SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Washington Post's Confused Anti-Hagel Crusade

PLANK JANUARY 11, 2013

The Washington Post's Confused Anti-Hagel Crusade

BY ALEC MACGILLIS

On December 18, the Washington Post editorial board penned an unusually forceful broadside declaring that Chuck Hagel was "not the right choice" to be secretary of defense. The chief reason, the board wrote, was that Hagel's views on foreign policy and national security were out of step not only with much of Washington, but with the man whom he would be working for: "Mr. Hagel's stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term."

On defense spending, the board wrote, this meant that Hagel was far more sanguine about deep cuts in the military budget than the rest of the administration: 

The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense “sequester” cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta’s comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial Times. “The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has been bloated,” he responded. “So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.” While both Republicans and Democrats accept that further cuts in defense may be inevitable, few have suggested that a reduction on the scale of the sequester is responsible.

Hagel's variance from others, including President Obama, was even more stark on Iran, the board wrote:

Mr. Obama has said that his policy is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that containment is not an option. Mr. Hagel has taken a different view, writing in a 2008 book that “the genie of nuclear weapons is already out of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.” The former senator from Nebraska signed on to an op-ed in The Post this September that endorsed “keeping all options on the table” for stopping Iran’s nuclear program. But Mr. Hagel has elsewhere expressed strong skepticism about the use of force.

We share that skepticism — but we also understand that, during the next year or two, Mr. Obama may be forced to contemplate military action if Iran refuses to negotiate or halt its uranium-enrichment program. He will need a defense secretary ready to support and effectively implement such a decision.

The implication was clear: Obama would be taking a national security risk by installing at the Pentagon someone whose views challenged his own in the most important areas.

Today, the Post editorial board came at Hagel again. Except this one was slightly different. The editorial was titled "Obama's cabinet has a worrisome similarity." It argued:

So far Mr. Obama seems to be assembling a team of Washington insiders who are personally close to him — and thoroughly in sync with his left-of-center views and those of the Democratic Party’s base. (Yes, that applies also to Mr. Hagel, who, despite being a nominal Republican, shares the Democratic left’s skepticism toward the Pentagon budget.) That may seem the obvious thing for a president to do. But we’re struck by the contrast with Mr. Obama’s first-term Cabinet, which included his former rival for the Democratic nomination (Hillary Rodham Clinton), a seasoned moderate Republican of independent stature (Robert M. Gates) and an apolitical financial technocrat (Timothy F. Geithner). The president was much praised then, and rightly, for assembling a team that could challenge and question him as he formulated policy.

So. On December 18, Hagel was a bad choice because he is perilously out of line with President Obama. Today, he is a bad choice because he is "thoroughly in sync with [Obama's] left-of-center views" and won't offer a challenging perspective. Huh. What changed? Did Obama and Hagel go through some sort of secret mind-meld over the holidays, perhaps at a secret hide-out in Hawaii?

Or maybe it's something else. Maybe the Washington Post editorial board just really, really doesn't like Chuck Hagel, doesn't care if its argument for opposing him shifts 180 degrees in a matter of weeks, and doesn't think its readers will notice.

Follow me on Twitter @AlecMacGillis

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 46 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

46 comments

Ouch - good job Alec. The WP sux.

- WandreyCer

January 11, 2013 at 1:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, it does say that it opposes Hagel' views on Iran. If TNR agrees with Hagel, let them say so openly.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wonder girl's wisdom: "TWP sax."

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://forward.com/articles/169131/nebraska-jews-refute-hagel-anti-semitism-charge/ For a more sober view on Hagel.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This was a cogent journalism critique, not an advocacy piece one way or the other on Hagel. I look forward to the hearings, they should be interesting. There is some valid criticism both for and against this appointment. Interesting arnon - you have such a touchy hair trigger on anything you consider bias, thought monitoring and name calling at the drop of a hat, rarely bothering to make a case just straight to name calling. And yet you don't hesitate to throw around sexist attacks for no reason. Calling grown women "girl" is sexist. The hypocrisy is worth note. I feel sorry for you. You seem like a smart man with some good in that shriveled heart somewhere. And yet you spend most of your energy on these boards attacking strangers in bitter hateful ways who have done nothing to you. Do you realize that? I'm calling you on it: you are an angry cyber bully hiding behind a computer screen - a sad man really looking for attention in such pathetic ways. You should get therapy rather than spending so much time here displaying nothing but mostly incoherent bitterness.

