CNN says the now-inevitable Hagel nomination is going to break along party lines, not pro-Israel lines. If it’s Republicans versus Democrats on Hagel, then Hagel’s a shoo-in. What will Rachel Maddow do? I’m betting she’ll line up on the Dem side behind Hagel, accepting his apologies on gay slurs of the past. Reporter Kevin Liptak:
On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Hagel was a “controversial” choice by Obama. Graham didn’t rule out staging a filibuster to prevent a vote on Hagel’s nomination.
“Hagel, if confirmed to be secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state of Israel in our nation’s history,” Graham told CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley.
Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican freshman from Texas elected with strong backing from the tea party, said on “Fox News Sunday” that it was “very difficult to imagine a circumstance in which I could support (Hagel’s) confirmation.”
“It’s interesting, the president seems bound and determined to proceed down this path despite the fact that Hagel’s record is very, very troubling on the nation of Israel,” Cruz said. “He has not been a friend to Israel. And in my view the United States should stand unshakably with Israel.”
…”But when you put all the statements together, you have somebody who is very antagonistic towards the state of Israel and the issues we jointly face,” Graham said on CNN.
While there has been no official announcement that Hagel is the nominee, the White House has told some senior members of Congress to expect it, a knowledgeable source told CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger…
[Graham said,] “[Hagel] has long severed his ties with the Republican Party. This is an in your face nomination by the president to all of us who are supportive of Israel. It looks like the second term of President Obama is going to be an in-your-face term,” he said.
Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, agreed that nominating Hagel was not a ho-hum choice by the president.
“It tells me that he not only won the election but he wants to lead this country,” Durbin said, also on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “You know, sitting back here and avoiding any confrontation and any controversy is going to make a weakened presidency. He needs to lead for the good of this nation, and we need to work together and find compromise and consensus in both political parties.”
Funny liveblog from Jason Linkins, on Sunday morning shows:
Kristol also thinks the Hagel nomination is weird and isn’t averse to seeing Michelle Flournoy or other administration members getting the nomination.
Actual question asked on Fox News Sunday: [John] Roberts cites a quote from Hagel in which he said, “I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war,” and then asks, “Is that a reasonable position?”
Just gonna copy and paste that last paragraph four more times.
Actual question asked on Fox News Sunday: Roberts cites a quote from Hagel in which he said, “I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war,” and then asks, “Is that a reasonable position?”
Actual question asked on Fox News Sunday: Roberts cites a quote from Hagel in which he said, “I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war,” and then asks, “Is that a reasonable position?”
Actual question asked on Fox News Sunday: Roberts cites a quote from Hagel in which he said, “I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war,” and then asks, “Is that a reasonable position?”
Actual question asked on Fox News Sunday: Roberts cites a quote from Hagel in which he said, “I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war,” and then asks, “Is that a reasonable position?”
Nina Easton also supports Michelle Flournoy’s nomination, but I worry that she’s doing so because she somehow believes that Flournoy is open to getting America involved in needless and/or senseless wars.
[Charles] Lane says that Obama and Hagel just sort of bonded in the Senate when they both served there and that Obama simply “likes the guy.”
Thanks to Annie Robbins and Susie Kneedler.
I think a good response to the meme that he is “antagonistic toward the State of Israel” is that he is antagonistic toward the failed policies of the current government and their Neocon allies in the US which have wasted trillions of dollars and many American casualties on courses of action that have made both Israel and the US less safe. There’s a minority in Israel – including many in the Israeli defense and intelligence community – with identical views. Why aren’t you willing to embrace the sort of debate about Israeli policies in the US that is common in Israel itself? Why do you try to scare people away from expressing their views with the threat of being slandered as an Anti-Semite? And, [to whatever tortured value is elicited in response to those questions], shouldn’t the US Secretary of Defense weigh the value of not stupidly putting US troops in harms way against such a strained and conflated risk as that?
I disagree. Plenty of Democrats will vote for the AIPAC position; i.e. “no”.
Glenn Greenwald’s latest at the Guardian points this out, as you quoted him in another post. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/05/hagel-liberals-gays-israel-democrats
As a sidenote; MJ Rosenberg always said that AIPAC’s hold on the Democrats was stronger. I think that is probably right. The Republicans and their Evangelical nutjobs hold a stronger sway on their party than the Democratic/liberal base does. Thus, you need more enforcement. Remember the rejection of Jerusalem at the DNC convention last summer?
I think Hagel will crash and burn and Obama won’t defend him very well. As usual it’s up to the liberal press. I am still waiting for a clear NYT editorial on Hagel, rather than letting individual Op-Ed writers do the job for them.
Nonetheless, I think AIPAC will win. But it will be a Phyrric victory. It will expose itself, which Obama counts on. If Hagel is nominated, at this point and time, AIPAC loses no matter what – and so does the neocons.
Are we to believe that Tea Party activists, as opposed to their funders, actually support the Israel Lobby?
“Hagel, if confirmed to be secretary of defense, would be the most antagonistic secretary of defense towards the state of Israel in our nation’s history.
Enough already.
Would someone tell these traitorous buffoons that the USA was not created for Israel,s benefit.
“Christ it aint easy”, listening to these morons.
FFS
Obama and Hagel need to team up and beat the tar out of Netanyahu –
Israel and her Israeli Lobby have been ‘playing’ the US for years now – and they still don’t think it’s over yet. The biggest play of all is yet to come – they’re desperate now as without it their Apartheid will be left exposed and twisting in the wind
This is how sick these guys are – the ‘needless, senseless war’ the Neocons want is the war to save Israeli Apartheid – shoving the US into into what becomes (as hoped and planned for by Israel and her Lobby) a ‘Thousand Year Endless War against Iran and Islam’
“Actual question asked on Fox News Sunday: [John] Roberts cites a quote from Hagel in which he said, “I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war,” and then asks, “Is that a reasonable position?”
Just gonna copy and paste that last paragraph four more times.”