The Last-Ditch Attack Against Hagel’s Opponents: ‘McCarthyites’
There is a real, not-so-covert war going on in our nation’s capital: not the Obama administration’s attempt to select a secretary of Defense with a questionable record, but Chuck Hagel’s supporters’ attempt to end all opposition to him by raising the cry of “McCarthyism.”
That old standard bugaboo of the Left is being used again, this time as a mechanism to try to discredit all who have brought forth valid reasons as to why Senator Hagel should not get appointed to the position despite his nomination. For those who have not been paying attention, here is a brief summary of the various reasons presented by those who oppose Hagel’s nomination:
- He has publicly spoken about how the “Jewish lobby” intimidates members of Congress. Of course, there is a pro-Israel lobby that has the support of most of the public in our country — and it is made up not only of Jews, but of many evangelical Christians and other Americans.
- He not only opposed the Iraq war after first supporting it, but later voted against declaring Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist groups. He also argued on behalf of negotiations with them.
- He seems to favor relying entirely on diplomatic measures to pressure Iran to stop its work on a nuclear bomb, despite the obvious failure to date of reliance on diplomacy alone.
- Hagel opposed the successful surge in Iraq bravely instituted by George W. Bush.
- Hagel’s nomination serves as a message to the mullahs that the Obama administration will not be tough against Iran if it proceeds with its development of a nuclear weapon. Iran has already noted its pleasure with the nomination.
- Hagel’s position — as Democrats who supported the president such as Alan Dershowitz and Ed Koch have stated — undermines the position the administration purportedly supports, thus putting into a critical office a man opposed to the president’s announced policies.
- Hagel voted as Senator against any sanctions to be applied against Iran
In 2008, the prescient Tom Gross made the following points about Hagel, when Obama was considering him for a post. What Gross wrote four years ago could be written now, without any changes:
However, of particular concern to supporters of Israel is that Obama, the Democratic Party candidate, is being accompanied by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel on his trip to Israel, one of only two senators Obama is traveling with (the other being Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island).
One pro-Israel observer said: “If Obama is getting advice from Hagel about Israel, then the American Jewish community has a lot to worry about. Of all the senators with whom Obama could have traveled with, Hagel’s record on Israel is one of the worst.
“The message is heard loud and clear. While Obama has chosen to visit Israel with one of the most anti-Israel senators, by contrast, on John McCain’s most recent trip to Israel, he chose to visit with Joseph Lieberman.”
The Democratic Party has itself previously (in March 2007) released to the press examples of Sen. Hagel’s abysmal record on Israel:
* In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 senators who refused to call Hizbullah a terrorist organization. * In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a letter asking the Palestinian Authority to ban terrorist groups. * In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran’s nuclear program at the G-8 summit. * In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 senators who refused to sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yasser Arafat until he ended violence against Israel. * In October 2000, Hagel was one of only four senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.
* And here’s what the anti-Israel group, CAIR, wrote in praise of Hagel: “Potential presidential candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to express their support for Israel. The only exception to that rule was Senator Chuck Hagel” (Council on American-Islamic Relations, 8/28/06).
I mentioned in a previous dispatch:
When asked by Newsweek “Would you have Republicans in your cabinet?” Obama replied, “No decisions, but Dick Lugar embodies the best tradition in foreign policy. Chuck Hagel is a smart guy who has shows some courage, even though we disagree on domestic policy.”
Rather than deal with the vital questions raised by Hagel’s opponents — composed of both Republicans and Democrats — Hagel’s supporters have tried two tactics to undermine the ability of those who question the president’s choice to make their case known.
The first, as I said at the start, is to cry McCarthyism. That term was used by Eric Alterman in his weekly column in The Nation. Alterman praises Hagel as “well qualified,” as having learned the anti-war lessons of Vietnam as a volunteer GI in that conflict, and as a man who is “enormously respected by what remains of the old bipartisan foreign policy establishment.”
Of course, Alterman does not notice the irony of someone with his leftist views citing that establishment favorably. Nor does he stop and pause to note Hagel’s social conservative views on issues like abortion, gay rights, guns, and the like — the kind of weathervane issues that the Left would usually bring forth to try to kill the appointment of an individual with such positions.
