Steve Clemons

Reuters/Gary Cameron

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez takes on Washington Post veteran reporter Walter Pincus this morning with a Syria-related letter to the editor in this morning's paper. Menendez writes "his wrongheaded commentary fell into an oversimplified story line that Congress is broken."

I think Menendez doesn't get what Pincus is saying, which was:

I have enormous respect for the committee's power to influence foreign policy when it plays its rightful role, but I also believe the actions of the current panel reflect the dysfunction in today's Congress.

The Constitution gives the president sole power to make foreign policy. The Senate does have its roles to play. Under the Constitution, it must give "advice and consent" to treaties and approve presidential appointees, such as ambassadors.

It also must approve funding of the president's budget, and through that process it has an opportunity to adopt, reject or even reshape foreign policy initiatives. By investigating and holding hearings, Senate Foreign Relations and other congressional committees can create public understanding -- and support or opposition -- to a president's foreign policy agenda.

But trying to legislate what President Obama should do when it comes to initiating military intervention in Syria, through providing arms or nonlethal aid, is going too far.

Menendez confirms Pincus' point in his letter this morning by writing, "In crafting this bill, which passed 15 to 3, the committee sought to tip the scales against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and toward groups working to build a free Syria."

More »

Last evening in Manhattan, Senator John McCain met with supporters of a new center named in his honor called the John McCain Institute for International Leadership at Arizona State University. McCain spoke and displayed all of the maverick, straight talk qualities that have both propelled his political career and made him a frustrating partner to many in both parties who have wanted him to either be a cookie cutter conservative or a progressive in GOP attire.

McCain said nothing that would surprise those who know him. He said that the Senate and GOP had to move forward on immigration and that the border control issue was being robustly addressed. He said that these contentious bills of the day probably needed to be wrapped up in a grand bargain that included Republicans compromising on raising new tax revenue and Obama and Democrats conceding that entitlement programs had to be transformed and redirected on to sustainable paths. He said that in his entire political career, he had not seen the temperature on an issue so hot as on the post-Newtown gun legislation. One of his key aides pulled me aside and reminded me that McCain had offered in the past an even stronger version of background checks legislation than the Manchin-Toomey version that recently failed in the Senate but may be back.

Last night, John McCain was the Republican that both Democrats and Independents actually do love, way deep down, even as they publicly deny it. When McCain is speaking truths that he did last night, he is tough to resist. The bottom line is that had John McCain not befuddled his brand with Sarah Palin, many MSNBC watchers could have lived with the presidential version of John McCain they heard last night.

And then Senator McCain said to the assembled wealthy blown away by the effusive radical centrism they had just heard, "Watch the Benghazi hearings tomorrow. They will be interesting."

McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham have locked their jaws on the Obama administration's management of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and the way information was released afterward. The Senators have asserted that the administration is covering up key details of the attack and charge dereliction of leadership and responsibility against both the President and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

I have reviewed the Benghazi timelines that conservatives Stephen Hayes and Doug Ross have put together, watched the hearings in which Hillary Clinton prevailed for the most part over theatrically overperforming Senators, and with many, mourned the tragic loss of a great man, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and three other Americans.

At most, until now, what I have mostly seen in the material is partisan posturing exploiting a real tragedy. The State Department is under-resourced on security, and the GOP has been a key part of keeping the diplomatic accounts far too lean both in terms of core security and in terms of supporting the vital forward-directed diplomatic needs America has in convulsive but important parts of the world today.

It's clear to me that the Department of State still has byzantine silos and corridors that inhibit fast flow of information and decision-making, and this deserves scrutiny, rebuke, and demands remedy. And while I think that there is no evidence at all that Ambassador Susan Rice manipulated anything and actually performed well, speaking the scripts being handed her by those concerned about revealing U.S. intelligence assets, there also is an obsessiveness about secrecy inside presidential administrations -- whether run by Democratic or Republican presidents -- that corrodes public trust and undermines some aspects of our form of democracy. It was White House and CIA worry about acknowledging the intelligence assets and contractors in place that resulted in what some on the political right have wrongly framed as 'lies to the nation."

But then all of a sudden, the former Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy in Libya, Gregory Hicks, has emerged with a story of his own -- outlining requests made on his end for the movement of a U.S. Special Forces unit that he says was blocked. In testimony that has already been released, Hicks makes clear that the unit could not have prevented the loss of life that unfolded. Bret Bair of Fox News has apparently reported that he heard that the Special Forces units could have intervened and made a difference -- a matter now in dispute.

But where Hicks, who has all of a sudden found himself embraced by many conservative political action operatives, is absolutely right is that the unit could have helped provide aid and helped to stand off any further terrorist action against U.S. or allied personnel in Benghazi beyond what occurred. One did not necessarily know when or how the conflict would end -- others could have perished that night even if the Special Forces personnel would have not mattered in the first two phases of the siege.

Hicks matters not because his testimony reveals that the outcome on the ground per se would have been any different. He matters because none of us knew about his requests or role until a few days ago.

That is unacceptable. I don't know Hicks, but he has a distinguished record of service. Thus far, his account -- which will be discussed at length today in U.S. Senate hearings -- has largely been substantiated by spokespeople for the Pentagon and Department of State. He may be angry and wants to set history right about what happened, when. I don't blame him for this at all and hope that he manages a judiciousness in his commentary that helps the public achieve what it deserves -- the truth.

But the administration needs to step back and ask how is it that Hicks, no matter what his story might have been, was never offered as part of the story. He is sharing nothing I yet see that would have changed the outcome on the ground.

Obsessive executive branch secrecy is a problem for the country -- and the White House has been caught by John McCain and Lindsey Graham when there was no reason at all that this needed to be the case.

Several academics emailed me yesterday about an email from Palgrave Macmillian Publishers titled "Debating Israeli Apartheid Week" and then listing a number of books representing the Palestinian side of the argument, all published by publishing houses that Palgrave MacMillan distributes.  

As noted in the box above, Palgrave MacMillan writes:

Debating Israeli Apartheid Week

In conjunction with the 9th Annual Israeli Apartheid Week, take a look at our featured titles from our distribution partners Pluto Press, I.B. Tauris Publishers and Zed Books, bringing attention to this moment of the Palestinian struggle.

Learn more about the IAW here and join the debate!

One of the emails to me referencing this book roster said "Boy, after Hagel won confirmation, guess the dam broke and things are changing fast."

Listed among the books were Generation Palestine: Voices from the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement; Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy; Palestine in Israeli School Books: Ideology and Propoganda in Education; and Narrating Conflict in the Middle East: Discourse, Image and Communications Practices in Lebanon and Palestine.

Several thoughts: First, Senator Chuck Hagel's confirmation as President Obama's new Secretary of Defense is more disconnected from the Israel-Palestine ball field than most want to admit, but his confirmation gives pragmatic policy thinking a bit of a boost -- but it doesn't come at the cost of the turbo-charged pro-Israel community. I offer that modifier to distinguish between the ultra-pro-Israel crowd and the less-hyperventilating pro-Israel crowd a la J Street.

Second, things haven't changed at Palgrave MacMillan. Received this email today from them:

In response to our earlier email

Palgrave Macmillan would like to express our regrets for the e-mail sent in error on Monday morning.

While many of our authors have published seminal works debating various aspects of the Israeli/Palestine conflict, and Palgrave Macmillan is committed to promoting scholarship, research and debate on this difficult topic, we would never endorse one particular political point of view. The wording used in the e-mail is unacceptable, and the e-mail does not represent the views of Palgrave Macmillan, distribution partners or its employees.

The e-mail was sent without having gone through the usual checks and processes, for which we sincerely apologise. We are working with the team involved to find out how this happened, and to ensure it does not happen again.

Amy Bourke
Corporate Communications Manager
Palgrave Macmillan

The books that Palgrave highlighted are actually interesting and worthwhile books to read. They are academic, reality based, and thoughtful. I'm sure that there are equally constructive, probing books on the other side of the argument as well -- and some likely published by Palgrave.

It would have been useful of Palgrave MacMillan to modify its invalidation of the first email -- which it argued implied endorsement of Israeli Apartheid Week -- with books that argue that this is an unfair and incorrect framing of the Palestinian-Israel circumstance.

I wonder if in the time of Eisenhower of JFK, if a publisher had sent a list of books out highlighting American civil rights struggles if it would have been withdrawn in the way that Palgrave did. 

It's important for people to realize that the Israel-Palestine situation is not solved, remains tortured for people on both sides, that permanent displacement of people from their homes and land is not something most Americans or others around the world want to accept as a fait accompli.

The enthusiasm of the first Palgrave note was perhaps in poor taste -- but not the notion of marketing books to people who have an interest in this subject. 

I recommend that Palgrave find other books that it either distributes or those that even rival houses publish to show the other side of the argument, those who disagree strongly with the notion that Israel is evolving towards a racially, religiously and ethnically divided Apartheid state. I'd probably also add a roster of books that contain different future visions for Israel -- ranging from one that goes back to borders from 1947, or alternatively from 1967, or that essentially absorbs the Occupied Territories in a greater Israel with borders further out than those recognized today. 

Those kinds of rosters would promote smart and interesting policy discussion on an important and painful subject that should not be ignored.

More »

The Hagel nomination fight is done. It's time to move on to challenges that matter and get beyond personality politics.

Some still seem to want to fight battles over who did what to whom, and I agree with Dana Milbank that a disconcerting strand of McCarthyism appeared in this fight and was fortunately beaten back. That said, I think after a battle it's important to show respect to those who were on the other side.

They have different priorities. They see the world differently -- and it's important to understand that and salute their own magnanimity after this sort of skirmish.

Bill Kristol put out the following statement yesterday. It's classy, and as good as it will get from the side who really did not want to see Hagel confirmed. Had the Hagel backers lost, I hope they (and I) would have found a track to be magnanimous and future-oriented.

Statement by William Kristol, Chairman, Emergency Committee for Israel, on the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense:

We fought the good fight, and are proud to have done so. We salute all those -- Democrats and Republicans, Christians and Jews -- who joined with us in the effort to secure a better Secretary of Defense. We are heartened that the overwhelming majority of senators from one of the two major parties voted against confirming Mr. Hagel.

We take some comfort in Mr. Hagel's confirmation conversions on the issues of Israel and Iran, and do believe that, as a result of this battle, Mr. Hagel will be less free to pursue dangerous policies at the Defense Department and less inclined to advocate them within the administration.

