PLANK DECEMBER 30, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A historian looking back on the public battle over Barack Obama’s second-term appointments might very well scratch his head as he struggles to explain the fight over the president’s next Secretary of Defense. He will look at the columns written for and against the leading nominees and see something very strange. He will notice that liberals, by and large, are rallying behind a conservative Republican, and that conservatives are pulling for a liberal Democrat.
The candidate usually cited as Obama’s back-up pick—the understudy, should his first choice prove too hard to confirm—is Michèle Flournoy. A loyal Democrat and a steadfast Obama ally who served as undersecretary for policy at Defense until early 2012, Flournoy boasts degrees from Harvard and Oxford, commands the admiration of much of the policy world, and stands to shatter the Pentagon’s glass ceiling as the first female Defense Secretary. Yet apart from a few stray liberals such as Rosa Brooks, Flournoy is drawing her most enthusiastic promotion, as TNR’s Molly Redden noted, from such unlikely backers as Bush administration veterans Paul Wolfowitz and Dan Senor.
Meanwhile, the conservative Republican whom liberals and Democrats are rushing to champion is, of course, Chuck Hagel, a former senator from Nebraska, who appears to be the president’s preference to lead the Pentagon in his second term. Hagel boasts a middling intellect, an immense reservoir of self-regard, and a staunchly right-wing voting record. He boasts a lifetime American Conservative Union score of 84, having backed the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, the authorization of the Iraq War, and most of rest of the right-wing agenda during his time in the Senate. He’s precisely the kind of person whose nomination would normally drive liberals into fits of outrage. But not this time. Liberals are bending over backward to praise Hagel, in effect saying they would prefer an archconservative male mediocrity to a liberal female rising star.
Something funny is going on.
The reasons why liberals should oppose Hagel are numerous. In the senate, he failed to distinguish himself except as John McCain’s Mini-Me (before Lindsay Graham assumed the role), a fairly conventional Republican who curried favor with the news media by striking a few maverick poses. Notoriously, he made an obnoxious reference to James Hormel, a Clinton-era ambassadorial nominee, as “aggressively gay” (Hagel apologized the other day, but Hormel remains unpersuaded). Then, too, it’s high time that Democrats stopped perpetuating the myth that they need a Republican to Defense to afford them certification as tough on national security. Franklin Roosevelt, seeking bipartisan unity in a time of world war, might be forgiven for appointing the eminent Henry L. Stimson as Secretary of War, and the subsequent choices of Robert McNamara, William Cohen, and Bob Gates can also be rationalized (OK, maybe not McNamara). But after an election campaign in which the Democrat was widely deemed to be far more proficient in foreign policy than his Republican rival, the decision to award this seat, of all Cabinet positions, to the opposition is especially foolhardy. Put Hagel at Veterans Affairs if you must.
Of course, none of these is the reason that the GOP foreign policy establishment has thrown obstacles in front of Hagel—or bestowed laurels upon Flournoy. The real reason, or the main reason, is that despite approving the Iraq War authorization in 2002, Hagel later broke with Bush and the GOP on the thrust of their Middle East policy, including their continued hawkishness on the Iraq war, their hard line against Iran and Hamas, and their staunch support for Israel. Simply put, Hagel’s stated positions on Iran, Israel, and other key issues deeply worry many Republicans. (They also trouble no small number of liberal Democrats, including me.)
Conservatives have thus come to oppose Hagel for the most sincere of reasons while promoting Flournoy for deeply cynical, if not perverse, ones. In contrast, many on the left have come to cheerlead for Hagel for an even more cynical and more perverse reason: the nature of his enemies.
Since the Iraq War, a sizable and apparently growing segment of the liberal punditocracy has lost its way on foreign policy. Politicians and writers on the left, including many liberals, have been so repulsed by the Bush administration’s policies abroad that they have often assumed, almost reflexively, that whatever Bush and the Fox News crowd favored was ipso facto wrong and its opposite ipso facto correct. This delusion seemed to turn many progressives into sour realists, intent on abdicating any American leadership role in the world, even a liberal and humane one. It especially infected their thinking on the Middle East, where they have been slow to recognize the dangers of Islamists like Recep Erdogan in Turkey and Mohammed Morsi in Egypt, eager to minimize the dangers of a nuclear Iran, and, in the case of one strain of progressives, displaying the inordinate animus towards Israel that was once confined to the far left, in places like the Nation and the Village Voice, but now finds a home on the New York Times op-ed page and other mainstream liberal outlets.
It is this same perversity of thinking that has led too many liberals to fall in love with Hagel. Because the likes of Wolfowitz and Senor are against him, the thinking goes, we should be for him. (Never mind that Hagel is politically well to the right of Wolfowitz and Senor and most other so-called neoconservatives.) So, for example, on the Times’s op-ed page, James Besser, a former reporter for The Jewish Week, in a piece called “Don’t Let Pro-Israel Extremists Sink Chuck Hagel,” declines to argue the case for Hagel on its merits, offering only the perfectly unobjectionable argument that the lunatic right, which imagines Obama a Muslim and enemy of Israel, shouldn’t be allowed a veto over his Cabinet appointments. The headline itself implies that the decision should be a referendum on Hagel’s most obnoxious opponents—rather than a referendum on Hagel himself.
Meanwhile, on the New Yorker’s website, Connie Bruck, a writer of personality profiles for the magazine, offers up, “Chuck Hagel and His Enemies,” reducing the criticism of Hagel as to “what can be called the Israel lobby.” Bruck doesn’t pause to consider whether Jews, or anyone of liberal spirit, might reasonably take offense at Hagel’s own terminology for these critics—i.e. “the Jewish lobby.” (She uses the specious defense, shoehorned in via a quote from Rep. Gary Ackerman, that most vocal supporters of Israel are Jewish.) Bruck then pens a valentine to Hagel, which mainly boils down to the fact that she doesn’t like Jennifer Rubin, Abe Foxman, and Bret Stephens—all Hagel critics.
In personal conversations, too, one hears the same thing: Hagel’s appointment will deal the “neocons” a deserved blow. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. But this is short-sighted logic for choosing a Cabinet.
