The Hagel nomination: Next!
Chuck Hagel is toast. At least he should be. And if he's not, the advice and consent function of the Congress is irrevocably broken.
Mr. Hagel, the former Republican U.S. senator of Nebraska, is President Barack Obama's nominee to replace Leon Panetta as secretary of Defense. Some consider Hagel to be a natural choice, considering his exemplary Vietnam service and dedication to military matters during his Senate career. But others long have worried about not only his temperament but his rather refined ability to honk off allies and comfort our adversaries.
Then, last week, Hagel sat before the Senate Armed Services Committee for his confirmation hearing. The rubber met the road — and left tracks up Hagel's back. He stumbled. He fumbled. He mumbled. He dissembled. It was a troubling performance.
But there's more. And it's worse. Hagel has turned uppity — about giving the committee copies of paid speeches he has given since leaving the Senate four years ago and about disclosing all of his financial interests. Foreign influence appears to be the ultimate question. Hagel adamantly refuses to volunteer more information. Saying some of the information wasn't his to release, he even told the committee in a letter that it should contact the IRS for some of the financial details. Talk about a fit of snit.
Chuck Hagel is not fit to be Defense secretary. He should withdraw his name. Should he not, the committee should show him the door.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Recasting the EPA: Devolving power to the states
- Another carbon credit scheme
- School funding canard: Money isn’t the answer
- Public records: Updates needed
- More foreign aid is no answer to border problem
- Rejecting Common Core: Flawed school standards
- Another LCB fumble: The status-quo stupor