentagon, it was Caspar Weinberger under Ronald Reagan, and if there was an anti Semite in the State Department, it was James Baker under George H W Bush! Our government and Presidents do not have to go in lockstep with Israel’s government, particularly when they follow a wrong headed policy. All that matters is whether the US is there when needed to defend Israel’s right to exist, and any threat to its national security, and Obama and Hagel are on the side of Israel, as every American administration has been since 1948, when “push comes to shove”. Many American Jews, including myself, do not believe that we have to “worship” everything said and done by Israel, particularly when its leader is a war hawk, and has lost credibility among his own people.

    And everyone learns a job and its details best when actually on the job, is that not the case? No one is an expert on anything, particularly in government, until one masters the bureaucracy and the intimate details of a complex world!

  5. Juan Domingo Peron February 2, 2013 3:49 pm

    “Israel Firster,” “Jewish Lobby,” “Fifth Column,” and “Dual Loyalty” are several of the terms used to describe American Jews who care about Israel’s survival in the face of very real and imminently dangerous and existential threats to her long-term viability.
    Senator Chuck Schumer announced two weeks ago, “Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation.” Schumer is Jewish, but, as is true of almost all liberal American Jews, he is a far cry from being considered a card-carrying member of the Israel Firster crowd. He is a Democrat who was silent just a few months ago in the face of boos and hisses from Democratic delegates reacting to the inclusion of Jerusalem and God in their party’s platform.
    But why should anyone expect Schumer to act selflessly in the interest of the American people whom he represents and the Jewish people living across the globe whose very survival depends on a supportive American government? When Schumer votes “yea” to Hagel’s confirmation, he will be marching in lockstep with the 68% of American Jews who voted for Barack Obama in the past two elections (that number was even higher in Obama’s 2008 win). Schumer and American Jews are selfish individuals who care little for the survival of the Jewish homeland or for strong national security here at home.
    Schumer’s public statement at the end of his 90-minute meeting with Hagel reflected some of the most asinine reasoning I have ever heard from a public figure –
    “I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.”
    What exactly has changed for Israel in the past five years? Granted, the Arab Spring has made the neighborhood that much more unstable, but do the Chuckies truly believe that five years ago Israel was not in danger from her neighbors? Are they both so ignorant as to believe that Hagel’s positions were justified five years ago because the poor Palestinians were the victims of Israeli aggression but that now that Hagel is up for the big leagues, the dynamics have changed? Were they not aware that five years ago, Iran’s Ahmadinejad was calling for Israel to be wiped off the map and pursuing nuclear weapons without sanctions slowing him down?
    Why were the Iranian-made weapons that flowed through the smuggling tunnels from Egypt to Gaza insignificant five years ago and suddenly game-changing today? Why did Hagel believe that Hamas, Hezb’allah, Syria, and Iran were of little concern to Israel’s survival five years ago, but a week after Obama nominates him to a cabinet position, Hagel has suddenly seen the light?
    And why should anyone trust Chuck Schumer’s opinion on any of this? Schumer seems to have completely ignored the fact that Hagel chairs the Atlantic Council with well-known anti-Semite Chas Freeman. This is the same Chas Freeman whose nomination in 2009 failed due to his open hostility to Israel and who then blamed the Israel Lobby. Only a month ago, Freeman stated:
    “In some countries, like the United States, Israel can rely upon a “fifth column” of activist sympathizers to amplify its messages, to rebut and discredit statements that contradict its arguments, facts, and fabrications, and to impugn the moral standing of those who make such statements.”
    And just last month, Hagel’s organization posted an article entitled “Israel’s Apartheid State” on the home page of its website. But Schumer is sure that Hagel’s conversion is sincere and reliable. If he truly believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell him.

