Deb Fischer spins her Get-Chuck-Hagel confirmation hearing performance in a World-Herald "exclusive"

Senator Deb Fischer, the global warming denier who calls her heterosexual supremacist fellow traveler Chuck Hagel "extremist," just gave the newspaper that endorsed her an "exclusive" explanation of why she can't vote to confirm Hagel as Secretary of Defense.
     This was a two-fer for Fischer. Her spin, plus an article about her spin in the Herald, which raised none of the criticisms a fair newspaper should have.
     In her piece, Fischer didn't mention Israel once (clever girl) — only her concern that Hagel doesn't support (with US resources, of course) sufficient aggression toward Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, Israel's enemies. You see, she isn't a craven tool of the Israel First lobby after all!

     In the piece, Fischer made the staggering assertion that the Iraq surge "helped to turn around an unsuccessful war" (see appropriate links below which beg to differ) and went on to further parrot the Washington Post in its editorial disapproval of Hagel's "bloated" characterization of the Pentagon budget.
     (If Deb Fischer wishes to criticize Chuck Hagel for acknowledging bloat in the Pentagon budget, perhaps she would care to explain to her constituents the correct word to describe $79 billion spent on a fleet of $500 million bombers that are constantly in the shop, have never flown a combat mission and kill their pilots by gassing them unconscious.)



     Earth to Deb Fischer: Tell the people who write your scripts to stop cribbing from Washington Post editorials and start reading The Guardian:

     Now, it's important to remember that when it comes to US foreign policy and national security, the Washington Post editorial board is pretty much always wrong – and the bigger the issue, the more wrong they are. They were badly wrong about the Iraq war (even going so far as to savage the wars critics); wrong about the surge in Afghanistan (is still badly wrong about current policy there); and is decidedly wrong on Chuck Hagel...
     ...According to the Post, Hagel believes that the defense department's budget is "bloated" and "needs to be pared down". Moreover, the Post dings Hagel for supposedly supporting the so-called sequestration cuts...
     The sequestration cuts are significant, but it's important to understand that if they were to go into effect, they would return the Pentagon to fiscal year 2007 levels. The idea that cuts of this nature are the height of irresponsibility is the height of insanity. In 2007, the Pentagon was fighting a war with more than 100,00 troops in Iraq. 

      Bottom line: if you thought Deb Fischer's second-rate gotcha questions indicated that Nebraska's junior senator's mind was already made up before the hearings even started and that her World-Herald stunt was just the posturing of a faux-judicious poseur, why then, you were almost certainly right.

Time chart: Hegal hearing senators more concerned about Israel than US troops in Afghanistan; who do these senators really represent?

One senator, Mike Lee of Utah, mentioned Israel 16 times and Afghanistan not once. Overall, GOP senators mentioned Israel 64 times, Afghanistan four times. Time Magazine graphed this in three different charts.

Antigay Florida Senator Marco Rubio, who lied about his parents fleeing Fidel Castro, says Chuck Hagel has 'big, big problems'

When Mike Allen of Politico asked Mark Rubio if homosexuality was a sin, Rubio said yeah, but he wasn't passing judgement — specifically saying, "Well, I can tell you what faith teaches and faith teaches that it is. And that’s what the Bible teaches and that’s what faith teaches."
     The Ten Commandments, which, like Jesus himself, did not mention homosexuality, do teach that you shouldn't lie, but that didn't stop Rubio from repeating ad nauseum the familial fable about his parents' daringly brave flight from Cuba as the jackboots of Castro's thugs shook the island — until an examination of naturalization papers and other records revealed that Rubio’s parents came to the United States and were admitted for permanent residence while Castro was still in Mexico, more than two and a half years before his forces overthrew the Batista government and took power on January 1, 1959.
     Obviously, where opportunism is at play, the Rubio family is way ahead of the curve.

Video: Deb Fischer tears into Chuck Hagel at confirmation hearing like he was her next-door neighbor or something

To see all AKSARBENT's posts about who is behind the unprecedented (and often downright sneaky) PAC campaign against Chuck Hagel, click here.


