Skip to main content

Since many of our Christian brothers and sisters are offline for the Christmas holiday, I thought this would be a good time for the pro-Obama Jews to caucus.

What do we want the next four years to be like? Do we want to spend the next four years under the jackboot of the neocons, even though we beat them in the last three Presidential elections, starting with the 2008 Democratic primary?

If we don't want to spend the next four years under the jackboot of the neocons, then we have to stop the neocons from blocking the nomination of diplomacy advocate, war skeptic, and decorated Vietnam combat veteran Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.

I'm not saying that we're necessarily going to win this. But at least we can have a real fight. This is like the Warsaw Uprising: the odds against us may be daunting, but we'll never have a better venue to make our stand. If we have to go down on some hill for a democratic Israel, the two-state solution, and real Iran diplomacy, we won't find a better hill to go down on than this one. We have allies right now that we may not have in the future.

Look who's on our side right now. Former military officials. Former diplomats, including five U.S. Ambassadors to Israel. J Street. Americans for Peace Now. Former Israeli consul general in New York Alon Pinkas. Israeli-born Nebraska Rabbi Aryeh Azriel. Former U.S. Senator and decorated Vietnam combat veteran Max Cleland. Jon Soltz, head of VoteVets. Paul Rieckoff, head of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Jan Scruggs, president of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund. Robert Bergdahl, father of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American POW in Taliban custody. Peter Beinart, author of The Crisis of Zionism. Foreign policy expert Steve Clemons.

More than fifteen thousand people have signed this petition at MoveOn, this petition at VoteVets, or this petition at the White House web site.

With all these allies on our side, if we can't beat the neocons on the Hagel nomination, how are we going to beat the neocons on supporting real U.S. diplomatic engagement with Iran? With all these allies on our side, if we can't beat the neocons on the Hagel nomination, how are we going to beat the neocons on stopping Bibi from ringing East Jerusalem with settlements to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state?

As Rabbi Hillel said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?"

Here's what you can do right now.

First: sign this petition at MoveOn, this petition at VoteVets, and this petition at the White House web site. That will take you three minutes.

Second: call Washington on Wednesday - or as soon as you can - demanding that diplomacy advocate, war skeptic, and decorated Vietnam combat veteran Chuck Hagel be the next Secretary of Defense.

You think if fifteen thousand people call Washington, demanding that Chuck Hagel be the next Secretary of Defense, Washington's not going to notice?

You can call the White House here: (202) 456-1111. Here's your script: "President Obama, we have your back. I support your choice of Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as the next Secretary of Defense. I will urge my Senators to support his confirmation." You can report your call to the White House to MoveOn here.

You can find the phone numbers for your two U.S. Senators here. Here's your script: "I support President Obama's choice of Chuck Hagel to serve as our next Secretary of Defense. I urge you to speak out on Senator Hagel's behalf and to support his confirmation as our next Secretary of Defense." You can report your phone calls to your Senators to MoveOn here.  

A miracle can happen here. Let's not let this go down without a real fight.

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy.

9:33 PM PT: Tom Friedman came out for Hagel today!!

Give Chuck a Chance
http://www.nytimes.com/...

Poll

If President Obama nominates Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, he should be confirmed by the Senate

70%61 votes
29%25 votes

| 86 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  is there serious opposition to this from the (0+ / 0-)

    ReThugs?

    •  re: is there serious opposition from the Rs? (5+ / 0-)

      It depends what you mean by "serious opposition." So far the actual Senators who have spoken out against Hagel have been: Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Marco Rubio (over Hagel's support for lifting the Cuba embargo.) So, so far it is the faction most influenced by the neocons. However, these things have a tendency to spread if they are not challenged.

    •  It's coming from both left and right. (6+ / 0-)

      The right hate him because Hagel came out against the war in Iraq, and he did it quite eloquently, too, without hedging.  He voted for it originally, but he burned his bridges.

      The "Lieberman-Left," if we want to give it a name, Jewish-Americans who support the Israeli Right just because it's Israeli, oppose Hagel because he has been too realist and not enough neocon on Israeli issues.

      The rest of the left seems a bit confused at the moment, opposing him because he's a Republican (as Kos did) and saying that we need a Democrat in that job.  That makes sense, HOWEVER... we should know by now that any Democrat Obama proposes will be closer to the neocon right than Hagel.

