Showing posts with label Sec of Defense. Show all posts

16 February 2013

More GOP Hagel hypocrisy 14FEB13 & UPDATE Daily News' Dan Friedman Claims He Inadvertently Started Chuck Hagel 'Friends Of Hamas' Rumor 20FEB13

MORE gop / tea-bagger hypocrisy on Chuck Hagel. These fools seem to think nobody is going to check not only their accusations but their own actions too. Here is Sen james inhofe r OK speking favorably about hamas and condemning Chuck Hagel for supposedly being soft on hamas. From Salon.....UPDATE!!!!! See the article from HuffPost on the whole Chuck Hagel-Friends Of Hamas uproar.....

The senator leading the charge against Hagel on Israel had some kind words for Hamas in 2006

BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD

Senator James M. Inhofe (R-OK) at Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing, January 31, 2013. (Credit: Jeff Malet, maletphoto.com)

When Senate Republicans blocked Chuck Hagel’s confirmation to be secretary of Defense this afternoon by voting against a cloture motion to end debate and move to a final vote, they insisted it was not a filibuster. “This is not a filibuster. I realize that’s the headline the majority leader would like the papers to write,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said on the Senate floor while filibustering Hagel.

The cloture motion fell two votes short, securing only 58 of the 60 votes Democrats needed to break the GOP obstruction. Republicans had 40 votes against cloture, and in the crazy rules of the Senate, that wins.

The hold or filibuster, or whatever Cornyn would call it, came as conservatives buzzed about a speech Hagel gave to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League (ADC) in 2007. A conservative blog today claimed that Hagel suggested in the speech that Israel controlled the State Department. The former Republican senator has come under fire from Republicans for being critical of Israeli policy in the past and referring to the “Israel lobby,” so the State Department quote would be problematic, if true.

It turns out Hagel may have said no such thing, though he did talk of cooperation with Iran on Afghanistan, including the idea of reopening a consulate in the country, which may pose its own political problems.

But the increasingly unhinged campaign against Hagel has been so single-minded in its quest to dig up dirt on him that it has seized on anything that has even a whiff of pro-Palestianian, anti-Israel slant, no matter how dubious. For instance, the bogus claim that Hagel received donations from a nonexistent group called “Friends of Hamas” plays perfectly into the notion that he coddled the sometimes terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip. But it has the disadvantage of being untrue.

Applying the Republicans’ standard on Hagel to others — including themselves — complicates the situation.

Take Sen. Jim Inhofe, for instance. He’s the ranking Republican member on the Senate Armed Services Committee and has been one of the leading figures opposing Hagel’s nomination. Inhofe told Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogan that Hagel’s relatively soft stance on Hamas, among other things, meant that Inhofe could not support him.

But in 2006, after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, Inhofe did not seem concerned. Hamas has done “some good things, even as a terrorist group,” he told the Oklahoman. He compared the group to one of the country’s largest charities, saying Hamas is like “the Salvation Army with loaded guns.”

“I would prefer that they not have won, but I don’t think it’s the end of the world,” he added.

The quote may not be damning on its own, but if there were a concerted smear campaign against Inhofe’s stance on Israel, it would be about as bad as anything brought against Hagel. In other words, using his current standard, Jim Inhofe might have a hard time voting to confirm Jim Inhofe.

Alex Seitz-Wald is Salon's political reporter. Email him at aseitz-wald@salon.com, and follow him on Twitter @aseitzwald.
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/14/more_gop_hagel_hypocrisy/

Daily News' Dan Friedman Claims He Inadvertently Started Chuck Hagel 'Friends Of Hamas' Rumor

A New York Daily News reporter revealed on Wednesday that he might have been the inadvertent source of one of the strangest rumors about Chuck Hagel, the current nominee for defense secretary.

Republicans in the Senate blocked Hagel's confirmation vote last week. Among other disagreements, the GOP said it had issues with Hagel's views on Israel and claimed the former senator accepted speaker fees from controversial groups.

The Daily News' Dan Friedman, who is a reporter in the paper's Washington bureau, published an article on Wednesday referring to himself as "the unwitting source" of what he called a "bogus" claim about one of the groups Hagel was rumored to have addressed: the "Friends of Hamas." If Hagel had actually received money from such a group, it would likely have doomed his nomination. But no evidence has surfaced that the group even exists. So what happened?