And since hope is an American characteristic and a Jewish virtue, we will also say that we hope Mr. Hagel will rise to the occasion and successfully discharge his weighty duties. In this task we wish him well. This battle against Chuck Hagel is over.

The fight for a principled, pro-Israel foreign policy goes on.

While I don't agree with the framing or principal points in Kristol's note, I respect the spirit of them. 

When John Bolton resigned, after his recess-appointed term as ambassador in the United Nations ended, I did my best to remind people of his considerable capabilities and his service to the nation, despite what many perceived to be deficits in his views on what American internationalism should be. This is what the contending sides in many of our policy battles need to demonstrate; it's a good and important lesson for America's youth watching the behavior of national leaders and even pundits.

It's interesting to me that while Bolton never received a Senate vote on his appointment to serve as UN ambassador, he did have a vote when he was confirmed as under secretary of state for arms control and international security affairs. He received 43 no votes against his confirmation, not unlike the 41 nays against Hagel.

Those who supported Bolton then didn't believe that those substantial nays crippled him, and he went on -- in their eyes -- to accomplish substantial things, like the Proliferation Security Initiative (which I liked) and an ongoing assault on international institutions and treaties that they feel crimp American sovereignty (where I have differences).

Hopefully, Secretary of Defense Hagel will continue to impress his advocates with his smart strategic sensibilities and leadership -- but will also draw even grudging respect from those who are his skeptics. 

Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the new ranking member of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, think they have found a way to gum up progress on the confirmation process of Chuck Hagel.

They want "copies" of speeches he has reportedly given and for which he was occasionally compensated. Hagel has sent  all available speeches -- including video fragments or transcripts if they exist -- to the committee and has  confessed that he just didn't use prepared texts for a number of these possibly great moments of Hagel oratory. 

But they seem to want them anyway!

While I personally think Hagel is always better with a prepared text (Sorry Chuck), like many US senators -- including Inhofe and Cruz no doubt -- Hagel thinks he gives pretty good remarks without the scribbles drafted by an aide organizing his words. Believe me, Chuck Hagel is wrong on this, but he suffers from the same delusions that nearly all of his peers do. From my perspective, Hagel is a top notch thinker and strategist -- but his speaking could always get a boost from a Jon Lovett- or Jon Favreau-type. After all, look what Lovett did for Obama's Correspondent's Dinner fun with Donald Trump.

I've seen John McCain, Jim Inhofe, Jeff Sessions, Roy Blunt and others speak extemporaneously -- and if they were in Hagel's seat, I'm sure they'd be a bit miffed if senators Jeanne Shaheen or Carl Levin or Joe Manchin were pounding on them to produce speech texts that don't exist. They need to get over it. Calling Hagel a "liar" is beneath them, beneath the institution in which they work, and not healthy for democracy.

They also want financial information about donations received by and business done in the private and public firms Hagel was associated with but did not actually control.

Ted Cruz's wife works for Goldman Sachs. Let's turn this around a bit. Should Cruz's wife, Heidi, eventually be nominated for something big time -- or Senator Cruz himself have ambitions beyond his senate perch -- will he be able to compel her to make Goldman Sachs, which has considerable equities involving the US national interest, disclose its business and relationships domestic and foreign? I certainly hope not. Wrong way to get at Goldman Sachs -- and an inappropriate expectation from the eventually-nominated-to-something Ted or Heidi Cruz.

Goldman Sachs is a private firm. Chevron, for whom Hagel sits on a board of directors, is a private firm. The Atlantic Council, whose board Hagel is also on, is a nonprofit, private firm.

If the Senate wants to call a hearing about Chevron's business or the Atlantic Council's international funders and activities, it should do so! By all means.

Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman once sat on the board of the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom, an institution that I am proud of and for which I was grateful for the support of these Senators. But it would be wrong for any United States senator or committee to think that John McCain could force the Nixon Center (now the Center for the National Interest) to disclose private financial information on his behalf.

Should Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin see merit in the requests made by Senators Cruz and others about matters that are proprietary to private firms and not in Hagel's latitude to offer, then this is going to be a really fun slippery slope. The entangled relationships of all US senators and spouses would be screened to see what they might be able to cough up about firms they have some connection to but don't run.

I don't think we should go down that road -- but if Senator Cruz compels it, it should be interesting.

5:52 pm.  The Senate Armed Service Committee hearings on Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination to serve as the next Secretary of Defense were grueling and just ended. 

Hagel was rarely humorous and basically plodded through cautiously, seriously, professorially taking a lot of hits from mostly GOP critics on the Committee.  The Dem members, for the most part, seemed to want statements on the record that would allow them to justify a yes vote in support of Hagel.  Gillibrand wanted to hear about protections for LGBT rights and women.  Shaheen wanted to protect NH shipyards.  Senator Donnelly wanted commitment to support the National Guard.  Mark Udall wanted specific statements of support for Israel -- and statements that the military option was on the table with regard to Iran.

I'll reflect on the day later as I need to get to MSNBC's studio -- but I have to note that Senators Jeff Sessions, Kelly Ayotte, and Roy Blunt -- despite obvious concerns and potential opposition to Hagel did it with class and civility.  They knew their stuff.  They were Hagel's toughest, most serious critics -- and I don't think Hagel won them over.

Senators Cruz, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Inhofe seemed to want to have a public fight and wanted to do all they could to force Hagel into confessions of past sins.  Cruz oddly had bad information suggesting that Chas Freeman and Hagel were intimately connected and travel buddies.  Bad staff work on that front.

While many will make much of the exchange with McCain, Hagel won I think -- in the sense that he reminded Americans that their are multiple costs associated with military action and in determining whether the Iraq surge was a success, Hagel reminded that 1,200 Americans died during that action and thousands more were injured. 

Bottom line is that I think Hagel -- who has the rough edge and war-forged voice of a real soldier -- met expectations but did not really beat them.  Kissengerian humor injected into discussions of war and peace would have helped a lot.  Nonetheless, I expect that all of those inclined to support Hagel yesterday will stay where they are -- and those predisposed against him will remain where they are.

I think that there are a good number more Senators willing to confirm than not -- and those numbers were not moved or altered by today's performance.

4:54 pm.  Hagel tells Senator Manchin that he'll always be honest with Congress; always give them what's going on straight.  That was an impressive moment.

Manchin concludes reflecting on an old West Virginia saying that "If you can't change you mind, you can't change anything." Hagel chuckled.

4:49 pm.  Senator Joe Manchin starts out the next round of questions saying that he wants to apologize for some of the tone and demeanor shown by some others on the Armed Services Committee.  Manchin asks Hagel how he got into Vietnam -- and then Hagel smartly noted that he knew Manchin tried repeatedly to enlist but was blocked because of knee problems.  Good move by Hagel.

Hagel now speaking about his early military enlistment process -- and it's always good TV to listen to a hero of military service talk about what he did to serve the nation in wartime.  Many vets will appreciate Hagel's story.

LOL.  Finally some humor!!  Hagel acknowledges that many leading Israelis have endorsed his candidacy as Secretary of Defense.  Manchin said apparently other countries want him -- and Hagel says, "Yes, it seems Iran wants me," with a chuckle.  Well handled.  This hearing could have used more humor.

4:39 pm  Senator Inhofe just said that he is stating his own thoughts, not those of any other interests.  Hallelujah.  Good for a US Senator to get to that frame.  Inhofe says he believes Egyptian President Morsi is an enemy -- and Egypt's military is a friend.  Interesting and pretty binary perspective. 

Senator Inhofe also asked Hagel whether he personally thought Inhofe's questions about the Iranian government's alleged enthusiasm for Hagel was disrespectful.  Hagel said no and that he thought it was a legitimate question. 

I disagree.  I think that the question was tantamount to asking Hagel if he was a traitor -- so count me as one who thought that the question was out of line -- and questioned the core patriotism of Chuck Hagel.

So with all due respect to Senator Inhofe, I do think he should reconsider his line of attack on that.  It is disrespectful to ask someone like Hagel whether they are American patriots or are instead dupes representing foreign countries -- whether Israel or Iran or China or the Brits or Japan.

4:34 pm.  Senator Shaheen draws Hagel to reiterate his statement of support for Israel's security.  This is interesting as a core part of Shaheen's constituency in New Hampshire are Arab-Americans, mostly Lebanon-descended.  I liked her response because it showed as well that she does not make a false choice between those with a strong interest in Israel and those with a strong interest in other parts of the Middle East.

4:27 pm.  Senator Jeanne Shaheen, for whom I have a lot of time, finally sort of gets something many other US Senators on the Armed Services Committee don't get.  She realizes Hagel is likely to be confirmed and that he will have tons of influence on which US military assets are shuttered and which are reinforced.  Shaheen just got Hagel's commitment to keep some New Hampshire military assets, particularly shipyards, bolstered and in good financial health.  Smart.  Not sure the Texas delegation is going to be all that welcome by those who seem themselves part of the Chuck Hagel franchise at the Pentagon -- though I'm fairly sure that Hagel will not bear any ill will towards Senators Cruz, Inhofe, and Cornyn and won't penalize their military assets when real austerity measures hit the DoD budget.

But those who see themselves as Hagelites?  Not so sure, Texas and Oklahoma will make much headway with them.

4:11 pm. Senator Tim Kaine is demonstrating a facility with national security issues that shows he knows something more about all of this than the notes his staff hands him. I wish a good number of the other Senators on the United States Armed Services Committee knew more about armed services, foreign policy and national security policy challenges facing the country. Some are detail savvy -- but not enough of them.
 


This was a strange exchange between Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Chuck Hagel earlier today in the hearings.  Senator Graham pounds Hagel to name "one dumb thing" that the US Congress did as a result of what Hagel had inaptly termed "the Jewish lobby" in an interview with Aaron David Miller.

The real fact is Hagel never said that Congress had done something stupid.  He actually said that the Lobby had done stupid things that had ultimately undermined the interests of Israel. 

Here is a post I did about this earlier:

2:05 pm.  Interesting factoid.  Senator Lindsey Graham hammered Chuck Hagel to give him one instance of when the Congress had done something stupid in response to the Israel, or as Hagel said, Jewish Lobby.  The fact is that Hagel, in the interview with Aaron David Miller, never said Congress had done anything stupid as a result of the lobby. 

What Hagel really said is that the lobby does some 'dumb things' that are not in the interest of Israel.  Ambassador and then Israel Foreign Ministry Spokesman once told a visiting group that AIPAC, like some other diaspora groups, sometimes hugs so much that it hurts. 

