{"id":17795,"date":"2013-01-16T07:15:26","date_gmt":"2013-01-16T15:15:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=17795"},"modified":"2013-01-16T07:25:46","modified_gmt":"2013-01-16T15:25:46","slug":"has-hagel-sold-out-nope","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2013\/01\/16\/has-hagel-sold-out-nope\/","title":{"rendered":"Has Hagel &#8216;Sold Out&#8217;? Nope"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I see my colleague John Glaser has taken to the hustings to once again express his <a href=\"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/2013\/01\/15\/present-hagel-disavows-past-hagel-is-he-politicking-or-unprincipled\/#comments\">skepticism of All Things Hagel<\/a>. He&#8217;s convinced that our boy Chuck has &#8220;flipped and flopped like a fish out of water&#8221; in response to the Other Chuck&#8217;s (Chuck Schumer, that is) interrogation. His evidence? A <em>Los Angeles Times<\/em> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/news\/politics\/la-pn-schumer-backs-hagel-defense-secretary-20130115,0,2937460.story\">story<\/a> which he quotes at this point:\u00a0&#8220;According to Schumer &#8230;&#8221; So we are getting the story second-hand.<\/p>\n<p>Another reason to be skeptical of Glaser&#8217;s skepticism: among Hagel&#8217;s alleged mortal sins is the assertion by Schumer that &#8220;Hagel promised to make planning military options against Iran his &#8216;top priority,'&#8221; a prospect that, on the surface, seems ominous &#8212; unless one looks at what sort of &#8220;option&#8221; it might be. For <a href=\"http:\/\/www.latimes.com\/news\/opinion\/commentary\/la-oe-mcmanus-iran-hagel-20130113-001,0,2114204.photo\">Hagel has said <\/a>that air strikes will not suffice, and that we&#8217;ll need at least 100,000 troops on the ground in any conflict with the Iranians. In short, it will be another Iraq &#8212; only worse.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Make planning military options against Iran his &#8216;top priority'&#8221;? I say go for it, Chuck. Because, given his grim prognosis,\u00a0it&#8217;s hard\u00a0 to imagine the President will go for it.<\/p>\n<p>As for disavowing his previous support for opening negotiations with Hamas: since this was never a possibility, it&#8217;s hard to be disappointed. On sanctions: it&#8217;s not within the\u00a0Pentagon&#8217;s purview to make policy on this issue, and so &#8212; again &#8212; this is simply not relevant.<\/p>\n<p>Glaser misses the real point of the Hagel nomination fight, and it is this: a victory for Hagel would be a huge defeat for the War Party, which has gone after Hagel hammer and tongs. That <strong><em>in and of itself<\/em> <\/strong>would strike a big blow for peace. Why this is so hard to understand is &#8230; hard to understand. As one of the commenters on John&#8217;s post <a href=\"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/2013\/01\/15\/present-hagel-disavows-past-hagel-is-he-politicking-or-unprincipled\/#IDComment545611234\">put it<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8220;The ONLY thing that matters is that Hagel stops Netanyahu and the Israel Lobby from an attack on Iran &#8211; THAT&#8217;S IT. It&#8217;s a &#8216;single issue&#8217; &#8220;<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Exactly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I see my colleague John Glaser has taken to the hustings to once again express his skepticism of All Things Hagel. He&#8217;s convinced that our boy Chuck has &#8220;flipped and flopped like a fish out of water&#8221; in response to the Other Chuck&#8217;s (Chuck Schumer, that is) interrogation. His evidence? A Los Angeles Times story [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-17795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17795"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17795\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17797,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17795\/revisions\/17797"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17795"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=17795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}