The Washington Post editorial board came out against Chuck Hagel’s potential nomination for secretary of defense this morning, citing his “near the fringe” views on Iran and defense spending:
But Mr. Hagel has elsewhere expressed strong skepticism about the use of force.
We share that skepticism — but we also understand that, during the next year or two, Mr. Obama may be forced to contemplate military action if Iran refuses to negotiate or halt its uranium-enrichment program. He will need a defense secretary ready to support and effectively implement such a decision. Perhaps Mr. Hagel would do so; perhaps he would also, if installed at the Pentagon, take a different view of defense spending. (Mr. Hagel declined through a spokesman to speak to us about his views.)
What’s certain is that Mr. Obama has available other possible nominees who are considerably closer to the mainstream and to the president’s first-term policies. Former undersecretary of defense Michèle Flournoy, for example, is a seasoned policymaker who understands how to manage the Pentagon bureaucracy and where responsible cuts can be made. She would bring welcome diversity as the nation’s first female defense secretary.
Not only does Obama have better options than Hagel, he has options that would be easier to confirm. Someone like Flournoy would have no problem. While Hagel could make it through, it would be a messy fight that would highlight issues Obama is already seen as weak on–particularly his commitment to Israel and seriousness on Iran.
And while Hagel is a former member of the Senate club, he would be pressed on comments he’s made that are highly embarrassing for Obama, including a reference to the “Jewish lobby” intimidating members of Congress. Michael Warren reports that Lindsey Graham and John McCain, both members of the committee that would hold the defense secretary hearings, would question Hagel on these comments if he’s nominated:
Asked about Hagel’s 2008 statement that the “Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people here [in Washington, D.C.],” South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham said Hagel will “have to answer for that comment” if he is nominated.
“And he’ll have to answer about why he thought it was a good idea to directly negotiate with Hamas and why he objected to the European Union declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization,” continued Graham, a member of the Armed Services committee. “I think he’ll have to answer all those questions.” …
John McCain of Arizona said he “strongly disagree[s]” with Hagel’s comments on the “Jewish lobby.”
“I know of no ‘Jewish lobby,’” McCain said. “I know that there’s strong support for Israel here. I know of no ‘Jewish lobby.’ I hope he would identify who that is.”
There is a solid case against nominating Hagel, but not a solid case for choosing him over another option. Someone like Flournoy would still be compatible with Obama ideologically, but she would come with far less baggage.
Since you mentioned the Wash Post editorial, you should have also reported that in the very same issue Dana Milbank wrote a long column full of smoke and mirrors defending Hagel from every charge that he is either an anti-Semite or anti-Israeli. He wrote off the "Jewish lobby" libel as "unfortunate", simply a result of a semantic error since Hagle really intended to say "Israel lobby" (which is now acceptable). What is relevant here is that Dana Milbank regularly plays up his Jewishness and is often involved in moderating discussions at the very large and politically important synagogue Adas Israel, where the rabbis are involved in Rabbis for Human Rights (essentially a pro-Palestinian group) and many members are left-wing activists and politicians. So it is very clear that the usual Jewish suspects will gladly stamp a hecksher on the anti-Israel and anti-semites chosen by Hussein Obama (even if no self-respecting Jew would ever accept such a hecksher.) Any expectations that a Hagel appointment will fracture Obama's massive Jewish support are likely to be dashed against the rocks of the false Jewish gods of socialism, universalism and assimilation.
" the usual Jewish suspects " I forget who termed the coin Alibi Jews, but it's a useful term for these people. Who was the English novelist who coined the term AShamed (or was it ASHamed) Jews?
Obama of course is fully aware of the politics here and the message for Israel and Jews. It will be a test for him whether he nominates Hagel. If he doesn't he'll be seen as week, two floaters taken out of the water before the race. If he does, his true views of Israel and soft headed internationalism will have been exposed. My ill educated guess: Hagel won't get the nomination.
I think you're right. Hagel probably won't get the nomination. Just because he's an ex-senator is no guarantee of confirmation. Remember John Tower? Hagel will garner opposition from both sides of the aisle. n nBut to all of those so inclined, the abandonment of Hagel will be still more evidence of the perfidious Zionists at work. Obama is counting on it.
Ed, the only part of yours I dissent from is your last sentence. He’s counting on it for what?
I can't speak for Ed, but it seems win-win for Obama. Either he gets Hagel approved, or else Hagel, Walt and others have more 'proof' of the power and perfidy of the dread Jewish Lobby.
You spoke for Ed very nicely. I totally agree.
"seen as week" should be "seen as weak." n n How embarrassing!
I don't know why my earlier post about Dana Milbank's column unanimously acquitting Hagel on all counts of being an anti-Semite and an Israel-hater published contemporaneously with today's Washington Post editorial criticizing Hagel was removed by Commentary. As I mentioned earlier Milbank is using his Jewish credentials – he is well-known in DC's Adas Israel Congregation, a left-wing synagogue where the rabbis are members of the Rabbis for Human Rights (an organization that only criticizes Israel and always supports the Fakistinians) – to provide a hecksher for an anti-Semite and Israel. He is clearly signalling that the leftist Jews who have swallowed every anti-Israel, pro-Islamic policy that Hussein Obama has presented to them so far will continue to do so no matter how much treyf is served to them.