      Remember that we just recently lost Petraeus from CIA.  Petraeus had given insider status to the neocon Kagans, something that should stun and horrify those of us that thought we had elected Obama to get rid of assholes like that.  To find out that they are given privileged insider status at the highest circles, and most people in the Whitehouse didn't even KNOW it was going on...

      See.  I'd rather have Hagel because we know the neocons hate his ass.  It might take somebody like him to clean house and get rid of the gophers.

      •  I don't like "Lieberman-Left" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        janatallow

        I don't think it's "Left" at all, and I don't think it's "Jewish-Americans who support the Israeli Right just because it's Israeli." The people who really support the Israeli Right know exactly what they are doing. Most liberal American Jews are not engaged on these issues on an ongoing basis, so the Jewish Right is able to dominate the field between elections. Most American Jews don't support the Israeli Right. Most American Jews simply are not active on these issues, so the Right dominates.

        In April, Paul Krugman wrote:

        The truth is that like many liberal American Jews — and most American Jews are still liberal — I basically avoid thinking about where Israel is going. It seems obvious from here that the narrow-minded policies of the current government are basically a gradual, long-run form of national suicide — and that’s bad for Jews everywhere, not to mention the world. But I have other battles to fight, and to say anything to that effect is to bring yourself under intense attack from organized groups that try to make any criticism of Israeli policies tantamount to anti-Semitism.
        That's the basic story for the majority. Not support, but failure to engage.
      •  There are Democratic neocons. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wilderness voice

        Lieberman is one of them, IMO. Neocons are not necessarily conservative on all issues. Some are moderate on social issues, and even some fiscal issues. Most of their main issues are in foreign policy, and support for the Israeli Right is a key part of that.

        "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

        by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:17:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  re: There are Democratic neocons (0+ / 0-)

          That is certainly true, although it's much less true than it used to be, in part as a result of the Iraq war, and opposition to the Iraq war, and Joe Lieberman is really emblematic of that. He used to be considered a "good Democrat," not anymore, obviously.

          Likewise, if you look back, you'll see that prior to the Iraq war, the term "neoconservative" was not generally seen as describing something really terrible among Democrats outside of the precincts of people historically engaged in opposing foreign wars. Like, if you met Democrats engaged in the peace movement, then they would see "neoconservative" as something awful. But among Democrats more generally, if you described the New Republic (under its previous neoconservative editorship) as "liberal," no-one would object. There's been a big shift in the last twelve years.

          •  That's true, (0+ / 0-)

            but also, in the previous decade, foreign policy was less of a focus for Democrats, except to the extent the Republicans made it a partisan issue, which was less often than they do now.

            "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

            by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:48:18 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Compare Lieberman and Hagel (0+ / 0-)

          as to their American Conservative Union lifetime ratings.

          Lieberman has a 16, Hagel an 84.

          That 84 is sufficient for me to oppose Hagel. He is a terrible choice, and I can't believe that a diarist on a supposedly progressive site would be promoting him.

          •  All other things being equal, I'd say, yeah. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Robert Naiman, janatallow, poco

            But can you honestly say that knowing Lieberman's outspokenness about attacking other countries in the Middle East, and Hagel's outspokenness against attacking other countries in the Middle East, you'd rather have Lieberman than Hagel?  

            That alone would be reason enough for me to want Hagel.  But I have other reasons, as I tried to point out.  I want somebody who hates neocons to root them out of the DOD.  And we could use somebody like that to root them out of the CIA, too, no thanks to that asswipe Petraeus and the Kagans.

            If it was an election for president between Lieberman and Hagel, I'd vote Hagel for that, too, although I'd rather not have to make that choice.  That ACU rating is meaningless when put in context.

          •  If they were to weight the issues (0+ / 0-)

            more heavily toward defense related legislation, I suspect Lieberman's score would be higher and Hagel's lower.

            "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

            by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 10:17:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I thought the opposition was coming from people (7+ / 0-)

    here who didn't want a Republican. I guess I haven't been paying attention?

  •  I'm not a Jew (14+ / 0-)

    Is it OK if I prefer a DEMOCRAT rather than a Republican (with or without jackboots)?