Ironically, Hagel’s new friends on the left fail to see that his worrisome positions are rejected not only by many Republicans but also by Barack Obama, who has repeatedly insisted he will not tolerate a nuclear Iran, who has proved himself a reliable friend of Israel, and who has firmly refused to reward Hamas with recognition. And perhaps most unfortunately, in their zeal to deliver a defeat to the pro-Israel right, they are dealing a far more severe blow to someone whose views, from all we know, are far more in line with the administration’s—Michèle Flournoy.
55 comments
Well here's a liberal who isn't for Hagel, we should support a Democrat, we shouldn't endorse a climate-change denying person who's got a number of weird positions, as the article states. Why on earth would Obama want him anyway? He's a right-winger. So?
- Sophia
December 30, 2012 at 8:07pm
As for leftists who think they'd be harming the Israeli right by endorsing the American Right, guess again. This is just dumb, needlessly labyrinthine conspiracy thinking. One could say more, for example, why is it better to single out some right wingers who happen to be Jewish? By endorsing a person who refers to "the Jewish lobby?" Shouldn't we be focusing on overall progressive policy-making, such as helping the military grow to accept women and gays, stop raping people (women) and also, address the issue of religious bigotry in our own military? Plus, you know, Iran, Hamas, environment, so forth...just sayin'.
- Sophia
December 30, 2012 at 8:12pm
Another ambivalent article about Hagel. What is going on here? Has he offered to buy into the New Republic?
- arnon1
December 30, 2012 at 8:23pm
Happy New Year Sophia!
- arnon1
December 30, 2012 at 8:24pm
Ashton Carter, #2 at DoD, is superbly qualified to be SecDef. But, no surprise that Obama wants one of his closest friends, Chuck Hagel, who does deserve to answer all these scurrilous, and maybe not so scurrilous charges. Accusing Hagel of having "a middling intellect" is definitely a scurrilous charge, without merit.
- K2K
December 30, 2012 at 8:31pm
Thank you, mschaffer.
- amidut
December 30, 2012 at 9:43pm
WTF, man? First, get a byline. (I know, not your fault.) Second, the WHOLE POINT of Hagel is that we're going to be cutting the Defence Department massively over the next decade. Hagel is to preside over that cutting. Hagel has two purple hearts and is a warrior dove. He has a lot more credibility when arguing Obama's position on force size than Flournoy would have, regardless of your efforts to insult his intelligence. Yes, I like Flournoy, but considering the BS arguments being launched against Hagel, I now realize how much I'd want him there, if not to piss off the histrionic and unsound opposition. After all, what does a vote on the Bush tax cuts or against late-term abortions have to do with overseeing military force reduction and taking a stab at reversing the privatization of the military? Also, if you want to challenge the legitimacy of the drone programme, you do it by shaking things up with someone like Hagel. I'd be happy with saving Flournoy for a future Democratic administration.
- chaitless
December 30, 2012 at 10:14pm
"Since the Iraq War, a sizable and apparently growing segment of the liberal punditocracy has lost its way on foreign policy." This sentence is so surreal that it makes me wonder if it is there just to provoke. The last four years have shown that the Right is the team caught between a rock and a hard place on foreign policy: they wouldn't (apart from a few intelligent folks like Kagan) support anything that Obama has done; but they couldn't find anything that they would do differently that didn't sound either ill-advised or insane. Among the award winners was definitely Newt Gingrich, who demanded loudly on TV that the administration force a vote on the UN Security Council establishing an immediate no-fly zone over Libya; then, two days later, when the administration got a vote from the UNSC establishing an immediate no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich was on TV condemning them for going to the UN.
- ironyroad
December 30, 2012 at 11:58pm
"The last four years have shown that the Right is the team caught between a rock and a hard place on foreign policy: they wouldn't (apart from a few intelligent folks like Kagan) support anything that Obama has done; but they couldn't find anything that they would do differently that didn't sound either ill-advised or insane." I think Gingrich's proposal to make the moon our 51st state is not that insane. All the moonbats on the Right could go there and be right at home. They certainly don't feel comfortable on Earth.
- magboy47.
December 31, 2012 at 2:58am
I will reiterate what I said in another posting: leaking Hagel as a possible nominee for Secretary of Defense applies the "Please proceed,..." technique President Obama used so effectively in his second debate with Mitt Romney. Just leaking the possibility of Hagel as nominee provokes opposition from conservatives and praise for Fluornoy, just as they praised John Kerry. While Susan Rice was, I believe, Obama's first choice for State, Hagel is a fake right, so Obama can go left (to use a basketball analogy) with Fluornoy.
- peterpalys
December 31, 2012 at 4:57am
Hagel is liberal on issues that Liberals care about in terms of the pentagon. He wants to cut the pentagon budget, he doesn't want another war (including with Iran), and he doesn't see negotiation as a weakness. (now this doesn't mean that talking is necessarily going to solve problems) In regards to Israel, if so many liberals, opinion leaders, and the NY Op-Eds have growing ambivalence about the state, perhaps you should take a moment to reflect on why this has happened. instead of thinking its liberals that moved away, perhaps its that Israel has moved away?
