« | »

NYT Only Objects To Hagel’s Comment On Gays

An editorial from the New York Times:

A Confirmation Ordeal

January 31, 2013

Like many people, we had questions we wanted Chuck Hagel to answer at his confirmation hearing for defense secretary on Thursday. What are his real views about Israel, Iran and the use of American power to police the world? Why did he say such ridiculous things about a gay ambassadorial candidate in 1998? How did his views evolve, if, indeed, they have?

Of course, the only thing on that list that really rankles the editors of the ‘Old Gay Lady’ is Hagel’s comments about a gay ambassadorial candidate 15 years ago.

Mr. Hagel was disappointingly unsure of himself at times during the hearing…

The Times doesn’t think Hagel is wrong in his beliefs (apart from ‘gays’). They are just concerned that he isn’t "more sure of himself."

The senators, especially Republicans, did a poor job of drawing substance out of the moment.

Naturally, the Republicans are to blame.

But after his appearance, it’s clear that Mr. Hagel is very much in the mainstream of American foreign policy, has a résumé and experience that would be valuable at the Pentagon and is capable of speaking his mind, even if he allowed himself on Thursday to back off on some positions, like his concern for Palestinians, in the face of a Republican attack on his nomination.

How absurd. The opposite is "clear." Hagel is not in the mainstream of US foreign policy. And he is clearly not capable of speaking his mind. — Probably because he knows he would never be confirmed if he did.

Republicans on the military affairs panel may vote against him for political reasons, but they have no cause to do so, and he should be confirmed by the full Senate…

They should vote against him for political and personal reasons. The man is clearly not very bright.

Republicans do not like him straying from positions on whether it was wise to leave Iraq, whether sanctions are working on Iran and on other issues, but that independence is among his more attractive qualities, especially in a fast-changing and complex world. He will give President Obama good advice.

And never mind that he has been wrong on each and every issue, starting with the surge, so far.

Mr. Hagel’s opponents fret that he will not be sufficiently in lock step with the current Israeli government and cannot be counted on to go to war over Iran’s nuclear program if it comes to that.

You see? The Times thinks Hagel agrees with them that a nuclear Iran is nothing to worry about. And the sad thing is he does.

As a result, the hearing focused excessively on Israel and Iran and ignored many other important challenges — including the growing militancy in northern Africa and the war in Afghanistan.

Because The Times is so concerned about Al Qaeda’s growth in Africa and our losing the war in Afghanistan.

Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, all Republicans, were particularly snide and dismissive of Mr. Hagel and more interested in bullying him and playing a game of gotcha than in eliciting thoughtful policy responses.

Mr. Hagel repeatedly proclaimed support for Israel, and he firmly agreed with Mr. Obama’s policy that Iran’s nuclear program must be prevented, not contained…

Except when he went off script and said precisely the opposite.

But no explanation by Mr. Hagel was ever enough for his camera-concscious [sic] critics…

This is what passes for deep thinking at the New York Times.

The Republicans did their best to make it seem as if Mr. Hagel’s support for a group called Global Zero, which advocates deep cuts in nuclear weapons, was some kind of wild-eyed, left-wing plot…

You see? There would be nothing wrong with the US giving up all of its nuclear weapons. Just like there is nothing wrong with a nuclear Iran.

In 1998, as a senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel sneered that an ambassadorial candidate was “openly, aggressively gay.” It was a blindly bigoted comment and raised questions about how he would implement the removal of the military’s ban on openly gay members.

At the hearing, Mr. Hagel expressed his commitment to equal treatment of all service members and said he would do “everything possible under current law” to provide equal benefits to the families of all service members. That was reassuring, but no senator bothered to ask him to explain how his views had changed since 1998 and why.

Notice that the only thing the New York Times cannot forgive Hagel for his this 15 year old comment about a homosexual. They are that obsessed.

Republicans were not going to make this confirmation hearing easy, especially after an unprecedented and dishonest campaign to derail his nomination. The Senate briskly confirmed Mr. Obama’s choice for secretary of state, Senator John Kerry. It should now confirm Mr. Hagel.

There was nothing unprecedented about this. And what is dishonest about asking Hagel about his own previous statements? But, as usual, the editors at the New York let their emotions run away with them.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Friday, February 1st, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “NYT Only Objects To Hagel’s Comment On Gays”

  1. Astravogel

    Sleep tight tonight, Hagel is on watch…




« Front Page | To Top
« | »