That aside, here is exactly what Hagel said:

"The political reality is that you intimidate, not you -- that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Again, I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't think it's in the interest of Israel. I just don't think it's smart for Israel. Now, everyone has a right to lobby; that's as it should be. Come see your senator, your congressman, and if you can get the guy to sign your letter, great, wonderful. But as I reminded somebody not too long ago, in fact it was a group I was speaking to in New York, and we got into kind of an interesting give and take on Iran. A couple of these guys said we should just attack Iran. And I said, 'Well, that's an interesting thought; we're doing so well in Iraq.' And I said it would really help Israel. And this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn't supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said let me clear something up here, in case there is any doubt. I said, 'I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator.' I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States -- not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that. Now I know most senators don't talk like I do.

3:55 pm  Senator Mike Lee is trying to trip Hagel up on Israel-Palestine security issues, but it seems to me that Lee started off oddly, defining Israel as potentially America's most important ally globally.  What happened to the UK, to Japan, to other states that actually throw a great deal of their own resources into large geostrategic challenges facing the United States.  Israel is important no doubt -- but more important than these two other vital relationships?

2:05 pm.  Interesting factoid.  Senator Lindsey Graham hammered Chuck Hagel to give him one instance of when the Congress had done something stupid in response to the Israel, or as Hagel said, Jewish Lobby.  The fact is that Hagel, in the interview with Aaron David Miller, never said Congress had done anything stupid as a result of the lobby. 

What Hagel really said is that the lobby does some 'dumb things' that are not in the interest of Israel.  Ambassador and then Israel Foreign Ministry Spokesman once told a visiting group that AIPAC, like some other diaspora groups, sometimes hugs so much that it hurts. 

That aside, here is exactly what Hagel said:

"The political reality is that you intimidate, not you -- that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Again, I have always argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't think it's in the interest of Israel. I just don't think it's smart for Israel. Now, everyone has a right to lobby; that's as it should be. Come see your senator, your congressman, and if you can get the guy to sign your letter, great, wonderful. But as I reminded somebody not too long ago, in fact it was a group I was speaking to in New York, and we got into kind of an interesting give and take on Iran. A couple of these guys said we should just attack Iran. And I said, 'Well, that's an interesting thought; we're doing so well in Iraq.' And I said it would really help Israel. And this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn't supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said let me clear something up here, in case there is any doubt. I said, 'I'm a United States senator. I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator.' I support Israel, but my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States -- not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that. Now I know most senators don't talk like I do.

1:57 pm.  In response to Senator Donnelly from Indiana, Chuck Hagel says that this is the time in which we are debating what the core military mission of the nation will be. He said that this is a time of 'choices and priorities'.  Hagel went on to say that the entire universe of what our responsibilities will be and how we will be tasked with carrying out those missions in defense of the security of the United States is what he and the Committee were discussing today. Hagel says that the authorizing role of the committees in Congress will have substantial sway in the direction of America's national security mission.

Hagel said that he would be strongly supportive of the National Guard, in further equipping them and assuring resources there for those in reserve to back up active global US military missions.

1:45 pm.  Senator Roy Blunt opens with a generous and civil tone -- admitting that much of what he might have wanted to discuss about Israel and unilateral sanctions towards Iran, which he helped marshal forward and draft in the House of Representatives, had been exhausted in earlier discussion -- but then Blunt asked a smart question about the size, capabilities, and battle readiness of America's military forces.

Blunt cited a Wall Street Journal article saying that US forces just aren't where they should be. Hagel responded that we have work to do -- but the fact is, as Hagel said, "we have been at war for 12 years now."  Hagel and Blunt seemed to agree that we need to be smart about the investments in the future of the military forces, so that the US does not lose its edge in military capacity.

Hagel has also said that we will have to work to maintain the defense industrial base.  He said that the uncertainties of the sequester have created a great deal of stress and uncertainty in the system about the defense systems acquisition process -- and we need to get beyond that uncertainty.  Fair point.

1:30 pm.  Senator Lindsey Graham once participated in a great evening at the Motion Picture Association in which his favorite film, Seven Days in May, was screened.  It was an outstanding event -- and the Senator articulated that the film reminded him of the dangers of "military demagoguery." The film focused on the rise of the military and the threat it posed to civilian leadership in the White House. 

It's interesting that Graham is posing questions (and seeming to answer them for Hagel) that express Graham's support for a martial posture in military affairs -- rather than allowing discussion of restraint.  Hagel seemed to do a good job of responding to a number of Senator Graham's concerns, agreeing with him on the characterization of Iran as a terrorist state.  I don't think Graham's concerns that Hagel did not jump on the bandwagon and support a letter co-signed by 96 other Senators about Israel's security did not come off well.  It's interesting to note, just in contrast, that Senators Cornyn, Cruz, and Inhofe didn't jump on the bandwagon of support for John Kerry's confirmation either. 

More on this issue of letter-signing later.

1:21 pm.  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand getting Hagel to commit to stronger leadership in looking after women serving in the military forces reflecting on the reports of abuse and violence, as well as rapes, toward women.  She asked him about Israel, about Iran, about gays -- and got him on the record committing to strong support of Israel's security and a commitment to keep all options open on Iran.  He said he would institute a zero tolerance policy on violence towards women.

Previously, Senator Joe Manchin praised Hagel's independence -- of saying that he didn't determine his votes by the votes of others, and Manchin embraced that -- saying he was often in the same position.

One of the views that Senator Manchin holds that I hope gets more air time eventually is that despite the increase in military spending over time, the number of men and women in uniform has mostly stayed flat.  The implication is that much of the increases in defense spending have gone to accounts that haven't increased the muscle and structure of the actual military -- but have increased the amount of resources going to private contractors.  Expect to hear more about this subject as we move past the Hagel hearings to real discussions of what the future of defense spending will look like.

12:54 pm.  Now watching the hearings from MSNBC studio.  Senator Ayotte is challenging Hagel on perceived discrepancies between the much-discussed Global Zero report and some of his statements in the hearing.  She was civil, but pointed and really wants Hagel to defend the current structure of America's nuclear deterrent.  The problem I have with this line of questioning is that Ayotte and Hagel could create a genuine learning moment by thinking through the unthinkables about the parts of the nuclear deterrent that will eventually become anachronistic.  For me, manned bombers are part of that withering triad.

12:04 pm.  Senator Mark Udall asks Hagel to clarify his position on LGBT rights, and Hagel makes clear his strong support for LGBT rights, consistent with current law.

I am now rushing out to appear on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show Mitchell Reports. I will post updates as I can. 

11:52 am. Senator Saxby Chambliss just offered Chuck Hagel his congratulations on his nomination and expressed strong feelings of friendship for Hagel. But now he has asked Hagel to drill down into Iran issues -- and quoted from Hagel's book in which the defense secretary nominee said that given that we stumbled through faulty intel into a mistaken war with Iraq, we needed to be ever more careful in our positioning and posturing towards Iran. Chambliss asks Hagel why we should 'dialogue' with a terrorist state like Iran and asks him why Hagel did not vote to support designating Iran's IRGC as a terrorist organization.

Hagel responds first on the Revolutionary Guard issue. Hagel reminds Chambliss that there were 22 US Senators against this designation. Hagel references former Senator Jim Webb who articulated during the IRGC debate that the US had never designated a part of a legitimate, sovereign government a terrorist organization.

Webb's view was that voting to pass was tantamount to giving the President of the United States authority to go to war with Iran, without coming back to Congress for its consent and approval. Hagel believed that we were already in two wars at the time and was not ready to give easy consent to the White House to engage in a third war without the advice and consent of the Senate. Notes that then Senators Lugar and Biden -- Republican and Democrat -- both voted against the IRGC terrorist organization legislation.

Hagel also believes that President Obama has gone as far as he should probably go publicly in defining the 'red lines' that matter in consideration of a potential military strike against Iran. Hagel says that Obama has "said he has Israel's back."

Hagel said that Iran is probably as great a threat as the US has today -- but also says that North Korea is 'beyond a threat' as a nuclear power, and that Pakistan remains a troubling and complex problem.

Hagel says that the best way to deal with Iran is to try every possible initiative -- says engagement is what great powers do -- before considering a new war. War should be last resort. Hagel says engagement is not appeasement.

11:27 am.  Super full house here.  It's impressive that Senator Jeff Sessions has read and knows in depth the Global Zero report on rethinking and restructuring America's nuclear forces.  He is showing himself to be a high quality thinker and raising serious issues which are potentially different from the positions Hagel holds.  That said, Hagel is testifying under oath that there is a difference between a report that considers long in the future adjustments to America's nuclear profile -- and those that should be our policy tomorrow.  

A couple of my own thoughts on this.  Hagel is a strategic thinker, considering the kinds of hard choices America will have to make in the future.  He should be rewarded and not penalized for thinking about these tough issues in creative ways.  Washington, DC is filled with risk averse people who never sign on to anything potentially controversial because of the prospect that they may have to defend creative, future-oriented, non-status quo thinking at a Senate confirmation hearing.

I think Hagel is solidly in line with what Sessions actually believes -- though their views of the future differ.  That said, Sessions wins points for seriousness, for a deep dive that is creating a quality encounter.  He is civil -- and whether he supports Hagel or not, I'm impressed with both Sessions and Hagel in this particular exchange over America's nuclear posture and the structure of its forces.

11:24 am.  All of the traffic on Chuck #Hagel seems to be crashing Twitter over and over again.  What's up with this? 

11:18 am.  In response to Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), Chuck Hagel explains that one of the frames through which he considers the cost-benefit results of military deployments is from the perspective of the US serviceman and servicewoman sent to front lines.  He reminds that 1,200 Americans were killed during the Iraq surge and thousands of others urged.  He says he is not sure that these results were worth what was achieved inside Iraq and whether America's strategic assets were enhanced.

11:05 am. Senator John McCain opens up directly and bluntly -- saying that these are not minor differences between friends but rather significant policy divergences. McCain opens up with Hagel over his defection from McCain and the GOP in opposing the surge in Iraq. I once thought McCain may surprise us and end up voting in support of Hagel. His tone and the direction he has taken -- in which McCain felt betrayed by Hagel -- makes me think McCain is no longer a possible 'yes' vote.

McCain hammering Hagel, interrupting Hagel, demanding a yes or no response to his question on the Iraq surge. Hagel tells him that he will defer to history to answer that question -- and wanted to explain. McCain says "let the record show that Senator Hagel refused to answer the question." Hagel then explains that he stands by his view that the Iraq surge was the worst decision that the government has made since Vietnam.