  6. Ronald February 2, 2013 4:11 pm

    I will repeat what I said. I , as a Jew, support the survival and security of Israel, but Israel is not pursuing a policy that will ever lead to stability in the Middle East, if it decides to take action by pre-emption, which failed miserably in Iraq for George W. Bush and company. Yes, Iran and the Palestinians, and the Arab Spring, are real threats, no question about that. But to say that American Jews, and Senator Charles Schumer, do not care about Israel’s security is ridiculous. You forget that Obama has provided funding for the IRON DOME system which has helped Israel in recent attacks. Our government is not abandoning Israel, and will not, but we do not have to be in lockstep on every statement and planned action of the Israeli government. You are throwing around wild accusations, which many people will dispute about Charles Freeman and Charles Schumer, and smearing the Jewish community. Please stop the name calling as it is beneath serious discussion, and undermines your arguments, which have been intelligent, if not necessarily accurate, up to this point!

  7. Engineer Of Knowledge February 2, 2013 4:54 pm

    Hello Professor,
    Allow me to add as a Vietnam and South America veteran.

    Vietnam War veteran Chuck Hagel sat in the hot seat, grilled by those members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, many of whom have never served a day in their lives. This being said, I use to have a lot of respect for John McCain but this has waned over the recent years.

    Hagel noted this problem back in 2003 just before George W. Bush’s War on Iraq when he said, “… some of his fellow Republicans, in their zest for war, lacked the perspective of veterans like him, who have “sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off.”’

    Too bad that he didn’t repeat that remark earlier this week. The committee was replete with chicken hawks such as Ted Cruz and Lindsay Graham, for example, never sat in foxholes, but were critical of the man who twice earned a Purple Heart, the veteran who sat before them. Other committee members never served either: David [Adulterer] Vitter, Roy Blunt, Mike Lee and Jeff Sessions.

    I heard a lot of Pompous Asses spew out verbiage that in my viewpoint had no validity to do so.

    The best of the group, Lindsay Graham, served in the United States Air Force (1982-88) as a lawyer, and then in the South Carolina Air National Guard and as an Air Force reservist. During the Gulf War, he was recalled to active duty, serving as a Judge Advocate at McIntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina.

    Bottom line when I was with MIUW 604 we had a name for these never serving, brave blowhard, Senators….it rhymed with wossie.

  8. Juan Domingo Peron February 2, 2013 6:01 pm

    Ronald: Just one very simple question. What is Israel supposed to do once Iran gets its nuclear weapon? Is Israel suppose to just wait until the crazed Regime in Teheran gets its weapon? Do you actually believe that the Iranians will give up their nuclear plans by negotiation? If so, what is the evidence? I just cannot comprehend why Israel or anyone in their right mind would allow Iran to go nuclear.
    Also, with anti-Semitism on the rise across the world and Jews being told not to wear a kippah, Star of David, or any other indication of their religious faith in countries across Europe, one would think that Jews in the Diaspora, who recognized International Holocaust Remembrance Day this week, would wake up to the dangers that confront their people. One would think that when the U.K. starts to unravel, and public pronouncements of blood libels and anti-Semitic comments become common occurrences, American Jews might determine that electing leaders who will support Israel in times of peril is of utmost importance.
    Instead, American Jews read the anti-Israel op-eds of Thomas Friedman; attend lectures given by Peter Beinart, who supports a BDS campaign against products coming out of Judea and Samaria; and continue to vote overwhelmingly for those who are openly hostile to the Jewish State.
    Professor Richard Landes insightfully observed that these Jews “are subtly engaged in a proxy honor killing of Israel.” It is proxy because they have enabled others to do the killing for them — people like Beinart, Freidman, Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street, and others like them who are embarrassed by Israel are enabling and abetting its destruction.
    Whatever the outcome of the Hagel hearings, liberal American Jews sat back and did nothing. While 400 Christian leaders went to Washington to lobby against Hagel, AIPAC, the AJC, and other Jewish organizations remained silent. The Endowment for Middle East Truth’s founder, Sarah Stern, observed, “Chuck Hagel represents everything that is inimical to the survival of the State of Israel.” What will it take for the people who should care the most to understand the implications of their apathy?