- CAinDC
December 31, 2012 at 8:04am
@peterpalys Interesting theory, but how would it work in practice? Why would Hagel agree to be used as a sacrifice in pursuit of Obama's putative goal of getting Flournoy as SECDEF? Or are we supposing that Obama has lied to Hagel about his intentions and that Hagel has bought the lie? I think it's more likely that Hagel IS Obama's choice but that Obama may be incapable--as with Rice--of seeing the process through to a successful confirmation.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
December 31, 2012 at 10:37am
"striking a few maverick poses ... In the senate, he failed to distinguish himself except as John McCain’s Mini-Me" ... "The real reason, or the main reason, is that despite approving the Iraq War authorization in 2002, Hagel later broke with Bush and the GOP on the thrust of their Middle East policy, including their continued hawkishness on the Iraq war, their hard line against Iran and Hamas, and their staunch support for Israel." So the change in the view re Iraq and Iran and Hamas and Israel - is that striking "a few maverick poses" or rather a substantive change in the appreciation of the US's strategic interests? Easy lesson in how to malign a character ("mini-me", "maverick pose") even as you signal a dangerous mindset. Well, buddy, if you want to be taken seriously on either charge, make up your mind which is the real concern; both can't stand at the same time. I tuned out after "delusion", "sour realists" and "perversity". I don't know if Greenberg is liberal or "progressive" or what, but he sounds like a lunatic neocon. I know of no thinking person who thinks anything just because Fox opposes it. If Fox opposes something, it is generally a good sign that the thing is sane and right and proper, but that is a different issue. Nor do I know anyone of note who thinks Bush was wrong in everything. It's a safe bet, not least given the choice of officials, but again, that is a different issue. The whole line of analysis is a red herring. This article in in the same line of misguided warmongering adventurism that, along with Peretz's wailings, caused me to cancel my subscription last year. It's as if these oiks have learned nothing from ten years of war, 1 trillion dollars wasted, tens of thousands of lives lost, and hundreds of thousands of lives affected. It is not just that they marshal the same arguments as if nothing has happened in the interim; it is that they advance it in the same mode: "delusion", "perversity" and the like. People don't have a different assessment of priorities; they are delusional or perverse. Well, Mr. Greenberg, Fuck You. And Fuck the entire editorial board that lets tripe like this on the site without proper editing. I couldn't give a rat's ass about Hagel or Flournoy; I don't like my intelligence insulted by authors of a magazine to which I subscribe.
- icarus-r
December 31, 2012 at 11:12am
"... instead of thinking its liberals that moved away, perhaps its that Israel has moved away?" In some bizarre way and for very different reasons, I agree with this statement. As long as support for Israel had some prestige attached to it, support was overwhelming and monochromatic. Today Israel is not so easy to support. The complicated issue of Palestinians which is presented on campuses and in the general media as being "oppressed" by Israel (and more specifically by "Likkud", as if the Likkud created and complicated the Palestinian issue) renders open and honest support for Israel, the state for the Jews, something of an Albatros. Israel's interests, motivations, the compulsions of its very real history vis a vis the Palestinian Arabs, are not easily assimilable into a simple 4 word motto that would popularize the cause. I am of course speaking directly about Jewish Americans like Tom Friedman, who seems to like neat, square and untroubled formulas, formulas that could be harmonized with the American constitution rather than Israel's Declaration of Independence (which really does say it all). Israel is not in any position even remotely possible to adjust its polity to American Democratic principles (even the US finds it a rough challenge as we have witnessed in the wake of Newtown, to cite just one example). Israel will do and act in the interests of its own population, safeguarding the security and prosperity of ITS citizens, mostly Jews but also minorities who are not always peaceable or friendly (the case of Azmi Bishara comes to mind, or Hanin Zoabi). So Israel will continue to hold on to the WB as long as no alternative viable solution will emerge, that can guarantee these conditions, and that solution is totally in the hands of the Palestinians, not Israel. But it is Israel's moral standing that gets corroded by Court Jews like Friedman (I never used this term before but it seems so appropriate now in relation to Tom) and borderline antisemites like Mearsheimer and Walt (not sure about the "borderline" but trying to be, you know, more restrained ...). They consistently and systematically represent Israel as acting in bad faith, as being a bad investment, as being unworthy of American support. So of course it is seen as CAinDC's so eloquently put is, as if " perhaps its that Israel has moved away".
- Noga
December 31, 2012 at 11:19am
Side note on my recent comment: The irony is, of course, that today Israel is much more genuinely democratic, pluralistic, egalitarian and decent than it was at the time when generic American sympathy for it was at its highest (during the late fifties and sixties).
- Noga
December 31, 2012 at 11:32am
To the ticked off above: there is a difference between wanting a war with Iran and voting for sanctions on Iran. A huge difference. Thinking that sanctions will help prevent a war and/or the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran doesn't make a person a neocon - on the contrary! And, the issue of a truly integrated and egalitarian military is extremely important. A person who doesn't really agree with progressive principles on this issue maybe isn't the best choice for DOD. It might make sense for a Republican to lead the cost-cutting efforts at Defense, I'll grant that.
- Sophia
December 31, 2012 at 12:18pm
I agree with Chaitless above, unless unqualifed the President deserves to nominate those whom he thinks best. Every cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the President. As to many of the objections presented against him, it is Defense Secretary, not State...and his impact on domestic policy will be minimal (except, as Chaitless points out, in the manner of what and where to cut) I can't see Republicans filibustering him so I think a lot of it is just noise by the few, but if they do derail it then I am fine with whomever Obama chooses. One last thing, there is no evidence that Obama has offered anything to anyone, he is simply in the process of vetting top candidates. If he makes the offer to Hagel I hope he sticks to his guns partly because my attitude is screw those who most opposed Obama to think they can pick and choose his cabinet.
- blackton
December 31, 2012 at 12:31pm
Also: I think it's a total red herring to be throwing the term "neocon" around when discussing war. Ordinary paleocons but also, many other Americans including Democrats and most ordinary American citizens have profited mightily from war. It isn't a recent invention you know. It's also something which anybody with a conscience must sooner or later confront; this includes situations in which the US has made a lot of money from warfare and discord around the world, which we've taken advantage of, including support for repressive governments - in Africa, Asia, South America, the Middle East. How much of our material well-being and comfort is directly related to the suffering of others? Don't try to pin this on "neocons." Look in the mirror. It's all to easy to avoid doing that isn't it. And, Israel is hardly the cause of warmongering by the United States. That's a completely unfair accusation, into which, alas, many on the Left have taken up, to the point the M/W were invited to a KOS convention, which made me ill. Also, Israel is not the problem in the Middle East, not even a primary problem, that's a bizarre and unfounded accusation which nonetheless has plenty of support in Europe and lately in the US - why? Why are the Brits so pro-Arab as long as the Arabs are in Arabia but so racist at home? And they are you know otherwise we wouldn't be seeing all white British political parties, we wouldn't be seeing bigotry even against the Irish, against "Asians," my goodness even Middle Easterners and Indians are considered "black" in England and antisemitism is not just a memory of WWII. So British and lately American leftist rage at Israel is nothing new but it also has some unsavory roots. There are plenty of reasons to be mad at the Israeli right, including general disdain for Palestinians and for their aspirations to statehood - however, the pro-Palestinian and/or reflexively anti-Israel positions in Europe, especially Britain, and the US, apart from domestic blind spots about Israel and minorities in general, refuse to address realpolitik in the Middle East. That's a huge oversight, for an example look at Syria, the attacks on our diplomats in Benghazi, which owes its freedom to us and to NATO, and also to the perversion of democracy in Egypt and Gaza. That's not even mentioning religious bigotry which is endemic throughout the ME as well as clan and tribal politics and gender oppression and class warfare writ large and the corrupting influence of the oil industry, remnants of colonialism and the fact that there hasn't been a truly independent and modern "Arab World" since maybe the 10th century; only after WWI was Arab statehood even a consideration.
