We, as former Secretaries of State, Defense, and National Security Advisors, are writing to express our strong endorsement of Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.
Chuck Hagel has an impeccable record of public service that reflects leadership, integrity, and a keen reading of global dynamics. From his time as Deputy Veterans Administrator managing a quarter of a million employees during the Reagan presidency, to turning around the financially troubled World USO, to shepherding the post-9/11 GI Bill into law as a United States Senator, and most recently through his service on the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon and as co-Chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, Chuck Hagel is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform. As President Obama noted in announcing the nomination, this twice-wounded combat veteran “is a champion of our troops and our veterans and our military families” and would have the distinction of being the first person of enlisted rank and the first Vietnam veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense.
His approach to national security and debates about the use of American power is marked by a disciplined habit of thoughtfulness that is sorely needed and these qualities will serve him well as Secretary of Defense at a time when the United States must address a range of international issues that are unprecedented in scope. Our extensive experience working with Senator Hagel over the years has left us confident that he has the necessary background to succeed in the job of leading the largest federal agency.
Hagel has declared that we “knew we needed the world’s best military not because we wanted war but because we wanted to prevent war.” For those of us honored to have served as members of a president’s national security team, Senator Hagel clearly understands the essence and the burdens of leadership required of this high office. We hope this Committee and the U.S. Senate will promptly and favorably act on his nomination.

Sincerely,

Hon. Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State

Hon. Samuel Berger, former National Security Advisor

Hon. Harold Brown, former Secretary of Defense

Hon. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor

Hon. William Cohen, former Secretary of Defense

Hon. Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense

Hon. James Jones, former National Security Advisor

Hon. Melvin Laird, former Secretary of Defense

Hon. Robert McFarlane, former National Security Advisor

Hon. William Perry, former Secretary of Defense

Hon. Colin Powell, former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor

Hon. George Shultz, former Secretary of State

Hon. Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor

bbauska wrote:I know you wouldn't have run an interview like that. (nice sidestep)

It's not a 'sidestep'. It's my way of saying the 'interview' is invalid, and I would not make a decision based on it because of the way that his 'interviewers' behaved.

Would you hire a prospect based upon what answers he gave and incompetence you are aware of now?

On his answers, I'm not too worried either way (like I said already, I don't really care about it much other than as a lens on the partisan nature of US politics). As for 'incompetence', I' not sure I'm aware of it too much. Not as compared to many other apparently able American politicians and leaders. Perhaps you can provide examples of his incompetence in an executive position.

McCain was good pals with Hagel until 2007 when they disagreed on Iraq policy. Before then, McCain had said that he would be "honored to have Chuck with me in any capacity. He'd make a great Secretary of State." Some falling out, I guess.

Ray Jay wrote:and competence?

As in my answer to bbauska, I'm not sure how he's been shown to be incompetent for the position, compared to whoever else might take it up.

Largely it seems to be a matter of opinion, and it seems that people who disagree with him politically are the ones talking about competence.

He had a reasonable military career in Vietnam, with commendations. He had what seems to have been a successful business career after he left the VA (apparently in opposition to cuts and over Agent Orange compensation). He's served on various bodies, and I can't see major complaints about competence from them. McCain was saying he'd be a great cabinet member in 2006, so clearly was seen as 'competent' back then.

In what way is he 'incompetent', other than in not agreeing with current Republican Party policy?

Oh come on, ricky! Hardly a distinguished list of Hagel supporters!

It would be interesting to see examples of Hagel's incompetence instead of conclusions. His background and experience makes him qualified (unlike Bush's supreme court nominee).

Df's assessment seems about right (Benghazi, Republicans don't like him, Obama likes him)

Republicans might not like him because of his positions on cutting defense, Israel and Iran.

My question is where is the energy coming from to defeat him? And, no, I don't think it has much to do with Hagel's competence.