McCain makes his vote subject to Hagel's view of the Iraq surge. Feisty moments. McCain clearly going to be a NO vote.

10:50 am. Senator Inhofe pressing Hagel on his nuclear views and his activities with "Global Zero or whatever that organization was," as expressed by Inhofe. Inhofe asked about Hagel's views about supporting the nuclear triad of US forces -- and Hagel said he agrees with Inhofe and that the Obama administration's policies are consistent with Inhofe. But Inhofe doesn't believe him.

Inhofe goes over the line and asks why the Iranian Foreign Ministry so strongly supports Hagel's nomination. Wow. He's the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee asking a question that really ponders whether Hagel is a traitor to his country. Amazing.

10:41 am. In Q&A starting with Senator Carl Levin, Hagel says he supports the Pentagon command staff's concerns as well as those of Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that a sequster would have highly negative impacts on the Pentagon and its security deliverables.

On Iran, Hagel said there has never been disagreement on the objective of keeping Iran away from a nuclear weapon, but rather differences on the efficacy of different approaches. In essence, Hagel opposes unilateral sanctions as ineffective -- though he admitted he had voted for them on occasion on a case by case basis.

Senator Chuck Hagel is now offering his opening statement before the Committee. He said his son wasn't there today because he said he was taking a test. Drawing some chuckles from even those Senators most opposed to him, Hagel said this fact still needed to be confirmed.

Here is Hagel's statement as prepared for delivery:

Chuck Hagel Statement Before the Senate Armed Services Committee January 31, 2013 As Prepared for Delivery Thank you Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Distinguished Members of the Committee. I am honored to come before you today as the President's nominee to be Secretary of Defense.

I want to thank my friends Sam Nunn and John Warner for their support, encouragement, and friendship over many years. These two distinguished Americans represent what's best about American public service and responsible bipartisanship. They have embodied both in their careers and are models for each of us.

To my family, friends, and fellow veterans who are here this morning - and those who are not - thank you. A life is only as good as the family and friends you have and the people you surround yourself with.

I also want to thank my friend Leon Panetta for his tremendous service to our country over so many years. If I'm given the privilege of succeeding him, it will be a high honor.

Finally, I want to thank President Obama for his confidence and trust in me. I am humbled by the opportunity and possibility he has given me to serve our country once again.

I fully recognize the immense responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense. I assured the President that if I am confirmed by the United States Senate, I will always do my best for our nation and for the men and women - and their families - who are called on to make the enormous sacrifices of military service. Their safety, success, and welfare will always be at the forefront of the decisions I make.

I also assured the President that I would always provide him with my most honest and informed advice. I make that same commitment to this Committee and to the Congress. If confirmed, I will reach out to the members of this Committee for advice and collaboration. It will be a partnership, because the national security challenges America faces require it.

Our nation's security is the highest priority of our leaders and our government. We cannot allow the work of confronting the great threats we face today to be held hostage to partisanship on either side of the aisle, or by differences between the bodies represented in Articles I and II of our Constitution. The stakes are too high. Men and women of all political philosophies and parties fight and die for our country. As this Committee knows so well, protecting our national security or committing a nation to war can never become political litmus tests. I know Secretary Panetta has put a strong emphasis on reaching out to the Congress. I, like Leon, come from the Congress, and respect and understand this institution's indispensable role in setting policy and helping govern our country.

We are all products of the forces that shape us. For me, there has been nothing more important in my life - or a more defining influence on my life - than my family. Whether it was helping my mother raise four boys after my father - a World War II veteran - died suddenly at age 39 on Christmas Day, or serving side by side my brother Tom in Vietnam, or the wonderful miracle of my wife Lilibet and me being blessed with two beautiful children. That is who I am. We each bring to our responsibilities "frames of reference" formed by our life's experiences. They help instruct our judgments. We build out from those personal foundations by continually informing ourselves, listening, and learning.

Like each of you, I have a record. A record I am proud of, not because of any accomplishments I may have achieved, or an absence of mistakes, but rather because I've tried to build that record by living my life and fulfilling my responsibilities as honestly as I knew how and with hard work. Under-pinning everything I've done in my life was the belief that we must always be striving to make our nation a better and more secure place for all of our people.

During the twelve years I had the privilege of serving the people of Nebraska in the United States Senate, I cast over 3,000 votes and hundreds of Committee votes. I've also given hundreds of interviews and speeches, and written a book. So, as you all know, I am on the record on many issues.

But no one individual vote, quote, or statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record. My overall worldview has never changed: that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world; that we must lead the international community to confront threats and challenges together; and that we must use all tools of American power to protect our citizens and our interests. I believe, and always have, that America must engage - not retreat - in the world. My record is consistent on these points.

It's clear that we are living at a defining time. Our nation is emerging from over a decade of war. We have brought our men and women in uniform home from Iraq, and have started to bring them home from Afghanistan.

That does not mean the threats we face and will continue to face are any less dangerous or complicated. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Recent events in Mali and Algeria remind us of this reality. Twenty first century complexities, technologies, economies, and threats are bringing the seven billion global citizens closer together. And as our planet adds another two billion people over the next 25 years, the dangers, complications, and human demands will not be lessened, but rather heightened.

Despite these challenges, I believe we also have historic opportunities to help build a safer, more prosperous, more secure, more hopeful and just world than at maybe any time in history. Yes, the curse of intolerance, hatred, and danger exists around the world, and we must continue to be clear-eyed about this danger - and we will be. We will not hesitate to use the full force of the United States military in defense of our security. But we must also be smart, and more importantly wise, in how we employ all of our nation's great power.

America's continued leadership and strength at home and abroad will be critically important for our country and the world. While we will not hesitate to act unilaterally when necessary, it is essential that we work closely with our allies and partners to enhance America's influence and security - as well as global security. If confirmed, I will continue to build on the efforts of this administration and of former Secretary Gates, Secretary Panetta, and Secretary Clinton to strengthen our alliances and partnerships around the world. I will also look forward to working with my former Senate colleague and friend, John Kerry, in this effort.

As I told the President, I am committed to his positions on all issues of national security, specifically decisions that the Department of Defense is in the process of implementing. This includes the Defense Strategic Guidance the President outlined in January 2012. Allow me to briefly address a few of those specific issues now.

First, we have a plan in place to transition out of Afghanistan, continue bringing our troops home, and end the war there - which has been the longest war in America's history. As you know, discussions are ongoing about what the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will look like after 2014. The President has made clear - and I agree - that there should be only two functions for U.S. troops that remain in Afghanistan after 2014: counterterrorism - particularly to target al Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and advising Afghan forces. It's time we forge a new partnership with Afghanistan, with its government and, importantly, with its people.

Second, as Secretary of Defense I will ensure we stay vigilant and keep up the pressure on terrorist organizations as they try to expand their affiliates around the world, in places like Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa. At the Pentagon, that means continuing to invest in and build the tools to assist in that fight, such as special operations forces and new intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technologies. And it will mean working hand-in-hand with our partners across the national security and intelligence communities, to confront these and other threats, especially the emerging threat of cyber warfare.

Third, as I have made clear, I am fully committed to the President's goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and - as I've said in the past - all options must be on the table to achieve that goal. My policy is one of prevention, and not one of containment - and the President has made clear that is the policy of our government. As Secretary of Defense, I will make sure the Department is prepared for any contingency. I will ensure our friend and ally Israel maintains its Qualitative Military Edge in the region and will continue to support systems like Iron Dome, which is today saving Israeli lives from terrorist rocket attacks.

Fourth, while we pursue the reductions in our deployed stockpiles and launchers consistent with the New START Treaty, I am committed to maintaining a modern, strong, safe, ready, and effective nuclear arsenal. America's nuclear deterrent over the last 65 years has played a central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of a World War III. I am committed to modernizing our nuclear arsenal.

As we emerge from this decade of war, we also must broaden our nation's focus overseas as we look at future threats and challenges. As this Committee knows, that's why DoD is rebalancing its resources towards the Asia-Pacific region. We are in the process of modernizing our defense posture across the entire region to defend and deepen our partnerships with traditional allies, especially Japan, South Korea, and Australia; to continue to deter and defend against provocations from states like North Korea, as well as non-state actors; and to expand our networks of security cooperation throughout the region to combat terrorism, counter proliferation, provide disaster relief, fight piracy, and ensure maritime security.

I will continue this rebalancing, even as we continue to work closely with our longtime NATO allies and friends, and with allies and partners in other regions. At the same time, we will continue to focus on challenges in the Middle East and North Africa, where we have clear national interests. Rather, it is a recognition that the United States has been and always will be a Pacific power, and the Asia-Pacific is an increasingly vital part of the globe for America's security and economy. That's why we must become even more engaged in the region over the coming years.

Doing all of this and much more will require smart and strategic budget decisions. I have made it clear I share Leon Panetta's and our service chiefs' serious concerns about the impact sequestration would have on our armed forces. And as someone who has run businesses, I know the uncertainty and turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more difficult to manage the Pentagon's resources. If confirmed, I am committed to effectively and efficiently using every single taxpayer dollar; to maintaining the strongest military in the world; and to working with Congress to ensure the Department has the resources it needs - and that the disposition of those resources is accountable.

Even as we deal with difficult budget decisions, I will never break America's commitment to our troops, our veterans, and our military families. We will continue to invest in the well-being of our all-volunteer force. And, working with the VA and other institutions, we will make sure our troops and their families get the health care, job opportunities, and education they have earned and deserve - just as I did when I co-authored the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill with Senators Jim Webb, John Warner, and Frank Lautenberg. This includes focusing on the mental health of our fighting force, because no one who volunteers to fight and die for our country should feel like they have nowhere to turn.

In my twelve years in the Senate, my one guiding principle on every national security decision I made and every vote I cast was always this: Is our policy worthy of our troops and their families and the sacrifices we ask them to make? That same question will guide me if I am confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Our men and women in uniform and their families must never doubt that their leaders' first priority is them. I believe my record of leadership on veterans issues over the years - going back to my service in the Veterans Administration under President Reagan - demonstrates my rock-solid commitment to our veterans and their families.

We must always take care of our people. That's why I will work to ensure that everyone who volunteers to fight for this country has the same rights and opportunities. As I've discussed with many of you in our meetings, I am fully committed to implementing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and doing everything possible under current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our service members. I will work with the service chiefs as we officially open combat positions to women, a decision that I strongly support. And I will continue the important work that Leon Panetta has done to combat sexual assault in the military. Maintaining the health and well-being of those who serve is critical to maintaining a strong and capable military, because an institution's people must always come first.