  9. A White Christian Southern Progressive February 2, 2013 6:29 pm

    Appears to me that anyone who questions the militaristic approach of the right wing goverment in Israel is once again being labelled as anti-Israel, or worse, anti-Semitic. In fact, the truth is just the opposite. The continuing effort by Netanyahu and others to undermine the peace process and expand settlements may be good for the political fortunes of right wing politicians. But it is dooming Israel to an endless future of war, terror, and fear in an area where Jews are becoming a minority. Such a future certainly cannot be considered “pro-Israel” as it is not good for that country, the region, or the world.

  10. Ronald February 3, 2013 1:58 am

    The last comment is an excellent statement of my view of how Israel is dealing with the crisis it faces, and it does not mean that one is anti Israel or anti Semitic, anymore than disagreeing with an American government is anti American!

  11. Juan Domingo Peron February 3, 2013 1:53 pm

    The Muslim/Arabs and Persians have always rejected the 2 state solution, they do not recognize Israel right to exist. They have repeated that consistently. Israel has given up part of its territory which it legitimately won over the course of the different wars it has suffered, and what have the Muslim/Arabs/Persians done? They took the land and continue attacking Israel. Remember what happened after the Clinton peace process? Arafat rejected land for peace and started an intifada. He then later, after getting his ass kicked, changed the PLO declarations and eliminated the language that called for the destruction of Israel, while at the same time saying he didn’t mean it to his fellow terrorist. What is Israel supposed to do? She is attacked with rocket fire daily from Gaza, the media never covers it, but when she responds, the media accuses Israel of overreacting!
    Was Israel’s pre-emptive attack on Egypt’s airfield during the Six Day War a mistake? Should Israel have waited for the Muslim/Arabs to attack as she almost fatefully did during the Yom Kippur War?
    This question is never answered; Is Israel supposed to wait for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? What should Israel do? Do you believe Iran should be permitted to go nuclear? Do you really believe that Iran will respond to diplomatic pressure? I suspect that these questions are never answered because many on the left deep in their souls believe it is not fair that Iran should not be allowed to have nukes. After all the US has nukes, many countries have nukes, so … What difference does it make? I guess if you believe that there is a moral equivalency between Israel and the Muslim/Arab terrorist supporting state of Iran, then the answer would be no, there is no difference. And of course there are always the purposely gullible who believe the Iranian regime when they say they are not seeking nuclear weapons. If you believe that, then of course you would approve of someone who believes that the Iranian regime is a “legitimate” government”, as your Secretary of State.
    It is not the “war mongering” who seek war, quite the contrary they seek to prevent it when possible. After all it was the utopian peace movement within the western governments in the 30’s that allowed Hitler to succeed thus causing WWII, it was not Churchill the “war monger’s” fault. So you see, even though the peace loving utopians were probably not anti-Semitic, their policy facilitated the extermination of over 6 million Jews and tens of millions of more dead during WWII. One could ask; what difference does it make, if the end result is the same, whether you are anti-Semitic or not!??

