I don’t understand why the neo-cons are picking a fight with the administration over Chuck Hagel. They are going to lose the fight. What is the advantage of picking fights that you will surely lose? It annoys me when people urge that kind of strategy on the administration, and it doesn’t make any more sense to me when the Republicans do it. I understand the need to keep your base happy, but there is no base for neo-conservatism. And even if you are a far right ally of the Israeli settlers, I don’t see how it benefits you to exaggerate Hagel’s hostility to Israel and then lose. That makes it appear like damage has been done to the U.S.-Israeli relationship when that isn’t really the case. And it makes it a little easier to take on the pro-settler hardliners in the future. I will never buy the idea that you can win by losing. It is almost never true. The only way it ever works is if you can make something so painful that the winner won’t want to go to the trouble to win again in the future. And that is not applicable in this case, or in almost any cases. It’s a strategy for rutting rams, maybe, but not for politicians.

In any case, I dislike the nomination of Chuck Hagel and I don’t give a damn whether he is confirmed or not. I don’t oppose him; I just don’t like the pick. John Brennan for CIA, I oppose. I don’t think he has been held accountable for his actions during the Bush administration and I do not think the Democrats should confirm him unless and until his record gets a full vetting. In general, I think presidents should be allowed to create their own administration except in extreme circumstances. John Brennan couldn’t face the scrutiny four years ago, and he probably couldn’t face real scrutiny now. Put it this way: Brennan has defended torture in the past. I find that to be flatly disqualifying. But, if he recants on that, and it is proven that he had no direct responsibility for torture, I would reconsider my opposition to his nomination. I’d like to follow my own advice to not pick fights I can’t win, but torture is such a moral outrage that I don’t care about losing.

There’s plenty more not to like about John Brennan than just his defense of torture, but most of it can be transferred to pretty much anyone in Obama’s national security team, including the president himself.

0 0 votes
Article Rating