As we look ahead to the coming years, we have an extraordinary opportunity now to define what's next for America's military and our country. It is incumbent upon all of us to make decisions that will ensure our nation is prepared to confront any threat we may face, protect our citizens, and remain the greatest force for good in the world.

If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, it will be my great honor - working with the President, this Committee, the Congress, and our military - to ensure our policies are worthy of the service and sacrifice of America's finest men and women. Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

# # #

Senator John Warner tells Senate Armed Services Committee members that Chuck Hagel will hit head on all of the concerns and issues raised by the Members of the Committee -- and that a fair discussion of real issues can be had so that decisions can be made on their merits.

Senators Mark Udall, Shaheen, Manchin, Donnelly, Kane, King, Nelson, Jack Reed, Carl Levin, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, Fischer, Ayotte, Lee listening carefully to John Warner.

Those looking at iPhones and blackberries, or otherwise distracted, while John Warner speaks are: Senators Gilibrand, Kay Hagan, (Hirono just stepped out), McAskill, Inhofe, McCain, Wicker, Lindsey Graham, Blunt, and Cruz.

Two former chairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- San Nunn and John Warner -- are sitting aside Chuck Hagel and will introduce him to the members of the committee. Formidable line up.

Hagel is now in the hearing room, listening to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin. We just received a copy of Ranking Member Senator Jim Inhofe's roster of concerns and expression of opposition to Hagel's confirmation.

Of note are Inhofe's opposition to a vote until Hagel provides copies of eight speeches for which he received honoraria -- noting that Senator Hagel had provided copies of only four speeches.

Inhofe will also say: "Though I respect Senator Hagel, his record to date demonstrates he will be a staunch advocate for the continuation of the misguided policies of President Obama's first term.

Finally, an honest statement that most of this turbulence is about President Obama's policies.
 

Former Senator Max Cleland here. The first protestor just raised a poster asking Hagel to deliver on LGBT commitments if confirmed as Secretary of Defense (pic can be seen at my @SCClemons Twitter feed).

Senator Carl Levin has just opened the hearing -- paying tribute to former ranking member John McCain and welcoming as new Ranking Member Jim Inhofe, who has already communicated his opposition to Senator Hagel's confirmation -- 'before' these hearings. Interesting stewardship model given his new role here.

The crowd is building. Now seated next to Eli Lake, senior national security correspondent for Newsweek/Daily Beast, who has been an intrepid reporter on the Hagel hearings. 

Between us we could do a Showtime mini-series about the politics surrounding the Chuck Hagel nomination.

The hearing room is now super-packed.  Standing room only does not describe it.  Outserve/SLDN, an LGBT advocacy shop for those serving in or who have previously served in the military, is here in force.  Also, the Center for American Freedom has distributed a two-pager on why Hagel must be the worst choice for Defense Secretary ever.  Last item on their list:  Hagel wants to lift the embargo against Cuba. 

In my view, ending the self-defeating, anachronistic, failed embargo against Cuba is one of the best things the Obama administration could do.  But wait, I remember now Senator Jeff Flake largely saying the same thing as Hagel.  Also Richard Lugar, Kit Bond, and others.  

More soon.



8:53 am.  This morning I'm up in SD-G50, which means basement of the Senate Dirksen Office Building, as the media and other notables assemble for the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings on Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination to serve as the next Secretary of Defense.

There is a huge line outside -- and clearly not enough room in here for all of the people who will want to get in. 

For those following, here is a pdf of the Chuck Hagel Statement Before the Senate Armed Services Committee (as prepared for delivery).

Things start up formally in 30 minutes.

Tomorrow morning at 9:30, the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on former Senator Chuck Hagel's nomination by the president to be the next secretary of Defense.

A sizable roster of policy questions were submitted to Hagel to assess his views on everything from China to Iran to nuclear weapons to thoughts on energy management and security.

Here is the pdf of Hagel's responses. Warning. It runs 112 pages long.

Critics charge that Chuck Hagel went on crusade in 1980s to close a USO mission in Israel -- but Israelis involved then say the potential secretary of defense nominee actually saved the operation. 

Is the White House side-stepping the Senate confirmation process in favor of letting a messy, sometimes ugly popularity contest drive its potential nominations?

Something rare just happened.  Rather than me having to dog various of the media handlers or key policy hands at the National Security Council or White House on whether Chuck Hagel is on or off the SecDef list, I just got a phone call from a senior Executive Branch person in the know who said something along the lines that the media are hyperventilating this thing into the wrong direction and that the process of considering nominees is proceeding in a way completely different than the media are telling it.  This person said Hagel is very much on the list.

I asked if Hagel had the edge in the process -- and got nothing more than the above. I was told that there were concerns about "stature" and "command capabilities" of the other publicly mentioned possibilities.

But let's be blunt about something. I can't offer my source's name though can attest to the individual's proximity to some of the nominee discussions. Am I being spun?  Perhaps. The fact is that I did not solicit this particular call and this person has never tilted me wrong before. If Ashton Carter, Jack Reed, Colin Powell, or Michele Flournoy end up standing next to the president introduced as his next SecDef nominee, is the information I just received wrong?  Not necessarily. This is a process where shadows and nuance are the rule.

What has happened in this mess of leaked potential nominees to jobs is that the political advisers around the president are able to take the temperature of various institutions' love or hate of their candidates. I mention institutions rather that citizens because this is entirely an inside-the-Beltway sport. How much will Bill Kristol, the Republican Jewish Coalition and others put into the kitty to fight Hagel? How much is the president willing to invest -- even before a potential nomination reaches the kicking the tires phase?

It's fascinating to watch -- even if the anguish of pundits and media do reach the flamboyance of a Quentin Tarantino movie. The not-yet-nominated candidate for a position, in cases like Susan Rice and Chuck Hagel, are also barred by instruction and convention from defending themselves or saying much in public. This reminds me of a hilarious, anonymously written item run by The Washington Note titled, "To All Those Waiting for the Obama Team Phone Call."  The writer eventually did get quite a cool political appointment in the Obama administration -- and survived the torturous process.

But what is weird about this process is that it starts with a couple of leaks and good journalism -- in the Hagel case with The Cable's Josh Rogin breaking the news that Chuck Hagel was being vetted for some job. And then on December 13th, Bloomberg's Hans Nichols broke the news that Hagel was President Obama's lead candidate for SecDef.

Then the neoconservative machinery cranked up -- with blasts from Bill Kristol with some key assists from Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Schumer. Hagel's terrible commentary 14 years ago about the then-nomination process of out and proud James Hormel as America's first gay ambassador popped up to generate a wave of concern in the progressive community, most particularly from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Hagel apologized for those remarks. Hormel graciously and emphatically embraced Hagel's apology -- and I wrote what I know and shared what I had written years ago about Hagel's pro-LGBT rights stand. 

The Hagel nomination's seeming complexity -- hyped up by leading advocates of policies that "help Israel so much that it hurts," a term once shared with me by Ambassador and then Israeli Foreign Ministry Deputy Spokesman Gideon Meir about some the activities of diaspora support groups like AIPAC -- then began to lead political pundits to declare the Hagel nomination "toast", as Politico's Mike Allen did. U.S.-Israel negotiator Aaron David Miller arguing Hagel should not be toast. Others like MSNBC's Chris Matthews have said that the Hagel bubble has popped. 

Then Tom Friedman put wind in the sails of the Hagel nomination by saying that he deserved to run the Department of Defense and the President should choose him. Friedman writes for the world -- but also has a strong readership among the same people who vote for Chuck Schumer -- and the Schumer-Tom Friedman divide is key here. Ultimately, Friedman beats Schumer as his constituency is larger, and Friedman has more impact on the perception of Obama's successes and victories.  Senator Schumer will ultimately agree to disagree with a Presidential pick of Hagel and deal well with the White House on other fronts. And even then, as Chuck Hagel voted for John Bolton at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, it's not so hard to imagine Schumer ultimately voting in favor of Hagel.

National Journal's Michael Hirsh read the tea leaves in a comment he got from the White House and reported that the Obama team was going wobbly on Hagel because of the line, "we are considering other candidates."  To my friend and colleague Hirsh this sounded like a comment he had received during the Susan Rice imbroglio in which an official had planted with him something along the lines that "the President was vexed between Susan Rice and John Kerry for the Secretary of State position."  To Hirsh, this seemed like a signal to Rice that the President wanted her to stand down.

The bottom line is that for those, even myself, who have argued that Hagel's nomination was still kicking, or withering, assumptions are being made about what would seem logical, what would a president faced with a neocon onslaught, lack of unanimity in the Senate, and the potential for yet another fight with the GOP (well, mostly the GOP) do when the Obama team may have thought this would be a smoother ride.

So, many are now thinking that of the two other leading candidates, Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter and Michele Flournoy, who served as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and is the former president of the Center for a New American Security, Flournoy will get the nod. 

I listened to MSNBC commentator Krystal Ball chat with show anchor Karen Finney say that it would be awesome to have Flournoy because she was a mom and had kids -- and this would be a great signal to the country to have a woman in that key position. One part of me agrees that the appointment of Flournoy would break another glass ceiling for women, but there will be questions about both of these candidate's capabilities and perspectives as well that have not been scrutinized.

What are their views on Iran? Should we have bombed yesterday? On the Bob Gates view that anyone who would commit U.S. forces to large ground wars and occupations should have his or her head examined? On the privatization of the U.S. military so that despite spending gobs more money, the number of military personnel in uniform has declined while the contractor surge has grown unabated? How does one restructure the military in an age of budget austerity? Don Rumsfeld thought through some of this in his pre-9/11 tenure. What are their views?

Senator Jack Reed and former secretary of State Colin Powell have both been mentioned as well -- but both seem equally, personally committed to keeping their names off the list of likely choices.

What I heard from my executive branch source made a lot of sense to me today. That many in the punditocracy and D.C.'s strategic class are hyperventilating about these candidates and what we think Obama will do and won't do with scant evidence or commentary from the president or his team. The fact is that the White House has been highly cryptic at best about who is on the list and how they are proceeding.

If the White House does not go with Hagel, the Obama team has a problem as they will be appearing to reject a two-time Purple Heart recipient who was nearly a candidate for president of the United States, who served as a sergeant in Vietnam, and who believes that the Pentagon must be reshaped and remodeled to deliver security to the American public on leaner budgets. Hagel is a defense cuts guy -- and the person in this job will be spending 90 percent of his time not dealing with Israelis or other governments but wrestling with generals about how to rebalance America's national security priorities from low-return wars in the Middle East and South Asia to higher-return concerns in Asia. And they'd be conceding to a lot of folks whom the president just wiped the floor with in the last election.