  12. Juan Domingo Peron February 3, 2013 1:55 pm

    The above comment illustrates exactly why the left is wrong. It is based on the false premise that Israel is expanding settlement on occupied territory. Israel is not expanding “settlements” , Israel is building new neighborhoods within Israeli territory. But for the muslim Arabs/ so called “Palestinians” all of Israel is occupied territory!
    Furthermore it is not true that the policies of Netanyahu doom Israel to an endless future of war, terror and fear. It is Israel’s mere existence, since 1948, that has doomed Israel to endless war, terror and fear. The Muslim/Arabs and Persians have always rejected the 2 state solution, they do not recognize Israel right to exist. They have repeated that consistently. Israel has given up part of its territory which it legitimately won over the course of the different wars it has suffered, and what have the Muslim/Arabs/Persians done? They took the land and continue attacking Israel. Remember what happened after the Clinton peace process? Arafat rejected land for peace and started an intifada. He then later, after getting his ass kicked, changed the PLO declarations and eliminated the language that called for the destruction of Israel, while at the same time saying he didn’t mean it to his fellow terrorist. What is Israel supposed to do? She is attacked with rocket fire daily from Gaza, the media never covers it, but when she responds, the media accuses Israel of overreacting!
    Was Israel’s pre-emptive attack on Egypt’s airfield during the Six Day War a mistake? Should Israel have waited for the Muslim/Arabs to attack as she almost fatefully did during the Yom Kippur War?
    This question is never answered; Is Israel supposed to wait for Iran to have a nuclear weapon? What should Israel do? Do you believe Iran should be permitted to go nuclear? Do you really believe that Iran will respond to diplomatic pressure? I suspect that these questions are never answered because many on the left deep in their souls believe it is not fair that Iran should not be allowed to have nukes. After all the US has nukes, many countries have nukes, so … What difference does it make? I guess if you believe that there is a moral equivalency between Israel and the Muslim/Arab terrorist supporting state of Iran, then the answer would be no, there is no difference. And of course there are always the purposely gullible who believe the Iranian regime when they say they are not seeking nuclear weapons. If you believe that, then of course you would approve of someone who believes that the Iranian regime is a “legitimate” government”, as your Secretary of State.
    It is not the “war mongering” who seek war, quite the contrary they seek to prevent it when possible. After all it was the utopian peace movement within the western governments in the 30′s that allowed Hitler to succeed thus causing WWII, it was not Churchill the “war monger’s” fault. So you see, even though the peace loving utopians were probably not anti-Semitic, their policy facilitated the extermination of over 6 million Jews and tens of millions of more dead during WWII. One could ask; what difference does it make, if the end result is the same, whether you are anti-Semitic or not!??

  13. Ronald February 3, 2013 2:41 pm

    Your two comments above are very similar, but since there is some difference, I am leaving both on the blog.

    I am against Iran gaining a nuclear weapon, and I do not trust that government. There is no moral equivalent of Israel and the Iranian government. I am very concerned about the threat to Israel, but I believe a pre-emptive strike is not the answer. My gut feeling is that there will be war between Iran and America on the side of Israel, a very regrettable reality, but I believe in every aspect of diplomacy before such action.

    I do not see Iran as the equivalent of Nazi Germany, however, and do not think we should equate modern circumstances with the time of Adolf Hitler. You are correct, however, in that it will be necessary to take action if there is no resolution of the nuclear threat in Iran, and it is likely to occur this spring or summer if no progress is made, which I think is highly unlikely, considering the nature of the Iranian govenment. So war may be inevitable, a regrettable situation!

    So I do not disagree on this matter, just the strategy to pursue!

  14. Juan Domingo Peron February 3, 2013 4:21 pm

    I understand, but I am also curious how you think this war between the US, Israel and Iran will come to be. Because if it occurs after Iran goes nuclear , then what’s the point? Would it not be worse? And if it happens before Iran goes nuclear, then would it no be a pre-emptive attack? And would that not be preferable to a war with a nuclear Iran that in desperation might just nuke Israel? After all it takes it one warhead to exterminate hundreds of thousands. The situation is very delicate and much worse than we can imagine. Last week there was a rumor of an underground explosion in Fordow, the Iranian top secret nuclear development facility. Government sources later said it was false. Who knows, but there is an ongoing war already between Israel and Iran.

  15. Ronald February 3, 2013 4:39 pm

    I will admit the whole situation is very disturbing, with no easy answers, but I believe as you do, that there is an ongoing war right now through intelligence and technology. I am very concerned for the survival of Israel, but feel a pre-emptive strike is not the best strategy. If I truly knew what was best to do, I would want to advise the government as to strategy.

  16. Ronald February 3, 2013 4:42 pm

    White Christian Southern Progressive, I tend to agree with you that peace negotiations are urgent in the Middle East, but as we know, they have failed so often in the past. Thanks for the link, however, and I hope something can be done to stop the round after round of violence. Iran, of course, is also a factor that cannot be ignored!

  17. A White Southern Christian Progressive February 4, 2013 6:50 am

    @Professor,

    I think that stubborness by both the Israelis and the Palestinians is what has been holding peace back.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.