Hagel, evidently, is being given a blank check simply because on foreign policy issues he takes positions akin to those of their comrades on the way-out, anti-interventionist left.
Hagel is praised for “personal courage” in deciding to turn against the Iraq war. Alterman then argues:
Hagel has been especially vocal in his support for negotiations rather than saber-rattling when it comes to Iran. No less conspicuously, he has refused to march in lockstep with the demands that Israel’s right-wing government has consistently made of Washington to support its program of illegal settlement expansion on the West Bank, and he has criticized its failure to offer the Palestinians a compelling reason to return to the bargaining table.
In other words, the very reasons for which the Left likes his positions should give us all alarm that he might be secretary of Defense. Note also the faulty belief that the Palestinians are not negotiating because of Israeli policy, when we all know that the reason they have turned down every Israeli proposal is because they will not recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state and will not give up the spurious “right of return.”
Finally, Alterman charges Hagel’s opponents with McCarthyism. He writes:
Hagel’s critics have been quick to unsheathe the McCarthyite tactics employed whenever opposition to any position of Israel’s right-wing government is at issue. The accusation is almost always “anti-Semitism,” but rarely has that charge proven as empty as in Hagel’s case. Leading the assault have been Pavlovian attack dogs like William Kristol and The Weekly Standard, Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, ex–AIPAC flack Josh Block, the ADL’s Abe Foxman, Bret Stephens at The Wall Street Journal, and convicted criminal and former Reagan and Bush II official Elliott Abrams, now respectably ensconced at the Council on Foreign Relations.
No need on his part to deal with their arguments. Instead Alterman simply smears them, tying together people of diverse views.
Josh Block, a centrist Democrat, is equated with the Republican and conservative Elliott Abrams, whom he falsely calls a “convicted criminal.” How is that for smearing an opponent? Then Alterman attacks both “neocons and conservative professional Jews.”
What is the term “professional Jews”? What could it be, except an example of something that itself borders on anti-Semitism? I guess that Mr. Alterman, being a leftist and “peacenik,” is exempt from being a “professional Jew.” He himself is Jewish, and he always makes that quite clear when arguing that AIPAC and those who disagree with him do not represent real Jews like himself.
You forgot to mention Hagel opposed also sanctions on Iran, not just a military option.
“Hagel, evidently, is being given a blank check simply because on the foreign policy issues, he takes positions akin to those of their own comrades on the way-out anti-interventionist left.”
It’s not anti-interventionism really, but anti-Americanism and anti-Israelism.
Yes, you are correct. I will amend it in the original post.
“Hagel opposed the successful surge in Iraq bravely instituted by George W. Bush.”
Opponents of the war argued from its beginning that the force used was inadequate to the task. This proved true almost immediately when it became clear that the US had no cogent follow-up plan to the ouster of Saddam. Rumsfeld’s comment on the ensuing chaos: “Stuff happens.” Then, when the insurgency began, Bush said, “Bring it on!” And they did, for the next five years.
There were two kinds of opponents of Bush’s policy:
Those who offered constructive criticism (the force needed to be bigger), and
those who disseminated left-wing paranoid conspiracy theories (“it’s a war for oil,” “it’s a war for Halliburton,” “it’s a war for Israel,” “Bush is trying to avenge his daddy,” etc.)
Hey, the Bushies themselves claimed that Iraqi oil would pay for the war. Andy Card, W’s chief-of-staff, stated that the war would cost no more than $400m. As for Halliburton, they did very well in the war, making billions. And as for Bush trying to “avenge his daddy,” I’ll leave that to the psychiatrists and psychologists.
Hi Ronnie.
1. I’ve seen you argue against Joe McCarthy here.
I think you said that sloppy attacks against Communists in government were unfair to people falsely accused and made the whole idea Communists in government seem foolish when it wasn’t.
The same can true of hair-trigger charges of anti-semitism. So, Hagel’s supporters are not necessarily being unfair when they compare the two.
2. Palestinian resistance to peace doesn’t make the expansion of Israeli settlement a non-issue.
“McCarthyism” is a term used to refer to wild unsubstantiated charges against someone in an attempt to defame his character.