Transcription from C-SPAN is software-generated. Take it with a grain of salt and cross-reference it to video. (In one section AKSARBENT changed USED CAR to VIEWS FAR because that's what Fischer said.)
     Fischer, who doesn't believe that global warming is real, articulates her worries about Chuck Hagel's "extremist" views. 
     The Global Zero Report, from which Deb Fischer cherry picked out-of-context quotes designed as "gotcha" questions to torpedo Hagel's nomination, may be read in its entirety and in context here.
     For a reality check on Sen. Fischer's emerging knee-jerk, rubber stamp right-wing agenda, below is a second opinion on Hagel's commendable efforts to rid the world of its nuclear Sword of Damocles.
     By the way, if the "next-door neighbor" allusion in this post's headline doesn't make any sense to you, go here.

	>> SENATOR FISHER?
	>> >> THANK YOU, MR.
	CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, SENATOR, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
	I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.
	I APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED WILLINGNESS TO SERVE THE UNITED STATES.
	I NEED TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
	AFTER OUR MEETING LAST WEEK, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR NOMINATION.
	MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR OF USE, AND I SHARE THAT CONCERN, BUT I MUST ADMIT THAT I AM MORE WORRIED THAT YOUR VIEWS HAVE NOT CHANGED.
	FROM YOUR MEETING WITH ME LAST WEEK, IT WAS CLEAR THAT YOU MAINTAIN THE VIEWS THAT LED TO SUCH SCRUTINY OF YOUR NOMINATION.
	DESPITE THESE RECENT CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY, YOU CONTINUE TO HOLD I BELIEVE VIEWS FAR TO THE LEFT OF EVEN THIS ADMINISTRATION.
	IN PARTICULAR, YOUR CLEAR STATEMENT TO ME DURING OUR MEETING THAT IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECAST YOUR VOTE ON THE IRANIAN SANCTIONS, YOU WOULD STILL OPPOSE THOSE SANCTIONS.
	I BELIEVE THAT INDICATES THAT YOU HOLD THESE CONCERNING THE VIEWS.
	OUR NATION FACES MANY CHALLENGES.
	PERHAPS NONE GREATER OR MORE IMMEDIATE THAN AROUND'S CONTINUED PROGRESS TOWARD OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
	AT THE SAME TIME, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS ENTERING A TIME OF TRANSFORMATION THAT WILL LIKELY TO FIND ITS ROLE FOR MANY DECADES TO COME.
	THE FUTURE OF OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENCE COULD DEPEND ON OUR CHOICES MADE BY THE NEXT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
	I AM " TO BRING UP THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT -- I AM GOING TO BRING UP THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT QUITE A BIT.
	YOU ARE LISTED AS THE CO-AUTHOR OF A REPORT ON OUR NUCLEAR POSTURE.
	I BELIEVE THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION IN THERE, AND I BELIEVE THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR FORCES.
	WHEN WE SPOKE LAST WEEK, YOU DESCRIBE THIS REPORT AS BEING OFFERED BY GENERAL CARTWRIGHT, AND I HAD THE IMPRESSION, AND I AM BELIEVE HE'LL APPLY TO ME, THAT YOU WERE NOT CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH THAT.
	YOU ARE LISTED AS A CO-AUTHOR OF THAT REPORT, AS ONE OF THE FIVE.
	MOREOVER, YOU TOLD ME AT THAT TIME THAT THIS REPORT DISCUSSED OPTIONS.
	YOU HAVE REITERATED THAT STANCE TODAY.
	AFTER I HAVE TO REEXAMINE THAT IT, THE ONLY OPTIONS I HAVE FOUND IN THE REPORT ARE RELATED TO HOW BEST -- HOW TO BEST ACHIEVE THOSE REDUCTIONS I BELIEVE IT ADVISES.
	THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVE TO USE OR DISSENTING OPINIONS THAT ARE DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT.
	IT STATES MANY CONTROVERSIAL OPINIONS.
	IT STATE THEM AS FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSION, AND I BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THOSE POSITIONS.
	AS IT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE, MY TIME HERE IS LIMITED, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH AND REVIEW SOME OF THOSE MORE CONCERNING PROCLAMATIONS THAT AND MAKES WITH YOU.
	I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE COULD GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY.
	FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNITED STATES ICBM FORCE HAS LOST ITS CENTRAL UTILITY.
	THAT IS STATED IN THE REPORT.
	DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
	>> WELL, SENATOR, THAT REPORT WAS NOT A RECOMMENDATION.
	THAT REPORT AS WE HAVE SAID IS A SERIES OF SCENARIOS, AND AGAIN I USE THE TERM ILLUSTRATIVE, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE REPORT, AS POSSIBLE WAYS WE COULD CONTINUE TO REDUCE OUR WARHEADS, NOT UNILATERALLY, BUT BY LATTERLY TREAT EVERY TREATY WE HAVE EVER SIGNED TO REDUCE WARHEADS AND THE THRUST CAPABILITY WITH THE RUSSIANS HAS BEEN ABOUT REDUCTIONS.
	THAT IS NOT NEW. THAT IS WHERE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PICKED ICBM'S, A SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
	IT IS A 25-PAGE REPORT.
	I ASSUME YOU HAVE READ IT.
	IT TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE REASONS ICBM'S MAY EVENTUALLY BE INSIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF THE OVER-FLIGHT OVER RUSSIA AND SO ON.
	THOSE ARE NOT FICTIONAL ANALYSES.
	THOSE ARE FACTS.
	NO ONE IS RECOMMENDING IN THAT REPORT -- AND YOU PROBABLY NOTED GENERAL CARTWRIGHT AND OMAHA -- THESE ARE SERIOUS PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THIS BUSINESS, AND NO ONE RECOMMENDS THAT WE UNILATERALLY DO AWAY WITH OUR ICBM'S.
	WHAT THAT REPORT WAS ABOUT WAS LOOKING AT WHERE THIS IS GOING.
	THE TITLE OF THE REPORT WAS MODERNIZING OUR NUCLEAR STRATEGY, NOT ELIMINATING IT.
	>> CORRECT, BUT THE YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE ICBM'S, THAT FORCE HAS LOST ITS CENTRAL UTILITY?
	>> THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAID.
	>> I HAVE IT CITED, AND WITH RESPECT I CAN ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD, BUT IT IS CITED IN THE REPORT.
	>> THE REPORT IN THE OVERALL CONTEXT, ICBM'S, AND ALL THE PARTS OF THE REPORT WERE ABOUT THE UTILITIES OF OUR TRIAD, WHERE IS THIS GOING, AND MONEY THAT WE ARE INVESTING IN THAT, AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
	I THINK THOSE KINDS OF REPORTS ARE VALUABLE TO ASSESS OUR NEEDS, TO ASSESS OUR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, TO ASSESS OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT.
	WEEK TWO STUDIES ALL THE TIME.
	THIS WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL REPORT.
	THINK TANKS DO THIS ALL THE TIME.
	I THINK THAT IS VALUABLE.
	>> EXCUSE ME.
	I DO THINK THAT REPORTS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, THINK TANKS, INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL VERY IMPORTANT IN GETTING INFORMATION AND OPINIONS OUT THERE.
	BUT WHEN YOU CO-AUTHORED A REPORT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER A FEW -- IF YOU AGREE WITH STATEMENTS MADE IN THE REPORT.
