[Peace-discuss] CFR's Richard Haass rebukes Elliott Abrams' attacks on Hagel: "over the line"

[Robert Naiman]

"Satan, I rebuke thee."

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/13/1440211/haass-abrams-hagel/

Think Tank President Rebukes Senior Fellow’s Claims That Chuck Hagel Is
Anti-Semitic<http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/13/1440211/haass-abrams-hagel/>
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) president Richard
Haass<http://www.cfr.org/experts/afghanistan-iraq-us-strategy-and-politics/richard-n-haass/b3350>
said
on ABC’s This Week on Sunday that ad hominem attacks on Chuck Hagel,
President Obama’s choice as the next Defense Secretary, are “over the line.”

 In an effort to derail Hagel’s nomination, the Weekly Standard’s Bill
Kristol<http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/12/17/1345011/kristol-hagel-iran/>
 and the neocons<http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/chuck-hagel-and-the-neocon-smear-machine/266499/>
have
been trying to convince the public that Hagel is an “anti-Semite.” CFR
Senior Fellow Elliott Abrams, a former Bush administration official who was
convicted of charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal, claimed last week
that Hagel “seems to have some kind of problem with
Jews<http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/09/1420271/council-on-foreign-relations-abrams-hagel/>.”
But Haass, Abrams’ boss, rebuked those charges and the tactics Abrams and
his neocon allies are using:

 HAASS: The only thing that should be relevant George I would say are his
ability to run the Pentagon and his views on policy … *Where I think people
are going over the line is with an hominem attacks, questioning for example
whether he is an anti-Semite*. I’ve known Chuck Hagel for more than 20
years for what it’s worth, I think that’s proposterous. I also don’t think
that has a place in the public space. We often ask, why aren’t public
debates better, why aren’t sometimes the best people going into public
life, but this is one of the reasons. … I really don’t think there is a
legitimate place in American political life for ad hominem attacks. These
are loaded words that are being cast about and I think they’re simply
beyond the pale.

Watch the clip <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyzTXGphP4A&feature=youtu.be>
:


A Council spokesperson last week backed
away<http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/09/1420271/council-on-foreign-relations-abrams-hagel/>
from
Abrams’ baseless attacks on Hagel, saying they don’t represent the views of
the Council on Foreign Relations. But Haass has now formally criticized
Abrams’ attacks.

Critics of Abrams for his anti-Hagel comments are now calling on him to
apologize<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/11/elliott-abrams-owes-hagel-an-apology.html>.
“I hope that Abrams rethinks his position and apologizes to Hagel and
welcomes a genuine debate, Council on Foreign Relations-style, about their
policy differences,” Atlantic editor-at-large and New America Foundation
Senior Fellow Steve Clemons said this
week<http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2013/01/blast_from_the/>
.

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130113/68ecf059/attachment.html>