That’s not the case with Hagel. Hagel’s votes on Iran sanctions and other things are a matter of public record. His statements about “Jewish lobbies” and Iran are a matter of public record.
It’s never “McCarthyism” when you can quote someone verbatim.
It’s not the case with McCarthy either, or the vast majority of people that the Left has charged with McCarthyism.
2. Palestinian resistance to peace doesn’t make the expansion of Israeli settlement a non-issue.
Gotta love that “resistance to peace”! It’s sooooo wonderfully nuanced! And what might it say about those who concoct such weasely expressions.
OK, we’ll let it go. Perhaps you’re right on that.
But what should one thing about Palestinian desires, ambitions and plans to destroy the Jewish State?
Yeah, well I guess we can deny it! After all, it hasn’t happened yet….
Sorry. Of course we can deny it! Must deny it!!
“thing…” should be “think…”
Barry, Ronnie spoke about the Palestinians having their own reasons for not coming to a peace agreement.
I guess if their goal is a just peace what I said was wrong. But I don’t think that’s what Ron was trying to say and I was referring back to his statement.
It will not be enough for that toady senator Schumer to oppose the Hagel nomination once he knows there are enough votes to confirm him anyway. He should be leading the fight against Hagel. Sadly, he will claim he tried to “lead from behind”. He is hanging on any way he can to replace Harry Reid as majority leader, principles be damned. He is the Prince Charles of the Senate.
So now anyone who opposed our disastrous and unjustified involvement in Iraq is the enemy? Sure, we may wish that Hagel was more of a warmonger, ready to “exercise American power” at the drop of a hat (and at the expense of American lives and resources), but the sorry neo-cons, you’ve been discredited.
Neo-con – code for Jew, I hear. so…………..you’re a filty racist, to start.
Those of us against the war (yeah, that’d be me) now seriously hate you jack-asses because if we HAD to be at war, then by-golly, we were going to do it right.
You played treason all the way through. Your people printed our secrets in the pages of the NYT. You told our enemies every one of our tactics. And now you smugly sit back and call us failures.
Go to hell!
Well Brutus,
You stooges managing the “good war” into sound defeat as we attempt to unglue your lips from jihadi ass apparently aren’t performing terribly adequately either, being my Vet friends hold your traitorous dear ilk Brutus in contempt, not worthy of a bullet but a sound fragging would do quite nice. I never hear much anything detrimental of neo-cons, but I hear a lot about the cowardice of Obama and his resident groupie lip locks with wagging tongues and light loafers.
So if credibility is in question, give us something besides Dear Leader and his leadership as justification. Dear Leader ain’t cutting it with our military.
Read my prior post on this subject.
There were some critics of Bush’s policy who were sincere and offered constructive criticism.
But Hagel was for the Iraq War before he was against it. He *voted for it*–but just a few years later, started denouncing it.
Ron Paul: Chuck Hagel John Brennan Will Carry Out Obama’s Foreign Policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNdEI27UtCc
Hagel was worthless as Republican Senator, a vacillating blowhard who would have been blitzed in the next election by the good people of Nebraska after he played turncoat and farce, and chose to cut and run to save face rather than to go down in flames.
Frankly, Hagel is an undesirable, neither popular in Republican circles, nor particularly admired – Charlie Crist without the s___ eating grin.
Any dimwit that either fails to recognize Hezbollah as a gang of murderous thugs, or can’t muster the brass to call Hezbollah a terrorist group under the banner of political correctness and cowardice, isn’t worthy to considered for anything of national security or importance.
This isn’t brain surgery to choose wisely – Israel is our staunchest ally and radical Islam is a plague upon the world, which is exactly why the useful idiot Obama will chose wrong. Any first candidate choice of Obama should be questioned strictly because it’s Obama’s first choice – the clearest indicator of personal ineptness. Because Obama is not qualified to buy lunch meat, much less play diplomat and world leader.
McCarthy was right.
The most important fact of all. Should be repeated at every opportunity.
What I would like to know, is what criteria did the Republicans use to slate Chuck Hagel as a Republican in the first place. I mean beyond being able to win an election, what’s his redeeming Republican qualities? Really I don’t hear much support among his former collegues. So are the parties really just playing parts in the farce otherwise known as the grand march left?