	>> I DO NOT AGREE ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD UNILATERALLY TAKE ANY ACTION TO FURTHER REDUCE OUR NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND OUR CAPABILITY.
	AGAIN, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAID.
	I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT.
	EVERY OPTION THAT WE MUST LOOK AT, EVERY ACTION WE MUST TAKE TO REDUCE WARHEADS OR ANYTHING SHOULD BE BILATERAL.
	IT TO BE VERIFIABLE.
	IT SHOULD BE NEGOTIATED.
	>> EVERY ACTION THAT THIS COUNTRY TAKES SHOULD BE BILATERAL?
	>> WHEN WE ARE REDUCING WARHEADS -- EVERY TREATY WE HAVE SIGNED WITH RUSSIANS AS THE BILATERAL, HAS BEEN VERIFIABLE.
	RONALD REAGAN SAID AT BEST -- TRUST, BUT VERIFY ITS.
	THAT IS THE KEY WORD.
	HE ALSO SAID WE SHOULD WIPE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM THE FACE OF THE ARTS.
	I THINK ALMOST EVERY PRESIDENT HAS AGREED WITH THAT.
	INCLUDING, THIS PRESIDENT,.
	WORLD LEADERS AGREED WITH THE CONTINUED REDUCTION, AND THIS IS NOT A REPORT OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM.
	PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SAID IN HIS PRAGUE SPEECH IN 2009 THAT THAT WAS HIS GOAL, AS WAR BREAKING DEBT, AS MANY PRESIDENTS DID.
	>> THANK YOU.
	ALSO, AS I READ THE REPORT, IT CALLS FOR ALL U.
	S. TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO BE ELIMINATED OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND ASSERTS THE MILITARY UTILITY IS PRACTICALLY NIL.
	DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT?
	>> SENATOR, I DO NOT DELETE IT CALLS FOR IT.
	THESE ARE SCENARIOS AND SCHEDULES AND POSSIBILITIES AND OPTIONS.
	BUT NONE OF THIS COULD EVER, EVER HAPPEN UNLESS IT WOULD BE NEGOTIATED, BILATERAL, AND VERIFIABLE, AND THAT WAS PART OF A LETTER THE GLOBAL THE ZERO- CREDIT GROUP SAID TO THE PRESIDENT IN 2009, SPECIFICALLY, STATING THAT.
	IF I MIGHT, I MIGHT GIVE YOU A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE.
	SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S SUBCOMMITTEE -- SHE HAD A HEARING LAST YEAR.
	GENERAL CARTWRIGHT AND ADMIRAL PICKERING -- OR AMBASSADOR PICKERING TESTIFY, AND THEY WENT INTO THIS.
	WITH ANY ACTION WE WOULD TAKE WOULD HAVE TO BE NEGOTIATED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BILATERAL, NO UNILATERAL ACTION, AND THEY MADE THAT POINT AGAIN ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S SUBCOMMITTEE.
	AND I SUPPORT THAT.
	I AGREE WITH THAT.
	>> I HAVE ANOTHER STATEMENT FROM THE REPORT.
	THE UNITED STATES ICBM RAPID REACTION POSTURE REMAINS IN OPERATIONS AND RUNS A REAL RISK OF ACCIDENTAL OR MISTAKEN LAUNCH.
	I THINK THAT STATEMENT IS PRETTY CLEAR.
	DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
	>> YES.
	I MEAN, I THE ACCIDENTAL LAUNCH AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE ALWAYS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT AND WE NEED TO ASSURE AS WE HAVE OVER THE YEARS THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, BUT ON THE RUSSIAN -- >> THAT WE WILL RUN A REAL RISK OF ACCIDENT OR MISTAKE AND LAUNCH?
	>> IF YOU PUT JUST RISK, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A RISK.
	WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES, AS YOU KNOW, YOU DO NOT GET A LOT OF SECOND CHANCES.
	WE NEED TO BE VERY SURE ABOUT THESE THINGS, AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT.
	>> YOU NEED TO SAY ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SECOND ROUND.
	>> I AM SORRY -- I DO NOT -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
	>> THANK