Friedman wrote that he was interested in knowing if Hagel's Republican critics knew the names of specific groups from which Hagel received speaker fees. He contacted a Republican aide and "hypothetically and hyperbolically" asked if Hagel addressed groups such as "Friends of Hamas" or the "Junior League of Hezbollah, in France." Friedman wrote:

The names were so over-the-top, so linked to terrorism in the Middle East, that it was clear I was talking hypothetically and hyperbolically. No one could take seriously the idea that organizations with those names existed — let alone that a former senator would speak to them.

Friedman also put the question into email form, presumably thinking his joke would not be taken seriously. He was in for a surprise.

The following day, an article appeared on the conservative website Breitbart.com with the headline, "SECRET HAGEL DONOR?: WHITE HOUSE SPOX DUCKS QUESTION ON 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS.'" Conservative pundits, including Mike Huckabee, and other websites also addressed the rumor. It even came up during aFox Business segment with host Lou Dobbs. Other outlets published articles questioning if the group "Friends of Hamas" even existed. Friedman wrote:

I am, it seems, the creator of the Friends of Hamas myth. Doing my job, I erred in counting on confidentiality and the understanding that my example was farcical — and by assuming no one would print an unchecked rumor. If anyone didn’t know already: Partisan agendas, Internet reporting and old-fashioned carelessness can move complete crocks fast. If you see a story on Hagel addressing the Junior League of Hezbollah, that’s fake too.

Though Republicans blocked Hagel's confirmation vote last week, they are expected to come to a vote, and likely confirm Hagel, in the coming days.

UPDATE: Ben Shapiro, who wrote the Breitbart news article, stood by it in a reply to Friedman on Wednesday:

Since the original “Friends of Hamas” story was written, the media has downplayed or ignored the myriad of borderline anti-Semitic Hagel comments regarding Iran and the State of Israel, as well as the “Jewish lobby.” They have deliberately obstructed news coverage of Hagel’s well-documented supported base among friends of Hamas. Instead of asking Hagel to release the requested documents, the media has attacked Breitbart News ... Our Senate source denies that Friedman is the source of this information.

Shapiro's defense does not include an apology for spreading the false story about Hagel.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/daily-news-chuck-hagel-friends-of-hamas-dan-friedman_n_2723951.html

14 February 2013

Senate Republicans block Hagel nomination after Democrats force vote 14FEB13

SEN Reid D NV should have known better than to trust the repiglican / tea-bagger obstructionist in the Senate to honor the filibuster reform deal worked out in the last two weeks. The publicly stated objections to Mr Hegel are petty and baseless. The real objections are the threat he presents to the profit margins of the military-industrial complex and to the war-mongering neocons, military wannabes too cowardly to fight in the wars they are all to anxious to start. Now it is time for him to do what is best for the nation and invoke the nuclear option and get Chuck Hagel confirmed as Sec of Defense. Hang in there Mr Hagel, don't you give up and give in, we need you as Sec of Defense. Take a cue from Rosa Parks' playbook (You too Sen Reid)"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in." -Rosa Parks This from the Washington Post....

