Start A Petition

The Real Reason Republicans Hate Hagel

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: 2013 Cabinet, Secretary of Defense, Hagel, candidates, republicans )

- 1954 days ago -
These resisters have four main concerns. They fear that Hagel will cut the military budget. ... he'll roll over if Iran builds a nuclear weapon. ... he's too reluctant to use military force generally. ... he doesn't much like Israel; ... claim he's anti-Semitic.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Jae A (316)
Friday January 11, 2013, 12:26 am
I think that is more than a fair assesment of why they don't.

"You cannot currently send a star to Lynn ... :-( "

Lynn Squance (235)
Friday January 11, 2013, 2:30 am
In a related story, William Kristol quotes Michael Moore in Sept 2007 quoting Hagel:

"People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are," said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. "They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs."

But Kristol goes on to say in his 05/01/13 blog "...I also wonder if it could be the straw that breaks the back of Hagel's chances." That's about where the gloves come off between Kristol and Moore.

Moore's reply, which can be seen here in it's entirety, included the following:

"Since you feel so strongly about this, I wanted to make sure you heard about four other prominent people who've said the same thing. (I should have mentioned them yesterday with the Chuck Hagel stuff, I apologize.)

--- "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." - Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in his 2007 memoir. (Read about it here. Greenspan then lamely tried to walk this back, when he found out just how politically inconvenient it was...while admitting a Bush White House official told him "unfortunately, we can't talk about oil.")

--- "Of course we should go to war for oil. It's like saying, you're going to war just for oxygen, just for food. We need oil. That's a good reason to go to war." - Ann Coulter, author, April 11, 2011. (Watch her say that here at 37:30.)

--- "Of course it's about oil, it's very much about oil, and we can't really deny that. From the standpoint of a solider who's now fought in the middle east for six years - my son-in-law's fought there for four years, my daughter's been over there, my son has served the nation - my family has been fighting for a long time." - Gen. John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM, October 13, 2007. (Watch Abizaid say this here.)

--- "We're not in the middle east to bring sweetness and light to the whole world. That's nonsense. We're in the middle east because we and our European friends and our European non-friends depend on something that comes from the middle east, namely oil." - Midge Decter, author, May 21, 2004. (Listen here, at 35:55.)"

Michael Moore 1, Bill Kristol 0, zip, nada!

I would not say that Hagel is an attempt at bipartisan politics, but if can rise above what passes for politics today, then I am for him. What the country needs is someone that can think, with the interests of the country and the welfare of the American people being first.

Diane O (194)
Friday January 11, 2013, 3:04 am
The fears of resisters stated above is absolutely correct. Hagel has no business being Secretary of State because he will further weaken our country. Hagel is an Obama puppet.

Lynn Squance (235)
Friday January 11, 2013, 10:46 am
@ Diane O --- Then I guess you are happy that he isn't being considered for Secretary of State. That is John Kerry whom Republican/Teabaggers are quite happy to have nominated and confirmed since it opens up a Senate seat in Massachusetts for Scott Brown to try for again since he was soundly defeated by Elizabeth Warren on 06/11/12. Hagel is being considered for the Secretary of Defense at which he should do well as he is not all about starting unnecessary wars and sending young American men and women off to die like the Republican/Teabaggers.
If you want to talk about puppets, I suggest you look in a mirror because you are blindly following where the Republican/Teabaggers are leading.

Elizabeth M (65)
Friday January 11, 2013, 1:05 pm
Noted and read the article. Thanks for sharing Lynn.

Jason S (50)
Friday January 11, 2013, 8:55 pm
Good Posting, thanks

Diane O (194)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 3:30 am
Sorry, Lynn, it was an error....John Kerry is nominated for Secretary of State. Hagel as Secretary of Defense is not someone I fact I don't support either one of these choices.

. (0)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 5:16 am
noted with thanks

Jane K (10)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 10:04 am
I support both choices. They are good men who tell the truth and that is why republicans hate them. Both served our country in the military and they both love this country. I had to laugh when Jon Stewart showed clips of the very same republicans who don't want Hagel under any circumstances lauding him for being a great American who they are proud to serve with in the senate. They just want to make more trouble for the President and would fight against any choice he made.

Mary Donnelly (47)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 12:36 pm
Good post and comments. Thanks.

