See if you can find a clip of Senator Ted Cruz taking apart Chuck Hagel today. Hagel came off incredibly shifty and dishonest, while Cruz showed that being rhetorically tough doesn’t mean being bombastic or rude. Something about Cruz’s calm, unforced courtesy made the surgical precision of his questioning that much more effective. Cruz showed what happens when preparation, talent, and discipline come together.
Thursday, January 31, 2013, 9:15 PM
January 31st, 2013 | 9:45 pm
Here is the exchange:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zs9ZhBjHZg
And here is the Al Jazeera clip he played:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoZRPY8oXRg
February 1st, 2013 | 12:12 am
[...] See if you can find a clip of Senator Ted Cruz taking apart Chuck Hagel today. Hagel came off incredibly shifty and dishonest, while Cruz showed that being rhetorically tough doesn’t mean being bombastic or rude. Something about Cruz’s calm, unforced courtesy made the surgical precision of his questioning that Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
February 1st, 2013 | 1:54 am
Hagel’s going to need to get a lot better at this if he’s going to be answerable for Obama’s immanent neutering of the military. Perhaps he should take some lessons in mock outrage from Hillary.
February 1st, 2013 | 9:36 am
So this is really important, but it’s hard to know what to do at this point. Until the hearings, my real opinion was that, although it was pretty creepy how much THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE hearted Hagel in an obsessive way, THE WEEKLY STANDARD might just be overreacting a bit in the other direction. Now it’s astonishing how clear it is that there’s something really wrong with this guy.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:32 am
I don’t see how anyone can watch American politics and think that overall it has anything at all to do with “meritocracy”. Or that letting these cretins wield as much power as they do isn’t completely terrifying.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:55 am
Peter, my sense is that:
a) Hagel looked exhausted to the point of illness.
b) Hagel had contempt for the strategy that his own handlers had come up with. The plan was for him to sometimes pretend to change his mind and sometimes to pretend to misunderstand or misremember his own past careless or hyperbolic statements (like the one about the surge being the biggest mistake, blah, blah, blah) so he sabotaged his own strategy. There was just something weirdly arrogant about his refusal to forthrightly qualify his statement on the surge (which would not have meant agreeing with the surge even retrospectively.) It was like he thought he was above having to actually answer the questions. I’ve seen senators sabotage themselves when they are out of their comfort zones. Bob Dole used to make his presidential speech writers nuts by changing up his speeches in ways that made them worse just to show them that he was really in charge. And Dole would sometimes even show resentment for the voters for their liking Reagan more than him. Maybe it is something in the water…
On the one hand, maybe whoever Obama gets as Defense Secretary is going to the same darn thing that Obama wants. On the other hand replacing the disastrous Rumsfeld with Bob Gates really did seem to matter (though Bush’s decision to change strategy was key.) Obama won of course, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with the Republicans holding for someone else.
February 1st, 2013 | 1:04 pm
“Until the hearings, my real opinion was that, although it was pretty creepy how much THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE hearted Hagel…”
Yeah, it so “creepy” how when we get a nominee closer to our foreign policy views than most recent nominees, we support him! What kind of creeps support people whose views they appreciate?
February 1st, 2013 | 1:14 pm
What are Hagel’s views? I guess they need a larger context for clarification.
http://www.nationalreview.com/media/video/339540
I know, I know. This clip is unfair–it takes these statements out of context.
February 1st, 2013 | 1:34 pm
On the other hand, if Hagel is really this bad at justifying his and (presumably) Obama’s positions, maybe it’s to the Republican’s advantage that the President has such an inept pol at SecDef. It’s not as though the DoD is going to benefit anymore by an Obama pol that happens to be better at obfuscating appeasement.
February 1st, 2013 | 2:17 pm
Got to watch some of the interview. Very first thing Cruz does is throw out a phony accusation — he knows damned well on the speech circuit you give the same speeches many, many times, and so Hagel has a very good answer, which Cruz handles by… not letting Hagel answer! The 70% of Americans who are not “bomb Iran” fanatics will immediately spot a prevaricating bully at work.
