If the Iranian nuclear deal is such a great deal, why does President Obama have to threaten Congress with a veto if they oppose it? If it were such a great deal, wouldn't Congress just pass it?
Oh wait... remember Obamacare... remember all the tricks they used to get it passed - like passing the Senate version in the House when they no longer had the votes in the Senate after @ScottBrown was elected? This is the foreign policy counterpart. Maybe they expect Congress not to read the agreement this time too....
The newly announced deal between Iran and six world powers is “akin
to declaring war on Israel and the Sunni Arabs,” and will be a huge
problem for Hillary Clinton, according to GOP presidential candidate and
Senator Lindsey Graham, who promised to not uphold the deal if he is
elected next year.
“My initial impression is that this deal is far
worse than I ever dreamed it could be and will be a nightmare for the
region, our national security and eventually the world at large,” Graham
told me in an interview early Tuesday morning, just after Iran, China,
France, Russia, Britain, the U.S. and Germany confirmed they had reached
terms for a historic deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange
for sanctions relief.
...
“If the initial reports regarding the details of this deal hold true,
there’s no way as president of the United States I would honor this
deal,” Graham said. “It’s incredibly dangerous for our national
security, and it’s akin to declaring war on Sunni Arabs and Israel by
the P5+1 because it ensures their primary antagonist Iran will become a
nuclear power and allows them to rearm conventionally.”
...
In addition to the lifting of the embargo, Graham said lawmakers in
both parties will be put off by the fact that the restrictions on
Iranian enrichment expire over time. "There is no chance that this deal
will be approved by Congress," he said, predicting rejection by "an
overwhelming super majority in both the House and the Senate."
Graham
also predicted that the deal would lead to an arms race in the Middle
East and expanded hostilities between Shiite and Sunni Arabs all over
the region. “If I had property in the Middle East, I would think about
selling it after this deal.”
Lindsey Graham is considered one of the more moderate Republican Senators. It will be interesting to see what President Obama does to keep Democrats in line during the 4th quarter of his Presidency. Will Chuck Schumer finally break with him?
A last-ditch effort to deliver aid to Israel during its war with Hamas
died on the Senate floor, as Republicans blocked the proposal over
concerns that it would increase the debt.
After Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ $2.7
billion border aid package, which also included $225 million for
Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system and $615 million to fight
Western wildfires, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tried to split off
the Israel and wildfire money as a standalone bill, hoping to put aside
the dispute over border funding and appeal to Republicans’ deep ties to
Israel.
“We’ve all watched as the tiny state of Israel, who is with us on
everything, they have had in the last three weeks 3,000 rockets filed
into their country,” Reid said. “Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel asked
for $225 million in emergency funding so that Israel’s arsenal as it
relates to the Iron Dome could be replenished. It’s clear that is an
emergency, and we should be able to agree on that.”
It didn’t work.
Even though GOP leaders had vowed to pass an Israel aid bill in
recent days, Republicans rejected Reid’s request. First Senate Minority
Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) objected to Reid’s request for a straight
emergency cash infusion for firefighting and Israel. Then Sen. Tom
Coburn (R-Okla.) offered an alternative that would deliver money to
Israel and the West and offer commensurate spending cuts to
international organizations like the United Nations; Reid blocked that.
“Our number one ally — at least in my mind — is under attack. If this
isn’t an emergency I don’t know anything that is,” Reid said.
“I want to fund Israel,” replied Coburn. “I also want to make sure our children have a future.”
The stumble on delivering $225 million for Israel’s Iron Dome missile
defense system, which is used to shoot down rockets aimed at Israel,
infuriated GOP hawks who’d been pushing Reid to break the Israel funding
from the border bill.
“It’s an important moment for the Senate and the House to show
support for Israel. All I can say that if you don’t see the need to come
to Israel’s aid now, and the message that it would send now, it would
be a big mistake,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “Any person who
thinks that the Iron Dome is unnecessary needs to go to the floor and
tell us why, why we don’t need to help Israel right now. They’re asking
for our help, they’re our best friend in the region, one of our best
friends in the world. “
I would have voted for Coburn's bill, but that actually could have drawn an Obama veto. And while Reid gets credit for trying to separate Israel, if you read between the lines of the article, he should have done so much sooner and was trying to use Israel to push the border bill through. But I'm disappointed with Cornyn....
Congress backs down from fight over Iran sanctions
With midterm elections nearly a year away, Congress has apparently concluded that the voters have a short memory. Congress (particularly the Senate) is backing down on passing new sanctions against Iran, at least until after the first of the year
As Kerry readied to give testimony on Tuesday to the House Foreign
Affairs Committee on the administration's controversial interim nuclear
deal with Iran, core senators said there is little chance Congress would
approve new sanctions this year.
“I'm
inclined to support [Secretary of State] John Kerry” and hold off for
now, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) told The
Hill. “We'll see. Not this year.”
Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), an Iran hawk and member of the Armed Services
panel, said he was working on a new bipartisan bill but acknowledged it
might not be ready until next year, though.
“I'm looking for a sanctions bill to pass either next week or the early part of next year,” he said.
The
administration has warned that new sanctions could undermine the deal
with Iran, which has been criticized for allowing that country to
continue to enrich uranium.
It has urged Congress to hold off on mandating new sanctions, and it appears it will get its way.
More
hawkish senators had all but given up on passing legislation through
Johnson's committee and were instead hoping to do it as an amendment to
the pending Defense bill.
Leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees poured water on that plan on Monday when they unveiled a joint, bipartisan bill with no sanctions attached and called for a quick vote before the House leaves town on Friday.
Their bill was an initial signal this week that the chances of new sanctions were slim.
In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens has it right.
Releasing deposed President Mohammed Morsi and other detained
Brotherhood leaders may be realistic, but it is not desirable—unless you
think Aleksandr Kerensky was smart to release the imprisoned Bolsheviks
after their abortive July 1917 uprising.
Restoring the dictatorship-in-the-making that was Mr. Morsi's elected
government is neither desirable nor realistic—at least if the millions
of Egyptians who took to the streets in June and July to demand his
ouster have anything to do with it.
Bringing the Brotherhood into some kind of inclusive coalition
government in which it accepts a reduced political role in exchange for
calling off its sit-ins and demonstrations may be desirable, but it is
about as realistic as getting a mongoose and a cobra to work together
for the good of the mice.
What's realistic and desirable is for the military to succeed in its
confrontation with the Brotherhood as quickly and convincingly as
possible. Victory permits magnanimity. It gives ordinary Egyptians the
opportunity to return to normal life. It deters potential political and
military challenges. It allows the appointed civilian government to
assume a prominent political role. It settles the diplomatic landscape.
It lets the neighbors know what's what.
And it beats the alternatives. Alternative No. 1: A continued slide
into outright civil war resembling Algeria's in the 1990s. Alternative
No. 2: Victory by a vengeful Muslim Brotherhood, which will repay its
political enemies richly for the injuries that were done to it. That
goes not just for military supremo Abdel Fattah Al Sisi and his
lieutenants, but for every editor, parliamentarian, religious leader,
businessman or policeman who made himself known as an opponent of the
Brotherhood.
Question for Messrs. Graham, Leahy and Paul: Just how would American,
Egyptian, regional or humanitarian interests be advanced in either of
those scenarios? The other day Sen. Paul stopped by the Journal's
offices in New York and stressed his opposition to any U.S. policy in
Syria that runs contrary to the interests of that country's Christians.
What does he suppose would happen to Egypt's Copts, who have been in
open sympathy with Gen. Sisi, if the Brotherhood wins?
...
It would be nice to live in a world in which we could conduct a foreign
policy that aims at the realization of our dreams—peace in the Holy
Land, a world without nuclear weapons, liberal democracy in the Arab
world. A better foreign policy would be conducted to keep our nightmares
at bay: stopping Iran's nuclear bid, preventing Syria's chemical
weapons from falling into terrorist hands, and keeping the Brotherhood
out of power in Egypt. But that would require an administration that
knew the difference between an attitude and a policy.
When asked if the IDF has the capabilities to attack alone in Iran, Gantz answered "unequivocally, yes."
"The Iranian challenge is a meaningful one. We must look at it
strategically long-term. We will do what needs to be done, when it needs
to be done," he said.
Gantz told Israel Radio that the top
political and military officials discussed a possible strike in Iran,
but denied reports that there were arguments on the topic. "There are
long, continuous discussions, and I presume we'll have more of those in
the future."
Describing the Iranian nuclear program as "the most significant" threat
not only to Israel, but to the Middle East and the "modern world,"
Ya'alon said Tehran's drive for nuclear capabilities could end in
disaster.
"It could spark an arms race in the Middle East, and cause nuclear
weapons to spread to terror organizations. This situation could be a
nightmare for the Western world," he warned.
"The world's response
to the Iranian nuclear program was delayed. The fact that centrifuges
in Iran are continuing to spin, and that enriched uranium has already
been collected, proves that the regime in Tehran is not impressed by
these steps taken so far. Even more so, the regime in Tehran does not
identify determination in the Western world to stop its nuclear project,
and it therefore allows itself to continue to develop it," the defense
minister continued.
"Only by placing the Iranian regime before the
dilemma of having a bomb or [risking its] survival will lead to the
project being stopped.," he said.
"Only a significant increase in
sanctions, international isolation, assistance, as well as moral
support to the repressed citizens of Iran, and a credible military
option, will convince the regime in Tehran that its survival is
preferable to the military nuclear project," he added.
Israel
should not lead the campaign against Iran, Ya'alon said, but Israel is
the first target of the Ayatollah regime, he added, citing threats by
Iranian rulers to destroy Israel.
"The world must lead the
campaign against Iran, but Israel must prepare for the possibility that
it will have to defend itself with its own powers," he said.
"As
someone who experienced wars and lost friends, subordinates, commanders,
and brothers in arms, I'm convinced that using military power is the
last resort. As the defense minister of Israel, I must do all I can in
my decisions to avoid sorrow and bereavement... But we must be prepared
to use military power if we must, and to overcome our enemies sharply,
clearly, and quickly." During his speech, Ya'alon said that in some
senses, "the War of Independence hasn't ended yet. Security forces are
facing, and will continue to face in the coming years, challenges on
various fronts, from near to far, along our borders, and in states that
are not close to us." Conventional military threats have decreased, but
terrorist organizations, rockets, missiles, and Iran remain a threat, he
said.
In Washington, the majority-Democrat Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted a Senate resolution that has 79 co-sponsors, which calls for US diplomatic, economic and military support for Israel in the event that it finds it necessary to take military action against Iran.
On Israel's 65th Independence Day, the US Senate Foreign Relations
Committee adopted "Senate Resolution 65," stipulating that the US will
assist Israel diplomatically, economically and militarily if the Jewish
state is compelled to take military action against Iran “in its defense
of its territory, people, and existence.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sponsored Tuesday's resolution, which
garnered a bipartisan group of 79 co-sponsors. The resolution also
emphasizes that the US must be committed to preventing Iran from
acquiring nuclear weapons.
“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has sent a very clear and
enormously important message of solidarity with Israel against the
Iranian nuclear threat—which endangers American, Israeli, and
international security,” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) said in a statement.
“AIPAC urges the full Senate to act expeditiously to adopt the resolution.”
There is no sugar-coating the point. The Senate
has just confirmed the most truculent cabinet officer in respect of
Israel in more than a generation because important institutions and
leaders shrank from making an issue of it.
This is a story that is painful for many people to talk about. It
would be inaccurate to suggest that the only objection to putting Mr.
Hagel in at the war department had to do with Israel. He would be
inadequate, even were Israel not an issue. There is a broad sense within
the Jewish community — as there is among a number of non-Jewish
senators who permitted his nomination to go to the floor — that Mr.
Hagel has proven himself incompetent and disingenuous.
Yet there’s no gainsaying the special concern that his hostility to
Israel has raised among the Jewish leadership. And one of the stories
that is being spoken of in private is how humiliated the leaders of the
Jewish community feel. Nearly all of them — not all, but nearly all —
were opposed to the elevation of Mr. Hagel to the Pentagon. But only one
of the Jewish defense agencies spoke out forcefully against him.
That was the Zionist Organization of America, which is the oldest
pro-Israel organization in America, having been founded in 1897, the
same year in which Theodor Herzl convened at Basel, Switzerland, the
First Zionist Congress. It opposed the Hagel nomination early,
forthrightly, and unapologetically. The result, according to the ZOA’s
president, Morton Klein, is that it received objections from several
leaders worried about the consequences for the Jewish community of such a
public position.
Mr. Klein believes the Hagel nomination would not have been confirmed
had the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation
League, and the American Jewish Committee taken a formal public position
against Mr. Hagel. All three agencies have had many heroic moments. But
they stood down on Mr. Hagel. Said Mr. Klein: “Several senators — and
important ones — said to me: ‘If Aipac, ADL and AJCommittee — especially
Aipac — had come out and lobbied against Hagel, he would have been
stopped.”
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone and a freilichen (Happy) Purim to those celebrating tonight (not in Jerusalem - we celebrate tomorrow night).
After the Sabbath started in the US, the Senate sent another letter to Chuck Hagel, this time demanding that he open his archive at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.
[Senator Lindsey] Graham [R-SC] first reminds Hagel, who has been nominated as secretary of
defense, that he promised disclosure at his Senate confirmation hearing.
He writes, "During your appearance before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, you committed to fully cooperating with Senate requests to
disclose information about your record. 'Everything that is out there
that we can find we'll make every effort to get it and provide it,' you
told Chairman Levin."
"The Washington Speakers Bureau has confirmed that it will not
transfer to the Senate any video recordings of your past speeches
without your authorization. The University of Nebraska-Omaha is
stonewalling Senate staff and journalists seeking access to your Senate
office archive, which is filled with past speeches, videos, letters and
notes," Graham adds.
The senator concludes: "Sen. Hagel, given the threats we face in the
world and the public confidence level needed to be an effective
Secretary of Defense, I believe the airing of your views and record is
critical to the confirmation process. Will you give the interested
parties access to the archives at the University of Nebraska and the
Washington Speakers Bureau?"
Also, in the same letter, Graham reminds Hagel that he's still waiting for a response to his last letter.
"Meanwhile," writes Graham," you have not responded to my letter on the
accuracy of a contemporaneous report or remarks you delivered at Rutgers
University in April 2010. On top of your previous comments accusing
Israel of keeping Palestinians 'caged up like animals,' justifying
Palestinian suicide bombings and alleging that a 'Jewish lobby
intimidates' Senators into doing 'dumb things,' the 2010 contemporaneous
report claims you said that Israel is becoming an apartheid state, that
Prime Minister Netanyahu is a radical, that the Hamas terrorist
organization should be brought into negotiations and that Israel stands
in violation of multiple United Nations resolutions."
The Obama administration, which once bragged about being the most open administration ever, wants to bring Hagel's nomination to a Senate vote on Monday.
There is no graceful exit from the White House because President
Obama doesn’t give a darn whether Hagel is an incompetent fool. He’s not
backing down. He’s going to stick it to the pro-Israel community and to
Israel. He’s going to stick it to the Republicans. There is no other
way to read his determination to go forward with such a flawed nominee.
And Democrats, unlike their Republican counterparts in the Miers
nomination, don’t have the nerve or the concern for the institution in
which the nominee would serve to force the president’s hand.
Let’s recap. The president doesn’t care about an inept nominee. The
Democrats don’t care about an inept nominee. But Republicans are
supposed to defer to the White House’s judgment? This is, frankly, nuts.
All of this is doubly concerning since the report from Rutgers.
Contemporaneous notes recorded his words, and now Hagel can’t say
definitively that he didn’t say them. Meanwhile, after a slumber, two
major liberal Jewish organizations, the Anti-Discrimination League and
the American Jewish Committee, have perked up. Gosh, if true, this is
really bad stuff, they say. In fact it’s about the worst they’ve heard
from a nominee, who’s already declared himself not to be the senator
from Israel. They’ve woken up, so why won’t the GOP senators following
the Rutgers potential straw that breaks the nomination’s back?
And that’s not all there is. After discovery of even more speeches in
which Hagel was heard cozying up to Iran and embracing the
false-linkage theory, Hagel still will not say who paid for all his
speeches in the past five years. He has the information at his
fingertips, because presumably he reported his speaking fees as income
on his tax return. However, he won’t make a copy of that and send it to
the Senate for inspection. Is that because the payers are dubious
characters? Because of the amounts involved? Given everything else wrong
with this nominee, it is inconceivable that he would not be asked under
oath if he made the purported remark at Rutgers or elsewhere and who
paid for his speeches.
In any event, McCain and Graham shouldn’t fold when the going gets
tough. If this nominee is as bad as they say, they should, and indeed must,
filibuster him if the White House (unlike the Bush White House) and the
Democrats (unlike the GOP senators of yesteryear) won’t do the right
thing.
But Jonathan Tobin reports that the report on Friday that Hagel had told an audience at Rutgers University in 2007 that Israel controls the State Department has galvanized the American Jewish organizations whose silence has acted as cover for pro-Israel Democratsto support Hagel. Two of them, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee have now issued statements strongly questioning Hagel's fitness to be Secretary of Defense, and the result may be a whole new ballgame - including the withdrawal of Hagel's nomination - by the time the Senate returns to session next Monday.
On Thursday, Contentions called
on some of the major Jewish organizations that have been conspicuous by
their absence from the debate about Hagel to finally break their
silence on the issue and to demand an explanation about the 2007 speech
given at Rutgers University during which Hagel is alleged to have made
the crack about the Israelis and the State Department. Last night, the
Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported that both the Anti-Defamation League
and the American Jewish Committee have made such statements. The ADL told JTA Hagel needed to explain the remark but the American Jewish Committee went farther in saying that “further Senate deliberation is called for before any final vote is taken.”
These comments are part of the growing furor over Hagel that is not
going to be defused by the nominee’s assurance to Senator Lindsay Graham
that he “doesn’t recall” making the controversial statements about
Israel and the State Department. The allegations about the Rutgers
speech are credible not just because of the contemporaneous account of
the event but also because of Hagel’s history of saying similar things
about the “Jewish lobby” and disavowals of past stands favoring outreach
to Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. As Hagel “twists in the wind” — a
Watergate allusion made today by Woodward —pressure is growing on
pro-Israel Democrats to abandon him.
With each passing day during the Congressional recess over the next
week, the Hagel deathwatch will become a bigger and bigger story. Though
Democrats closed ranks behind the president’s choice in a partisan
votes on Hagel last week the failure to block a delay of the decision on
him via a filibuster on Thursday will give some of them the time to
change their minds. Some of the pro-Israel senators like Chuck Schumer
who have been using the silence of mainstream Jewish groups about his
nomination as cover for their decision to go along with what they knew
was a questionable choice are now on the spot. As John wrote in the New York Post on Friday,
it’s time for Schumer to live up to his boast that he was the
“guardian” of Israel in the Senate. In light of the latest revelations
about the nominee’s record, that pose is meaningless if he doesn’t jump
off the Hagel bandwagon.
It is true that many of the Republicans who voted to oppose cloture
of Hagel on Thursday were doing so in order to try to force the White
House to give up more information about what the president knew about
the Benghazi terror attack. But the extra time gives members on both
sides of the aisle to reconsider the Hagel fiasco.
If this nomination is defeated, the Jewish community owes the Washington Free Beacon a debt of gratitude. WFB has gone out and fought this nomination when everyone else gave up hope.
Hagel claims he doesn't recall saying Israel controls the State Department
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has told Fox News that he has accepted
Chuck Hagel's claim that he 'didn't recall' saying that Israel
controlled the State Department. Graham said that 'unless something new
comes along,' he would 'take [Hagel] at his word' and that would be 'the end of the matter' (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). (You can watch the interview at that link - I have not been able to embed it yet).
Indeed, Graham said he believes presidents deserve "great deference"
in their Cabinet picks, but he continued his criticism of his former
Republican colleague, who served as Nebraska senator from 1997-2009.
Hagel "one of the most unqualified, radical choices for secretary of defense in a very long time," Graham said.
Sorry, but I don't get this. The constitution says 'advise and consent.' What is the meaning of 'advise and consent' if the Senate is going to hide behind 'great deference.' Where was the 'great deference' to George Bush when he wanted to appoint John Bolton - who was FAR more qualified than Hagel - to be US Ambassador to the United Nations?
No, I think Graham is wrong to drop this.
The humiliation doesn't end for Secretary of Defense designate Chuck Hagel. On Friday, Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) sent Hagel a letter asking him whether Israel still controls the State Department (Hat Tip: Jack W).
"Dear Senator Hagel," Senators Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte write. "Yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon
reported that in a 2007 speech at Rutgers University regarding
America's relationship with the Middle East you remarked that 'the State
Department was becoming an adjunct of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.'
According to notes posted on the internet by a Republican political
consultant and supporter of yours, George Ajjan, you made the remarks
during the question and answer period following the speech."
The senators attached a copy of the article they reference to the letter they sent to Hagel.
"Given the importance of U.S. policy towards the Middle East and the
Secretary of Defense's direct role in implementing this policy, it is
critical that we have a better understanding of your remarks before we
vote on your confirmation," the senators write.
"Did you, in fact, make this statement at the Rutgers event of have
you ever made similar comments? If you made these comments or similar
comments please explain what you meant.
Finally, does such a statement
in any way reflect your views about the U.S.-Israel relationship?"
The senators, they write, "look forward to [Senator Hagel's] response."
Something tells me they won't be getting a response....
Levin wants to vote on Hagel on Tuesday, Republicans may walk out
The Obama administration is determined to push ahead with Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Secretary of Defense, and Senator Carl Levin (D-Mi) is planning to dutifully bring the nomination to a vote on Tuesday. But Republicans may walk out(Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Meanwhile, two Senate Republican aides said that some GOP senators
were considering the possibility of walking out during such a vote.
Levin faces a conundrum: He has the ability to force a Hagel vote
through the committee on a party-line vote, since Democrats outnumber
Republicans. But doing so could damage the committee’s longtime
bipartisan spirit.
Last Thursday’s hearing with Panetta alarmed Levin, Democrats said.
Levin worries the aggressive, pointed questioning that Republicans
directed at Panetta over the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, could
signal some Republicans simply will not compromise on the issue of
Hagel’s nomination.
“Fed up is the right term for [Levin’s mood],” said a Democratic
source. “After the Benghazi hearing, it showed what we are dealing with
on the Republican side.”
...
Democratic aides were unhappy with the week’s turn of events. The
Senate Armed Services Committee has traditionally been collegial; it has
passed a defense authorization bill for over 50 consecutive years, as
defense advocates like to point out. But Republicans’ grilling of
Panetta on Thursday seemed to indicate that the bipartisan feeling has
diminished, and Republicans signaled again Sunday they were playing for
keeps.
"There are two options: If Hagel doesn't fully disclose all the
things in the letter [in which Republicans made requests for more
disclosure] ... either you will see a party line vote or Republicans
will stand up and leave the room in protest,” said a senior Republican
Senate aide. “Does Levin really want that to happen on his watch as
chairman? … It would really debilitate the committee.”
Why should the Senate Armed Services Committee be any different than anyplace else under the 'post-partisan' Obama administration? Here's betting that Levin calls the vote and all the Republicans except McCain walk out.
Hagel and Brennan nominations on hold, will Hagel withdraw?
Foreign Policy assesses that the odds are now 50-50 that Chuck Hagel (right) will withdraw from consideration as Secretary of Defense and 'getting worse by the day.'
He has the votes, but
not much else. His big problem is that no one much wants him running the
Pentagon. Congressional Republicans consider him a traitor. Congressional
Democrats see him as anti-gay and anti-abortion, undercutting their support for
him. And Northeastern Democrats (and some others) worry about his stance on
Israel. Democratic support in the Senate appears more dutiful than passionate.
That said, I don't
think that a Hagel exit would hurt President Obama much. SecDef nominees have
blown up on the launch pad before: Remember John Tower (picked by the first
President Bush) and Bobby Inman (picked by President Clinton to replace Les
Aspin)? Interestingly, both were succeeded as nominees by men who went on to be
very successful stewards of the military establishment: Dick Cheney and William
Perry. Calling Michèle Flournoy?
The prospect of a
Hagel regime at DOD is a real problem now because the next SecDef will need to
do two things: Work with Congress to reduce the defense budget thoughtfully,
and work with the military to re-shape the military to make it relevant to
future conflict. At the moment, Hagel appears to lack the political capital to
do the former, as well as the intellectual appetite to do the latter.
Bottom line: Every
business day that the Senate Armed Services
Committee doesn't vote to send the nomination to the
full Senate, I think the likelihood of Hagel becoming defense secretary
declines by about 2 percent.
If that's the case, there's more bad news for Hagel this Sunday and for John Brennan (pictured, top left) as well: Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is placing a hold on all Obama administration national security nominees until the Senate gets some answers about Benghazigate (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). This is a transcript of Graham's appearance a short while ago on CBS' Face the Nation.
BOB SCHIEFFER (HOST): I’m not sure I understand. What do you plan to do if they don’t give you an answer? Are you going to put a hold on these two nominations?
GRAHAM: Yes…How could Susan Rice come on to your
show and say there’s no evidence of a terrorist attack when the
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said they knew
that night? I think that was a misleading narrative three weeks before
our election.
SCHIEFFER: Let me just make sure, because you’re about to make some
news here, I think. You are saying that you are going to block the
nominations — you’re going to block them from coming to a vote until you
get an answer to this? Now, John McCain has already said he doesn’t
think the Republicans ought to filibuster this. What will you do? You’re
just going to put a hold on it? [...]
GRAHAM: I want to know who changed the talking points. Who
took the references to Al Qaeda out of the talking points given to Susan
Rice? We still don’t know…. I want to know what our president did. What
did he do as commander in chief? Did he ever pick up the phone and call
anybody? I think this is the stuff the country needs to know.
According to the Leftist Media Matters site, the Republicans have (with much evidence) accused President Obama of going AWOL on the night of the attack.
Maybe that second term isn't going to go so easily after all.
President Obama is expected to name Chuck Hagel his nominee for Secretary of Defense as early as Monday, as opponents prepare to fight the nomination.
White House officials and sources close to Hagel
declined to confirm to The Cable that
Hagel is the president's choice to be the replace Leon Panetta at the helm of
the Pentagon, but several sources close to the process said have told The Cable that the White House and Hagel
have been in touch on a regular basis and that Hagel is indeed the expected
pick. Decisions about the timing and logistics of the announcement are being
finalized now.
The
Cable had previously confirmed that Hagel successfully
complete the vetting process, as have Deputy Defense Secretary Ash Carter and former Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy.
Meanwhile, Hagel's detractors are moving forward with their campaign against
the nomination, which has been expanding ever since The Cable first
reported in November that Hagel was in consideration for the Pentagon post.
That campaign has included anonymous Senate aides calling Hagel an anti-Semite, the
Washington Posteditorial board writing that, "Chuck Hagel is not the
right choice for defense secretary," and the Emergency Committee for
Israel, which counts among its board members Weekly Standard editor Bill
Kristol, running a television ad criticizing Hagel's opposition to unilateral
sanctions against Iran. "For secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel is not
a responsible option," the ad claims.
"Even if one left aside Chuck Hagel's dangerous
views on Iran and his unpleasant distaste for Israel and Jews, a dispassionate
analyst would have to conclude that the case for Hagel is extraordinarily
weak," Kristol wrote in an editorial Friday, in which he urged Obama to choose
Carter, Flournoy, or Navy Secretary Ray
Mabus.
The Log Cabin Republicans took
out a full page ad in the New York Times to oppose the potential Hagel nomination. Following
the publication of the ad, the leader of the group, R. Clarke Cooper,
resigned in what he stated was a previously planned departure. He had previously
expressed support for Hagel. Cooper and Hagel are both combat veterans.
Three Senate Republicans have come out firmly
against Hagel's potential nomination, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Dan
Coats (R-IN), and Tom Coburn (R-OK).
Cornyn said he can't vote for Hagel due to Hagel's "problem
with Israel." Coats said Hagel "has had so
much disrespect for the military." Coburn said Hagel "does
not have the experience to manage a very large organization
like the Pentagon."
Other GOP
senators have expressed reservations about Hagel without committing to a no
vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who
previously praised Hagel as a close
and dear friend,
suggested recently that
Hagel is not a real Republican. Sen. Lindsey
Graham (R-SC), said on Fox News Sunday,
"There
would be very little Republican support for his nomination. At the end of the
day, there will be very few votes."
Today's Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) gave the following statement about the potential Hagel nomination to The Cable:
"I appreciate and respect Senator Hagel's record of service to our
country, especially as a decorated combat veteran," Kirk said. "While he has not yet
been nominated, I am concerned about his past record and statements,
particularly with regard to Iran and the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Should he be nominated to serve as Secretary of Defense, I will join my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle in a rigorous examination of these
and other issues of concern."
What bothers me about this report is that it depicts the Hagel fight as a partisan one. It ought not to be partisan. Democratic Senators who (claim to) support Israel, or who (claim to) support strong sanctions against Iran - like Schumer (NY), Menendez (NJ) and others ought to be up in arms against this nomination. That's where the pressure from constituents needs to play a role.
This nomination ought to end the way Chas Freeman's nomination ended - in ignominious disgrace. America is not a leftist country.
UPDATE 8:37 AM
Interesting comment from reader David O that I'd like to share with you (I got it by email):
I think documenting the case against Hagel will pay dividends. It will
effectively neuter him. Everybody will be closely watching him for his
attitudes toward Jews, gays, arabs, and especially Israel. A person who
is an anti-semite without a paper trail(i.e. Jimmy Carter when he was
running for President in '76)is more dangerous than a Hagel in this
context. Each gaffe and statement will be scrutinized. It could backfire
against Obama. Israel and the United States have a strong defense
relationship. This is not Turkey where the the populace is hostile.
The
nominating process will be interesting. Watching Hagel squirm about
Israel, being forced to play up his zionist credentials. This is why a
Hillary was more dangerous than Hagel. Hillary is "perceived" as a
friend of Israel. Hagel is known as a foe. He will be forced to watch
each and every step he takes. How can Obama proclaim he has Israel's
back if Hagel's future actions/statements contradict "official" policy.
One
final and VERY IMPORTANT point. In all of my research on Hagel, the one
thing that was surprising was his staff turnover. He would yell and
call people incompetent f***ers and replace staff every two weeks. This
type of bull in the china shop mentality tends to blow up in the
Washington Culture of PC career minded types who like to leak about
fights, intrigue and explosions which maine their bosses. He may explode
and implode at the same time.
Asked about Hagel’s 2008 statement
that the “Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people here [in Washington,
D.C.],” South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham said Hagel will “have
to answer for that comment” if he is nominated.
“And he’ll have to answer about why he thought it
was a good idea to directly negotiate with Hamas and why he objected to
the European Union declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization,”
continued Graham, a member of the Armed Services committee. “I think
he’ll have to answer all those questions.”
Asked if he’d oppose Hagel’s nomination from the
start, Graham said he would not. “I want to listen to what he has to
say,” Graham said. “I like Chuck. He’s been a friend. He has a stellar
military record. But these comments disturb a lot of people and he’ll
have to answer those questions.”
John McCain of Arizona said he “strongly disagree[s]" with Hagel's comments on the "Jewish lobby."
“I know of no ‘Jewish lobby,’” McCain said. “I know
that there’s strong support for Israel here. I know of no ‘Jewish
lobby.’ I hope he would identify who that is.”
Senate Foreign Relations Committee member Marco Rubio of Florida called references to a Jewish lobby “inaccurate.”
“I don’t agree with that statement,” Rubio said.
“If he is nominated, there’ll be a hearing. His entire public record and
all his public pronouncements will be reviewed as a part of that
process. And we’ll move on from there."
McCain decries 'daylight' between Israel and US on Iran
Senators John McCain (R-Az) and Lindsey Graham (R-Fl) met with Prime Minister Netanyahu on Tuesday and came out decrying the 'daylight' between the US and Israel over Iran.
Just hours after meeting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) said Tuesday there was "daylight" and "tension" between Jerusalem and Washington over the Iranian issue.
"There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat," McCain said at a Jerusalem press conference. "Unfortunately there clearly is some."
McCain's comments came just two days after Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a CNN interview it would not be prudent for Israel to attack Iran at this point. He also said that Iran was a "rational" actor.
McCain took strong issue with Dempsey's appraisal of Iran as rational, saying that by pursuing nuclear weapons despite mounting international isolation, growing sanctions, and the "very real threat of conflict, it is hard to see this as rational behavior."
"Any regime with an abiding concern for its own security, self interest and self preservation would not engage in such deeply provocative conduct," McCain said.
His colleague Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was even blunter in his criticism of Dempsey.
"I admire General Dempsey," he said. "But I don't think it is helpful to say that Iran is a rational actor given their behavior." Anyone who denies the Holocaust, as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done, and plotted to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington should not be considered rational, he said.
In reference to a spate of reports claiming that Washington was pressing Israel not to take action against Iran now, Graham said, "People are giving Israel a lot of advice here lately form America. I just want to tell our Israeli friends that my advice to you is never lose control of your destiny. Never allow a situation to develop that would destroy the Jewish state."
Graham referred to the current impasse with Iran as a "never again" moment.
American Director of National Intelligence: The biggest mortal threat to the US is... China? BONUS: Gadhafi will prevail!
And I thought John al-Quds Brennan was the most incompetent adviser that President Obama has....
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has called for Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to resign after Clapper called China the biggest mortal threat to the United States in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. In case you're wondering, he had Russia second.
It's unclear whether Clapper was stating an administration position Thursday or his own personal view. When Clapper in February testified that Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is "largely secular," Clapper's office afterward issued a statement effectively retracting the remark.
The White House stepped to Clapper's defense in December after he stumbled in an interview when asked about a major set of terror arrests in Great Britain.
The White House later acknowledged that Clapper had not yet been briefed about the sweep, while calling him "the consummate DNI."
On Thursday, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney seemed to indicate nothing untoward by the answer.
"Obviously, Russia and China are two of the three largest nuclear powers in the world. Therefore, they have dangerous weapons and have the capacity. But he made clear that we do not view Russia and China as a threat," Carney said. Carney later added that Graham misinterpreted the director's response.
Though officials often warn that China's economy and military are developing at a rapid pace, the Obama administration has made a push to improve relations with the country. The White House hosted Chinese President Hu Jintao for a State Dinner in January.
The U.S. government also finalized an arms-reduction treaty with Russia, something Clapper acknowledged at the hearing.
Though there are conflicting reports about Iran's intentions and resources, a State Department official said Wednesday that Iran was approaching the threshold of being able to construct a nuclear bomb.
But Graham said he lacks confidence in Clapper's understanding of his job and referred to Clapper's statement that he believes the regime of Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi would prevail in fighting against Libyan rebels.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday that the United States will need to attack Iran's nuclear capability before 2012, and that containment is now off the table.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said his fellow conservative, fresh from their historic elections romp this week, support "bold" action to deal with Iran.
If President Barack Obama "decides to be tough with Iran beyond sanctions, I think he is going to feel a lot of Republican support for the idea that we cannot let Iran develop a nuclear weapon," he told the Halifax International Security Forum.
"The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran... Containment is off the table."
The South Carolina Republican saw the United States going to war with the Islamic republic "not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard, in other words neuter that regime."
He spoke just days before expected nuclear talks will see US and Iranian officials sitting at the same table for discussions on Tehran's nuclear drive. The two countries have lacked diplomatic ties since the Iran hostage crisis of 1979.
...
The electoral defeat of four Democrats who sat on the powerful US House Armed Services Committee bolsters the Republican's position.
But Democrats may gain surprise support for continued diplomacy from some ultra-conservative Tea Party newcomers to Washington who diverge on foreign policy matters with their Republican brethren.
Various UN resolutions and sanctions have sought to halt Iran's uranium enrichment activities, so far having little effect.
Here's Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's non-response to Iranophile Roger Cohen asking about Graham's statement.
Let's go to the videotape.
The problem is that under the US constitution, it's the President who has the power to make war. Congress has the power of the purse, but it cannot order an attack. I don't see Barack Obama attacking Iran under any circumstances - at least as of right now. The best we can hope for from Congress is that they push Obama hard enough that he won't stop an Israeli attack, and maybe he'll even support one after the fact. And even that's a stretch.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