Hagel is a staunch fiscal conservative. He’s also socially conservative.
But he’s a foreign policy isolationist.
That’s why Obama picked him for SecDef, not for any post where he would have anything to say about domestic affairs.
Yep, he is there to deflect criticism of Obama’s and the Left’s Anti American foreign policy.
With Hagels record of pussyfooting around tough confrontations, and using MCarthyist tactics against moderate opponents, who needs him to fill any position at all?
Just leave this position empty, and address entities and crises with the same lame, limp-wristed, and feckless, diplomacy as is the custom with this regime.
Look at the money saved that Obama can claim!
Besides; Obama has more spare time now that he doesn’t have to campaign for another term. He can do this while he’s out smoking a cigarette, or while he’s on the john with nothing to read.
Or maybe, while traveling between tees, which everybody knows, are going to set a record during this term.
Yes, McCarthyism is a standard charge of the Left when they’re too busy to make an argument. But nowadays the term has lost the historical context that previously only the deepest of deep thinkers provided it.
In his 1976 copyrighted introduction to Lillian Hellman’s “Scoundrel Time,” Garry Wills wrote the following:
“It is unfortunate that McCarthyism was named teleologically, from its most perfect product, rather than genetically — which would give us Trumanism.”
Consequently, when some Lefty P.I. (Pseudo-Intellectual) brandishes the McCarthyism card, an appropriate response is “Do you mean Trumanism? That’s what Garry Wills calls it.”
Contemporary liberals usually have no idea that Truman was routinely equated by Progressives with the dreaded McCarthy.
I meant no disrespect to the inestimable Mr. Sturges. I screwed up my nom de plume. Sorry.
Preston Sturgeon
Yes, McCarthyism is a standard charge of the Left when they’re too busy to make an an argument. But nowadays the term has lost the historical context that previously only the deepest of deep thinkers could provide it.
In his 1976 copyrighted introduction to Lillian Hellman’s “Scoundrel Time,” Garry Wills wrote:
“It is unfortunate that McCarthyism was named teleologically, from its most perfect product, rather than genetically — which would give us Trumanism.”
Consequently, when some Lefty P.I. (Pseudo-Intellectual) brandishes the McCarthyism card, an appropriate response is “Do you mean Trumanism. That’s what Garry Wills calls it.”
Contemporary liberals usually have no idea that Truman was routinely equated by Progressives with the dreaded McCarthy.
You should also emphasize that in 2000 Hagel was the only US senator to refuse to sign a letter addressed to Boris Yeltsin expressing concern about the safety of Russian Jewry. This along with Hagel’s disdain and indifference to the Nebraska Jewish community demonstrates that Hagel is full of animus against Jews. Certainly, if he had behaved the same way toward Africans or Afro-Americans he would no stand no chance of being confirmed in the Senate. Obviously, there is one standard for blacks and another one for Jews.
Alterman, Rutenberg – 2 words. ‘Venona Papers’.
‘Funny’ how ALL the American pols in the Venona Papers were in the Democratic Party. Meanwhile water’s wet and beavers make dams.
The others – journalistas, traitors etc., are STILL held in high regard to the likes of Alterman, Rutenberg and like-minded a-holes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers
I guess professional Jew must mean a Jew who cares about the future of their people and their home. So for myself, I thanks the windbag, and as was so eloquently stated in fiddler, “may god bless and keep him… far away from us!”
As Radosh correctly notes, Eric Alterman only identifies himself as a Jew as cover for his consistent and often hyperbolic bashing of Israeli policy and those who come to its defense. On the other hand, he is a professional smear artist who uses his perch on The Nation and other left-wing outlets to practice his trade, as Radosh so aptly illustrates. And that Alterman has succeeded in turning his career as a professional smear artist into a tenured position in the English Department of Brooklyn College, CUNY, is a telling, though not surprising, indictment of today’s academic culture.