February 1st, 2013 | 2:20 pm
@ Gene Callahan
I suppose there’s nothing “creepy” about supporting people you agree with . . . as long as your views aren’t creepy in the first place.
February 1st, 2013 | 2:45 pm
And the financial disclosure? He gets paid many, many times for the same speech. Doesn’t he?
February 1st, 2013 | 2:49 pm
As a non-bomb Iran fanatic (at least by the US), let me speak for my people. If you believe that Hagel has only given four speeches (or the same speech with only four variations) in the last five years with no variation on any subject of public interest, then stay away from people selling government-owned bridges. That doesn’t mean there is a “smoking gun” where Hagel says I-don’t-know-what, but not turning over the notes of his many speeches is problematic given Hagel’s habit of agreeing with the premises of interlocutors in order to engage them (I’m taking a charitable interpretation of Hagel’s rhetorical tic.)
So the combination of Hagel’s refusal to turn over the speech material and Hagel’s obvious dissembling about the Al Jazeera interview showed a guy who is quite ready to deceive and a questioner pinning him down expertly and politely. Hagel lost the exchanges. It doesn’t make his policy orientation wrong, but reality is reality and all this stuff about him being bullied by the mean, dishonest Republican is sour grapes.
February 1st, 2013 | 3:03 pm
Count me among the non-bomb Iran fanatics too. Also, I think barring massive evidence of corruption or incompetence, the president deserves the Sec’y of Defense he wants. I don’t think Hagel is hiding anything egregious. He just doesn’t want to answer questions about his past “misguided” statements. He doesn’t seem to want to provide the “context” either.
As president, Obama will pursue the defense policy he pursues. So if it is Hagel as Defense Sec’y , then so be it. But Hagel sure appeared to waver, equivocate, deceive, etc. yesterday. He also lacked knowledge of important topics, and basically appeared unprepared.
February 1st, 2013 | 3:13 pm
Sounds to me like a perfect choice for the President …
February 1st, 2013 | 3:47 pm
The focus on bombing Iran is misguided. The point is, the current administration had to be dragged by Congress into putting in place the sanctions that exist now; the administration is strenuously opposed to strengthening them; and the administration liberally grants waivers of the sanctions to enable its “friends” (like Russia and China) to do business with Iran. Maybe stronger sanctions would work, but the administration does not really want to find out. It is in this context that Hagel’s nomination should be seen – he is a man who, up till now, has been consistently opposed to the use of sanctions against Iran. In fact, based on his record, he seems not to want to confront Iran at all. What message does nominating him send to the Iranians?
I disagree with the idea that the president is entitled to anyone on the cabinet he wants, absent evidence of corruption or massive incompetence. Given the friendly message that Obama is sending to Iran by nominating Hagel (and there really was no other reason to pick him), a self-respecting Congress would want to send a countermessage that Congress is not on board with the irresponsible executive branch. Advice and consent means something more than certification that the nominee is not on the take.
As to defense cuts, these are obviously needed and going to happen, but the question is what cuts to make – what’s essential, what’s not. While the secretary does not have final say on this, he is the one making recommendations to the president. Hagel (unlike Pannetta) seems to be inclined simply to take a hacksaw to our defense capabilities. I assume that’s what the guy who picked him wants, but there’s no reason Congress should feel obligated to grant him this.
I regret that the Republicans chose to make an issue of the Iraq surge. Regardless of whether the surge was the right thing to do once we were already in Iraq, bringing up Iraq just reminds voters of why they threw out the Republicans in the first place. The Iraq war seems to be a scab that some Republicans just can’t stop themselves from scratching.