Hagel confirmation hearing: Sens. Udall and Wicker ask about "conscience clause" and antigay discrimination in military

(Clips via Americablog, which found Hagel's answers to be rambling, despite the high profile gay opposition that Hagel must have prepped for.)

Chuck Hagel's mysterious confirmation opponents: Rachel Maddow smells a rat

In other Defense Department news, there is this unsettling development:

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces "a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold." Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, "the expansion would increase the Defense Department's Cyber Command by more than 4,000 people, up from the current 900." The Post describes this expansion as "part of an effort to turn an organization that has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force." This Cyber Command Unit operates under the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals - and American citizens.

As the Washington Post goes after Chuck Hagel, he gets a defender from way out of town

Michael Cohen of the UK's Manchester Guardian has come to the aid of embattled Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel in a piece called In Defense of Chuck Hagel as the Washington Post Declares War, in which Cohen deconstructs the Post's Wednesday editorial, Chuck Hagel is not the Right Choice for Defense Secretary.

     Now, it's important to remember that when it comes to US foreign policy and national security, the Washington Post editorial board is pretty much always wrong – and the bigger the issue, the more wrong they are. They were badly wrong about the Iraq war (even going so far as to savage the wars critics); wrong about the surge in Afghanistan (is still badly wrong about current policy there); and is decidedly wrong on Chuck Hagel...
     ...According to the Post, Hagel believes that the defense department's budget is "bloated" and "needs to be pared down". Moreover, the Post dings Hagel for supposedly supporting the so-called sequestration cuts...
     The sequestration cuts are significant, but it's important to understand that if they were to go into effect, they would return the Pentagon to fiscal year 2007 levels. The idea that cuts of this nature are the height of irresponsibility is the height of insanity. In 2007, the Pentagon was fighting a war with more than 100,00 troops in Iraq. 

     ...One of their [the joint chiefs] key job requirements is to scare Congress and journalists into believing that cuts to their damage would be catastrophic. Indeed, this is the job requirement of any government agency head. That the Post accepts such arguments at face value is stupefying.
     ...On Iran, Hagel's positions are not only well-founded; they are informed by the sort of firm grasp of international and military affairs that has perennially eluded the Post's editorial board.
     In the end, the Post's concern with Hagel is not that he is out of step with the president, but rather that he is out of step with the bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington for which the Washington Post has been one of the loudest and most obnoxious cheerleaders. This is a consensus that views American interests in a limitless manner, that sees no reason to place constraints on the utilization of American power, that fetishizes military solutions to difficult national security challenges, and that looks disapprovingly on any politician who advocates a foreign policy of modesty and restraint.
     The fact that Chuck Hagel has so openly questioned this consensus is perhaps his most attractive attribute... It's small wonder so many long knives have come out against Hagel – but it's even more reason for Obama to pick him as the country's next secretary of defense.

Nick Ryan, Des Moines, Iowa maker of antigay attack ads is now making anti-antigay-Chuck-Hagel attack ads

Nick Ryan is at it again, this time wearing his American Future Fund hat:

     The American Future Fund and its political action sister group spent millions against President Barack Obama and on races for the U.S. House and Senate last year. They spent over $25 million in independent expenditures on the 2012 election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money spent in politics.
     Sources close to the group said Tuesday they would spend about $500,000 to air the new ad on CNN and Fox News Channel.

Shadowy group raises hundreds of thousands of dollars to block Obama's Sec'y of Defense nomination

TV ads from "Use Your Mandate" will appear today on Meet the Press, Face the Nation and This Week, accusing President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, of being antiwoman, antichoice, antiIsrael, antigay and proassault weapon. The group has also paid for an antiHagel banner ad on at least two popular blogs, Politico and Towleroad as well as the mailer below.
 hagelmailer

Newly militant Log Cabin Republicans suspicious of Chuck Hagel's 'apparent epiphany'

Conservative Hagel, right, with younger, liberal
brother Tom, the only known American siblings
to serve in the same infantry squad in Vietnam.

In a letter to Barbara Boxer, Chuck Hagel wrote:

I fully support the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 and value the service of all those who fight for our country. I know firsthand the profound sacrifice our service members and their families make, and if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I will do everything possible to the extent permissible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members.

Via JoeMyGod from the Huffington Post is a reaction from Gregory Angelo, head of the Log Cabin Republicans, which suddenly has become so fascinated by the gay rights record of Chuck Hagel, a recent target of the Israel First lobby, that LCR has taken out expensive antiHagel newspaper ads in both the New York Times and Washington Post while adopting a Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell stance about revealing what individuals or organizations have underwritten the cost of those ads.

