You must Publish this diary to make this visible to the public,
or click 'Edit Diary' to make further changes first.
Posting a Diary Entry
Daily Kos welcomes blog articles from readers, known as diaries. The Intro section to a diary should be about three paragraphs long, and is required. The body section is optional, as
is the poll, which can have 1 to 15 choices. Descriptive tags are also required to help others find your diary by subject; please don't use "cute" tags.
When you're ready, scroll down below the tags and click Save & Preview. You can edit your diary after it's published by clicking Edit Diary. Polls cannot be edited once they are published.
If this is your first time creating a Diary since the Ajax upgrade, before you enter any text below, please press Ctrl-F5 and then hold down the Shift Key and press your browser's Reload button to refresh its cache with the new script files.
ATTENTION: READ THE RULES.
One diary daily maximum.
Substantive diaries only. If you don't have at least three solid, original paragraphs, you should probably post a comment in an Open Thread.
No repetitive diaries. Take a moment to ensure your topic hasn't been blogged (you can search for Stories and Diaries
that already cover this topic), though fresh original analysis is always welcome.
Use the "Body" textbox if your diary entry is longer than three paragraphs.
Any images in your posts must be hosted by an approved image hosting service (one of: imageshack.us, photobucket.com, flickr.com, smugmug.com, allyoucanupload.com, picturetrail.com, mac.com, webshots.com, editgrid.com).
Copying and pasting entire copyrighted works is prohibited. If you do quote something, keep it brief, always provide a link to the original source, and use the <blockquote> tags to clearly identify the quoted material. Violating this rule is grounds for immediate banning.
Be civil. Do not "call out" other users by name in diary titles. Do not use profanity in diary titles. Don't write diaries whose main purpose is to deliberately inflame.
It looks like Chuck Hagel's team is preparing to mount a counter-attack against all the people who are muttering about what a dismal choice he'd be for secretary of defense. Ironically, most of the pushback against Hagel is coming from the Republican side of the aisle, with the Weekly Standard pushing the notion that he might be an anti-Semite and the Washington Post op-ed page grumbling that he is "well to the left" of the crazy leftist Barack Obama. So that's where the pushback-pushback is also directed:
"Those misrepresenting Senator Hagel's positions on this are in the gutter," said Andrew Parasiliti, who was Hagel's foreign policy advisor from 2001-2005 and is now editor of Al-Monitor. "That he is anti-Israel is complete nonsense, not at all supported by his record. He knows the issues and the players there as well as anyone in Washington. Those tossing around these accusations can't hold a candle to his record of service and expertise on national security."
Hagel supporters have also begun to circulate a memo called "Facts on Chuck Hagel," which is meant to rebut, among other things, the charge Hagel is not supportive enough of Israel because he has declined to sign several letters supported by some pro-Israel groups and because he once referred to the pro-Israel lobby as the "Jewish lobby."
Prominently quoted is Bush defense official Richard Armitage. Now, I personally think being endorsed by any Bush era defense official ought to be considered a veto right there, when talking about running the department of blowing stuff up, but as we've seen it's impossible to screw anything up so badly as to diminish your credibility among the Washington crowd, so here we are.
"Sen. Hagel fought and bled for his country," Carney told reporters Thursday. "He served his country well."
So have a great many people, unfortunately. So why is Hagel in particular being considered, other than because he apparently wants the job? I couldn't begin to tell you. He's not well liked among Republicans, and Democrats are baffled at the continuing bizarre fixation, in Democratic administrations, with putting a Republican in the position. On, and he was a strong supporter of the ban against gay members of the military, and even against gay Americans holding positions as U.S. Ambassadors because being openly gay wouldn't properly "represent America." No, really.
So why's he on the short list? Is the knowledge that nobody actually wants him for the job considered, somehow, "bipartisan"?