Skip to main content

View Diary: The problem with Chuck Hagel (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Male soldiers rape female soldiers... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shuksan Tahoma

    so we need a female SecDef.

    Both India and Pakistan have had female presidents. Has that made rape any less normal in either of those countries? No.

    This thread is becoming a parody of postmodern identity politics. The position of SecDef is about national security, i.e., how to run the American empire. It is not about LGBT or women's issues.

    •  blunt, but true. I agree. (0+ / 0-)
      •  True? Really? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies, Skipbidder

        I never said we needed a female SoD for the sake of having one. There are at least five candidates who are equally qualified as Hagel, all of whom are Democrats, neutral or positive on women's or LGBT issues, all of whom are eminently qualified to serve as SoD.  BTW, all but one of them are Caucasian men:

        Eric Shinseki
        Joe Sestak
        Wesley Clark
        Jim Webb
        Bob Kerry

        Is Chuck Hagel really so much better than any of these other candidates? If so, I'd be interested in hearing what makes him so great.

    •  Please indicate where I suggested (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      that we needed a female SoD.

      If you had looked at my earlier posts, you would have noticed that I advocated for Wesley Clark, Eric Shineski, Joe Sestak, or Jim Webb, none of whom are women, all of whom are eminently qualified to maintain our National Security and "run the American Empire."

      I fail to see why Chuck Hagel is any more qualified than they are, and they have the benefits of 1) being neutral, rather than antithetical on LGBT and women's issues and 2) being Democrats.

      •  My apologies (0+ / 0-)

        But I don't think that Wesley Clark should be considered, since he's the one who started this whole "humanitarian intervention" business with Kosovo. And humanitarian intervention is just liberals'/progressives' version of aggressive US imperialism, their wrapping the neocon project in different paper.

        The others you mention might be good choices, but I'm not sure that they have any more chances of being confirmed than Hagel has.

        •  Fair enough (0+ / 0-)

          I think Bob Kerrey or Jim Webb would have a decent chance, though, due to "Senate Collegiality" stuff - and they are both Democrats.  Shinseki, also, seems politically neutral, and would be able to serve as of June 2013.

          I am informed that Sestak would need a waiver to serve, but if it only has to come from the Senate, I think he would be able to get one.

          Just FYI, though, I do know some Kosovars who think Clark hung the moon. They don't care much about the imperialism business. They just care that they and their families are still alive, as it was viewed as quite a serious threat at the time.

          •  The main person I've seen floated as the back-up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            is Michèle Flournoy. She is in bed with the neocons.

            It's very nice to bring up the names of Democrats well qualified to be SecDefs who act in America's interest. The problem is, we have no indication that the person who Obama actually appoints, if it is not Hagel, will not be worse than Hagel.

            •  Ick - not a fan (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              If they want a woman, there are some retired women with general or admiral rank who would do just fine.  Not so sure if Claudia Kennedy could pass the Congressional hearings, but someone similar - i.e. Ann Dunwoody or Patricia Tracey would be fine.

              I'd love to see Sestak get it, provided he could get a waiver.

              •  Duckworth (0+ / 0-)

                If you wanted a woman, are there issues with Tammy Duckworth?

                The plural of anecdote is not data.

                by Skipbidder on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 12:48:08 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, she just won her House seat (0+ / 0-)

                  so she might not want to be SoD just yet.  Plus, she's a Lt. Col., not yet flag rank, although I don't know how much that matters.

                  •  prolly wasn't a viable suggestion (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't know if her rank matters either.

                    She also has experience at VA as an undersecretary. (Or Assistant Secretary I guess they are calling it now.)  

                    I think she's probably a big longshot to be the nominee.

                    I had misremembered my history. For some reason I had thought she had won in 2006 to replace the Henry Hyde seat. I forgot that she barely lost. I thought she had lost a reelection bid.

                    The plural of anecdote is not data.

                    by Skipbidder on Tue Jan 01, 2013 at 12:17:23 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site