February 1st, 2013 | 3:56 pm
It’s also worth noting that the official Iranian news agency welcomed Obama’s nomination of the “anti-Israel” (their word) Hagel for SecDef. Of course, I suppose that, from the point of view of the current administration’s sycophants, that makes Hagel the consensus choice.
February 1st, 2013 | 4:28 pm
Given that Obama is Obama, his first two Secretary of Defense choices were as good as could be expected and maybe better. We’ve already had a recent Secretary of Defense who proved that obtuseness and stubborn vanity are dangerous qualities in somebody who holds that position. The Republicans should give Obama the chance to pick somebody better by blocking Hagel.
February 1st, 2013 | 5:08 pm
… sort of like how we got a better Secretary of State by blocking Susan Rice.
At some point one has to decide where best to invest their scarce time and resources, giving the President an opportunity to only further confirm his fecklessness in choices of cabinet members occurs to me to be a poor choice of investment. Though making an spectacle of his fecklessness before the public, as has been done with Hagel, is has it’s merits, there is a law of diminishing returns.
Personally I’m looking forward to seeing what happens to John Brennan. Apparently there’s an anti Brennan kerfuffle percolating on the left.
February 1st, 2013 | 5:19 pm
Given Obama’s first few choices for Secretary of Defense, I’m for giving him another shot to get it right(er.) And then another chance if he picks Dennis Kucinich or somebody. He does have a history of reasonable choices here, so I don’t hate our chances.
February 1st, 2013 | 5:46 pm
“If you believe that Hagel has only given four speeches (or the same speech with only four variations) in the last five years with no variation on any subject of public interest…”
Yeah, like I said that. You’ve adopted the wonderful techniques of the Hagel-smearbund, huh, Pete? My point is, “Why did Cruz not let Hagel respond?” Because the response would have been reasonable, that’s why.
“a questioner pinning him down expertly and politely.”
Cruz did not “question” him about what he hadn’t turned over: he threw out a bunch of accusations, and when Hagel asked to explain, Cruz REFUSED to let him. That was just a drive-by smear.
February 1st, 2013 | 6:09 pm
Pete, the difference is that was then and this is now. Look at Obama’s choices for cabinet this year compared to his first term. They don’t even compare. As bad as Hagel is, is he any worse than Lew foe treasury? Combined with the President’s Inaugural and visibly more confrontational approach on all matters fiscal and I think the mind clarifies a bit. The man is not only partisan, he feels no need to conceal it and seems pretty convinced there won’t be any consequences to pay. I agree the Reps should vote down Hagel, I just for different reasons – highlight Obama’s obvious partisan hubris. If his popularity has above 50 then the deserves what’s coming. The Reps job at this point is to higight to the public just how off the rails this admin is going.
February 1st, 2013 | 6:29 pm
Apologies for that rather mangled post. I’m all thumbs when it comes to my iphone.
February 1st, 2013 | 6:31 pm
I understand advice and consent similarly to djf. I just meant that I don’t think Obama would or could come up with anyone better than Hagel. Generally presidents get who they want, but then perhaps they choose more prudently than Obama has done. Go ahead, block Hagel, but then whom?
Is Hagel an alleged drunk and womanizer a la John Tower? Even then, Tower had greater competence than Hagel seems to demonstrate. Still, Obama’s choice will not alter greatly his larger policy aims.
Besides, if Congress passes stricter sanctions on Iran (or confirms sanctions already in place), how much would Def Sec’y have to do with that? Enforcement? And if it were Hagel at defense, how much administrative latitude would he have anyway in regard to that policy–short of a presidential veto?
Hagel is not good, to be sure, but who else? It looks as if the votes (including cloture) are there for his approval anyway. As of my recent trip in the car listening to NPR (I think), only 12 Republicans are confirmed nays.