Ann Breeden (65)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 2:10 pm
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. I know he's the right man for Secretary of Defense. John Kerry is equally perfect for the position of Secretary of State. Both of them have served in the military and are beholden to no one but the Constitution of the United States.
Thanks for posting.

jan b (5)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 2:23 pm
If you ask me to trust a republican ...that's a tall order. Just sayin....maybe Hagel acted against his party just so he would stand out amongst the rest but once he gets the position....then who knows. Many of us don't even think President Obama acts like a liberal sometimes either.

M B (62)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 2:50 pm
Sources confirmed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had sent the White House a list of three individuals the Israeli leader considered appropriate to head the American military from which U.S. President Barack Obama could choose. Netanyahu is against C. Hagel, that's clear. Israel will use a veto if Hagel gets nominated.
What has Israel to do with American politic's ??

JL A (281)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 3:58 pm
I've sent stars for comments deserving of them where I could (many of you provided solid rationales such as loyalty to this country and the constitution that are VERY important). Unfortunately Jae: You cannot currently send a star to Lynn because you have done so within the last week.

Deborah W (6)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 4:06 pm
A reflection of Obama and his ideology. Someone who can be manipulated to react in a certain way with enough pressure applied or overridden if not agreeable. In choosing a Republican, Obama gives the impression of bipartisanship. ... all of which further bloat his ego while advancing his dream from the father.

Trying to get his choice ducks in a row continues to move forward. Let the fun and games continue ...

Bess moore (6)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 4:21 pm
Deborah! Get over it! Robme lost!

Dori Grasso (0)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 6:46 pm
Monka Blanke, that article was a satirical story from The Onion. Here's the link:,30824/?ref=auto

I have plenty of friends and some relatives who live in Israel, and they tell me that the government may not be enthusiastic about Hagel, but they're not at all opposed to his nomination, either. They're also perfectly aware that they have NO ability to "veto" any nominee of President Obama's.

Heidi Aubrey (16)
Saturday January 12, 2013, 8:52 pm
First and foremost the reason for opposing him is simply because a Democrat President is appointing him. It could be anyone. Republicans will and do oppose everything this Democrat President does. Whether it is logical or not, it doesn't matter. The principle of the Republican is simply to oppose, at every turn, anything that comes from a Democrat.

ParsifalAWAY S (99)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 3:57 am

Stephen Lendman on Hagel and Brennan Nominations

Lloyd H (46)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 5:27 am
The problem with Hagel is simple he is a good a fit for the current shrinking tent Repug/Tea Bagged party as President/General Eisenhower or President Reagan, neither of which could even get close to winning a Repug primary.
Can you imagine the bat shit crazy, foaming at the mouth, gun toting, pitchforks and torches mob frenzy that would come from the Repug reich-wing if the lobbyists for any US ally nation other than Israel such as South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France even hinted at having this much say as to whom the President of the United States of America appointed to his Cabinet.

Alexander Werner (53)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 7:09 am
Hagel is in search of Utopia as much, as Obama.

Placing such a person into the shoes of Secretary of Defense means weakening the military. Islamist supporters must be very happy.

Carlene V (202)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 8:32 am
I believe the real reason is this: Obama wants him so the repubs will fight it like they do with everything Obama wants to do. Their game is out in the open yet they are dumb enough to keep fighting, still wondering why they've lost a second election. If Obama nominated one of their mothers they would be in an uproar and say they are outraged by it. Game over repubs. Israel gets enough from us and I think what Hagel said is spot on, he will work for our country not for Israel and won't be ready to send our service people to another futile war. Funny, the repubs want to repeal Roe-v-Wade but don't blink an eye when sending service people to die horrible deaths or come home to no help because they want to spend less money.

Diane O (194)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 8:51 am
We have a voluntary military, Carlene. Not one person is forced to join our military to serve their country. These are patriotic Americans...a rarity among the young these days. When veterans return they are given medical care if needed and rehabilitation. Many find jobs and because of our still high unemployment, some will not be able to find jobs. It would seem to me that if this administration wanted to put all veterans to work they would put them on our border to protect it. There are no people more qualified to keep our country safe by manning our borders than our trained military personnel. Many Americans give to the Wounded Warrior fund. We contribute to it because we are a military family and we understand the importance of giving back.

Unfortunately, you are generalizing about the republicans and assume that all they want to do is oppose anything Obama. The republicans believe in smaller government and fiscal responsibility. We have yet to see a budget from Obama in nearly four years. That should have the liberals upset, too, but to use their vernacular the liberals are unable to criticize Obama no matter how many mistakes he makes. So, that pendulum swings both ways.