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 01:44:37 PM PST

    •  re: is it ok...? (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, poco, Jim P, Dumbo, janatallow, letsgetreal

      Everyone gets to advocate for whatever they want. But if the thing you care about is Democratic values of less war and more diplomacy, then I think you have to recognize that that is what is at stake here. The key engine of opposition to Hagel is coming from people who want more war and less diplomacy. Joe Lieberman, Lindsay Graham, Jen Rubin: that's what's driving the opposition.

    •  Susan Rice was a premier Neocon (0+ / 0-)

      ...but lots of people backed her because they thought the President was going to nominate her.

      Why is this nomination from the President being opposed?

      •  re: Susan Rice (3+ / 0-)

        I don't agree with you about Susan Rice. She was the President's person. She was attacked by Republicans opportunistically for being the President's person and for putting out the talking points that were approved by the CIA. I think that's why a lot of Democrats rallied to her defense, because they saw the attack on her an unjust, opportunistic partisan attack. That was my view, anyway: I was never a Susan Rice booster, but I saw the attack on her as an unjust, opportunistic partisan attack.  

        •  No they just wanted to make John Kerry the nominee (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          quill, Dumbo

          and give Scott Brown a chance to win another special election in MA.

          "Your diary is a pack of filthy lies." -bronte17

          by Setrak on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:58:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I thought Rice was great (0+ / 0-)

          and I'm embarrassed by the way that Progressives did not rally to her when she was slandered by McCain and Co.

          •  Weren't given the opportunity. (0+ / 0-)

            There's the degree to which it mirrors the swift boat nonsense. Just a bizarre, obviously conjured attack that shouldn't have been taken seriously by anyone. It's unclear how you defend against that any better than the President did, although had the nomination happened we obviously would have been able to more effectively rally to her defense.

            "All things are true. Even false things. Don't ask me, man, I didn't do it." -Mitt Romney

            by Geiiga on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:08:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  If nothing else, it's always amusing to see the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marykk, Gooserock, koNko

    "decorated Vietnam combat veteran" card played by Democrats to add a little cognitive dissonance to the mix.

  •  I would never pick up the phone for Hagel (9+ / 0-)

    He had a ZERO rating from NARAL.  I don't think a person of such extreme views should be honored with a major Cabinet position.  

    Plus, he isn't a Democrat.  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 01:50:24 PM PST

  •  isn't this a Godwin kind of thing? (10+ / 0-)
    This is like the Warsaw Uprising
    no it's not.
  •  Dennis Kucinich has my vote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    charliehall2, happymisanthropy

    I am so sick of "the usual" and since when does a democratic president have to nominate a republican for secretary of defense???

  •  yes, this IS a lot like the warsaw ghetto uprising (4+ / 0-)

    by which i mean, trying to, for some astonishing reason, help further the tradition of democratic presidents nominating republicans to lead the defense department by comparing the effort to the warsaw uprising is absurd and more than borderline insulting.

    not really sure why jews, in particular, have any real dog in this race. but i am sure that -- though i hate when people spout conspiracy theories about diaries -- this reads a lot like an astroturf form letter. and not a very good one, at that.

    totally weird diary.

    •  did you even read the diary? (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pluto, kyril, native, Dumbo, poco, janatallow

      It's hard to take your criticism seriously when it's clearly based on a very cursory reading. Most American Jews want to see serious diplomacy with Iran. Most American Jews want to see the end of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Most American Jews are not represented by and do not support the neocon agenda. The majority of American Jews would like to push back the neocons. The question is how they may do so. My point here is that we are more likely to win a confrontation with the neocons over the Hagel nomination than we are likely to win a confrontation with the neocons over Iran diplomacy or settlements in the West Bank, because a bunch of people are engaged on our side on this who may not be engaged in the future.

      •  yes, i read the entire diary (2+ / 0-)

        not really sure why this couldnt have been about democrats, though. other than making it all jewishy to, i guess, whip up sentiment among jews or something, i see no reason for it.

        •  re: why this couldn't have been about Democrats (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          janatallow

          It could have, but that would be a different diary.

          I really was addressing progressive Jews in this diary, the kind of people who read Peter Beinart's The Crisis of Zionism and took it to heart. The problem of the relationship of progressive Jews to the neocon lobby is an important question for progressive Jews, just like the relationship of liberal gun owners to the NRA is an important question for liberal gun owners, or the relationship of liberal Cuban-Americans to the Cuba lobby is an important question for liberal Cuban-Americans.

          •  I heard Beinart speak a few months ago (0+ / 0-)

            and frankly he does not make a good case.