- Sophia
December 31, 2012 at 12:32pm
One point puzzles me in all this (actually a number of points, but let's go with this one): If I have understood correctly, Flournoy left her DOD position this year because she wanted to spend more time with her growing children -- she found that the undersecretary job she enjoyed just couldn't be squared with the kind of family life she wants. So, given that only a few months have passed since her departure, why does anyone think that she would be prepared to reverse her decision if she were to be nominated? Indeed, if the answer is that it makes absolutely no sense to imagine Flournoy would suddenly change her mind, then the fact that she's being touted by figures such as Dan Senor and Paul Wolfowitz makes sense, if in a perverse way. Somewhat similar to Mitt Romney's foreign policy, supporting her combines the assertive and the unlikely in a breathtaking configuration.
- ironyroad
December 31, 2012 at 12:42pm
blackton: President Obama has a right to choose his cabinet but he's an elected leader, and he is supposed to listen to the people. This includes his misguided ideas about "reforming entitlements," which he seems to have gotten from the Right, and which most people in America, especially when it comes to Social Security, thinks are wrong. Ditto tax increases on the rich. There is sufficient support for that to assume many Republicans agree with raising tax increases on the rich. People making over $400,000/year are RICH. So $250,000 won't raise enough revenue and is an insult to the real middle class and working poor and seriously poor, including seniors and disabled people. On this the GOP is out of step, bigtime, even with many of their own constituents except in certain fortress, gerrymandered House districts. Indeed the House doesn't reflect the numbers, the GOP has more seats than votes. So, if people across the aisle are uncomfortable with a cabinet choice the President should at least consider their opinions maybe? I don't feel right about rewarding a person who would insert himself into women's issues, who doesn't believe in climate/environmental science, who seems to have gay issues, who doesn't respect the need for some kind of non-violent measures regarding Iran, who would just willy-nilly go talk to Hamas. What's to discuss with Hamas anyway? Their timetable for the destruction of Israel? Note: we need to talk to Iran and to Hamas but not directly. Is that hypocritical? I think not. Indirect negotiations reflect our unease with their positions while keeping channels open. As for the Israeli far right: this isn't ISRAEL. People are mixing them up. That's like saying the US = the Tea Party. Is that fair?
- Sophia
December 31, 2012 at 12:44pm
"This delusion seemed to turn many progressives into sour realists, intent on abdicating any American leadership role in the world, even a liberal and humane one. It especially infected their thinking on the Middle East, where they have been slow to recognize the dangers of Islamists like Recep Erdogan in Turkey and Mohammed Morsi in Egypt, eager to minimize the dangers of a nuclear Iran," Sophia: these two sentences are standard neocon strawmen - especially by the war party here in TNR - put up in reponse to scepticism about too much US adventurism abroad. That the sentence begins with "delusion", and refers to " sour realists", should be a dead giveaway; if not, the argument that many progressives are "intent" on abdicating "any American leadership in the world" is an outright lie. And, frankly, I know of no progressive-turned-sour-realist who is "eager" to minimize the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran - this, the charge of being "eager" to minimize a threat, is a calumny in itself. We've seen it before - Bush in 2002; Palin in 2008; Romney-in-Benghazi in 2012. These oiks can't help it: if you have a different view, you are delusional, perverse ... eager to embrace Islamism or to minimise the threat of nuclear arms. As I said, it is the mode of argument that is striking. The whole article is a series of ad hominems like these strung together by a this veneer of faux-objective and concerned analysis. And in fact the last lines give the lie away: Obama is not going to nominate someone who is not in line with his policies. I mean, who is more likely to have a better sense of the strategic direction of US defense policy and whether Hagel fits into that as the Administrations see it, Obama or Greenberg? As for your argument about neoncons and war, I really did not understand it. Yes, war has been with us. And yes, countries and companies profit from it. I am not sure I follow what that has to do with Hagel or Flounoy or Greenberg.
- icarus-r
December 31, 2012 at 12:59pm
"President Obama has a right to choose his cabinet but he's an elected leader, and he is supposed to listen to the people" There is a problem with this statement. Who are these "people" the president is supposed to listen to? Journalists, with their limited knowledge, their inbuilt prejudices and alliances, and humongous self-confidence? Commenters on TNR?
- Noga
December 31, 2012 at 1:58pm
"And, frankly, I know of no progressive-turned-sour-realist who is 'eager' to minimize the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran - this, the charge of being 'eager' to minimize a threat, is a calumny in itself." Exactly: more notice has been taken of the Iranian situation in 4 years of an Obama administration than in 8 years of a Bush administration. Indeed, one might notice, looking back to the early 2000s, a peculiar 'eagerness' to follow Ahmed Chalabi and other Iranian-influenced Iraqis in their determination to remove Saddam Hussein, an achievement that caused some non-alcoholic champagne corks to pop in Teheran.
- ironyroad
December 31, 2012 at 2:14pm
This is well stated: "Since the Iraq War, a sizable and apparently growing segment of the liberal punditocracy has lost its way on foreign policy. Politicians and writers on the left, including many liberals, have been so repulsed by the Bush administration’s policies abroad that they have often assumed, almost reflexively, that whatever Bush and the Fox News crowd favored was ipso facto wrong and its opposite ipso facto correct. This delusion seemed to turn many progressives into sour realists, intent on abdicating any American leadership role in the world, even a liberal and humane one. It especially infected their thinking on the Middle East, where they have been slow to recognize the dangers of Islamists like Recep Erdogan in Turkey and Mohammed Morsi in Egypt, eager to minimize the dangers of a nuclear Iran, and, in the case of one strain of progressives, displaying the inordinate animus towards Israel that was once confined to the far left, in places like the Nation and the Village Voice, but now finds a home on the New York Times op-ed page and other mainstream liberal outlets." I didn't think I would read such a comment at the New Republic since it was sold. I am glad I was wrong.