- WandreyCer

January 11, 2013 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran, oh bomb Iran, take down Iran, bomb Iran, you got me rockin and a-rollin, rockin and a-reelin, bomb Iran, bomb Iran.

- rayward

January 11, 2013 at 3:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Being anti Semitic is a real form of racism. Sexism is a manufactured form of bigotry. Women are not a race not a religion and not a nation. They belong to all of the above. I would hate to live in a society were women when not allowed to pursue their own interests. My dislike of Wandrey is personal and touches only on her views.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"This was a cogent journalism critique, not an advocacy piece one way or the other on Hagel." It is the fifth or sixth piece on Hagel in the same mindset, ending up saying nothing, really. And not even so cogent. Take this, for example: "The implication was clear: Obama would be taking a national security risk by installing at the Pentagon someone whose views challenged his own in the most important areas." The author of this piece does not get the implication right. The implication is a suspicion that Obama is installing at the Pentagon someone whose views might APPEAR to challenge his own in the most important areas , but in fact are in complete harmony with them, because Obama's STATED positions are not the positions he really harbors, and it's those positions which are the real reason behind this choice. As Charles Krauthammer writes today in the WP: "He [Obama] no longer has to trim, to appear more moderate than his true instincts. He has the “flexibility” to be authentically Obama. And I have very little doubt that MacGillis is fully aware of this explanation but chooses to pretend otherwise, for some reason. Other than that, I agree with most of what wanderycer wrote in her comment:)

- Noga

January 11, 2013 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Don't be dumber than you appear to be Rayward. Iranian officials have said that they would use atomic weapons to obliterate Israel. Apparently you don't give a shit about that.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just one more example (out of hundreds I could point to from the past few years) of Fred Hiatt's anti-Obama partisan whorishness. No surprises here, just exactly what we've all come to expect from that once-great and now completely worthless rag.

- dsimon64

January 11, 2013 at 3:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Iran's got much bigger problems to deal with than Jews and Christians. Like Sunni Muslims. Sure, Iran might try to deal with Sunni Muslims by focusing on the infidel Jew and Christian, but unfortunately for Iran, there's no infidel like a Shia Muslim.

- rayward

January 11, 2013 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well not to worry - the dread Russians have just launched a huge new ballistic missile submarine, I am sure this poses a Threat To Civilization and must be countered immediately!

- Sophia

January 11, 2013 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would write -- not for the first time -- that the Post's editorial decline continues uninterrupted, but I think we may have hit some sort of floor by now. It's fallen so far it can fall no further. Post editors spent months burying the Walter Pincus articles which cast doubt on the entire rationale for the Iraq War while the editorial page beat the drums for war without interruption. Now, Mr Hiatt & Company worry that President Obama and Mr Hagel will not give them the Iran War they desire. Amusing to witness, but not of any great import. As they say about editorials, writing them is like pissing on yourself in a dark blue suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling and nobody notices.

- DC Spence

January 11, 2013 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "The implication is a suspicion that Obama is installing at the Pentagon someone whose views might APPEAR to challenge his own in the most important areas , but in fact are in complete harmony with them, because Obama's STATED positions are not the positions he really harbors, and it's those positions which are the real reason behind this choice." But why is that suspicion there? When has Obama, on important issues of foreign policy, set out positions he doesn't hold? It seems to me that one should be able to, at least outline what comprises the basis for the suspicion and answer objections to that argument, should they arise. As far as US-Israeli relations go, for example, Obama and Netanyahu have openly dissented from each other's world view and priorities. Leaving aside the obviously non-functional interpersonal chemistry (and the "who is to blame?" question) it seems a bit odd then to accuse Obama of harboring secret views on Israel and the ME. Surely if he "really harbors" such negative views, and their secrecy was important, he would be more circumspect about disagreeing publicly with the Israeli PM, no? Conversely, it's a provable fact that military and intelligence liaison with Israel has been, if anything, closer and more substantial than before Obama took office. Assuming the president plays a significant role in major strategic FP decisions, it's rather difficult to see where these harbored positions come into play. If that's an arguable case, I would read the situation as the diametrical opposite of the one that Noga lays out above: as I see it, Obama's STATED position is that he thinks the Israeli government's approach to various issues is misguided, but under his administration the reality of our military and intel cooperation with Israel is in fact as active as anyone could want.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2013 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

rayward "Iran's got much bigger problems to deal with than Jews and Christians." Why then does it spend of its time verbally threatening the Jewish State and actively killing Jews in Bulgaria and Argentina? Doesn't sound to me that they think they have "much bigger problems than Jews or Christians."