By Ed O’Keefe and Paul Kane

Senate Republicans blocked Chuck Hagel’s nomination as secretary of defense in a filibuster on Thursday, demanding more time to study their former colleague’s speeches and finances after he left the Senate in 2008.
It is the first time a national security nominee has ever faced a filibuster.
The 58-40 vote, with 1 present, came after Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) announced a few hours earlier that the Senate would push ahead, despite calls by several Republican senators to delay the vote until at least Feb. 25, when the Senate is scheduled to return from its Presidents Day recess.
By calling the vote, Reid set up the Senate to block President Obama’s choice to lead the Pentagon, a stinging rebuke for a former colleague and member of that chamber.
Reid had called for a vote on Friday -- which Democrats and Republicans then agreed should be sped up to Thursday -- to highlight what he sees as unprecedented Republican obstruction. Democrats also say the Republican push for a delay, even a brief one, is a tactic designed to allow more time to bloody the nominee and that, in fact, the GOP will never be satisfied with the amount of information released about Hagel.
Democrats said they also pressed ahead with a vote to quickly fill the Cabinet position, as Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta steps down and heads to California. But Democrats conceded that if Hagel is blocked, they will try again after the recess.
“If we don’t bring it to an end today, then there will be another vote a week from Tuesday,” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the armed services committee, said before the vote. But, he added, “the world is too dangerous to have this period of uncertainty.”
Earlier Thursday, Reid announced that Republicans had secured enough votes to mount a filibuster on the confirmation.
“This isn’t high school getting ready for a football game or some play that’s being produced at high school,” Reid said during an angry floor speech Thursday morning. “This is - we’re trying to confirm somebody to run the defense of our country, the military of our country.”
But a number of Republicans who believe it is bad precedent for a defense secretary nominee to face a 60-vote threshold have said they would be willing to vote to end debate on the nomination if the White House provided further answers to several lingering questions.
If Republicans successfully filibuster the nomination Thursday, Democrats could return to the issue after next week’s recess, when a number of leading Republicans have said they will vote to close off debate, allowing the Senate to move ahead to an up-or-down vote on the nomination, requiring only 51 votes for confirmation.
“I think that during the break is sufficient time to get any additional questions answered,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Thursday. “And I will vote for cloture on the day we get back, and I believe that enough of my colleagues would do the same,”
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) told reporters that cutting off debate is “premature.”
“When we come back from the recess 10 days from now, senators should have had sufficient time to consider Senator Hagel’s nomination, and I will vote to have an up-or-down vote,” Alexander said. “I know of many of my colleagues who think that’s enough time. It would be better for the institution and the country if we had enough time to consider Senator Hagel and then have an up-or-down vote, so we don’t get into a habit of making it look like we’re suing the filibuster to block Cabinet nominees. That’s not the case here.”
Earlier in the day, Democratic aides confirmed that senior Republicans told them late Wednesday that GOP leaders had at least 41 Republicans to block the planned Friday vote. If, as expected, Democrats fail to muster the 60 votes needed to end debate and move to a final vote, it would mark the first time a Cabinet nominee to a national security post had ever been filibustered.
A senior GOP aide confirmed that some Republicans who had publicly opposed filibustering what has traditionally been a key national security post with bipartisan support were now withholding their votes for answers from the White House.
“The members still await the information they want,” the senior aide said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s leadership team deliberations.
Speaking immediately after Reid in the morning, McConnell (R-Ky.) ignored mentioning a filibuster and instead focused his remarks on the automatic spending cuts set to hit March 1 — which will include $46 billion slashed from the Pentagon’s 2013 budget.
Leading Republicans, including McCain, have said they would drop the filibuster effort if the White House gives them more information about the actions President Obama took during an eight-hour siege at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11. The attack killed the U.S. ambassador to the country and three other Americans.
Democrats, however, have suggested that Republicans are only focusing on Benghazi to slow the confirmation process so that Hagel — known for a mercurial temperament and as an impulsive decision-maker in the past — would withdraw his nomination.
A spokesman for Hagel suggested he would stay and fight, as did a spokesman for the president, who was flying to a domestic policy event in Georgia.
“We urge the Republicans in the Senate to drop their delay,” Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said. “There is a clear majority in the United States Senate for senator Hagel’s confirmation. These delaying tactics are unconscionable, and they should end right away.”
White House counsel Kathryn H. Ruemmler sent McCain a letter Thursday that largely reiterated the facts found by an accountability review board that examined the Benghazi attack. She added that then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in contact with the Libyan leadership during the attack “to coordinate additional support to protect Americans” there, noting that Obama called the Libyan president the next day to discuss the security situation in the area.
“We continue to urge the full Senate to act swiftly and confirm senator Hagel,” Ruemmeler wrote.
McCain said Thursday that he was satisfied by the White House response to his question but that he believes other senators still have pending inquiries.
“We are working on and having negotiations now, trying to smooth this thing out and get it done,” McCain said. “I have said all along that we had to have the concerns of senators addressed. I’m hopeful that we can get those concerns addressed and still move forward with a 51-vote vote, because we have never required 60 votes on a secretary of defense.”
On the Senate floor, Reid warned forebodingly that if Hagel was not confirmed Friday, the Pentagon would be without an official leader.
“In less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense,” Reid said. “It’s shocking that my Republican colleagues would leave the nation without a fully empowered secretary of defense.”
The Pentagon says otherwise. Defense Secretary Panetta “believes Senator Hagel should be confirmed as quickly as possible, and plans to stay in office until he is confirmed,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said.
Panetta did little to hide his frustration Thursday about Hagel’s embattled nomination. Hosting former secretary of state Hillary Clinton at the Pentagon for what Panetta had hoped would be his last day on the job, he said he was counting the days until he flies home to California— for good.
After calling Clinton’s visit a “great Valentine’s Day present for all of us here,” Panetta joked that there was one more item on his wish list.
“The second-best Valentine’s present would be to allow Sylvia and I to get the hell out of town at the end of the day,” Panetta said, referring to his wife. “I feel like it’s “Groundhog Day” around here.”
During his time on the Senate floor Thursday, Reid slammed Republicans for demanding more information on Benghazi from Hagel and the White House, calling claims that Hagel had not been forthcoming in his testimony during his confirmation hearing “outlandish.”
The vote is scheduled for about 11 a.m. Friday, and it is expected that Hagel would receive less than 60 votes, leaving his nomination in limbo. Reid expects all 55 members of the Democratic caucus to support ending the filibuster, and as of now just three Republicans — Sens. Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mike Johanns (Neb.) — have said they’d support ending a filibuster.
Collins announced Wednesday that she would vote to halt a filibuster but then would oppose Hagel on the final confirmation vote, which requires only 51 votes. This is a similar approach that 13 Democrats took in the 2006 filibuster vote on the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. — first voting yes to end a filibuster, then voting against his confirmation.
Until Thursday morning, most senators expected the Hagel nomination to proceed in a similar fashion, as a handful of other Republicans had expressed similar positions to Collins’s.