- arnon1
December 31, 2012 at 2:22pm
" I mean, who is more likely to have a better sense of the strategic direction of US defense policy and whether Hagel fits into that as the Administrations see it, Obama or Greenberg? " I don't get this statement. Does it mean that unless you are the President or a member of his administration (supposedly in the know), you are not allowed, or are to be derided for trying, to express an opinion about the wisdom of a certain decision? In which case perhaps we should just do away with all this journalism and media thingy; they don't know anything about anything well enough to write an opinion article on TNR. Alternatively, we can emulate the Arab model of journalism, where only the articles favouring the official positions make it into publication.
- Noga
December 31, 2012 at 3:07pm
As a pro-Israel/anti-Netanyahu liberal, I'm not in love with Hagel. What I'm in love with is the idea of sticking it to Netanyahu. It also wouldn't hurt to reaffirm America as an honest broker......
- Virginia Centrist
December 31, 2012 at 3:38pm
At least Virginia centrist has the guts to tell it like it is: sticking it to Netanyahu as a serious reason and consideration for the nomination of an American Secretary of Defense. And what, pray, has Netanyahu done to deserve such venomous hostility? Has he taken your job? Has he eaten little children? Can the bravely outspoken pro-Israel/anti-Netanyahu VC make her case?
- Noga
December 31, 2012 at 4:03pm
xenophon: "Lie" is such an ugly word. Obama only needed to drop a misleading suggestion. Why wouldn't Hagel believe it? It's only a "perhaps," not a commitment.
- peterpalys
December 31, 2012 at 4:10pm
Noga: As usual, you take a sentence out of context, rend your shirt and cry "woe be Journalism, Free Speech", and drag in the Arabs for good measure. What a piece of work. You can't help it, can you? You are a self-confessed person of bad faith when it comes to me, so I guess, like the scorpion, it's in your nature - in this case, to distort and malign. Now, why you bother, given that my post is clear on its face, and one can demonstrate your bad faith so easily, is a wonder. This is the sentence immediately before the one you quote: "And in fact the last lines give the lie away: Obama is not going to nominate someone who is not in line with his policies." It refers to the last sentence of the post: "And perhaps most unfortunately, in their zeal to deliver a defeat to the pro-Israel right, they are dealing a far more severe blow to someone whose views, from all we know, are far more in line with the administration’s—Michele Flournoy." [emphasis added] The sentence that you quoted so grossly out of context, and maliciously misinterpreted out of recognition, states a truism and to a sentient reader would be uncontroversial: Obama knows more about whose views are more in line with his Administration than Greenberg, "from all he knows". So there is no call for the imposition of Arab-style restrictions on what may or may not be said. These sordid, fascistic thoughts bubble up in your demented and fevered imagination and nowhere else. Someone once called you the Gargoyle of the Spine. You are more like the Basilisk of TNR: you dwell in filth, the reflection of your soul petrifies all that goes forth and poison drips from your fangs, benumbing all it touches. Now, go away and wash your mouth with bleach - or chew on glass, for all I care - as punishment for yet another malicious distortion.
- icarus-r
December 31, 2012 at 4:18pm
What a wild tantrum, icarus, just because I pointed out the absurdity of your statement, as I promised you I would, whenever I encountered it and if I'm in the right mood for doing so. And such a long tirade, so full of fury and the most vulgar invective, because someone dared to notice your silly inclination to make excessively exorbitant comments!
- Noga
December 31, 2012 at 4:35pm
"absurdity of your statement" ... blah blah - didn't read the rest. I consciously avoid commenting on your bile; but will respond in whatever way I see fit every time you distort anything I say, which is pretty much every time you comment on anything I write.
- icarus-r
December 31, 2012 at 4:50pm
Please do, icarus. I would sorely miss your buffoonish pomposity were you to learn a thing or two about expressing your opinions with some semblance of self-critical restraint.
- Noga
December 31, 2012 at 4:55pm
This is absolutely fantastic: "Since the Iraq War, a sizable and apparently growing segment of the liberal punditocracy has lost its way on foreign policy." That line sentence appeared not in National Review or Commentary or WorldNetDaily or NewsMax, but in The New Republic. So it's us liberals who lost our way on foreign policy? Seriously -- that's an all-time classic. That one goes in the Chutzpah Hall of Fame. Even better, the author of that sentence refers to another human being as a "mediocrity" and a "middling intellect." Better and better. When will THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT EVERY IMPORTANT THING do the decent thing -- donate their worldly goods to a worthy charity and then open their wrists in the bathtub? They helped lie and manipulate this country into a stupid war that costs thousands of American lives and perhaps thousands of Iraqi lives. Then they supported torture or kept their mouths shut while it happened. Then they pretended it all had nothing to do with them when the whole thing blew up in their faces. Then they accuse others of bigotry when their crimes are correctly thrown in their faces. These are not the absolute worst creatures on Earth, but they're on the short list. At this point they can only improve our planet by departing it -- as quickly as possible.
- DC Spence
January 1, 2013 at 8:01pm
"President Obama has a right to choose his cabinet but he's an elected leader, and he is supposed to listen to the people" There is a problem with this statement. Who are these "people" the president is supposed to listen to? ANSWER: People who agree with me!
- DC Spence
January 1, 2013 at 8:15pm
QUESTION: And what, pray, has Netanyahu done to deserve such venomous hostility? ANSWER: Mr Netanyahu clearly allied himself with the Republican candidate in the 2012 election, a stance so obvious it would not be tolerated of any other U.S. ally. If you're a Democrat who loves his country, this is probably enough to earn Mr Netanyahu a fair amount of "venomous hostility." On the other hand, if you're a Republican who hates President Obama more than you love your country...