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 6:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...as I see it, Obama's STATED position is that he thinks the Israeli government's approach to various issues is misguided, but under his administration the reality of our military and intel cooperation with Israel is in fact as active as anyone could want." Agree, Irony, but that doesn't let Hagel of the hook. He is not anti-Israel or at least no one has proven that he is. But that doesn't let him off the hook. Her still needs to address the issues dealing with gays and women. Is he still anti abortion? How will that impact women in the military. I don't know how many women are serving but I suspect in the tens of thousands if not more. I still haven't heard or read anything Hagel said about his current views on Gays and Women.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 6:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

01/11/2013 - 2:43pm EDT | WandreyCer I'd rather be angry when necessary than nasty as Wandrey is, while pretending to be rational.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The uber-Sane Wanrey says: "The WP sux." Any paper that publishes reviews by Jonathan Yardley, Michael Dirda, and has the historian Anne Applebaum doesn't "sux." The NY Times wishes it had reviewers or a staff writer like Applebaum.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 8:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anne Applebaum see the current issue of TNR: "Poland in the Darkness of World War II" http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/magazine/111235/evil-after-evil

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon -- yes, fair enough, there are other issues. I'm very curious as to how this Senate confirmation process will play out. Will we have Republicans accusing Hagel of being anti-feminist? Will we be able to stop giggling? In 2013, anything is possible, including a TV reality show with Anthony Bourdain and Ann Coulter in which Hagel tries to control DoD spending. Incidentally, I should say that I'm not assigning the position I described above in my last post (Obama has secretly harbored views) to Noga -- she laid it out well, but that's not to say that she endorses it partially or fully. Just in case that wasn't clear.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2013 at 10:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are welcome, Malahat. I am currently reading (devouring) "Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment" by Michael Vorenberg What a great book, much better than the film Lincoln which is based on the book though I liked the film also. btw: I have read history books by Applebaum and she is a superb historian.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 11:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"arnon -- yes, fair enough, there are other issues. I'm very curious as to how this Senate confirmation process will play out." On verra bien, Irony.

- arnon1

January 11, 2013 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am fairly certain the Constitution says the President gets to pick his cabinet, and then the Senate gets to approve or veto his choice. I am guessing the President likely knew all about Hagel's views when he selected him as his second choice. Let me guess if Sen. Graham will like his 3rd, 4th, or 5th choice, regardless of who that might be. So the editors of The Post can carp and whine all they want, and insightfully tell the president that his choice for Secretary of Defense is politically to his left till they are properly lying under bird droppings; but it is his call. We voted. He won. I suggest Secretary Hagel take a tour of bases he intends to close first. Might I suggest he start in SC then head on over to AZ.

- smabry03

January 12, 2013 at 7:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" I'm very curious as to how this Senate confirmation process will play out. Will we have Republicans accusing Hagel of being anti-feminist? Will we be able to stop giggling?" There is a kind of inbuilt bias in this question. It assumes that Republicans, by the very essence of their political conservatism, are bound to be anti-feminists. Why would you giggle, otherwise, at a Conservative expressing concerns about a candidate's explicit anti-feminism, or anti-gay bias?

- Noga

January 12, 2013 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Will we have Republicans accusing Hagel of being anti-feminist? Will we be able to stop giggling?" No Irony, not anti'feminism. He will or at least he should be asked a series of questions pertaining to how he sees the role of women in the military. He should also be asked about abortion, since among the tens of thousands of service women there will be times when someone wants an abortion either because of rape, or just because she doesn't think she can be a good service woman and care for a baby at the same time. And what about gays. Will he go after gays who are "too flagrant" as he went after the ambassadorial nominee? It will be interesting to see how he responds to these questions since being since he will have to care for millions of soldiers. Will he implement current laws which are not his taste fairly? These are not giggling matters.