February 1st, 2013 | 6:39 pm
For some hint at Obama’s foreign policy/defense policy objectives, I think this David Brooks’ opinion piece was more or less correct for good or ill–
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/08/opinion/brooks-why-hagel-was-picked.html?ref=davidbrooks
That is, the president doesn’t have a policy other than military downsizing and hopes of diplomatic engagement, and short of that I guess it is a policy of not so benign neglect. As Brooks notes, the budgetary circumstances will define his agenda, and it will be an agenda primarily geared toward domestic concerns, and specifically concerns related to entitlements and how to feasibly promote their expansion (or at least solvency). If that is possible.
So the Senate Republicans should try to lead in their advisory capacity in the choice of Defense Sec’y. But I don’t think it will matter much. Congress should look to other avenues to influence defense policy, though those are weak–especially with a Democratic Senate. The president and the Democrats have the upper hand here.
February 1st, 2013 | 7:59 pm
John, pretty much summarizes my view of things. I would add, however, if Obama wanted to find a more effective candidate for SecDef the obvious political choice would be Colin Powell whose percieved credibility, justified or not, would make him teflon in hearings such as these.
But by the same token, (no pun intended) it would make him impervious to similar kinds of pointed questions as SecDef on matters such as the eventual downsizing of the military. In that scenario, I would rather a Hagel who leads with his chin than a Powell who may as well be a Mohhamed Ali.
February 1st, 2013 | 8:13 pm
Gene,
“You’ve adopted the wonderful techniques of the Hagel-smearbund, huh, Pete?”
Smearbund? Really?
“Why did Cruz not let Hagel respond?”
Because it wasn’t a question. It was an observation that requested and unclassified documentation had not been turned over. The possibly (likely) self-serving observation that “there was nothing to see so let’s move on”, would not have advanced the conversation. Cruz wasn’t interested in Hagel’s opinions of his own past speeches.
” Cruz did not “question” him about what he hadn’t turned over: he threw out a bunch of accusations,”
Cruz questioned Hagel expertly on the Al Jazeera interview which is what I was referring to. Hagel’s feeble who-are-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lying-ears mischaracterizations of the content of that interview (which Cruz exposed) shed some doubt on the defense that there would have been nothing of interest in the speeches he has not turned over. Perhaps if Hagel had been more forthcoming altogether…
February 1st, 2013 | 8:15 pm
Pseudoplotinus,
“As bad as Hagel is, is he any worse than Lew foe treasury?” I don’t have any particular opinion on Lew. I assume Obama will be more aggressively social democratic in domestic policy in his second term.
February 1st, 2013 | 8:22 pm
John, I’m willing to take my chances with somebody else. I’m more worried about how Hagel will handle the unexpected. I think the obstinancy and obstuseness he demonstrated is dangerous in a Defense Secretary. In that nonideological way, he reminds me too much of Rumsfeld.
February 1st, 2013 | 8:33 pm
@John Presnall
Brooks has a history of underestimating Obama’s radicalism. I think he’s doing it again. It’s a mystery to me why he and other sophisticated observers don’t understand where Obama’s coming from, and why anyone took seriously the empty “bipartisan” rhetoric Obama used to employ part of the time. (I guess the perfect pants creases make it hard for some guys to think.)
Anyway, where Obama’s coming from is not Clintonite center-left multilateralism (which seems to have disappeared from the Democratic Party). To begin with, the old Clinton (who apparently is dead now) would not have made every effort to see to it that Mubarak (who was finished, of course) would be replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship, which is both a betrayal of our democratic principles (to the extremely limited extent those have any relevance to Egypt) and a grave danger to our ally Israel (which Obama really does not consider an ally) and, in the long run, possibly to control of the Gulf oil kingdoms as well. The MB now controls the military in Egypt and we probably can’t use our leverage to dislodge it anymore, even if we wanted to. I am certain that Obama has more “surprises” in store for Israel over the next four years. And I would expect a series of treaties to be rammed through the Senate that will seriously compromise our ability to influence events in the world. Since Obama can hamstring the US and its allies, and empower our enemies, without making any big military commitment, I don’t see how our budget situation limits his freedom to work the sort of mischief to which he is inclined.