Michael Hirsh has also raised the obvious but neglected point that Hagel is one who got the wars right -- in that they were bad wars -- and broke ranks with his party and pal John McCain in favor of the broader American national interest. Hirsh says he should not be punished for that -- but should be rewarded.

So, if the source I spoke to is right and the media discussion has distorted what is fantasy and fact and is now quite distant from what the real process is with President Obama and Chuck Hagel, all the better. 

We are still reading tea leaves in this appointment process -- which should be more transparent, managed in the halls of Congress in a legally scripted process, and less of a nightmare for the potential nominee.

Zalmay Khalilzad says Chuck Hagel has "the courage of his convictions" and "deserves serious consideration to be the next Secretary of Defense."

Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Former George W. Bush administration US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan and the United Nations -- as well as former National Security Council Senior Director for Southwest Asia, Near East, and North African Affairs -- Zalmay Khalilzad shared with me some thoughts on the possible nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as President Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Khalilzad enjoys a distinguished record in national security circles, having also served as a long time senior analyst at the RAND Corporation.  He is widely considered to be a leading neoconservative thinker and policy practitioner and was an active supporter of the Bill Kristol/Robert Kagan-led Project for a New American Century, which provided the primary foundation for foreign policy-oriented neoconservatives during the Clinton era.

What follows are Ambassador Khalilzad's responses to questions I posed regarding Hagel.

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Chuck Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?

Khalilzad:  He is a patriot who has fought for his country. He is courageous and is not afraid to express his views--when when those views are not popular. I have not always agreed with Chuck Hagel's views. But I have always admired him for having the courage of his convictions.

Clemons:  Senator Hagel has been challenged as being an enemy of Israel - and for making homophobic remarks 14 years ago about the then nomination of US Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel. Others argue that Hagel has been supportive of Israel's interests but in a way that doesn't make a false choice between Israel and Arab states and doesn't compromise core US national security interests. Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying? Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel? Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?

Khalilzad:  I have not heard him say anything that would indicate that he is an enemy of Israel.

Clemons:  Hagel has also apologized to Hormel for his past remarks and has indicated support for 'open service' in the military and protection and support of LGBT families. Do you believe that given the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the rise of LGBT issues in American society and culture that Hagel's remarks 14 years ago are disqualifying? Given that he is likely to be asked about this issue in a Senate confirmation hearing and will be able to make clear his views, does he need to do more now to alleviate concerns about his views toward the LGBT community?

Khalilzad:  He has apologized for his statement of some 14 years ago and has clarified his current position on this sensitive and important issue. That was a different era; the country as a whole has undergone enormous change on this matter, and so has he, it seems.

Clemons:  Any other thoughts, views, concerns, or insights you would like to share?

Khalilzad:  He deserves serious consideration to be the next Secretary of Defense.

Allies are pushing back at the character critique leveled at the former senator from Nebraska. Below is a Letter to the Editor that rain in Washington Post yesterday, the 25th of December.  While this letter criticizes the Post for this article drawing a connection between Hagel's Vietnam experiences and his foreign policy views and defends Hagel's character, the letter also notably implies that the White House is too tolerant of the attacks on potential Cabinet nominees.

Regarding the Dec. 21 front-page article "Vietnam scars still show in Hagel's policies": We strongly object, as a matter of substance and as a matter of principle, to the attacks on the character of former senator Chuck Hagel.

Mr. Hagel is a man of unshakable integrity and wisdom who has served his country in the most distinguished manner in peace and war. He is a rare example of a public servant willing to rise above partisan politics to advance the interests of the United States and its friends and allies. Moreover, it is damaging to the quality of our civic discourse for prospective Cabinet nominees to be subjected to such vicious attacks on their character before an official nomination.

This type of behavior will only discourage future prospective nominees from public service when our country badly needs quality leadership in government.

James L. Jones, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci

The writers are former U.S. national security advisers.

What could really change the game for the White House choice of Leon Panetta's successor as Secretary of Defense? This article by Tom Friedman at the New York Times:  today, "Give Chuck a Chance."  I recommend a full read.

It makes it clear that attempts by the neoconservative community to portray monolithic Jewish-American opposition to Chuck Hagel's nomination just shattered.

As part of the roundup of perspectives on Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense, I have received the responses noted below. Here at The Atlantic is an earlier installment of views that included David Frum, Bing West, Ari Melber, Robert Dreyfuss, Hattie Babbitt, Ambassador James Hormel, Adam Garfinkle, and Leslie Gelb.

This installment includes questions I posed to Foreign Policy CEO David Rothkopf, Bipartisan Policy Center Senior Fellow Dan Glickman, Century Foundation Senior Fellow Jeffrey Laurenti, Harvard Kennedy School International Affairs Professor Stephen Walt, Cato Institute EVP David Boaz, former National Intelligence Council Chairman and former State Department Intel boss Thomas Fingar, and former National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & South Asia and Georgetown University Visiting Professor Paul Pillar. Their responses follow beneath each question.

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Chuck Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

My sense is that Hagel brings many strengths to the job of Secretary of Defense.  He is a thoughtful student of U.S. national security policy who, unlike many, is not easily categorized on a partisan or ideological basis.  In this respect, he is precisely the kind of independent thinker we need.  He also has proven to have the courage of his convictions, speaking his mind...as he did during the Iraq war...despite strong pressures against him.  This is precisely the kind of advisor any president needs.

Dan Glickman, former Member of Congress (R-KS); former Chairman, House Select Committee on Intelligence; former President, Motion Picture Association; Former US Secretary of Agriculture; Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center.

I am not familiar enough with your questions to answer them specifically, but I have known Chuck from my days in Congress as his Kansas neighbor and during my time as USDA Secretary. I think Chuck has good midwestern values and a lot of common sense. I have always found him to be smart, decent, enthusiastic and desirous of America to be actively engaged in the world. I think would be a fair and thoughtful Secretary, if he is the President's choice. And his Vietnam combat service would send positive signals to the nation's military.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Strengths:  As a Republican former senator, he is able to bridge the polarization gap between a left-of-center Democratic administration and a strongly pro-military right-of-center Republican party in the Congress.  As a Vietnam war veteran (on the ground, not in the air!) he can speak to the citizenry that honors the shrinking minority of Americans who have actually been called to combat--and speak to them about the madness and futility of war fever that erupts like hot flashes in Washington from time to time.  He also has the bona fides from that experience for dealing with the military brass with credibility and independence.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

My best responses to this question are already posted on my blog at "Five Reasons Obama Should Pick Chuck Hagel for SecDef" and "The Art of the Smear."

I would only add that if Obama caves on this one, it will teach another generation of foreign policy experts that honest discourse about Israel is not possible.  And as Adam Garfinkle noted in The American Interest, this is likely to fuel great resentment and a nasty backlash down the road.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

As my colleague Chris Preble wrote, Hagel's appointment "should be welcomed by anyone frustrated by years of war and foreign meddling, and out-of-control spending at the Pentagon. Which is to say, nearly everyone."

I think a senator who voted for the Iraq war and came to regret it probably reflects where a lot of the country is today. He's a combat veteran, a two-term senator, and a thoughtful participant in discussions of international issues for almost two decades. Also, he's a Republican. Indeed a conservative Republican. A small band of neoconservatives are trying to persuade Republicans not to support their former colleague. But to Republicans and independents across the country, he's a Republican senator. If Obama appoints Hagel Secretary of Defense, he will look impressively bipartisan. To most Americans, it will look like "a government of national unity" formed to deal with the aftermath of two wars.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Strengths include the fact that he served in the military--a long time ago and for only a short time.  The former attribute gives him knowledge about how a military organization works (his experience was in a pretty dysfunctional period); the latter gives him an "outsider's perspective."  He is obviously a smart guy willing to ask hard questions--something the next SECDEF will have to do in response to pleas from the services and the defense industry for "more" and "better" toys to deal with imagined enemies.

His congressional experience will help him--and DOD--to deal with strong actors and interests on the Hill who will resist necessary efforts to shrink the military, limit procurement of equipment, and close redundant facilities.  I think highly of Hagel's integrity, in part because of the position he took after Iraq began to go south in a big way.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Senator Hagel has distinguished himself as a straightforward and independent thinker, including especially on difficult Middle Eastern issues and issues involving defense spending.  These are exactly the qualities that are most needed today in the highest circles in the making of U.S. foreign and security policy.

As the first Vietnam veteran to serve as secretary of defense, he would bring to the job a valuable first-hand perspective on what it means to apply military force, and especially to apply it with American blood and treasure.  Perhaps a weakness is having less experience in bureaucratic management than some others might have--although he was successful in private business before entering government and was deputy head of the Veterans Administration.

Clemons:  Senator Hagel has been challenged as being an enemy of Israel - and for making homophobic remarks 14 years ago about the then nomination of US Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel.  Others argue that Hagel has been supportive of Israel's interests but in a way that doesn't make a false choice between Israel and Arab states and doesn't compromise core US national security interests.  Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying?  Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel?  Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

I believe the objections to Hagel based on his Israel positions should have no impact on how the President weighs his candidacy.  In the first instance they have been portrayed incorrectly by some as being anti-Israel when his view are far more nuanced and balanced than that.  Secondly, his actual views are the kind of pragmatic, ideology-free perspective that will be needed in the context of the new Middle East.  Thirdly, the President sets US policy for his team not the other way around.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Do you think his views on US-Israel relations are disturbing, unconstructive and disqualifying?   No. Indeed, they seem to track closely with what most American professional military officers believe about the US-Israel relationship.

Do you believe that Hagel is an enemy of Israel?  Preposterous

Or do you find his views, if you are familiar with them, constructive and realistic takes on US-Middle East policy?    They appear to be consistent with what most American Middle-East policy mavens believe: a secure Israel and a secure Palestine living side-by-side will be essential for peace and security in a much roiled region.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

Hagel is certainly not an "enemy of Israel."  He understands that allies don't have to agree on everything, and that friendship sometimes means telling a friend what they need to hear.  He also understands that war with Iran is not a good idea, just as many Israeli national security experts do.   He is more of a friend to Israel than any of his critics.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

Of course he's not an enemy of Israel. Are we really supposed to believe that he served two Senate terms from Nebraska and no one noticed he was an enemy of Israel? Hagel seems to understand that U.S. foreign policy must serve the interests of the United States, and that that probably means less promiscuous intervention. I think most Americans would welcome that approach. In addition, of course, he's going to serve the president and his policies.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

Hagel is not anti-Israel.  That is a canard that should be dismissed as bogus and irrelevant.  The position in question is the US Secretary of Defense.  Whoever holds the position will shape and implement US policy but will not do so independently.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Senator Hagel's views on these issues are refreshingly constructive and realistic.  It is absurd to label him as an enemy of Israel.  His positions on issues related to Israel are far more in the interests of the State of Israel than are the positions of his principal accusers.

