Judges, not Hagel, should be denied Senate deference

| January 12 2013
The Hot Spot

The Hot Spot is Western Free Press’s forum for letters to the editor and opinion pieces submitted by readers. If you would like to submit a piece for consideration, email us at hotspot@westernfreepress.com. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of Western Free Press.


by Mike DeVine

kerry-assadAmericans just re-elected a President that shares the views of his nominee for Secretary of Defense

To hear most Senate Republicans and not a few Democrats advise of a reluctance to consent to the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon, one would imagine that President Barack Obama is the best friend Israel ever had; was about to go to war with Iran and Egypt; and had proposed a massive increase in defense spending.

It seems that when the Nebraska Republican was “a United States senator” (a phrase he constantly repeats in response to most any question as if insecure that those listening actually believe he’s a member) he:

Spoke disparagingly of the “Jewish Lobby”;

Denied being an “Israeli Senator”;

Refused to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization;

Called for a “pragmatic approach” to Hamas as they reigned rockets on Israeli cities;

Opposed sanctions against the Mullahs ruling Iran; and

Opposed the surge in Iraq.

Our present Chief Executive, while an Illinois Senator serving with Hagel, also opposed the surge in Iraq and voted twice to cut off funds for American troops at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. As President, Barack Obama has:

Repeatedly opposed legitimate Israeli policies essential to their self-defense;

Re-established diplomatic relations with the so-called “moderate” regime in Syria;

Begged for unconditional meetings with the mullahs ruling Iran while they mowed down freedom-seeking youth in Tehran streets; and

Pushed out American’s Egyptian ally in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the progenitor of al Qaeda, opposes a Zionist state and favors the imposition of Sharia law. The Muslim Brotherhood is not “moderate” in any sense of the word. They are Hamas and Hezbollah in a three-piece suit. Obama loves him some Muslim Brotherhood and Hillary’s Muslim Sisterhood, but I digress.

Chuck Hagel is an atrocious choice for Secretary of Defense, much as Syria-loving and Benghazi-ignoring Hillary Clinton was at State, and that Vietcong and Sandinista Communist-loving John Kerry is as her successor. President Obama is an atrocious Commander-in-Chief, but it is not unconstitutional to favor and/or appease evil regimes and vilify friendly democratic republics. A majority of Americans have twice trusted President Obama with the nukes.

Therefore, unless Chuck Hagel is found to be “incompetent” (defined in Washington as being unable to walk and chew gum at the same time) in a fundamental way; lacks character; or is discovered with a live boy or dead girl, the due deference rightfully afforded Cabinet nominees should obtain.  We wish the senior senator from the Palmetto State understood the difference between temporary executive branch appointees and those nominated to serve in the Judicial Branch for life. The latter should be denied appointment based upon venal views of the Constitution as written (i.e. liberal Democrats), even if they have no criminal record and can walk and chew gum at the same time.

We have longed bemoaned the curious behavior of so many U.S. senators as seeming to revere the Senate more than their country; which former membership in usually ensures quick conformation to the bench of Cabinet. But in this case, that Hagel was a self-righteous boor that made no friends while in the exclusive club of  ”honorable friends” appears to be the main disqualifying factor in this nomination fight.

A President Barack Obama is not going to nominate anyone better than Hagel, because no matter who he nominates they will have to carry out Obama’s foreign policy. He will not nominate Donald Rumsfeld if Hagel is rejected.

This conservative wishes that Republican senators had the courage to call out President Obama as an immoral appeaser of Islamists against the interests of the United States, rather than feign outrage at his admittedly shallow nominee to head the armed forces they both seek to diminish.

7 comments
Mike DeVine
Mike DeVine

'xlaw, I guess you missed both my column title and body that advocates for granting deference to the President to choose his Cabinet absent character or incompetence problems. BTW, did FDR, Ike, Patton and MacArthur renounce their American citizenship because they favored defending allied nations in Europe rather than appeasing Fascists? Didn't think so. It seems that U.S. interests can often be consistent with alliances with democratic republics and in opposing Islamists and other totalitarian regimes. Who knew?

phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

Are you really concerned about the interests of the US, or, more likely, you are upset because Hagel puts the interests of the US before those of Israel.  Hagel is one of the few politicians in Washington with the courage to view AIPAC for what it really is - a threat to the best interest of the US.  Mr Devine, if you are so concerned about Israel, perhaps you should renounce your US citizenship and move to Israel.

phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

 @Mike DeVine Certainly your title spoke of granting deference but the gist of your article followed the neo-con/Israeli theme song that it's all about Israel.

Several other points:  The Muslim Brotherhood is not the progenitor of al-Qaeda as you claim.  Secondly, you disparage Obama for "loving him some Brotherhood" while failing to acknowledge that the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia have been funneling cash, weapons and technology to the Brotherhood at least 2007 when Dick Cheney met with Lebanese Brotherhood proxies in Washington. In other words, your boy W. Bush began the cozy relationship with the Brotherhood mainly to get the Syrian "rebels" rolling in Syria.  Tell me again who the "Syrian-loving"  President really was please.

 

You and your AIPAC-bought buddies in Congress won't be happy until we are at war with Iran, duplicating the Israeli-mandated disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether you admit it or not, Israel, not Iran, is the real threat to peace in the Middle East.  Israel and the US could destroy Iran within a matter of hours.  Do you really think the Iranian leaders don't know this and would attack Israel.  Anyone who truly believes that is either a fool or a Zionist lackey. 

Mike DeVine
Mike DeVine

@phoenixlaw Obama's great due diligence?

 

Morsi in 2010: 

Morsi was a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 when, according to video broadcast last week on Egyptian television he asked Egyptians to "nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred." Months later, in a television interview, Morsi referred to Zionists as bloodsuckers who attack Palestinians, describing Zionists as "the descendants of apes and pigs."

 

"We completely reject these statements as we do any language that espouses religious hatred," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters. "This kind of rhetoric has been used in this region for far too long. It's counter to the goals of peace."

 

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/US-condemns-comments-from-Egypt-s-Morsi-4195826.php#ixzz2I9J1CcjL

 

I'm thinking it's in America's interest to support Israel, not Egypt. BTW, ever looked at the goals of the MB for the last 70+ years? Get back to me on that one. And see where Qtub and Zawahiri came from...and if you still hate Israel and love those that hate them, we will leave you to your anti-Semitism and hatred of modernity.

 

Mike DeVine
Mike DeVine

 @phoenixlaw So you admit that al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are threats? Progress! even if not yet phoenix-like rising from ashes.

phoenixlaw
phoenixlaw

"The Palestinians are beasts walking on two legs."  Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, speech to the Knesset, quoted in Amnon Kapeliouk, "Begin and the Beasts," New Statesman, June 25, 1982. 

 

I guess it goes both ways, doesn't it?

 

As to supporting Egypt, the US has given Egypt billions of dollars in aid over the past 25 years in return for their promise to leave Israel alone.  We kept tyrannical Egyptians leaders in power while they stole the aid money and oppressed their own people, merely for Israel's benefit.  Is it any wonder that there is some hatred on the part of the Egyptian people toward the US and Israel?

Mike DeVine
Mike DeVine

 @phoenixlaw Begin's sounds like more of an analogous  description of actual Palestinian behavior; but if you have the link showing it as part of the curriculum of Jewish grammar-schoolers, then may be we could denounce both. Egyptians have had tyrannical leaders most of their 5000-year history. Maybe they need to look in the mirror.