I don’t see that Obama could pick anyone worse than Hagel, so I see no reason for the Senate GOP not to block him. I realize they won’t – most Republican senators being the clueless mediocrities they are – but I think they should. The business about the president having a right to pick his team does not impress me; it wasn’t too long ago that the Senate Democrats blocked John Bolton’s confirmation as UN ambassador, a far less powerful post. I would add that it says volumes about Obama’s contempt for the military and for America’s role in the world that he picked a guy as mediocre as Hagel for Defense.
February 1st, 2013 | 8:47 pm
Mr. Callahan should take a look at the way Democratic senators question witnesses they don’t like. They’re not exactly cordial (here the delightful, big-hearted Senator Schumer comes to mind). Also, a witness at a congressional hearing, like a witness in court, is not entitled to spout at will; if the questioner thinks that you’re being non-responsive, he can cut you off. Those on the panel more friendly to the witness can, of course, offer him an opportunity to clarify or elaborate on his previous responses – but they will do this only if they think it will help rather than hurt.
Pseudo, Obama would not pick Powell for Defense because the man (although I can’t stand him) has a huge reputation and possibly could resist parts of Obama’s agenda. Obama wants a Defense Secretary who is his creature, will do what he’s told and will not make unwelcome recommendations or ask unpleasant questions. It is reported by Tom Ricks that the commanding general of CentCom was fired for sins of this kind.
February 1st, 2013 | 9:10 pm
djf, Good call on Bolton. I forgot about that one! Whether he likes it or not, I still think Obama will be limited by fiscal concerns in the near future, but unfortunately, coupled with his domestic agenda, this limitation already fits his downsizing defense objectives.
I agree with you. These objectives are potentially as radical as you say they are.
I like what Pseudo did. He named a possible alternative to Hagel–Colin Powell. That is improbable, but someone needs to start naming some alternatives if a serious effort at a Republican filibuster (short of the Senate Democrats resorting to the nuclear option) is to be done. But I doubt there will be a filibuster.
Like I said, I agree with djf’s understanding of advice and consent–this does not mean that the president ought to get what he wants (though in historical practice it usually does). It means that in these circumstances, with Obama as president, a Democratic Senate, and a decent sized public opinion behind all this, Hagel will be Defense Sec’y. So is this the right battle for Republicans, especially if in all likelihood they will fail?
I share djf’s concerns, and I also agree with Pete that Hagel ain’t good Defense Sec’y material. So stop his appointment.
But whom do you love (or at least find bearable) in comparison? And will this fight present the President with any severe stumbling block for his policies? Might there not be other avenues of resistance to pursue, i.e., legislation? Or at least proposals to which the president and the Democrats would have to respond?
February 1st, 2013 | 9:32 pm
“But whom do you love (or at least find bearable) in comparison?”
Are none of Panetta’s aides at Defense at all temperamentally fit to take the job? We can’t know as laymen (I can’t anyway), but I find I’d be interested in giving Obama another chance to sift through those personnel folders.
February 1st, 2013 | 9:38 pm
Pete, me too! But the binders full of advisors needs to be brought up.
So it seems to me that in terms of public opinion the Republicans can’t afford lose battle of this sort–another alleged example of obstructionism–as the story will surely be finessed. Still, you are right about Hagel’s temperament. He sure seems to speak out of context a lot! Goodness knows what would happen if he were at defense, but alas, I think this will happen.
In the long term, the Republicans need to point out the shortsightedness of Obama’s downsizing defense policy. If Hagel needs conetxt to explain himself, then the Republicans need to fill it in and show why that context is wrongheaded. And then they could–in terms of what the Congress can do regarding military matters–propose an alternative.
That being said, the presidency as an office generally has the upper hand on these issues.