            He had ONE good point in over an hour and that was that the idea that Israel enhances its security by building settlements all over the WB is foolishness. But he really doesn't understand the nature of the groups that are trying to bring Israel down. They are hateful violent misogynistic homophobic religious fanatics that all of us here should be 100% against.

        •  Yeah, them thar jews, they shore (0+ / 0-)

          do rile up so dam easy.

          Sheesh.

      •  serious diplomacy (2+ / 0-)

        I thought Obama was engaging in serious diplomacy with Iran.

        •  re: serious diplomacy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          janatallow

          Well. The Obama Administration is, judging from press reports, seriously trying to engage Iran in bilateral talks, and that's very good.

          But, so far, the Obama Administration has not, at least as far as is publicly known, made clear its willingness to accept a deal in which Iran's nuclear enrichment program would be accepted in some form and most international sanctions would be lifted, in return for acceptance of a vigorous international inspection regime that would guarantee the peaceful nature of the program; in other words, a deal of the form that most analysts think is plausible. And that's bad. And it is generally believed that neocon pressure has a lot to do with that. I am still hopeful that this could turn around in the second term. But how much power the neocons wield is going to have a lot to do with what happens with that.

  •  Besides President Obama keeping W's guy, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice

    how many other Dems have had Rs at Defense?

    And with the situation in Egypt, Syria and Bibi/Hamas, I'm not surprised jews are concerned.

    Heck, I'm concerned.

    **Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your behavior does** h/t Clytemnestra/Victoria Jackson

    by glorificus on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:01:49 PM PST

    •  only just about every other post-war dem president (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      the "secretary of defense" position has existed for about 70 years. in that time, there have been 4 democratice presidents elected before obama. three of those have nominated republicans, including clinton, johnson/kennedy, and truman, while zero republicans have nominated democrats. now we're about to make it 4 out of 5. so great -- hagel has been vaguely anti-war. you're telling me there isnt a qualified democrat who was also against the war?

      this smacks of another weird attempt at bipartisanship by obama that will bear less than zero fruit.

      •  Perhaps Presidents pick from a list (0+ / 0-)

        ...presented by the Pentagon. (That notion solves a number of equations.)

      •  Not one (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ConfusedSkyes, VelvetElvis

        with a snowball's chance in Hell of being confirmed.

        Hagel's a good choice for SecDef. The only way to get a Democrat confirmed for the position is to pick one who passes the "pro-Israel" (a.k.a. pro-war) litmus test.
        Hagel, as a Jewish Republican, can support peace and diplomacy and only see pushback from the crazy neocon wing. The SoCons, FisCons, and virtually all Democrats will probably be OK with him as long as the DefCons don't get a chance to organize an opposition.

        Any Democrat picked will be far worse than Hagel on the issues that matter for the position; they might be better on, say, HUD funding and Medicare, but that's not really relevant.

        "Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal

        by kyril on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:27:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Where I come from there's a name (8+ / 0-)

    for pro-Obama Jews.

    We call them "Democrats."

    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

    by marykk on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:03:10 PM PST

    •  seriously (7+ / 0-)

      this is a completely bizarre attempt to somehow turn this into a jewish issue. something is not quite right about it -- aside from being uncomfortable and weird, it remains unclear why this is being framed this way.

      •  re: seriously (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jim P, CIndyCasella

        Well, to me it's totally obvious; I tried to explain it not only in the diary but also in the comments, but perhaps if one doesn't have background in the issue, then it may be difficult to grasp.

        If you are interested in these issues, and want to understand why the stakes for liberal American Jews are particularly high, I strongly suggest you read Peter Beinart's book The Crisis of Zionism. He talks about how, while the majority of American Jews want peace between Israel and the Palestinians and diplomacy with Iran, the voice that gets heard in Washington is the voice of the Jewish Right. And part of the reason for this is that the Jewish Right is more engaged. The majority of American Jews would like a less militaristic foreign policy, but they are less organized and less engaged on these issues in Washington and therefore they have less influence.

        The dynamics are very similar to those with the gun lobby, the Cuba lobby, etc. An engaged militant minority dominates the disengaged majority.

