[Peace-discuss] "Why Progressives Should Oppose Hagel"

[Carl G. Estabrook]

The passion seems to be on the other side - good liberals grasping at straws.

And Hagel does seem to be a straw - in the business sense of one who purchases an asset or undertakes an economic action for another who wishes to remain anonymous. 

The other name for that is "front."  


On Jan 13, 2013, at 11:57 AM, "Brussel, Morton K" <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:

> So why the passion against Hagel? He won't make any difference to the government policies anyway, according to your reasoning. 
> --mkb
> 
> On Jan 13, 2013, at 7:06 AM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
> 
>> The appointment of Hagel - and the week's shadow-boxing by the media about it - seems to me to be Obama's cynical cover for the appointment of John Brennan to the CIA, and for the promotion of the policies that that filthy spook has been administering for Obama. 
>> 
>> It really doesn't matter if a "better person" is appointed to the cabinet. US war policy remains remarkably consistent, barring major domestic opposition. Hagel is meant precisely as a sop to Obama's liberal supporters, to prevent the growth of such opposition. A new defense secretary won't produce an end to the assassinations or a withdrawal from the Mideast; a new treasury secretary won't produce a new WPA; and a new secretary of state won't lessen the sanctions against Iran. 
>> 
>> (The Hagel appointment may however make clear something that's been true for a long time: the position of the government of Israel is less important to US war planners than either that government's friends or enemies think.) 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 12, 2013, at 10:34 PM, "Brussel, Morton K" <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> This is my response to the author, Ruff, of this article:
>>> 
>>> So what better person does author Ruff think Obama is likely to choose and who has a chance of being confirmed. The point to be made is that Hagel is probably the most independent minded of all Obama's appointees so far, at least with respect to our recent wars and to our unqualified allegiance to the Israeli government. In other words, this article misses the boat. That in principle one would hope for a far better appointment does not stand the test of our present politics. 
>>> On Jan 12, 2013, at 5:18 PM, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The Progressive on Hagel, who sits on the BOD of Chevron and is chair of the Atlantic Council, among other things:
>>>> 
>>>> "Why Progressives Should Oppose Hagel" http://www.progressive.org/why-progressives-should-oppose-hagel
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>