Rachel Weiner, Rosalind S. Helderman and Ernesto Londoño contributed to this report. Discuss this topic and other political issues in The Post’s Politics Discussion Forums.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-republicans-have-the-votes-to-filibuster-on-hagel/2013/02/14/91afab0c-76c5-11e2-8f84-3e4b513b1a13_print.html

"NUKE" THEM HARRY!!!!! Republicans Mounting Filibuster Against Chuck Hagel: Harry Reid 14FEB13

THIS IS INSANE! The repiglican / tea-bagger obstructionist in the Senate are denying our nation a Sec of Defense because of questions they have about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi last September? This has gone to far and Sen Reid needs to invoke the nuclear option and bring Chuck Hagel's nomination to the Senate floor for a vote. The Democrats have enough votes to approve Mr Hagel as Sec of Defense and if that is how the gop wants this to be played out then so be it. This from Wikipedia on the option available to Majority Leader Sen Reid, followed by the story on HuffPost....
The nuclear option is a potential response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option
Chuck Hagel Filibuster

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans are following through on their threat to filibuster former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), President Barack Obama's nominee for defense secretary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday morning.

"It is tragic that they have decided to filibuster this qualified nominee," said Reid. "It is really unfortunate."

The significance of Reid's announcement wasn't immediately clear, as he gave no indication as to whether or not Democrats had the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster attempt. It was only after Reid finished speaking that a Democratic Senate aide confirmed that the majority leader doesn't yet have the votes to overcome a Hagel filibuster.

It was assumed that many Republicans would vote against Hagel but allow his nomination to come to an up-or-down vote. Reid said that blocking Hagel through procedural means would be unprecedented.

"This isn't high school getting ready for a football game, or some play being produced at a high school," said Reid. "In less than two hours, our country will be without a secretary of defense."

The first vote on Hagel's nomination will come on Friday. If Reid can muster 60 yes votes by then, the chamber will begin a debate period. After that, there will be a final vote on Saturday.

It is customary for a president to be granted the leeway to choose his own advisers. But Hagel was a controversial choice among his fellow Republicans, owing to his public criticisms of President George W. Bush's foreign policy, his advocacy for confronting Iran's nuclear program via diplomatic means and his past criticisms of the Israeli lobby's influence within the halls of Congress.

Speaking on the floor, however, Reid said that Republicans were holding up the nomination because of the administration's refusal to release additional information about the September attacks on the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

"Chuck Hagel had nothing to do with the attack in Benghazi," Reid said.

The last defense secretary who was not confirmed by the Senate was John Tower, whose admission of past personal transgressions led to his nomination's downfall by a vote of 53 to 47 in 1989. That was a defeat via regular order, not a filibuster.

UPDATE: 11:30 p.m. -- One of the issues holding up Hagel's nomination appears to be requests from Republicans in the Senate to receive specific intelligence about the Benghazi attack, intelligence that Reid insists has already been provided. In a statement issued after his floor speech, Reid said that the White House had sent Republicans a letter about the attack at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, the latest of a series of attempts by the administration to assuage their concerns about the incident.