For years the Pentagon has been dragging its feet with regard to extending benefits to the families of gay service members. To ensure that action is taken on this front, we need to be sure that there is a champion for our cause at the helm of the defense department. There is nothing in Hagel's record to suggest he will be that champion. "While Senator Hagel's recent professed support for gay military families is encouraging, it stands at odds with his record of opposition to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and his broader record of opposition to equality for gay and lesbian Americans. We look forward to the confirmation hearings when the Senator will be able to explain his apparent epiphany in greater detail. We continue to remain cautious about his nomination until that time.

Related: the DC-based Log Cabin Republicans evidently have a problem spelling "Omaha World-Herald."

Log Cabin Republicans take out another full-page ad ripping Chuck Hagel (Wonder who paid for this one...)

Hagel
(Via Towleroad)

Michael Moore defends Chuck Hagel, rips Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol

Tangentially related: Pam's House Blend wonders how Hagel would react to DoD's recent bust by gay bloggers for blocking LGBT news and commentary while allowing access to anti-LGBT sites.

The prospect of a Hagel nomination has fostered the year's queerest political
alliances, with neocons attacking Hagel for being the homophobe that he is
and gay liberals like Greenwald defending him for standing up to AIPAC.

Glen Greenwald, who tweeted the following Moore post, added tartly: "Unsurprisingly, Bill Kristol believes telling the truth should disqualify one from govt jobs (keeping him eligible)"

Visit Moore's blog to read the entire post...

 I see you're mad that back in 2007 former Sen. Chuck Hagel said that we were obviously "fighting for oil" in Iraq. You explain this was "vulgar and disgusting" and "could be the straw that breaks the back of Hagel's chances" to be Obama's next Defense Secretary.
     Since you feel so strongly about this, I wanted to make sure you heard about four other prominent people who've said the same thing. (I should have mentioned them yesterday with the Chuck Hagel stuff, I apologize.)

1. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." – Alan Greenspan, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, in his 2007 memoir. (Read about it here. Greenspan then lamely tried to walk this back, when he found out just how politically inconvenient it was…while admitting a Bush White House official told him "unfortunately, we can’t talk about oil.")
2. "Of course we should go to war for oil. It's like saying, you're going to war just for oxygen, just for food. We need oil. That's a good reason to go to war." – Ann Coulter, author, April 11, 2011. (Watch her say that here at 37:30.)
3. "Of course it’s about oil, it's very much about oil, and we can’t really deny that. From the standpoint of a solider who's now fought in the middle east for six years – my son-in-law's fought there for four years, my daughter's been over there, my son has served the nation – my family has been fighting for a long time." – Gen. John Abizaid, former commander of CENTCOM, October 13, 2007. (Watch Abizaid say this here.)
4. "We're not in the middle east to bring sweetness and light to the whole world. That's nonsense. We're in the middle east because we and our European friends and our European non-friends depend on something that comes from the middle east, namely oil." – Midge Decter, author, May 21, 2004. (Listen here, at 35:55.)

Outserve-SLDN tells Chuck Hagel to put up or shut up

Here's what OutServe-SLDN's Allyson Robinson said to Buzzfeed:

Senator Hagel clearly has the military credentials and experience to do the job of running our nation’s Defense Department — at OutServe-SLDN, we have no doubt about that — and we appreciate his apology for the anti-gay remarks he made in 1998 and the commitment he expressed to LGBT service members and their families. It will now be incumbent upon him during the nomination and confirmation process to lay out demonstrable actions he will take to support that commitment.

Senator Hagel has said he is ‘committed to LGBT military families,’ so, if nominated and confirmed, he should immediately extend, via secretarial directive, all benefits available to married same-sex military couples and families while the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is still on the books. He said he is ‘fully supportive of open service,’ so he should extend military equal opportunity and nondiscrimination policies so that all qualified Americans who wish to serve this nation in uniform may do so without fear of harassment or discrimination. Steps such as these would do a great deal to allay the concerns many in our community have expressed over the last several weeks. I look forward in the weeks ahead to discussing these and other issues important to LGBT service members and their families with Senator Hagel and his designees.

MSNBC: The campaign against Chuck Hagel

Below: Hagel vs. Joe Lieberman, disparagingly called "the Senator from Tel Aviv," on Meet The Press in 2007.