        And that's what's been happening here. If you look at the early press on the opposition to Hagel, a lot of it talked about "Jewish leaders" when in fact it was talking about right-wing groups like the Weekly Standard, the Emergency Committee for Israel, the Israel Project, etc. etc. So a big part of the story here is how groups on the Jewish Right are constructed in the media as "Jewish leaders." And a big part of why that happens is because organizations representing the more dovish views of the majority of American Jews are not able to effectively push back, and a key reason for that is their inability to mobilize the disengaged majority.
           

    •  re: there's a name (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge, poco

      I don't disagree with you on that. But many people don't realize that the opposition to the Hagel nomination is being driven by neocons who backed Romney and McCain.

      •  I'm 100% against the Hagel nomination (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marykk

        and I was a huge Obama supporter in both 2008 and 2012. I've been promoting Obama among the Orthodox Zionist Jewish community on the internet and in my home neighborhood like crazy and haven't really stopped even today. I'm not a neocon, I think that the neocons make the same error that the followers of Chomsky make in overestimating the influence of the United States in world affairs, I'm opposed to more building in Israeli settlements in the WB, and don't pick sides in Israeli politics.

        And I think that is a travesty that our Democratic president is about to pick a right wing Republican with an 84 lifetime ACU rating as Defense Secretary. Hagel has opposed almost every Obama policy, even voting against sanctions on Iraq and Libya. I frankly can't figure out the rationale for the choice other than yet another futile attempt at bipartisanship, which usually gets Bronx cheers from folks here at DKos. And I can't figure out why anyone here thinks that this appointment is a good idea. You want someone who has supported a less aggressive foreign policy? How about Jim Webb or Jack Reed, both of whom are members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Webb is also a former Navy Secretary.  

  •  What opposition do you suppose there is (2+ / 0-)

    To picking a retired (R) to run Secretary of Defense?   Do you think the (R)s will fillibuster one of their own when it continues their narrative that the are the leaders on defense and military issues?

    I'm confused.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:10:05 PM PST

  •  The word Israel is never uttered (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dave in Northridge

    not even in the comments. This is not about anti gay statements 14 years ago, nor about his being a Republican. It's all about Israel and Palestine and Israel and Iran.

    •  not just about Israel (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anorish

      It's not just about Israel, it's about a particular faction, the neocon-Likud faction. If you want Israel to be a democratic state within its 1967 borders then it's in your interest for the nomination of Hagel to go through, because this battle is about the people who want Israel to maintain its occupation of the West Bank. Likewise, this is about people who don't want the U.S. to engage in serious diplomacy with Iran.

      •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

        but I see no difference between Likud and Labor or Livni's White phosphorus party, indeed labor were the chief architects of the settlements.We should be honest about the opposition to Hagel. Is Chuck Schumer a neocon?

        •  re: Agreed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          re: no difference between Likud and Labor, I don't agree that there is no difference. Which is not to say that I think Labor is totally wonderful and has not done terrible things. But that's not the same as saying there is no difference. To me, that's like saying there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans because Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan. Reality is more complicated. Labor is better on democratic rights in Israel, Labor cares more about Israel's international reputation, so that gives leverage for better things to happen,   even though clearly better things don't always happen. I don't think the analogy is perfect; Labor is bad in some ways that the "Democrats" overall aren't bad, but one reason that the Democrats aren't as bad in the way is that people have struggled over it and won. Democrats used to be worse on foreign policy overall than they are today. Look at the vote on the Tonkin Gulf resolution, for example. Or the Iraq war.

          re: is Chuck Schumer a neocon: I would not describe him so, even though he has done a lot of pro-neocon things. I think someone like Schumer is more of a jump ball, susceptible to pressure from both sides, depending on the circumstance. So, for example, they asked Schumer on the Sunday talk shows, where do you stand on Hagel, and he said, I'm waiting for the President to make a nomination. That's different from Eliot Engel (House), for example, who made a statement of opposition. I would describe Engel as more of a neocon; he's more of a true believer, less susceptible to pressure. Though even there, Engel, after voting for the Iraq war, subsequently expressed regret for having done so and became a war opponent and worked to end the war. So even Engel is not always bad, though clearly he has a tendency to be bad if there is not public pressure in the other direction. So there are degrees. Someone like Lieberman or Graham or McCain is clearly a neocon; no amount of pressure is going to move them; they are true believers who will keep advocating what they advocate even if they are all alone and even if they pay a price for it (as Lieberman did.)