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/02/transcrip ... ittee.html

Ricky and Danivon, thanks for the link and info. Here's a transcript of the Hagel hearing. I don't think it shows him as incompetent in the whole, although there are a couple of patches where he doesn't sound great.

It's good to read the primary source document. I've just been reading different opinions (left and right); it's a shame that's what we generally get.

Freeman:

My question is where is the energy coming from to defeat him? And, no, I don't think it has much to do with Hagel's competence.

I really don't know what you are insinuating. Senators have a responsibility to consent on the President's nominee, and that's what they are doing. They have the duty to vet the nominee and his positions. You make it sound so sinister.

Oh I don't know RJ, is using a filibuster for the first time ever to prevent a president's selection for defense secretary (only the third time ever for a cabinet member) from being appointed just the usual advise and consent?

Biden, Obama, Clinton and Kerry have all voted to filibuster.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/282335-its-not-unprecedented-to-filibuser-cabinet-nominees

Reid too.

As I understand it, they aren't filibustering for good, just for a week or two.

GMTom wrote:Hagel is hardly a Republican, you here of the term "RINO"?
his picture is under that dictionary definition

No. That's wrong. From Wikipedia:

During the Bush administration, Hagel maintained a "traditionally Republican" voting record, receiving "a lifetime rating of 84 percent from the American Conservative Union and consistent A and B grades from the National Taxpayers Union."[27] On the Issues describes Hagel as a "libertarian-leaning conservative."[28] According to Boaz, among his most notable votes, Hagel:
Voted for the Patriot Act;[29]
Voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts;[30][31]
Voted against No Child Left Behind;[32]
Voted against Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill;[33]
Voted against McCain-Feingold.[34]

Yes, Hagel didn't like the Iraq war and worked against the surge, but absent of that, what about his career says that he is a RINO? Nothing.

I further find it odd that people here are blaming the news media when a senator is using McCarthy tactics (did you, or did you not, receive money from North Korea? No? Prove it.) against one of their own. It's news, especially in the current climate.

I'm not blaming the news media. I'm just saying that it isn't the most important part of the story. What's important is the qualifications and viewpoint of the nominee.

I have read stuff about Hagel taking money from Iranian organizations, but haven't fully checked it out.

Ray Jay wrote:As I understand it, they aren't filibustering for good, just for a week or two.

Which does lead me to ask why that would be the case if it is about Hagel's competence. If he's the issue, surely they would filibuster indefinitely. This looks more and more like bargaining, with Chuck being used as a proxy for something else.

I don't know. It may be bargaining. It may be that the Senators are trying to better take the pulse of their consituents. It may be that they are looking for dirt on him.

Hagel may have once been a staunch Republican, but not of late, not at all.
How about showing how conservative he has been since Obama took office? He's simply a follower of who is in power it would seem, he is behind Bush while Bush is in power then along comes Obama and he follows him, all to further his career.

Yes, Hagel didn't like the Iraq war and worked against the surge, but absent of that, what about his career says that he is a RINO? Nothing.

nothing?
He supported several Democrats in the last election
he also stated "Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You’ve got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction,” Hagel told The Cable in a May interview. “The Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party.”
Yeah, nothing

GMTom wrote:Now the Republican Party is in the hands of the right, I would say the extreme right, more than ever before. You've got a Republican Party that is having difficulty facing up to the fact that if you look at what happened during the first 8 years of the century, it was under Republican direction, the Republican Party is dealing with this schizophrenia. It was the Republican leadership that got us into this mess. If Nixon or Eisenhower were alive today, they would be run out of the party.

I hadn't heard he said that.

He's right, and making a completely spot-on accurate assessment. Of course, that condemns him as a RINO, as opposed to being seen as sensible and speaking the truth. Sensible and speaking the truth = traitor to the Republican Party = Party of Stupid.

Yeah, it sounds increasingly like I was right in my guess. This does look a lot like the Senate Republicans are punishing Hagel for apostasy rather than exercising considered judgement on the merits of his candidacy.