- arnon1

January 12, 2013 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

FWIIW, I find it nearly inconceivable to imagine Hagel going after gays or women or anti abortion causes. As a Secretary, I assume he will not have too much time to indulge in ideological pursuits, and thus prove that all his detractors had been right in detracting him. Is he religious? Is the anti-abortion stance derived from faith or just conformist opportunism? His indifference (at the very least) to Jewish concerns, however, cannot be easily explained. Perhaps his is just an equal-opportunity indifference to all minorities? http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/totally-unequivocally-hagel_695220.html "After he left the Senate, Hagel became co-chair of the Atlantic Council. His vice chair on the board is Chas Freeman. Remember him? Freeman had been forced to withdraw as a nominee for an Obama administration intelligence post in 2009 because his hostility to Israel was so manifest. New York senator Chuck Schumer said, after Freeman withdrew, “His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration.” Hagel evidently hasn’t persuaded Freeman to mend his ways. Just a month ago, on December 1, 2012, here’s what Hagel’s vice chair, Chas Freeman, declared: In some countries, like the United States, Israel can rely upon a “fifth column” of activist sympathizers to amplify its messages, to rebut and discredit statements that contradict its arguments, facts, and fabrications, and to impugn the moral standing of those who make such statements. So far as we know, Chuck Hagel had no problem with what Chas Freeman said in December 2012. But in January 2013, Chuck Hagel morphed into Mr. Unequivocal and Total Supporter of Israel." (Chas freeman was also a guest on the Iranian Press TV, proving, retroactively, that he was everything HIS detractors had said about him, when he was a candidate for some high profile position in Obama's administration. Zbigniev was there for him, as well, just as he has come out, in all his limited glory, in favour of Hagel, on his daughter's morning show on MSNBC).

- Noga

January 12, 2013 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/totally-unequivocally-hagel_695220.html "After he left the Senate, Hagel became co-chair of the Atlantic Council. His vice chair on the board is Chas Freeman. Remember him? Freeman had been forced to withdraw as a nominee for an Obama administration intelligence post in 2009 because his hostility to Israel was so manifest. New York senator Chuck Schumer said, after Freeman withdrew, “His statements against Israel were way over the top and severely out of step with the administration.” Hagel evidently hasn’t persuaded Freeman to mend his ways. Just a month ago, on December 1, 2012, here’s what Hagel’s vice chair, Chas Freeman, declared: In some countries, like the United States, Israel can rely upon a “fifth column” of activist sympathizers to amplify its messages, to rebut and discredit statements that contradict its arguments, facts, and fabrications, and to impugn the moral standing of those who make such statements. So far as we know, Chuck Hagel had no problem with what Chas Freeman said in December 2012. But in January 2013, Chuck Hagel morphed into Mr. Unequivocal and Total Supporter of Israel." (Chas freeman was also a guest on the Iranian Press TV, proving, retroactively, that he was everything HIS detractors had said about him, when he was a candidate for some high profile position in Obama's administration. Zbigniev was there for him, as well, just as he has come out, in all his limited glory, in favour of Hagel, on his daughter's morning show on MSNBC).

- Noga

January 12, 2013 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga "FWIIW, I find it nearly inconceivable to imagine Hagel going after gays or women or anti abortion causes." So noga agrees with irony about the giggle factor.

- arnon1

January 12, 2013 at 2:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Initially, I thought ironyroad's argument was less than felicitous in utilizing the giggle factor, as it suggested that it is inconceivable that Republicans would be concerned about anti-feminist positions (abortion is not a feminist issue, btw). Then I read you response, and I realized that there are two edges to the same bias: arnon thinking that Hagel's anti abortion position is so firm that he would actually pursue it in preventing it among young women in the military. This perception of venality, from either "Republicans" or Hagel on women's issues, makes me giggle (were I prone to such outbursts of irreverent mirth). I don't really giggle. I roll my eyes.

- Noga

January 12, 2013 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"When it comes to social issues, Hagel's record is, if anything, even more conservative. A lifelong Roman Catholic, he is strongly anti-abortion and consistently voted to restrict its availability. Based on this history, the abortion rights group NARAL gave him a zero rating, and the National Right to Life Committee gave him a rating of a hundred per cent. He supported teacher-led prayer in schools: the Christian Coalition gave him its top rating of a hundred per cent. He was staunchly in favor of gun rights—he got an “A” rating from the N.R.A.—capital punishment, and the drug war." http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/01/hagels-views-on-israel-arent-the-problem.html#ixzz2HnN5Yfj5

- arnon1

January 12, 2013 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2013/01/hagels-views-on-israel-arent-the-problem.html

- arnon1

January 12, 2013 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article above is ambivalent about Hagel's nomination and ends thus: "But before the process goes any further, let’s also be clear about Hagel’s over-all record, which also includes a zero rating on military issues from SANE—the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy. This isn’t Jim Jeffords, the turncoat Republican senator from Vermont, who had a long record of supporting progressive measures on education, job training, and the environment. Nor is it Bob Gates, a lifelong intelligence- and foreign-policy functionary who rarely strayed into party politics. Hagel is an old-school western conservative with a history of opposing much of what Democrats stand for. If some of the Party’s supporters in Washington and elsewhere blanch at supporting his nomination for one of the five most senior posts in the Administration, it will hardly be surprising."