- DC Spence
January 1, 2013 at 8:18pm
" Mr Netanyahu clearly allied himself with the Republican candidate in the 2012 election, a stance so obvious it would not be tolerated of any other U.S. ally." Never mind that Netanyahu DID NOT "CLEARLY" ally himself with the Republican candidate. Just because it makes sense to you that he should have done that, does not mean he did. Can you provide some proof, an open endorsement, an expressed wish? Moreover, no world leader had ever inserted himself so actively, explicitly and deeply into Israel's elections than the democratic President Clinton, who sent his own personal friend and adviser, James Carvill to help Clinton's preferred choice to win the Israeli election in 1999. If you are an antisemite who hates Jews for being in places of power and influence, then this is probably all it takes to manufacture slanderous accusations and ignore records that interfere with the smooth flow of your venom. I'm glad you appeared and opined on this thread. Sophia needs to know that her position is shared by the likes of you.
- Noga
January 1, 2013 at 11:21pm
I think that there was a perceivable preference manifested by Netanyahu for Romney. I also think it was, as Noga 1 shows, muted enough so as to make Spence's decscription of it an overstatement. (I don't say Noga 1 agrees that there was that preference shown but her question goes to undercut Spence's overstatement.) Then again if there was some preference inferable from Netanyahu's conduct I can't what see what all the geshrei is about. So what? Not only Clinton but Obama himself manifested his clear preference for Livni and Kadima in more certain terms than Netanyahu and spoke of Likud as a disapprobative trope. Still again I cannot infer from Spence's overstated comments anti Semitism. On a complete sidebar, I think Greenberg makes good points against Hagel and for Flournoy.
- basman
January 1, 2013 at 11:52pm
noga, read the Haaretz article please http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/diplomania/netanyahu-s-nominee-for-next-envoy-to-u-s-the-brains-behind-his-support-for-romney.premium-1.490641 http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/107589/romneys-jewish-connector I can come up with dozens of articles detailing Bibi's support for Romney. Just because he is not dumb enough to make an open endorsement anyone can read between the lines. It is also pretty obvious that David Cameron supported Obama so I am not trying to be one sided here.
- blackton
January 2, 2013 at 1:54am
Evidently, the stakes are high or the Americans and Israelis would not try to influence each others elections. The question is whether one influences the other in a constructive way. It seems that both Clintons and Obama are sincerely, but wrongly, pushing Israel to accept terms of surrender to the Arabs, who make no bones about their eliminationist intentions and restricting Israeli response to Iranian aggression. Territorial compromise between Kansas and Nebraska would b inconsequential, but territorial compromise between Middle East adversaries is fraught with all kinds of existential risks. Obama, comfortable with the likes of Jerremiah Wright and Chuck Hagel, is not a friend of Israel. Today's cooperation between the two countries is based on deep political, strategic, and institutional affinities, which President O hasn't had the time and power to change. Hagel represents the real Obama that intends to do nothing substantive about Iran, which is rapidly developing nuclear and chemical-biological weapons. Obama has also been weak in dealing with the conservative Republicans in Congress. He is no Harry Truman. It's time for my fellow liberals to wake up and wise up
- amidut
January 2, 2013 at 7:03am
Blackton: Netanyahu has been a friend of Romney's for the last ten years or more. I have little doubt that he would have preferred him to be the president over Obama but in that he was one in many Israelis including yours truly. But the kind of interference implied in spence's never ever took place and that was my point. Antisemitism has many faces to it. Malevolence, distortion of facts and history, double-standard, slander, singling out and stalking are some of the ways it is manifested. All these can appear in someone who is not an antisemite but some other type of hater. But when this cluster of goodies always accompanies a poster's fulminations about Israel, Jewish Americans who support Israel, etc, without any attempt to learn anything or to have a larger and more accurate view of the picture, I have little doubt that that person, in this case spence, speaks out of a much deeper and irrational loathing when he opines about Israel. He does not scare me because he is much too vulgar and visible an antisemite. When you go on safari in Africa they tell you that a visible lion is a safe lion. It's those stealthy lions that crouch in the tall grass that you need to beware of. But the fact that he is not a scary antisemite, doesn't make him any less the antisemite. And anyway who gives a flying s*** what spence's nuanced feelings about Jews are, one way or another? I only made a point of it in order to place his statements here in the right frame of things. That is, dismissable from the first word.
- Noga
January 2, 2013 at 9:10am
Noga, I was going to produce a number of articles to demonstrate Mr Netanyahu's obvious attempt to influence the U.S. election, but I think Blackton got there first and did pretty well. I would also point you to David Remnick's September 12, 2012 article in the New Yorker. Among others, former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz accused Mr Netanyahu of being more concerned with regime change in Washington than regime change in Tehran. Presumably, a former Israeli defense minister who participated in the raid on Entebbe is not an anti-Semite. The "investments" the United States has made in Israel give it the right to meddle in Israeli national security matters since the U.S. is expected to back up Israeli national security. This is no different than the right the U.S. has to meddle in the national security matters of Japan and NATO allies. If these countries don't want the U.S. meddling in their affairs, they can stand on their own. The French didn't like the meddling so they went their own way. Japan, South Korea, Israel -- they can all make the same choice. Reject the money and security guarantees and you can tell Washington to go screw itself. Until then, grin and bear it. Israelis don't have to like it any more than South Koreans do and it is fine with me if Israelis loathe President Clinton for his meddling. But he was the US President and that gave him the right to meddle. You don't get to tell your parents to screw off while they're helping to pay your bills. Finally, you should probably know that these Antisemitism accusations mean nothing to me. As long as Antisemitism is defined as "disagreeing with any of my views on Israel," you're just a Jewish version of Al Sharpton. You, I and everyone else here understand the accusation is meant to shut down a debate you do not wish to have. The accusation does not anger or bother me. Just as I would not trouble myself if Al Sharpton called me a racist, I do not trouble myself if you and others accuse me of Antisemitism. I understand this will not stop you because the accusation does more than shut down debate -- it also gives you psychological comfort. I thought it only polite to make you aware of this.