That letter, however, was "not enough" for them, according to Reid.

They "are moving the goals posts at the last minute," he said. "This is no way to operate."

CNN's Dana Bash, however, spoke to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) -- one of the senators who has most vocally demanded answers about Benghazi but who has also said he was against the idea of filibustering a cabinet nominee -– and got a different explanation. The letter, McCain said, was sent to Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.), not Senate Republicans.

Hagel's own spokesman, meanwhile, acknowledged on Thursday that he could end up being rejected by the Senate.

“He could be defeated, but he’s not withdrawing," Aaron Dowd told National Journal. "It’s not something anyone is discussing."

UPDATE: 11:50 p.m. -- The White House has now weighed in.

"We urge the Republicans in the Senate to drop their delay," said spokesman Josh Earnest, briefing reporters en route to the president's speech in Georgia. "There is a clear majority in the United States Senate for Senator Hagel's confirmation. These delaying tactics are unconscionable, and they should end right away."

Meanwhile, an official working to help Hagel get confirmed offers the following whip count:

We have 55 Dems and Independents on board for cloture, plus Senators Johanns and Cochran (the Republicans who’ve announced they’re voting for Hagel’s nomination). Add onto that Susan Collins saying she will vote for cloture yesterday, and we need two more votes to get to 60. That’s the state of play right now.

UPDATE: 1:15 p.m. -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Lamar Alexander(R-Tenn.) have reportedly said they will also vote for cloture -- but only after the President's Day recess, which lasts through the end of next week.

Sam Stein's wife works for the Obama administration on matters of congressional oversight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/chuck-hagel-filibuster_n_2686093.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=021413&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

12 February 2013

Voting Along Party Lines, Senate Panel Approves Chuck Hagel Nomination 12FEB13

CONTINUING their recent policy of obstructionism the repiglicans and tea-baggers on the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in goose-step fashion against Chuck Hagel for Sec of Defense. Some have threatened to try a filibuster when his nomination comes to the Senate floor for a vote. What a brilliant move, considering n korea just exploded their third nuclear devise and we are still at war in Afghanistan. Hopefully Chuck Hagel will be Sec of Defense within the week. From NPR...

by MARK MEMMOTT

Update at 5:04 p.m. ET. Committee Approves Confirmation:

Enlarge image

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who has been nominated to be the next secretary of defense.

Ron Sachs /DPA /LANDOV

Voting along party lines, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to approve the nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be the country's next defense secretary.

The vote was 14 to 11 with Sen. David Vitter, a Republican of Louisiana not casting a vote.

Our Original Post Continues:

The most-contested, so far, of President Obama's nominations for his second-term cabinet — that of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary — is due to be voted on this afternoon by the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The conventional wisdom in Washington is that the committee will approve Hagel by a party-line 14-12 vote. That would send the nomination to the full Senate.

Then what?

Some Republicans, such as Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, have said they'll attempt to hold up a vote. They'll try to insist that 60 senators must first agree that there should be a vote on the nomination before there can be a vote. In other words, they'll demand a vote on whether to vote.

But The Associated Press notes that Democrats control 55 Senate seats (two are held by independents who caucus with the Democrats) and that:

"Two Republicans — Sens. Thad Cochran of Mississippi and Mike Johanns of Nebraska — have said they will vote for the nominee. At least five Republicans, including [Arizona Sen. John] McCain, have said they oppose a filibuster despite their reservations or opposition toward the nominee."

So, it would seem there's a fair chance the push to delay a vote won't work — at least not for long.

That could mean, The Atlantic Wire says, confirmation of Hagel by the full Senate as soon as Thursday.

We'll watch for news from today's committee vote.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/12/171803224/hagel-three-step-committee-vote-floor-fight-then-confirmation?sc=nl&cc=brk-20130212-1715

07 February 2013

Angry Senators Afraid of Debate & John McCain’s Theology of War is Wrong 7&1FEB13

COMMENTARY from Jim Wallis of Sojourners, food for thought....

We do not arm ourselves against any nation; we do not learn the art of war; because, through Jesus Christ, we have become the children of peace.