February 1st, 2013 | 9:50 pm
“Pseudo, Obama would not pick Powell for Defense because the man (although I can’t stand him) has a huge reputation and possibly could resist parts of Obama’s agenda.”
DJF, John,
I agree Powell is unlikely, though I think it has more to do with his general antipathy to politics altogether at this point in his life. My larger point in posing Powell as an alternative is to suggest a worse candidate than Hagel could be someone who both supports Obama’s second term agenda AND has the credibility to give that agenda additional leverage. With Hagel he just has a chump who he can say was once a Republican.
I support voting Hagel down, not because I think it will happen (I give it 50-50 odds at this point) but because the Reps have to start sticking markers in the ground so that if and when all of this comes to a head they can point back to these moments and highlight the fact that they fought this from the beginning.
Ted Cruz is a good example of what I mean.
February 1st, 2013 | 9:54 pm
The two top deputy defense secretaries were mentioned as possible alternatives to Hagel – can’t remember their names, but one of them is a woman, and, having looked them up on Wikipedia a few weeks, I recall that both of them appear to be highly qualified, highly credentialed, certainly extremely smart people, with considerable relevant administrative and policy experience. Of course, I’m sure most of us here would have few points of agreement with them, but the fact that Obama passed over such people (who would have been confirmed without a nay vote) in favor of a political hack like Hagel indicates that he picked Hagel to make a point, and to make sure he would have a yes-man in charge at DOD.
February 1st, 2013 | 9:55 pm
“Are none of Panetta’s aides at Defense at all temperamentally fit to take the job?”
Pete, I think the more precise question is who in those binders would be willing to be SecDef when on their watch the US Military will be indescriminately hollowed out by the Obama administration?
Who ever is willing to sign on to that, by definition, has no businesses being SecDef.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:09 pm
The two alternative to Hagel I had in mind in my previous post are Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and former Deputy Secretary for Planning Michele Flourney (I might not have her title or the spelling of her name exactly right). Look them up, if you’re interested; comparing either of them to Hagel is like comparing Robert Bork to Harriet Meirs.
February 1st, 2013 | 10:29 pm
To add another wrinkle to this conversation–
The problem with the binders full of advisors route as an alternative to Hagel is that I figure Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul–for principled reasons–like, or at least find tolerable, Hagel as the head of Defense. If Hagel is a political hack, for more calculating reasons, he also has his purposes which are useful for cross purpose divisions within the Senate Republicans themselves and to the (alleged) advantage of Paul in 2016.
So freshman Ted Cruz becomes the crux here (grimace!). Though I think Cruz and Republicans like him still won’t win this Hagel fight.
February 2nd, 2013 | 10:24 am
John, binders full of advisors is hilarious. I don’t think the GOP pays any electoral price for opposing Hagel.
Pseudoplotinus, I don’t doubt that there are patriotic, liberal, well meaning Democrats who would serve at defense. I’m not worried about Hagel carrying out the policies that Obama knows he wants regarding spending levels or whatever. Obama won and his Secretary of Defense is going to go along with Obama’s priorities. I’m worried about Hagel responding badly to situations that come up.
DJF, I looked those two up a couple of days ago, but it isn’t like what I saw on the internet tells me much and I wouldn’t have been able to pick them out of a lineup this time last week. That’s okay. That’s part of what the confirmation process is about. Maybe there are reasons why this or that Panetta aide shouldn’t be Secretary, but I’m not worried about Obama’s ability (s distinct from his inclination) to find someone better than Hagel.
February 3rd, 2013 | 8:08 am
All of this reminds me of that Otto Preminger classic Advise and Consent…. check it out… only if there were some more “Seeb” in the Senate….
February 3rd, 2013 | 5:26 pm
[...] Erickson. “Cruz showed what happens when preparation, talent, and discipline come together,” gushed Pete Spiliakos at the theoconservative journal First Things. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin enthused [...]