Log Cabin Republicans won't say who paid for their anti-Hagel NYT ad; in NE, a pro-Hagel ad paid for by Jewish son of a Buffett Berkshire-Hathaway millionaire

"Bobby" Eisenberg placed a four-column, below-the-fold
ad in last Saturday's Omaha World-Herald supporting
the nomination of former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel.
Eisenberg's parents were early Warren Buffett investors.
(A $10,000 1956 preBerkshire-Hathaway investment
in Buffett Associates, Ltd is now worth about half a
billion dollars..

Gay journalist Glenn Greenwald, writing for the Manchester Guardian, tried to find out who is using the Log Cabin Republicans to take down a possible Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense nomination. LCR wouldn't tell Greenwald who paid for their full-page NYT ad, which reputedly cost in excess of $140,000, money that evidently the LCR doesn't have lying around.

I posed several questions to LCR about the funding and motive behind this ad.
     In response, the group's Executive Director, R. Clark Cooper, confirmed that LCR did not pay for the ad out of its existing funds. Rather, he said, the ad campaign "is being funded by a number of donors". But he not only refused to identify any of those donors, but also has thus far refused to say whether those "donors" are from the self-proclaimed "pro-Israel" community and/or are first-time donors to LCR: in other words, whether these donors are simply exploiting gay issues and the LCR to advance an entirely unrelated agenda as a means of attacking Hagel.
     As for why LCR would suddenly object to the anti-gay record of Hagel despite a history of supporting more virulently anti-gay Republicans, Cooper claimed that "LCR is particularly concerned about Chuck Hagel as a potential Defense Secretary because of the role he would play in continuing to oversee the implementation of open service of the military." But he did not respond to my follow-up inquiry about why, then, LCR endorsed Mitt Romney - who has long supported Don't Ask, Don't Tell and other anti-gay measures - as President.
     Why would this group be so moved by concerns about a possible Defense Secretary's anti-gay record that they take out a full-page ad against him in the New York Times, but just three months ago endorsed someone who is at least as anti-gay for the position of Commander-in-Chief, which obviously has far more influence on such policies than a Defense Secretary?
     What makes this all the more inexplicable is that, a couple of weeks before the LCR ad was placed, the very same R. Clark Cooper spoke out in praise of Hagel to the Gay City News:

"I recall working with Senator Chuck Hagel and his staff during the Bush administration and he was certainly not shy about expressing his criticisms. But despite his criticisms, Hagel voted with us most of the time and there was no question he was committed to advancing America's interests abroad. As for his nomination to be secretary of defense, it is well worth noting that Senator Hagel is a combat veteran who has hands-on experience in the field. The battlefield is not just theory for him."

At some point thereafter, LCR decided not only that Hagel must be publicly smeared as anti-gay and anti-Israel, but that the group just had to take an extraordinary and incredibly expensive step - a full-page ad in the New York Times - to do so. And then magically, the substantial funding for that anti-Hagel ad materialized.
     While I agree with those who insist that a Hagel nomination would not meaningfully change administration policy, the goal of the anti-Hagel smear campaign is to ensure that there can be no debate and no diversity of views on Israel when it comes to top government officials.

Israel First lobby now worried that Chuck Hagel would treat the Jewish state 'just like anyone else'

If you ever doubted the sense of entitlement that AIPAC, Israel, and its supporters have in respect of meddling in US policy to effect preferential treatment of an "ally" which did not send troops to fight with those of this country in either Gulf War I or Vietnam even though dozens of other countries (from Spain to Poland) did, then you need read no further than the brazen quote below from an undisclosed "Jewish Nebraskan" that we found here.

     Another politically active Jewish Nebraskan who claims to have known Hagel for “almost 20 years, politically and non-politically,” spoke to The Algemeiner on condition of anonymity. “I was alarmed with his views about Israel,” said the source.
     As Secretary of Defense, “He would treat Israel just like anyone else, no special treatment […] of course it would be damaging to Israel.”

Meanwhile, the Log Cabin Republicans have suddenly become outraged at Hagel's 14-year-old anti-gay remarks and have taken out a full page ad in the New York Times to ruin his prospects of being named Secretary of Defense.