- DC Spence
January 2, 2013 at 9:23am
By the way, I don't particularly care if Chuck Hagel is the next Secretary of Defense. Like most of the other alleged candidates, he's got points in his favor and points against. Just try not to be too shocked if I and everyone else with a functional frontal lobe laugh at the notion that Bill Kristol's Emergency Committee for Israel is concerned that Mr Hagel doesn't love gays and Mother Earth as much as he should.
- DC Spence
January 2, 2013 at 9:29am
Two useful articles on the fight surrounding Chuck Hagel's potential nomination for SECDEF: The first is from Glenn Greenwald's latest column in the Guardian and examines the rather interesting question of who paid for the Log Cabin Republicans' full-page NYT ad opposing Hagel. (Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/30/hagel-log-cabin-republicans-ad) Greenwald--openly gay himself--asserts: "A favorite tactic of neocons - who have led the smear campaign against Hagel - is to cynically exploit liberal causes to generate progressive support for their militaristic agenda. They suddenly develop an interest in the plight of gay people when seeking to demonize Iran, or pretend to be devoted to women's rights when attempting to sustain endless war in Afghanistan, or become so deeply moved by the oppression of Muslim factions - such as Iraqi Shia - when it comes time to justify their latest desired invasion." ******** The second article of note is from the Algemeiner, relaying Malcolm Hoenlein's assertion that Hagel will "probably" be nominated by Obama (Link: http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/12/30/breaking-top-jewish-leader-says-chuck-hagel-nomination-on-monday-is-most-likely/) (Obviously, the "Monday" prediction has turned out to be wrong.)
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
January 2, 2013 at 9:43am
"Finally, you should probably know that these Antisemitism accusations mean nothing to me" Don't flatter yourself that your antisemitism matters to me in the least. A garden variety, too dishonest to face your own prejudices. Your problem, not mine. Whatever you wrote in your last comment does not justify the way you expressed yourself in your first comment. You may suspect and probably rightly so that Netanyahu would have preferred Romney (as most sane Israelis would) but he never ever made any open or explicit statement about it. The fact that "former Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz accused Mr Netanyahu of being more concerned with regime change in Washington than regime change in Tehran. " does not in any way provide proof that "Mr Netanyahu clearly allied himself with the Republican candidate in the 2012 election, a stance so obvious it would not be tolerated of any other U.S. ally." And your feeble attempt to justify American interference in Israel's internal politics means that you are very comfortable with the application of a double standard when it comes to the Jewish state. What I omitted in my previous comment was that it is the staple of anti-Israel antisemites these days to accuse those who notice it of trying to "shut down a debate you do not wish to have". I was waiting for it to show up and, right on cue, here you are, with this over chewed and clearly unenforceable accusation. Do you feel very brave, having to courage to stand up to this Jewish Sharpton who would have you shut up by pointing to your antisemitism? You know, as courageous as Mearsheimer and Walt, and their many admirers, who speak truth to Jewish power ? Does it even ruffle one hair on your head, the fact that I diagnosed you as an antisemite? I suspect not at all. Quite the contrary. You consider it a badge of honor of sorts, in a perverse kind of way. Which goes to prove the emptiness of your own complaint about it.
- Noga
January 2, 2013 at 9:48am
@peterpalys "'Lie' is such an ugly word. Obama only needed to drop a misleading suggestion. Why wouldn't Hagel believe it? It's only a "perhaps," not a commitment." I think the real question here is: What does Obama want in a SECDEF and who can provide that for him? As Chaitless says above, more than anything else, this is about Obama looking for someone who can provide him with some insulation from the significant political hazards of cutting DoD. Further cuts to base structure, eliminating civilian jobs in communities where those may be the only jobs, reducing military compensation while troops are still dying in Afghanistan, cutting big-ticket programs--all these and other possible moves are politically very risky and will generate much resentment. Agree or disagree with what Obama has in mind, Sergeant Hagel is much more likely to be able to help Obama accomplish it than Flournoy is. Hagel's views on the Middle East and strategic policy in general are certainly a bonus but strictly secondary, I would suggest, from Obama's point of view.
- ccarrick@vzavenue.net-old
January 2, 2013 at 9:59am
Here is the latest revelation about the benevolent result of American interference in Israel's internal politics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6I5fCCp4x4&feature=player_embedded http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=297688
- Noga
January 2, 2013 at 10:06am
Noga, Of course PM Netanyahu never made a formal endorsement of Mr Romney, just as President Clinton never made a formal endorsement of Netanyahu's opponents. That's not how such things work. The attempts both men made to influence the electoral process in the other's country was still clear enough. You seem to recognize this in Clinton's case, but not in Netanyahu's case. Funny, that. I would have thought you knew all this, but perhaps you're not a bad liar, but a dim bulb. As I'm a generous person, I'll let you pick the description that fits you best. As I stated, I hold Israel to the same standards as Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy, Taiwan, etc. These are all hybrid ally-client states. I don't expect the people of these countries to be happy about the client state part of their relationship to the United States [any more than I would if I was in their shoes], but like it or not, that is how it is and they have to accept some U.S. meddling in their affairs if they want American money and security guarantees. The fact that I specifically mentioned countries like Israel, but not Israel, was a pretty obvious clue that I was not holding Israel to a standard different than those others. The fact that you either failed to understand this obvious point or preferred to intentionally misinterpret is, as I indicated earlier, a sign you're a dim bulb or a poor liar. Again, I'm a generous soul so I'll let you decide which. But if holding Israel to the same standards as I hold Denmark means that I'm an anti Semite, I suppose it must also mean I'm anti-Danish. Or it means you think it anti-Semitic if Israel has to live by the same rules as other countries. So, which is it? Am I an anti-Danish bigot or are you an Israeli bigot? I think all of us know the answer to that question. Rather than respond to these Antisemitism slurs, I think I'll just point out that you seem like the sort of person who masturbates to photos of dead Arab children. I can't prove it, of course, but you disagree with my views on something so it is probably a fair accusation to make. Since you've been thrashed about as thoroughly as a person can be, I think I'll leave it at that.