        •  Schumer's more 1980s than neocon (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego, Anorish, poco

          Unquestioning support of Israel, instinctive skepticism of anyone who questions Israel, try not to think too much about the reality on the ground in the Middle East.

          It's still a problem -- and why the Hagel nomination is in trouble.  There's an instinctive refusal in DC to call a spade a spade when it comes to the Middle East, and it runs well beyond neoconservatives.  

          •  Calling a spade a spade (0+ / 0-)

            is the following:

            1) Hamas doesn't want Israel to exist, and will use any means to further that, including firing rockets at civilians early and often. Fatah may or may not be better, and in any case it doesn't have the power to enforce a peace agreement even if it wanted to.

            2) Today there is barely any difference across most of the Israeli political spectrum. From the left wing of Labor (but not Meretz) to Israeli Our Home and the center of Likud (but not the Feiglin supporters) the security policies are basically identical: Support for an eventual Palestinian state and aggressiveness against the terrorists. Polls show those parties getting 73-75 MKs out of 120; subtract about a half dozen Feiglin supporters in the Likud and you still have a majority. (Meretz and Arab parties to the left get about 14 MKs, religious parties the remainder. But remember that most of the religious parties can easily be bought off, a fact that causes this religious Jew pain to write.)

            •  Do you really believe two-state is genuine? (0+ / 0-)

              Because I see not the slightest sign that any significant faction in the Israeli elected establishment is in favor of two-state any more.  If they were, they would not be associating Abbas and Hamas as if they were a single entity but understanding the difference between secular accomodationism and fundamentalist conflict; they would not be taking seriously the idea that "collective punishments" serve a constructive role but understanding that such actions drive the Abbas and Hamas factions closer together; they would not be giving a nod and a wink to the virulent anti-Arab racism that has taken hold in Israel over the past 20 years but instead trying to combat something that is poison to Israeli society; and they would not be continuing to actively alienate Palestinian public opinion but instead constructively engaging it to win it away from fundamentalism.

              Let's be clear about this; Israel's ham-fisted attempts at security are pushing the entire area west of the Jordan River persistently on the path towards a single apartheid state, complete with land seizures, segregation, pass laws, race-based property laws, and the Palestinian equivalent of bantustans, and with a nasty military conflict added in.  And that's a path that leads to a state that will be neither Jewish nor democratic.

              •  Most Israeli political parties (0+ / 0-)

                still favor a two state solution. And they certainly do not treat Abbas and Haniyeh the same.

                And no, we are not headed instead toward an Apartheid state, but towards a one state solution, that grants Palestinians in the WB Israeli citizenship but throws under the bus the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians still stuck as stateless persons in Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf States. That is the result of the Palestinians prioritizing land over people. They could have had a Palestinian State over a decade ago but their leaders went to war instead.

  •  Why do I feel like I'm in an Uncle Remus story? (3+ / 0-)

    Do you honestly think that if the Hagel nomination, if it's made, fails, that we'll get a neocon in Defense?

    Maybe this isn't Br'er Rabbit.  Maybe this is Chicken Little. And yes, I'm a FIRM supporter of J Street.  I just think we can hold out for someone better.

    -7.75, -8.10; Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary? . . . and respect the dignity of every human being.

    by Dave in Northridge on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:25:19 PM PST

    •  re: do you honestly think (0+ / 0-)

      No, I never claimed that if it's not Hagel, we'll get a neocon. I challenge you to cite where I claimed that.

      What I claimed, and what is true, is that neocons are the engine of opposition to Hagel, so if the Hagel nomination is derailed, then it's a victory for the neocons and a defeat for the opponents of the neocons.

  •  HR'ing the Tip Jar (5+ / 0-)

    Godwin violation - "under the jackboot of the neocons"

    Godwin violation - "This is like the Warsaw Uprising"

    Godwin violation - "If we don't want to spend the next four years under the jackboot of the neocons"

    All in support of a Republican anti-choice homophobe who decries the "Jewish lobby" is D.C. and repeatedly took every opportunity to support Hezbollah and Hamas while they were actively shooting at Israeli citizens.

    Doughnut.

    Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

    by dhonig on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 02:28:16 PM PST

    •  whatever (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not afraid of you. Whenever I write about anything related to Israel-Palestine on Daily Kos, I always expect to be attacked by the pro-Likud crowd. It doesn't happen to me when I write about anything else. I just take it in stride.

      •  do you have evidence that (4+ / 0-)

        dhonig is pro-Likud?