- arnon1

January 12, 2013 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

American democrats will hardly be giggling at Hagel's position on gays, women, and guns. If Hagel were the most qualified person for this job one could ignore his political baggage. But he is hardly that.

- arnon1

January 12, 2013 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is a kind of inbuilt bias in this question. It assumes that Republicans, by the very essence of their political conservatism, are bound to be anti-feminists." I can't deny that, although I was exaggerating somewhat for effect. But Republicans have a way of proving one's caution about using stereotypes to be unnecessary. I recall John McCain's famous air quotes around "health of the mother," just to provide one example of saying impromptu stuff on TV and then wondering what you did wrong.

- ironyroad

January 12, 2013 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... although I was exaggerating somewhat for effect." Aristotle, if I remember correctly, was leery of the Eiron and of the Alazon. But of the two, he found the Alazon an unmitigated scoundrel, while he could accommodate the Eiron within his ethical sphere.

- Noga

January 12, 2013 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Chuck vs. Chuck?" http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/169188/chuck-vs-chuck/ " It could come down to a tale of two Chucks." "Chuck Hagel’s chances of getting confirmed as Pentagon chief could hinge on whether Sen. Chuck Schumer is satisfied with Hagel’s stance on Iran."

- arnon1

January 13, 2013 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am hoping that he will also be asked about his views on women and gays in the military.

- arnon1

January 13, 2013 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"

I want to sit down and get his view points on Israel, our greatest ally. I want to see... why he chose to oppose the Iraq War, which I think was a wise choice now that we know all the conditions," - Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
No comment.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 3:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why would you need to comment, Manchin is an American Senator and you are not an American and you live in Canada. End of Story.

- arnon1

January 14, 2013 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon: you might wish to remind TNR not to solicit subscriptions from non-Americans; when they stop taking my money, I will stop commenting. In the meantime, I will comment, or not comment, on any subject published by TNR, as I wish (not as I "need" to). And, if you want to make an ass of yourself making comments on people's background - as you regularly, viciously and irrelevantly do, and here I sympathise fully with Noga, your erstwhile target on this matter, despite our strong disagreements on everything else - it's your business. You just come across as more than usually petty, irrelevant and nonsensical.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

icarus-r "Arnon: you might wish to remind TNR not to solicit subscriptions from non-Americans; when they stop taking my money, I will stop commenting." That's a very good idea, but till then have the decency not to imply that US senators who value the alliance with Israel are traitors. You sound no different than some bigoted Ayatollah.

- arnon1

January 14, 2013 at 4:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"not to imply that US senators who value the alliance with Israel are traitors." That's some feat of interpretive imagination. You sound just like Humpty Dumpty. If your demented and deeply paranoid mind reads into a statement by a US Senator and "no comment" on my part the "implication" of one thing or another, and the imputation of being "some bigoted Ayatollah", that is something you need to work on, with your little blue pills, but not my problem. For the record, Senator Manchin may criticise Hagel for his stance on Israel, gays, women or a Moon colony, for all I care. What I found amusing was his statement that the Iraq war was "a wise choice now that we know all the conditions". If you want a heedless foof like that defending Israel, be my guest. Instead of insulting, accusing and reading idiotic implications into "no comment", you might perhaps enlighten us why you are such a great fan of the Iraq war and how it was a "wise choice" in the light of what we know about the place now.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 5:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That's some feat of interpretive imagination." Doesn't take much imagination to read a post whose point is "no comment, after a Senator says that ("I want to sit down and get his view points on Israel, our greatest ally.....") that way. This back and forth could go on for ever and I don't have for ever to post here.

- arnon1

January 14, 2013 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Doesn't take much imagination" Agreed. Not a "feat" but a "special sort" of imagination - to misread, mis-imply and impute - and a special disposition - to insult. "I don't have for ever to post here." May we all benefit from your impending departure.

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Camus could write a novella on this: how the correct quotation of a Senator without comment may lead to the imputation of being a bigoted Ayatollah. Or is it Ionesco. :)

- icarus-r

January 14, 2013 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Camus could write a novella on this" No he couldn't and didn't. Camus was a little more subtle than you are.

- arnon1

January 14, 2013 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close