February 3rd, 2013 | 5:38 pm
So, thanks to the power of podcast, I’ve listened to a couple of interesting interviews while tending the homestead that are relevant to this discussion thread.
Over at AEI’s podcast program Banter:
http://media.aei.org/tag/dany-pletka/
Dany Pletka, AEI’s director of foreign affairs is extensively interviewed on the Hagel matter and she offers to very interesting observations.
1. Apparently Hagel’s appointment was NOT supported by the White House staff but by Obama himself despite his staff’s council.
2. Pletka’s opinion is that Obama’s insistence on Hagel despite the obvious arguments against him is that in Hagel he has someone who almost completely agrees with his own views on the role of the US in the world, and the place of the military in that equation. In other words if you want to know what Obama’s real view on the matter of national defense is, Hagel apparently is the perfect decoder ring. Comforting eh?
And over at Ricochet:
http://ricochet.com/podcasts/goldberg-long-podhoretz/Trillion-Dollar-Coins
John Podhoretz, late in the podcast mentions Michele Flournoy, who DJF mentioned in his recent post above. According to Podhoretz, Flournoy is well known and well regarded on both sides of the isle and would have given Obama both an extremely credible candidate as well as the first woman SecDef in history (for those on the left who put stock in such things), yet Podhoretz continues, Obama reached out to Hagel in stead.
Taken together my interpretation is that Flournoy would have probably been the best qualified candidate, but, again supporting DJF’s reasoning above, in Hagel Obama would have had a reliable appendage to his own world view governing the DOD.
The story gets ever more interesting and revealing about the qualities of our Commander in Chief.
February 4th, 2013 | 12:41 am
@Pseudoplotinus
“The story gets ever more interesting and revealing about the qualities of our Commander in Chief.”
Or, revealing of the LACK of quality of our Commander in Chief.
His need to show contempt, not just to his actual opponents, but to those whom he despises for some reason even though they are trying to get along with him (in the case of the Hagel appointment, the US military brass, mainstream pro-Israel US politicians and organizations like AIPAC, and centrist Israeli politicians who want to reactivate Oslo) is extraordinary. In view of Hagel’s lack of qualification for such an important job, his appointment can only be interpreted as a calculated insult.
February 4th, 2013 | 1:41 pm
[...] Erickson. “Cruz showed what happens when preparation, talent, and discipline come together,” gushed Pete Spiliakos at the theoconservative journal First Things. Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin enthused [...]
February 4th, 2013 | 6:10 pm
DJF, agreed with your assessment. My impression of the president at this point is of someone having succumbed entirely to classic hubris. As a rule, that sort of thing doesn’t typically bode well for ones fate. But we will see.
Pete. Quit ‘gushing’ about Senator Cruz!
February 4th, 2013 | 6:54 pm
Pseudoplotinus, I’ll be more restrained if and when the situation calls for it. I imagine there will be times when I have reason to be critical.
February 5th, 2013 | 1:03 pm
If an intelligent person is made SecDef, even if he is implementing Obama’s policies, he or she will do it in a way that does the least harm, purely as a matter of professional pride and integrity. Having a doofus like Hagel in the post will simply create chaos and an inability to make decisions, neutering the DOD at the top. Obama is already a doofus on defense matters, as he demonstrated that he could not make decision on a surge in Afghanistan for six months. We need to put somebody in the chain of command who can at least make an intelligent decision, and not be immobilized by indecision and fear of screwing up (the basic reason for the Benghazi debacle).
February 5th, 2013 | 1:51 pm
Here’s an entertainingly paranoid interpretation from TNR about why Reps are so high on Flournoy. Based on the profile they give of her she appears to fulfill Pete’s desire for a thoroughly qualified SecDef and my concerns that a more capable Obama candidate will only be harder to confront when the fiscal scissors start cutting the national defense down to size.
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111354/why-the-gop-loves-michele-flournoy-hint-shes-not-chuck-hagel
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact