At last. The BBC has finally found a Republican that they actually like. Well, a former Republican to be precise. I’m talking about Chuck Nagel, the Jew-hating Iran appeasing choice to head the Pentagon. Good ol’ Chuck – Mark Mardell was virtually swooning, praising Obama’s bravery in this choice.

Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Span Ows says:

    LOL! Chuck Nagel = RINO


  2. Kebab Time says:

    Israel cannot longer rely on the support of President Obamas administration.


    • John Anderson says:

      Could Israel ever rely on Obama.? Look at the people he associated with before becoming President.


  3. John Anderson says:

    This article gives a flavour of why people are apprehensive about the Hagel nomination. I had seen elsewhere the fierce criticisms made by his Nebraska constituents – but the US Navy story is very revealing. Even as an ex-serviceman he didn’t give a damn about how much US Navy personnel appreciated the shore-leave facilities at Haifa, it was just a chance to have a pop at Israel and at US Jews.

    You can safely bet the BBC will give us virtually no explanation of why there is opposition to Hagel’s nomination – it will just be ascribed to those horrid Republicans being nasty to Obama.


    • RCE says:

      That’s hardly convincing.

      Personally, I’m struggling to find any real evidence of Hagel’s supposed anti-Semitism; in fact a lot of the objections just appear to be contrarianism to anything Obama does.

      I say this as a rabid, neocon, right-wing bigot of the first order, and if anyone has anything more conclusive I’d like to see it and will happily concede that the criticisms of Hagel are valid.


      • John Anderson says:

        I did not say that Hagel is anti-semitic. But he definitley appears very antagonistic towards Israel and its supporters, judging by the US Navy incident and his dealings with his Nevada constituents – check out what they say about him.

        Plus he vehemently opposed the surge in Iraq and appears to have been very ambivalent on Iran. And does not have any relevant experience to suit him to manage the Pentagon ?

        Quite a few Democrats are dubious about Hagel’s nomination. Indeed he may yet wirthdraw his name, just like Susan Rice. Both nominations are typical Obama “in-your-face” moves – the most divisive President ever ?

        The Hagel thing will rumble on – when the President ought to be getting down to sorting out the economy band the debt. His Press man Jay Carney had the gall yesterday to suggest it is up to the Repub;licans to produce a budget !


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        RCE, ask the Jews of Nebraska how they feel about their former Senator.

        Look, I’m very sympathetic to Hagel’s “I’m a Senator for the US, not for Israel” stance, in that his job is to look out for the interests of the US, as it should be. Nothing anti-Semitic there. But when people start talking about how the “Jewish Lobby” has to much influence, the Jews will drag us into war with Iran, and all that, it inspires anti-Semitic sentiments. The dual-loyalty charge is reserved these days exclusively for Jews. Anyone who speaks of Jews as having too much power is going to be open to charges of anti-Semitism.

        There’s a difference between criticizing and demonization. Hagel and the BBC tend towards the latter. Hagel may not be an anti-Semite, but he expresses anti-Jewish sentiment. Some of it may be a natural reaction to pressure from Jewish groups in his constituency, but it ends up sounding like something out of the Protocols of the Elder of Zion. He’s a fairly high-profile politician, and his words have influence. His behavior encourages anti-Jewish sentiment. I can’t imagine anyone behaving similarly aggressively towards any other ethnic group getting the same kind of support and free pass.

        But I say again: Israel and the Jews shouldn’t be anywhere near the top reason to oppose Hagel. One also must take into account of Hagel’s other foreign policy positions: total appeasement in all cases, even those which having nothing to do with Israel or Jews. The more everyone focuses on Israel and the Jews, the more all his other bad ideas get swept under the rug.


  4. Framer says:

    Hagel is probably influenced by his Irish Catholic background and Nebraskan radicalism where Israel, Serbia (and Iran) is concerned.


  5. David Preiser (USA) says:

    It’s about more than just Israel. Not that the BBC would care, of course. Hagel has been against sanctions on Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Instead, he’s been in favor of open “dialogue” with them all, no restrictions, no silly prerequisites like addressing human rights concerns or anything. Hagel was against the surge in Iraq, against it in Afghanistan, and has been wanting out almost as long as the BBC has been. His concerns about the pointlessness or impracticality of nation-building may be legit, but his reasoning behind it all is different.

    By the way, Hagel isn’t a RINO – he’s been Republican all these years because he’s a social conservative only somewhat interested in fiscal reforms. In other words, old-school Republican establishment, the kind the Tea Party movement has been trying to drive out. But because he doesn’t agree with the mainstream on one of the BBC’s pet issues, they laud him as a “maverick”.

    Naturally, focusing on Israel above all other issues plays right into the hands of conspiracy theorists, and provides an easy way to defend him for the Alinskyites in the Administration and the media: blame the Jewish Lobby for ginning up opposition, have the President claim again that He’s the best friend Israel ever had, no need to address the rest of it.

    Mardell must be loving the exciting possibility of Hagel and Kerry taking these two top posts. It’s a clear sign to him that his beloved Obamessiah is not one of those ugly United Statesians whom Mardell has belittled as wanting “an unapologetically aggressive America storming ahead”.The whole discussion of how the President is positioning the US in world affairs is the only time you’ll see anyone declare uncategorically that it’s best when a national leader wants to weaken their country’s international standing. Not so dissimilar, really, to the BBC’s position on the Falklands, come to think of it. I wonder what the link is?

    The thing is, one of the main complaints about The Obamessiah from the very start has been that He’s anti-American, and wants to weaken the US in favor of Socialist Europe and Islamic extremism, or (insert other scary monster here). In the context of what He’s done so far, both economically and in foreign policy, and now appointing Kerry and Hagel, if He really did want to weaken the US, it’s kind of hard to imagine what He’d do differently. Everything He’s done has weakened the US on a number of levels, and now this. No wonder the BBC considers Him as one of the greatest Presidents of all time, and sees only the most mendacious of impulses behind any opposition to Him.


    • Span Ows says:

      Thanks David, good info (as always)


    • John Anderson says:

      Couple all that David with the appointment of Brennan to make up a really weak-kneed trio at the top of defence and foreign affairs. Plus a weak President. Ergo – a weak America. Just what the world needs – or certainly just what the BBC would like to see.


      • John Anderson says:

        …I saw this summary of Hagel’s earlier policy positions :

        “While in the Senate, Hagel consistently voted against sanctions on Iran for their illicit pursuit nuclear weapons capability, voted against designating [Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps] a terrorist organization, wants the U.S. to embrace Hamas, and refused to call on the EU to designate Hezbollah a terrorist group, despite the fact they have killed more Americans than any terrorist group except al-Qaeda, including 241 U.S. Marines,”

        “It is a matter of fact that his record puts him well outside the mainstream Democratic and Republican consensus and is clearly the source of major concern on both sides of the aisle in the Senate.”

        This one will run and run. Hagel may sqeak through in the end, but not for a long time yet. Especially since he had never served on the Denate Armed Forces Committee, appears personally unpopular among Senators, AND is far less qualified than, for example, Michelle Flournoy :


      • David Preiser (USA) says:

        If all the genuflecting and open dialogue and reset buttons had had a single positive result, I’d be more open-minded about having two of the biggest appeasers in the two top foreign policy posts. Since none of His smart diplomacy, or, as Justin Webb once enthused, “sophistry in the matter of confusing his enemies”, has worked, I’m now skeptical. Nothing to do with Israel at all.

        Although perhaps ol’ Justin and I disagree on who His enemies actually are.


      • hippiepooter says:

        Wanting to weaken America doesn’t make Obama weak, it makes him a dangerous subversive.

        When one has a dangerously subversive media you get elected dangerously subversive Presidents.

        To my mind, and I’m anything but an informed observer, if Obama wants to appoint Hagel it gives credence to the accusations of anti-Semitism against Hagel, however wrong or unfair that may be to him personally.

        “I’m a Senator for the US, not for Israel”.

        I’m suprised you dont find that comment disturbing DP. I guess it all depends on what prompted him to say it. If it was lobbyists – Jewish or otherwise – arguing it is in America’s interests to support it’s only true democratic ally in the Middle East, I would say it’s a highly disturbing comment.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a Senator declaring that his own country comes first. That’s his job. That’s what he’s supposed to say. If I didn’t know better, I’d say your shock at my position smacks of the dual-loyalty charge so often levied at Jews. That’s actually the problem with people like Hagel and Katty Kay stoking fear about the “Jewish Lobby”.

          Hagel was reacting to what he felt was undue pressure from a lobbying group. There’s no point in pretending it doesn’t exist. There are lobbying groups for everything under the sun. Hagel is an appeaser, and maybe even shares some of Ron Paul’s quasi-anarchic foreign policy views. His opinion on Israel seems to come from that perspective. That’s not the same thing as hating Jews (the jury’s still out for me on Paul’s Jewish problem).

          The US comes first, but that doesn’t mean abandoning allies. The President is clearly willing to abandon our greatest ally on things like the Maldives Falklands, so it’s a valid concern. I’m pretty sure that if Israel got nuked, The Obamessiah wouldn’t shed a tear like He did over the children of Sandy Hook, and would probably feel that that they had it coming, serves ’em right. But that doesn’t mean He wants it to happen.

          However, like I keep saying, there are plenty of other reasons to object to Hagel’s appointment that have nothing to do with Israel. The more everyone talks about Israel, the more Jews are accused of dual-loyalty, and the less likely everyone else is going to want to support Israel when the chips are down.

          Focusing exclusively on Israel plays into the hands of her enemies.


    • RCE says:

      Great post, David.

      Sadly, just as the 9/11 attackers were emboldened by Clinton’s risk-averse, laissez faire foreign policy, your enemies will be rubbing their hands at the prospect of the next 4 years of these morons at the helm.


  6. fitzfitz says:

    … they are also promoting, relentlessly and none to subtly, Chukka … simple minds see him as London’s very own Obama …


  7. David Lamb says:

    Hagel could cause headaches for the BBC if they can be bothered to do some research. Maybe they are delighted to support a fellow Israel basher, but he looks like a climate change denier, and we all know that the science is settled.