        "I have more than two prablems" - The Coach Z

        by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:34:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  And, as usual, a fraudulent (5+ / 0-)

        personal attack to distract from his own blatant faults. Do us all a favor, would you? Stop pretending you speak for Jews while invoking Shoah, okay? We don't need you using our beloved dead to support your fantasies of international intellectualism.

        Done with politics for the night? Have a nice glass of wine with Palate Press: The online wine magazine.

        by dhonig on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 06:34:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The more I think about this, the more troubled (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          charliehall2, livosh1

          I am.  

          Is this an assertion that any democrat that Obama picks would by default be inferior to selecting Hagel?   What if Obama picked someone who was just as good on Middle Eastern policy?

          By just making this argument we seem to be saying that there is no one Obama can pick, except for Hagel, that is satisfactory OR that Obama's default position on Israel is not acceptable without Hagel.

          I keep turning this over in my mind, but I can't come up with another valid alternative to lobby so heavily for a potential nominee months away.. it's as though we're expressing fear at just the thought of picking up the phone and talking with anyone else as a candidate.

          Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

          by Chris Reeves on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 06:43:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  re: the more I think (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco

            It's not an argument that this is an intrinsic feature of the universe for all time. It's the track record of recent years and continuing into the present. If you look at the other names which have been floated, none of them are associated with advocacy for diplomacy or war skepticism. Of course there are many Democrats who have these characteristics - after all, this is the majority view among Democrats - but these names are not being mooted for Secretary of Defense. I would like that to change too, but in the short run, it does not seem likely that it will change.

    •  oh! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AaronInSanDiego

      if so

      repeatedly took every opportunity to support Hezbollah and Hamas while they were actively shooting at Israeli citizens.
      this changes the picture radically. Could you give me just one good link in support of this?
      •  I don't see Hagel as anti-Israel as most of my (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wilderness voice, volleyboy1

        fellow supporters of Israel do. But look, the guy has a TERRIBLE record. He opposed sanctions on Iran and Libya, two of the worst rogue states in the world. He is an anti-abortion homophobe with an 84 from the ACU. There is no Democrat in Congress with worse than a 50! I can't believe that he is being promoted on Dailykos even without the Godwin nonsense which deservedly earned leftover sufganiot.

  •  Make the fucking Senators (3+ / 0-)

    do their jobs, instead of trying to dictate to President Obama who he should nominate for a cabinet office. I am sick of these idiotic senators. These buffoons have not done anything for the good of the country. If they want to nominate cabinet officials they should run for the office of the POTUS, and have the chance and choice to do that, otherwise, they should STFU! Enough is enough!

    Let the President nominate who he believes shares his core values and vision to work with him to achieve his goals. We cannot take our ball and go home after the election this time; we MUST fight every inch of the way for the things we want, and while at it, we MUST shame and make these obstructionists powerless and useless. One quick and good way to do this in addition to calling these Congresscritters, using Twitter and FB is very effective and power, and we need to use them generously.

  •  I am not a fan of him (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, charliehall2

    The "Jewish lobby" quote, plus the homophobia, plus the fact that he is a Republican, just make him not appealing for me. I'm sure we can find another realist when it comes to Israel that doesn't say things bordering on conspiracy theories about how we run the world.

    Nty

    "The president was committed; elected on the basis that he was not Romney and Romney was a poopy head and you should vote against Romney and he won by two points." The increasingly irrelevant Grover Norquist

    by Wolfox on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:25:56 PM PST

  •  If I were black I'd be skeptical of someone who (5+ / 0-)

    ranted about "the black lobby".

    There's lots of reasons to oppose Hagel as Secretary of Defense.    How about your faith in him to protect gays?

    I kind of hope Colin Powell gets consideration.   I think he's now eligible for SoD, given that he's been out of the armed forces for ten years which I think is the restriction standard.

    "Your diary is a pack of filthy lies." -bronte17

    by Setrak on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 03:56:19 PM PST

  •  Hagel is a critical test (0+ / 0-)

    If we can't nominate him now -- from the situation we're in, from weaks of leaks touting his candidacy in the context of a situation in the Middle East that demands a firm repudiation of neoconservatism -- US foreign policy is in real trouble.  This is one situation where I care more about the policy than the party label, and Hagel is firmly in the mainstream of a form of policy realism that actually looks out for the US national interest, as opposed to a particular ideological interest.  If factional ideology on behalf of a single foreign power that operates at the expense of other foreign interests and the US -- if THAT wins out over putting the country first, we're in more serious trouble than even I thought.