As for Chuck Schumer, anybody who knows him — I did, barely, when he was a Congressman — knows that he is only truly interested in climbing the greasy pole. No politician calculates what works or doesn’t work to that end with more cold-blooded precision than he does. Consequently, given his ardent, consuming ambition to eventually become Reid’s successor I never doubted he would support Hagel. Today’s news of Hagel’s’ letter to Barbara Boxer, telling her how much he respects gays and loves Israel, provides Schumer with the perfect excuse to do what he was already programmed to do: come out in support of Hagel’s nomination.
“The Nation is a leftist magazine of opinion.” Really? I thought it was a humor magazine, like MAD, minus the great comics. Well, I stand corrected there. You learn something new every day, I guess.
Fascinating how in their fever leftists are reduced to one word insults. Toss in “hate” for general purpose bile and the biggie, racism or racist for criticizing Obama. The last especialy bizarre because it was Obama who spent 20 years in a screaming, black racist church, and lied about it, and he happens to have the same politics as two other famous Americans, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid.
The insane mind can come up with some strange things.
I have doubts about Hagel’s character and judgment, but my inclination is to go with the president’s choice; it is generally not a good precedent to oppose a nomination unless you feel the person involved is a radical danger to the nation and its interests. Hagel in no way qualifies for that sort of characterization. I believe opposing his nomination will be more damaging to supporters of Israel than allowing it to go through; the leaderships of both A.I.P.A.C. and the Anti-Defamation League (I am a member of the latter) seem to agree.
That said, I am very disturbed by the tenor of the argument over Hagel’s nomination, on both sides. Opponents of his nomination have turned Hagel into a litmus test over Israel, and that gives all the Israel-haters ammunition to say: “See? It’s only those neo-cons/chickenhawks/Israel fifth-columnists, who care only for the interest of Israel and its racist/expansionist/war-mongering Likud government, who oppose Hagel. REAL Americans who care about America support him.”
As for some of Hagel’s supporters, where do I begin? Richard Cohen, Roger Cohen, Dana Milbank, Nicholas Kristof, and Myra MacPherson (author of the memoir of Vietnam veterans “Long Time Passing”) all seemed, within hours of one another in the print editions and/or websites of the two most influential newspapers in the country, to be dictating their columns by rote from the same tired list of talking points. Most (not all) implied that it was the chicken-hawk brigade opposing Hagel. Worse, there was a near-insistence on reflexive genuflection before Hagel’s war record. Apparently this was reason enough to discredit any criticism of Hagel. I respect and honor Hagel and his two Purple Hearts, his life-on-the-line service in Vietnam, but that doesn’t mean he’s infallible in word or deed. No one would argue that in the case of say, Douglas MacArthur or George S. Patton, both multi-decorated combat vets.
On both sides, as, sadly, with so many political debates over the vital issues confronting our country, there is the same tired belief in the vileness of the motives of the other side and therefore the ready-made excuse to dismiss the opposing side’s arguments out-of-hand.
Two last points. Chuck Schumer, the most vociferous supporter of Israel on the Democratic side in the U.S. Senate, has today indicated his support of Hagel’s nomination, and I tend to respect his opinion on the matter. And, second, anyone who takes seriously anything Eric Alterman, the very epitome of the infantile, stuck-in-adolescence, nyah-nyah-I’m-not-and-you-are political commentator and “public intellectual,” says, should have his or her head examined.
Although near impossible, I overestimated the integrity of Schumer. 90 minutes with Hagel and he figured out that the man’s entire history of disdain for Israel and Jews was a mirage. Not really, the meeting was just an excuse to stab a large part of his constituency in the back. Of course Hagel, on the other hand, figured out that he was right all along realizing that Jews like Schumer were empty suits who would sell out the moment they could advance their own career. Hagel may be a dolt, but he saw right through Schumer.
Check out the latest Rasmussen results.
The left ain’t worried. They ain’t even concerned. They’re winning the public and they know it.
the left may be winning in the polls but when the “SHTF” and it will!!!!!!!, where are they going to go with no guns and no balls ?, p.s.hey tex !!! excellent post !!!!!!!
Long Term Unemployment at Highest Level Since WWII by KEITH KOFFLER on JANUARY 15, 2013
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/01/15/long-term-unemployment-highest-level-wwii/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+WhiteHouseDossier+%28White+House+Dossier%29
IT’S THE ECONOMY STUPID!