The accusers confuse the interests of Israel with the wishes of the current right-wing Israeli government--which represent something very different and which are undermining the long-term prospects of a strong, democratic, Jewish state living at peace with its neighbors and with the international community.  Even without that confusion about Israeli interests, Americans should have a secretary of defense who puts U.S. interests above those of any foreign government.

It is absolutely astonishing that remarks by Senator Hagel indicating that he prioritizes U.S. interests in exactly that way are somehow held as a mark against him.

Clemons:  Hagel has also apologized to Ambassador James Hormel for his past remarks and has indicated support for 'open service' in the military and protection and support of LGBT families.  Do you believe that given the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and the rise of LGBT issues in American society and culture that Hagel's remarks 14 years ago are disqualifying?  Given that he is likely to be asked about this issue in a Senate confirmation hearing and will be able to make clear his views, does he need to do more now to alleviate concerns about his views toward the LGBT community?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy
I personally am offended by Hagel's comments regarding Hormel.  I think they showed an unacceptable degree of prejudice.  But he has apologized for them and they were quite some time ago and therefore, if leading members of the LGBT community are willing to support his candidacy, I will defer to them on this.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

Views on gays in the military or in the front lines of public service from the mid-1990s are no more disqualifying than a political figure's fervent opposition to legal access to abortion in the mid-1960s. Even Strom Thurmond ended up hiring black legislative aides -- and he had made a career of racism in politics; and in Hagel's case, battling gay equality was never central to his political identity. When cultural revolutions occur, people who were slow to embrace them at the start, but who finally catch on, are fully capable of adapting to the post-revolutionary landscape.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

I disagree vehemently with Hagel's remarks from a decade and a half ago.  They might be disqualifying if he still held them, but that does not seem to be the case.  The obvious thing to do is ask him.  If he is nominated, the Senators charged with approving the nomination should ask him too, and judge his answers.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

Attitudes toward gay rights have changed a lot since 1998, which was just two years after 32 Democratic senators voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and President Clinton boasted in his reelection campaign about signing it. Hagel says his own views have changed, and I take him at his word. Besides, he has received absolution from HRC -- what more can one ask?

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

I personally think the treatment of Hormel was despicable and Hagel's behavior was unworthy of the man and his position, but one must recognize that politicians reflect and often pander to the prejudices of their constituents and that public attitudes were very different 14 years ago than they are today.  The country has moved far in a positive direction, on gender and many other issues.  So have Hagel and many other politicians.  He has apologized and the apology has been accepted.  I cannot imagine that he (or an other candidate for SECDEF) would, if confirmed, attempt to turn back the clock on a social issue that is so clearly going in the other direction.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

On issues of sexual preference the entire country has moved very far in the last 14 years.  Hagel has apologized, Hormel has accepted the apology, and this issue can be laid to rest.  It probably would be barely a blip in the current discourse were it not for the Israel-related drivers of the discourse.

Clemons:  Any other thoughts, views, concerns, or insights you would like to share?

David Rothkopf, CEO & Editor-at-Large, Foreign Policy

Personally, I think the president would be better off selecting Michele Flournoy to be Secretary of Defense.  She, in her work as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, her leadership at CNAS, and her prior work in the Defense Department during the Clinton Administration has proven herself to be an innovative thinker, a genuine student of strategy, tactics and emerging trends in international defense and a leader in the national security community.

She represents fresh perspectives, the voice of a rising generation of leaders and is well placed to help lead the transformation that our defense establishment must go through over the next decade.  Hagel would be an excellent candidate and a good Secretary of Defense.  She would, I think, be a better one.

Jeffrey Laurenti, Senior Fellow, The Century Foundation

The next four years will be crucial for adapting the US military force structure to the profoundly changed international relations of the 21st century.  Hagel is one of the rare individuals who can navigate between the Scylla and Charybdis of congressional passions, budgetary realities, and global commitments.

Stephen Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School; blogger at Foreign Policy

No matter what he does in terms of overall Middle East policy, the Hagel nomination gives Barack Obama an opportunity to strike a blow for a more open discourse on these important issues.  If he nominates Hagel, he will demonstrate that reasonable people can disagree about certain aspects of U.S. Middle East policy, and that U.S. policymakers do not have to slavishly kowtow to AIPAC's hardline.

If Obama caves to the Israel lobby yet again, he will ensure the failure of his efforts to restore the U.S. position in the region and to prevent Israel from becoming an apartheid state.   And his own legacy will be tarnished, perhaps irretrievably.

David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute

As Chris Preble says, I hope "that Hagel will generally advise against sending U.S. troops on quixotic nation-building missions." And maybe even that, as a midwestern conservative, he'll advise against military actions undertaken without congressional authorization, such as President Obama's intervention in Libya.

We need to finish getting out of two decade-long wars, avoid new ones, and chart a foreign policy for a changed world. I hope that Hagel could help move the administration and the country in the direction of prudent and realistic policies, and sensible reductions in our vastly increased military budget.

Thomas Fingar, Former Chairman, National Intelligence Council; Former Asst. Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR); Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

I am struck by the criticism that has not appeared, or at least not in places that I have seen.  For example, no one is criticizing him for what I would consider more serious problems such as being in the pocket of particular defense contractors, having a jingoistic attitude on foreign policy issues and determination to use the US military as a global police force or quasi-imperial tool of American hegemony.

Hagel's balanced, reasoned approach and integrity are his strong suits and no one has challenged them in a convincing way.  Nor has anyone tried, except with the charge of being anti-Israel (the most important requirement for a SECDEF is that he/she be pro-American) and the charge of homophobia.

Paul Pillar, former CIA staff member for 28 years; former National Intelligence Officer for Near East & South Asia; Visiting Professor of Security Studies, Georgetown University

Look, we all know perfectly well what this furor is about.  It is another instance of a springing into action of elements that are so determined to prevent any significant questioning of destructive Israeli policies, or of U.S. tolerance of those policies, that they will use whatever means necessary--including, as in this case, the slandering of a distinguished public figure--to try to keep such questioning from being uttered by anyone in high public office and to keep from office those who look like they may actually raise such questions.

With Hagel there is the added dimension--involving some of the same elements--that he is seen as a turncoat for acknowledging that the Iraq War was a disastrous mistake and for endorsing Obama.  Otherwise this is a replay of what was done a few years ago to Chas Freeman.  Given the salience of the campaign against Hagel, as I have observed, there is now more at stake than just who will head the Department of Defense for the next four years.  The issue is one of whether this kind of intimidation and the scurrilous tactics that go along with it will be allowed to prevail.

I have gathered some more views on Chuck Hagel's potential -- and challenged -- nomination to serve as President Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Politico's Mike Allen is calling the nomination "toast" after Senator Chuck Schumer refused to say he would vote in favor of him. Remember that Senator Schumer -- who has many views of which I'm supportive -- nonetheless said in a Senate Democratic Caucus on one occasion, "a vote against John Bolton is a vote against Israel." Bolton never got his confirmation vote, though he did serve as a recess-appointed Ambassador of the United States to the United Nations.

But while Schumer hasn't said this, one can easily imagine him informally telegraphing to his colleagues that "a vote for Hagel is a vote against Israel."

Both are untrue of course. Whether Bolton had been confirmed or not as US Ambassador, he like other US Ambassadors is a steadfast defender of the US-Israel alliance. Chuck Hagel too would be a steadfast defender of an alliance that matters. The dividing line is whether one starts from the prism of U.S. security interests -- or starts with the Israel portal instead, or sees no line at all between them. No differences. 

In my view, Hagel is one of the smartest, most experienced strategists around today -- true to the strategic needs of a country in a fragile time.  He also has real combat experience under his belt -- having returned a sergeant from Vietnam 44 years ago this month.

Here are some other views that I have pulled together:

James C. Hormel, former US Ambassador to Luxembourg, challenged by Hagel in 1998 as being an inappropriate representative of the US because he was "aggressively homosexual", writes at his Facebook page:

Senator Hagel's apology is significant -- I can't remember a time when a potential presidential nominee apologized for anything.  While the timing appears self-serving, the words themselves are unequivocal -- they are a clear apology. 

Since 1998, fourteen years have passed, and public attitudes have shifted.  Perhaps Senator Hagel has progressed with the times, too.  His action affords new stature to the LGBT constituency, whose members still are treated as second class citizens in innumerable ways. 

Senator Hagel stated in his remarks that he was willing to support open military service and LGBT military families.  If that is a commitment to treat LGBT service members and their families like everybody else, i would support his nomination.

Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, former international affairs columnist for the New York Times, and columnist at Newsweek/DailyBeast sent this comment to me:

I am strongly supportive of Chuck Hagel for SecDef, and I strongly back him despite my disagreement with him on a number of issues. I'm for him because he's been right about some of the most critical issues of our time like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and on the need to talk to and negotiate with adversaries (though again, I differ with him about Hamas).

He's also dead right about the pentagon budget being bloated. in the foreign policy community, these calls take great courage. to me, we need someone who can say hard truths to power at the National Security Council.

David Frum, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and contributing editor at Newsweek/DailyBeast:

What I find most dismaying about the debate over Senator Hagel is the utter absence from the public discussion of any mention of the single most important issue facing the next secretary of defense: how to preside over what will likely be the steepest military build-down since the 1970s with minimum harm to military capabilities.

There's nothing in the Hagel record to indicate that he brings any relevant experience or skills to this problem. I find it baffling that President Obama would short-list him for the defense position. I'd feel the same way if Chuck Hagel were B'nai Brith's man of the year.

Senator Hagel's supporters offer a case in his favor that would superbly qualify him as Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs in the Nixon administration. But that's not the job we're talking about.