  •  " Jews must" (6+ / 0-)

    is so offensive I don/t even know where to begin!!!!!!

    fact does not require fiction for balance (proudly a DFH)

    by mollyd on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 04:23:29 PM PST

  •  Can you explain ... (6+ / 0-)

    why a site supportive of (progressive) Democratic politics/politicians should be manning the battle lines to have, yet again, a Democratic Party president have a Republican running DOD?  You don't think that there are competent Democratic Party individuals to hold the position?

    Blogging regularly at Get Energy Smart NOW! for a sustainable energy future.

    by A Siegel on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 05:58:28 PM PST

  •  I'm Dreaming of a White Litmus (4+ / 0-)

    So if I don't jump, you won't consider me a true Jewish progressive?

    Color me worried about that.

    Oh, sorry, there's no paint the color of "worried about that."

  •  This is a truly offensive diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zemblan, Mets102, volleyboy1

    "Jews must" is alone enough to earn sufganiyot.

    "Warsaw Uprising" should in an ordinary world be fatal to any diary based on overconsumption of sufganiot.

    And the fact that it is in supportive of a right wing Republican with a long record support for Christian Right causes makes it more suitable for redstate.

    Jewish supporters of Israel, supporters of Gay rights, supporters of abortion rights, and supporters of moderately interventionist foreign policy were all key to President Obama's victories. Nominating Hagel to this important a position is throwing all four under the bus. This is not only no way to run a country, it is a way to destroy the Democratic party.

  •  HR for: (7+ / 0-)

    Pro-Obama Jews [religious generalization and divisive]
    Must [sez you and the donkey you rode in on. False crisis mongering and insulting]

    "Since many of our Christian brothers and sisters are offline for the Christmas holiday, I thought this would be a good time for the pro-Obama Jews to caucus." Oh great, let's circle the Jews for a private parlay  while the Gentiles are busy with their holiday. Wide paintbrush, anyone?

    But most of all, the way you inappropriately insert the Warsaw Ghetto and the Holocaust (of which my mother is a survivor).

    It's not just a zip code, it's an attitude.

    by sboucher on Tue Dec 25, 2012 at 08:31:44 PM PST

  •  Tom Friedman came out for Hagel today! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CIndyCasella, poco

    Give Chuck a Chance
    http://www.nytimes.com/...

  •  It is one thing to use this blog (5+ / 0-)

    to advocate for the confirmation of one of President Obama's nominees.

    It is quite another to use this blog to advocate that Obama nominate a Republican (who has a long history of opposing many Democratic causes) to be the Secretary of Defense.

    This is not a Ron Paul site, nor is this Mondofront.

    Tip jar HR'd accordingly.

  •  Not particularly inclined to HR you (3+ / 0-)

    but consider this a stylistic rather than a moral criticism: anytime I see the word "jackboot" in a discussion of politics, my immediate impulse is not to take the writer seriously.

    And you kind of clinched it with "This is like the Warsaw uprising".

    I can't even remember what you're actually advocating at this point.

  •  How about we not nominate homophobic (5+ / 0-)

    Republicans to serve in Democratic Administrations?

  •  We MUST do nothing of a kind! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    livosh1, zemblan, Mets102, JPhurst

    We don't have to do anything. Fuck Hagel and his "Jewish Lobby" bullshit... not too mention his ridiculous stand against the LGBT community.

    But more than that you get donutted for this egregious BULLSHIT:

    This is like the Warsaw Uprising: the odds against us may be daunting, but we'll never have a better venue to make our stand.
    Like the Warsaw Uprising... What the FUCK are you babbling about? The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was a revolt against a Nazi regime that was starving the local population and occasionally hauling people off to Forced Labor or Death Camps. How is this fight remotely like that? Who the hell is carting the American people off to Death Camps and how is some bigoted Republican going to save them.

    You get donutted for this incredibly insulting, not too mention ridiculous diary.

    As a Jew who strongly supports President Obama, we don't have to do shit to support this and frankly I resent that you would tell me what the hell I have to do.

    "'Touch it dude' - President Barack Obama"

    by volleyboy1 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 07:10:12 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site