-Origen

It was the biggest story inside the Beltway. Since last Thursday’s hearing, the whole Washington media machine has been discussing and dissecting the extraordinary confrontation in the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the potential confirmation of former Sen. Chuck Hagel as the new secretary of defense. Several Republican senators were extremely combative with the combat veteran who earned two Purple Hearts for his wounds in Vietnam. Hagel deserves another Purple Heart for the wounds his former “friends” and party members tried to inflict upon him. Hagel didn’t really defend his views — which were both caricatured and attacked by his adversaries — perhaps on White House advice not to risk further debates before being confirmed.

But I think Hagel’s views and the important questions he has raised about current U.S. wars and military policy deserve defending and, indeed, should become the subjects of a national debate. So I wrote a piece about one of Hagel’s most hostile questioners who insisted the possible new secretary answer the simple question of whether the surge in Iraq was “right” or “wrong.” I said it was wrong, as was the war in Iraq, as was the war in Vietnam, as are the views of John McCain on war throughout his entire political career; and how the nation has been wounded by McCain’s and others’ “theology of war.”

Chuck Hagel’s views could lead us to a necessary national debate if he becomes the new leader of the Pentagon. And it is that potential debate that Hagel’s critics are so afraid to have.

Chuck Hagel is the first soldier of enlisted rank to ever be nominated as secretary of defense. Think about that. As an Army sergeant, Hagel says he saw war from “the bottom up.” That is very different from the “top down” view of war that has always characterized the Pentagon and the military leaders who have sent so many young men and women to the bottom of so many horrible conflicts. Hagel says he wants to make absolutely sure that a projected war is worthy of the lives of American young men and women.

Those wars of occupation have clearly failed — as more and more Americans believe — and they have caused such terrible destruction and suffering for so many American families, and for the countless innocents from other countries who have perished in our wars. Isn’t it time to seriously debate wars like these?

Just today, my wife and I talked about the pain of a fourth-grade teacher in our son’s school who lost her son in Afghanistan last summer. We all know or have heard the stories of children who have lost one of their parents or at least precious time with them, or the wives and husbands who have lost their beloved in unnecessary wars. This is a national tragedy it is time to morally debate. When we see all the ads and stories about our “wounded warriors” and all the suffering they now need to overcome, can we start to ask about the decisions and decision-makers who sent them? War looks far different from the bottom up than it does from the top down; and that is exactly the change we need.

This possible future secretary of defense also thinks there is Pentagon spending that should and could be cut; and he wants to distinguish between genuine national defense and the business of war — including the political pork of massive military expenditures. In raising those critical questions, Hagel sounds like another Republican and war veteran who warned America about the growing “military industrial complex” when he left the office of the U.S. presidency — General Dwight Eisenhower. But the military contractors who control much of our foreign policy are trying to prevent that debate. They don’t want Hagel either.

Then there were all the attacks on Hagel about U.S. policy toward Israel, even with charges of “anti-Semitism.” But why can’t we debate the policies of the state of Israel, their expanding settlements, their treatment of Palestinians, and how the door is closing on the possibility of a genuine two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Are we critical only of Hamas rocket attacks? A new generation of Jewish leaders in the U. S. and in Israel is entering that debate — along with people of every faith who are unequivocally opposed to terrorism in all its forms but believe that many of our current military and foreign policy assumptions are actually making those threats worse.

Then there was the problem of Iran. Why is the idea of engaging our enemies dismissed as naïve and indefensible, and why again are military solutions believed to be the most effective in the end? If “containment” was our policy with the Soviet Union over several decades, why should it be completely rejected now? Should we have gone to nuclear war with the Russians during the Cuban Missile Crisis? We better have a national debate before starting or supporting another war in Iran.

The questions that a decorated foot soldier and former senator has asked raise the possibility of a new national debate about United States foreign and military policy. The president’s appointment of Hagel suggests he thinks such debate is healthy. I believe a majority of Americans, who are very weary of our failed war policies, are also ready for that debate. And that is what the senators and supporters of our old policies are so angry with Hagel about. They are afraid of the debate that our nation needs to have.

It’s time to confirm Chuck Hagel. It’s time to have the debate.

Jim Wallis is the author of the forthcoming book, On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn’t Learned about Serving the Common Good and CEO of Sojourners. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis.

John McCain’s Theology of War is Wrong

John McCain angrily insisted on “right” and “wrong” answers to his questions of Chuck Hagel yesterday. As a theologian and a religious leader, I want to say that John McCain is “wrong.”

McCain waits to speak during a campaign visit to support former presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Joe Raedle/Getty Images

NORTON META TAG