We have a two party system for a reason. I have opposed Obama from the very beginning. I read his book "Dreams From My Father" and I was appalled at the racist remarks throughout his book and how he distanced himself from his own mother because she was white. I also didn't approve of his radical affiliations throughout his college years and his associations with questionable people. I also didn't approve of his using cocaine and smoking dope. As a young senator he voted "present" over 100 times never taking a public stand on the issues at hand. His time as a senator deems him worthless because he literally didn't do anything.

The republicans are against killing unborn babies and Obama agrees to late term abortions. When first elected Obama stood before the American people and boldly stated that he believed that marriage was between one man and one woman. He soon flip flopped on that when he saw that he was losing the gay and lesbian vote so he changed his mind.

When you get the chance read Obama's book. I believe it should be required reading for all liberals. It introduces you to the real Obama.

So, sorry, Carlene, but the two parties are here for a reason....two very different ideas on how our country should be run. It's not about liberals being wrong and republicans being's all about what we believe to be the right path for a successful and thriving America.

JL A (281)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 1:14 pm
FactCheck: Actual status of needed veterans care and rehabilitation

Vets benefits legislation in danger of expiring

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 21, 2012 13:56:35 EST

The fate of two veterans bills that had been on the verge of becoming law depends on whether the House of Representatives returns for a post-Christmas legislative session to work on deficit reduction legislation.

That is far from certain. The House abruptly left town Thursday after the Republican leadership was unable to get enough votes to pass its latest proposal in the tug-of-war with the White House and Senate over economic policy. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Friday that whether the House returns depends on whether President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can come up with a balanced deficit reduction plan for the House to consider.

If the House doesn’t return, pending legislation — including the two veterans bills passed Dec. 18 by the Senate — would expire, and would have a chance of becoming law only if reintroduced when the new session of Congress convenes on Jan. 3.

House passage had been planned as part of a routine vote on non-controversial bills, but no vote can happen unless the House is in legislative session.

Both measures include high priorities for veterans and veterans’ organizations.

One, HR 4057, helps veterans use their GI Bill education benefits wisely by ensuring they get more information to help them pick a college. It also tries to prevent schools from aggressively recruiting student veterans solely because of their generous benefits, which are paid directly to the schools.

Ryan Gallucci of Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation’s largest organization for combat veterans, said the idea behind the measure is to “ensure student veterans are armed with the information to make sound educational choices.”

The bill includes a long list of information about schools and benefits that the Veterans Affairs Department would have to make available to people interested in using their GI Bill benefits. It also bars schools from receiving any VA payments for tuition and fees if they pay recruiters commissions or bonuses for signing up students.

Gallucci said the bill reinforces a presidential executive order issued last year that requires some of the same information, and it also builds on an expansion of transition assistance classes for separating service members that offers more information on how to pick the best college.

“If VA gets it wrong, Congress can call them in and tell them to do it over,” he said, noting Congress has used its oversight powers to expand other benefits, such as help for veterans’ caregivers and the redesign of transition assistance.

The second bill, S 3202, is a collection of other veterans legislation that would, among other things, establish a registry of veterans exposed to toxic fumes and chemicals from open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, set up transition assistance classes off base for veterans and spouses, and make several changes in burial benefits and procedures.

Both measure were supposed to be added to what the House calls its “suspension calendar,” a pile of bills that circumvent legislative procedures. Most bills passed in this way are approved by voice vote. If a recorded vote is required, a two-thirds’ majority is required for passage.

Unless the House meets in legislative session, there will be no chance to even consider the bills before the measures expire.

Past Member (0)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 2:24 pm
We can afford a little weakening, Diane. Does it eat into hubby's income or what? What about cold, starving people?


JL A (281)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 2:31 pm
Was it McConnell who stated 4 years ago that the GOP's top priority/goal was to stop Obama (and I think deny him the 2nd term)?

Patricia N (9)
Sunday January 13, 2013, 9:16 pm
I think it would be great to have a secretary of defense in the U.S. who had actually participated in battle. That would be great here in Canada too. And another plus would be a person in government who told the truth.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday February 26, 2013, 10:18 am
This article nails it on the head. While progressives may have their own issues with the nomination of Hagel, the reality is that the number one reason that Republicans have a problem with Chuck Hagel is simply because they object to anything that Obama does or anyone that he might nominate for any position. One can be confident that any day now they will be jumping up and down and hysterically screaming that the sky is falling because they don't approve of his chauffeur.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.