- DC Spence
January 2, 2013 at 10:19am
" You seem to recognize this in Clinton's case, but not in Netanyahu's case" I have enough respect for your intelligence to expect that you would notice the difference between an American president sending his most trusted adviser to help aggressively one candidate in Israeli election, while simultaneously making his distaste for the other candidate as openly as possible, and between Netanyahu's long standing friendship with Romney (long before Obama was even a name on the horizon in American politics) being taken as an endorsement. Your concluding paragraphs are, again, a staple of the antisemite's favourite images: sexual demonization and horrific slander. It's like that caricature that showed Sharon eating Arab babies. Not at all antisemitic. Just legitimate criticism of Israel's policies. Like I said, your vulgar hatred of Jews is not only visible but also acknowledged by you, by the very choices of your language and the monstrosity of your imagination. But you do not scare me. A garden variety, pygmy-minded antisemite, a castrated lion :)
- Noga
January 2, 2013 at 10:47am
noga, Romney and Netanyahu were never friends and barely knew each other. Here he is: “I remember him [Romney] for sure, but I don’t think we had any particular connections, I knew him and he knew me, I suppose.” ~Bibi Netanyahu, July 2012 in Vanity Fair Interview, (middle of Page 4) Look, I don't care that Netanyahu wanted Romney to win, they are both conservatives...there is a perception though, in Israel from the articles I have read at places like Haaretz, that Netanyahu screwed up. I think it is obvious these two guys don't like each other, just as it is pretty obvious that Cameron and Obama get along great. now Republicans probably love Netanyahu for hating Obama but that does Israel no good since Democrats will control the White House. It will also make a lot of Democrats hate Netanyahu, and that also ain't good. Now I can separate my feelings from policy, if anything I don't think Netanyahu went far enough in Gaza and I think if Barak had been PM he would have had a lot more leeway there. But I also am not privy to the situation on the ground so maybe Netanyahu's restraint was justified, after all many young Israeli soldiers lives were at risk.
- blackton
January 2, 2013 at 10:26pm
" I have read at places like Haaretz, that Netanyahu screwed up" Haaretz is a left, and more recently Far-Left newspaper. They hate Netanyahu and his constituency more than spence hates Israelis. I read Haaretz for the purpose of knowing what the margins in Israel are saying. There is nothing Netanyahu can do or not do that would not win him their disapproval. Obama is very unpopular in Israel (unlike Clinton, who was very well loved for all that he interfered in Israeli elections) while Haaretz keeps bashing Israelis for not liking him, as if it is their moral and God handed decree that they should. This is from an NBC news report: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-and-netanyahu-old-friends-now-at-center-of-iran-nuke-debate/ "Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been friends for more than 35 years. The men first met while working as corporate business advisers at the Boston Consulting Group during the Israeli prime minister’s years living in the U.S.; then, over time, they would leave the private sector for lives in politics. Netanyahu returned to Israel in the late 1970s; Romney ran for Senate in the early 1990s (he lost to Ted Kennedy) and again, successfully, for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. But they were always in touch, discussing policy and, on occasion, swapping favors, like when Romney urged Bay State legislators to divert public pension money from businesses with ties to Iran."
- Noga
January 2, 2013 at 10:41pm
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/romney-and-netanyahu-old-friends-now-at-center-of-iran-nuke-debate/ ""itt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have been friends for more than 35 years. The men first met while working as corporate business advisers at the Boston Consulting Group during the Israeli prime minister’s years living in the U.S.; then, over time, they would leave the private sector for lives in politics. Netanyahu returned to Israel in the late 1970s; Romney ran for Senate in the early 1990s (he lost to Ted Kennedy) and again, successfully, for governor of Massachusetts in 2002. But they were always in touch, discussing policy and, on occasion, swapping favors, like when Romney urged Bay State legislators to divert public pension money from businesses with ties to Iran."
- Noga
January 2, 2013 at 10:42pm
A kind of follow-up by Greenberg responding to some of his critics here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/03/why-liberals-should-oppose-chuck-hagel.html
- Noga
January 3, 2013 at 3:48pm
Now that the speculation over Hagel's nomination is reaching fevered pitch, I just read Greenberg's rebuttal that noga cited yesterday, and it is mostly a rebuttal to the Peter Beinart crew at DailyBeast's OpenZion (is that a "settlement"?) who see Hagel as the anti-neocon. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/03/why-liberals-should-oppose-chuck-hagel.html Since I still think any action against Iran will be a Sunni coalition - why else did the UAE buy bunker busters? not to mention the increasingly obvious Sunni-Shi'a conflict igniting Iraq as well as Syria - it may be that Hagel would certainly take the muslim eyes off Israel (in the reality-based world, which is not the same as the media). What bothers me more is that current speculation also has Jack Lew as the simultaneous nominee for SecTreas, which would put an Orthodox Jew in charge of the tightening Iran sanctions, not to mention fuelling the myth that Jews control everything especially the 'banks'. Plus, seems the Senate ain't fond of Lew. Considering Obama quietly floated Hagel as a potential VP, and then Bloomberg very openly toyed with a 3rd party run with Hagel in 2008, it is astonishing how much venom has surfaced at this time, but not then. Why Obama wants to pick contentious nominees is for someone else to decipher. All he has to do is nominate Ashton Carter for SecDef and Sheila Bair for SecTreas to make everyone happy. Then the confirmation battle will be over EPA. Maybe Obama wants to exhaust the Senate so they do not have any energy left to battle over EPA. I await the rumor that Hagel is the secret lovechild of Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl. JUST KIDDING! .
- K2K
January 4, 2013 at 8:07pm
It seems that Hagel's nomination is a done deal: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/04/obama_expected_to_pick_hagel_as_opponents_prepare_for_a_fight What a surprise. The Jewish Lobby defeated by the anti-Jewish lobby:)
- Noga
January 5, 2013 at 10:16am
"done deal"? not so fast noga. Maybe on Sunday when O returns again from Hawaii. The LGBT Lobby is far more powerful in the Democratic Party than the Jewish Lobby. And, having shared office space in 2003 for a few months with an LGBT lobbyist (for NY Dems) on his phone all day, I think anyone would find the Jews far less intimidating :) The truly odd thing is that Geithner is leaving in two weeks, and Panetta's walnut farm has no such deadline. All O knows is political battle.
- K2K
January 5, 2013 at 5:07pm