Israel Firsters, LGBT groups, target anticipated nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense

Conservative Hagel, right, with younger, liberal
brother Tom, the only known American siblings
to serve in the same infantry squad in Vietnam.

Update: Today, an aide to Hagel relayed the following to Politico:

My comments 14 years ago in 1998 were insensitive. They do not reflect my views or the totality of my public record, and I apologize to Ambassador Hormel and any LGBT Americans who may question my commitment to their civil rights. I am fully supportive of ‘open service’ and committed to LGBT military families.”

Conservative groups have been critical of the prospect of a Chuck Hagel nomination for Secretary of Defense because they see Hagel, who almost died for his country in Vietnam, as insufficiently supportive of Israel — which sent no troops either to Vietnam or, as dozens of other countries did, to Kuwait during the Gulf War in the early 1990s.
     Yesterday, Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said Hagel's “consistent anti-LGBT” record” in the Senate raise serious questions about where he stands today and that “The next secretary of defense must be supportive of open service as well as equal benefits for lesbian and gay military families, and Sen. Hagel must address these issues immediately. Whomever is selected to be the next secretary ... needs to understand there are clear expectations for progress.”
     Griffin's remarks were distributed to the Washington Post and other mainstream news outlets but were not available today in the News Releases page of HRC's website or anywhere else there that AKSARBENT looked.
     OutServe-SLDN Executive Director Allyson Robinson also issued a statement: "At OutServe-SLDN, we expect that anyone being considered by the President for the Secretary of Defense post would embrace one of the signature accomplishments of this administration — the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' — and would be prepared to demonstrate his or her firm commitment to fairness and equality for our nation's men and women in uniform," Robinson said.
     In 1999, Hagel told the New York Times said he opposed repealing DADT, saying “the U.S. armed forces aren’t some social experiment.”
     In respect of President Clinton's nominee for ambassador to Luxembourg, gay meat scion James Hormel, Hegal told the Omaha World-Herald: “They [ambassadors] are representing America. They are representing our lifestyle, our values, our standards. And I think it is an inhibiting factor to be gay — openly, aggressively gay like Mr. Hormel — to do an effective job.”

Hagel said in the article that he had a good chat with Hormel and described him as a “nice fellow.” The GOP senator also made clear that he was not opposed to appointing a gay ambassador.
     He and others took issue with Hormel’s openness and advocacy on gay-rights issues.
     Hagel pointed to a documentary film that Hormel helped fund that showed teachers how they could teach children about homosexuality. Hagel also cited a separate clip showing Hormel at what Hagel described as an anti-Catholic event in San Francisco that featured a group of drag queens known as the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.”
     “It is very clear on this tape that he’s laughing and enjoying the antics of an anti-Catholic gay group in this gay parade,” Hagel said at the time, citing the majority status of Catholics in Luxembourg. “I think it’s wise for the president not to go forward with this nomination.”

     Today, Hagel supporters were in full damage control mode in the pages of an even-handed World-Herald treatment of the story.

     The former Nebraska Senator's defenders pointed out that the senator did not stand in the way of Hormel’s appointment advancing through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which he was a member.
     Nor did Hagel organize opposition to Hormel. Hagel never had a chance to vote up or down on the Senate floor because the Republican leadership never allowed a vote. Clinton ultimately gave Hormel the job through a recess appointment.
     Deb Fiddelke, who was Hagel’s communications director in 1998, came to Hagel’s defense on Thursday.
     “Any group can take any quote out of context and try and create a larger issue and because of the situation, Sen. Hagel can’t speak back right now and defend himself,” Fiddelke told The World-Herald in a front page story today by Joseph Morton and Roseann Moring.

     For years HRC awarded Hagel goose-egg ratings for his hostility to legislation addressing fairer treatment of LGBT folk, but in 2005, Hagel, who opposed marriage equality, also opposed a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

“I’m a conservative. I believe the sanctity of the Constitution of the United States is very important,” he said. “I don’t think you need a constitutional amendment defining marriage.