Robert Dreyfuss, correspondent for The Nation, writes:

It's a sad commentary on both Barack Obama and the state of Democratic Party politics and its national security wing that the president, once again, is considering naming another Republican as secretary of defense. You'll recall that in 2009, Obama let Robert Gates, the Republican who served George W. Bush, stay on at the Department of Defense. Not that Gates was a neocon--no, far from it. But he was certainly drawn from the center-hawkish part of the American national security establishment, whose Democratic ranks include such execrable luminaries as Sam Nunn and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

This time, it's Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican--who, 'tis true, might be flirting with becoming a Democrat, since he seems to think that the GOP has moved so far right that he can't even see its outer edges from Nebraska, his home state. It would be nice if Obama could find a liberal Democrat to run the Pentagon, someone who'd oversee the massive cuts in military outlays that are long past due, and who'd shut down the infatuation with the Special Forces, the drones and the "pivot" to the Pacific and East Asia.

But no, it's Hagel, it appears--someone whose decided tilt against Israel and its omnipresent allies in the Israel lobby (or, as Hagel calls it, the "Jewish lobby") is a strong point in his favor, especially if the United States is to avoid going to war against Iran in Obama's second term.

In any case, the Israel lobby--which, naturally, doesn't exist, and certainly, if it existed, would not call itself the Jewish lobby--is mobilizing all neoconservative hands on deck to stop Obama from picking Hagel.

On those grounds alone, I'm for Hagel.

Harriet "Hattie" Babbitt, former Deputy Administrator of USAID and Vice Chair, World Resources Institute wrote this:

Chuck Hagel's evolution on LGBT issues is a thing to be celebrated, not seen as a disqualification.  A failure to evolve would be a disqualification.
 
He should consider a  statement along the lines of, "Gay men and women in our military have proved themselves to be patriots and important members of our military.  As the recent examinations of their contributions have shown, a policy of exclusion would harm the combat readiness and the security of the United States. As Secretary of Defense, I would welcome their participation at every level of the armed forces."

Bing West, former Asst. Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and military author, writes in:

Hagel is overtly seeking the post. The Pentagon faces unremitting crises overseas and steep budgetary cuts.  The Pentagon needs a secretary who reluctantly accepts the position for the greater good, not for his own ego.

Adam Garfinkle, executive editor of The American Interest writes at his excellent blog, The Middle East and Beyond:

So, I am given to understand that the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, which more or less boils down to its national director Abe Foxman's personal view of the planet from his Manhattan bubble, is not thrilled with the prospective (not even real yet) nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. According to Foxman, Hagel is not pro-Israel or anti-Iran enough for the job. Foxman has accused Hagel of invoking stereotypes that suggest not just anti-Israel attitudes but even anti-Semitism. He used the record of an interview Hagel gave to Aaron David Miller a few years back (more about that anon) when he was writing The Much Too Promised Land (2008) to support his accusation.

It's sort of ironic that an organization with the phrase "anti-defamation" in its own name should resort to defaming others. Well, maybe "ironic" isn't quite the right word; a few others also come to mind. But defamation it is, because the idea that Chuck Hagel is either anti-Israel or anti-Semitic is risible. It seems pretty clear that Mr. Foxman doesn't understand how much damage he does by tossing around such innuendo. It's even clearer that he doesn't want my advice. (I met him years ago within the confines of a closed meeting, but that's another story.) The damage done, and how it is done, is not clear to everybody, however--hence this note.

As it happens, Senator Hagel is in very good company as one of Mr. Foxman's targets. Another of those targets has been none other than Harry Truman.

Ari Melber, a contributor to MSNBC and contributing editor at The Nation, writes in an email:

No matter who wins the election, it seems like Republicans are always on the short list to run the Pentagon. If a policymaker with Hagel's exact background had a "D" next to his (or her) name, can anyone imagine that person even being considered for this job? 

I've reached out to a wide range of policy experts, pundits, and government officials (current and former) to share their thoughts on Senator Chuck Hagel's potential nomination as Secretary of Defense. I should note that my Atlantic Media colleague Michael Hirsh has published a powerful piece at National Journal indicating that the White House is considering a number of candidates, and not just Hagel. 

I think that the discussion about Hagel is important and a learning moment about national security strategy, about the future of the Pentagon and the kinds of wars we have been engaged in abroad, and about the nomination process itself run out of the White House.

Tom Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who has worked for both the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal and who has written some of the best accounts of America's command leadership in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars also serves as Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy. He also writes the blog, Best Defense. 

Ricks shared the following thoughts on Hagel in response to questions I posed:

Clemons:  Can you share your thoughts on the strengths and/or weaknesses that Senator Hagel might bring to the position of Secretary of Defense?
 
Ricks:  I cannot remember another modern administration that pulled almost all its top national security officials from the Congress. Right now we have former members of Congress as the secretary of defense, secretary of state, president, and vice president. They are advised by a national security advisor and deputy national security advisor with backgrounds as Capitol Hill staffers. And now the president is said to be considering replacing the current people at State and Defense with two other senators -- John Kerry and Chuck Hagel.
 
Wait a minute. I thought diversity was a good thing! How about some people with backgrounds in academia (such as William Perry, who was a fine secretary of defense, or George Shultz), corporate America (such as David Packard), Wall Street (see Robert Lovett), the law (Edwin Stanton, Henry Stimson, Caspar Weinberger), career-track federal service (Robert Gates), or the military (George Marshall or Colin Powell)? How about people who have actually run something (members of Congress don't run anything but their offices).
 
President Obama's nightmare is said to be following in the tracks of LBJ -- that is, having a great domestic agenda undercut by backing into war. But he might pay more attention to JFK, who had a narrow team of advisors who thought they were smarter than everyone else. I think Obama is unnecessarily creating a vulnerability -- that is, why voluntarily wear blinders by getting people largely experienced in one relatively small aspect of the world? There is a reason that diversity is not just right but also smart practice. You'd think Obama would understand that.

It is interesting that if Hagel was nominated, President Obama would have three of his Senate Foreign Relations Committee colleagues close at hand -- Joe Biden, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel. Fascinating comment from Tom Ricks. More to come.

Chuck Hagel voted in favor of John Bolton's nomination before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to serve as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. This is important history as many attempting to sabotage Hagel's potential nomination as secretary of defense are hyping his reticence about unilateral sanctions against rogue nations and his refusal to jump on a couple of hug-Israel resolutions. 

The Bolton nomination was important because it was a high priority "get" by the hawkish wing of the hug-Israel-tightly lobby. I worked hard then, in 2005, against Bolton's nomination by President George W. Bush because I saw Bolton as the vanguard of an emergent class of Jesse Helms-inspired pugnacious nationalists who had deep disdain for and resentment against international institutions and treaties. Their paranoia about the UN has led to moments like the recent Senate rejection of the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities.

Those who see being pro-Israel as giving in to an emotionalism that draws no lines at disruptive and reckless Israeli behavior wanted John Bolton badly, and I did my best to sway Chuck Hagel on his vote. I failed. Hagel voted in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of Bolton -- while Ohio Republican George Voinovich refused to endorse.

In later stages of the John Bolton battle, Senator Chuck Schumer made the statement in a Senate Democratic Caucus meeting that "a vote against Bolton was a vote against Israel." Schumer, who strongly supported Bolton, was wrong on that front. Every U.S. ambassador to the UN has been a friend to Israel and has been supportive of Israel's security interests. Every U.S. president has been supportive of Israel's core security interests -- but there are legitimate differences on what pro-Israel means. 

Avigdor Lieberman, until this week Israel's foreign minister, has a history of making disgusting, bigoted comments about Palestinians and Arabs. He is a disgrace to Israel -- and I find it objectionable that he sat in the Israeli cabinet at the right hand of Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. My stating that I find one, or even a few, of the leaders of Israel to be short-sighted, wrong-headed, and ultimately reckless about the security and interests of their own nation does not make me or anyone an anti-Semite or anti-Israel. I had respect for Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni -- and have grown to respect a number of the positions of Ariel Sharon. 

But Chuck Hagel voted for John Bolton, who just before his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said that there is no moral equivalence between innocents killed in Lebanon during Israel's strike there and those Israelis who may have been killed by Hezbollah incursions into Israel. Again, I'm disgusted by what were Bolton's public remarks -- which the State Department had the good sense to excise from his testimony moments before he gave it (issuing one set of remarks with the statements and then another without).

But Chuck Hagel voted for the guy Chuck Schumer wanted. And that AIPAC wanted. And that Israel itself no doubt wanted.

Bolton got a recess appointment -- but he never got his confirmation vote. And who was the block on this great friend of Israel and anti-United Nations crusader? 

Not Chuck Hagel. Try Senator Joseph Lieberman, who refused to vote in favor of cloture because the executive branch would not share vital but classified information with Congress -- either in the base-relocation debate or in the Bolton case. Then-Senator Lincoln Chafee gave another assist at the final stage of the battle -- but the three senators who got in the way of the AIPAC-desired John Bolton were George Voinovich, Joseph Lieberman, and Lincoln Chafee.

Not Chuck Hagel. 

Hagel's instabake critics need to read up on some history and some facts about the man. It's irresponsible of the Wall Street Journal and other publications to cast around the slanderous accusation of anti-Semitism, which is akin to bigotry and racism, when there are legitimate policy differences about Israel policy involved. 

Hagel has been a steadfast supporter of Israel and its interests -- and has been the kind of friend to step back and not support Israel's U.S. congressional machinery when it is hyperventilating in ways that hurt it. 

Hagel is a genuine friend of Israel's long-term interests and believes that the status quo in Israel today is undermining Israel's status as a democratic and Jewish state. Controversial statement? Just about every responsible Israeli political official has said exactly the same.

At this point, we don't really know if Morsi is on a path to installing himself as a "new pharaoh" or whether he is genuinely trying to build a more inclusive Egypt.

Mohamed Abd El Ghany/Reuters

"I am the president of the Arab Republic of Egypt, clothed in immense power!" one can imagine Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi thinking after his jaw-dropping power grab these last few days.

Of course this is parody of the words roared by President Abraham Lincoln in Spielberg's stunning film, Lincoln, as the 16th American president ground down by a four-year, bloody civil war spent the entirety of his political capital procuring Constitutionally-based freedom for millions of American slaves. 

At this point, we really don't know if President Morsi is actually planning to install himself as what Nobel Laureate Mohamed ElBaradei has called a "new pharaoh" -- or whether he has committed to an inclusive democratic vision for Egypt which he believes requires extraordinary measures, much like those Abraham Lincoln took while manipulating pols of his day, procuring votes through patronage and threat. 

The fact is that while Morsi has declared himself, at least for the moment, the maker of law, the implementer of law, and the overseer of himself who makes the law, his rhetoric is highly inclusive. He has frustrated many in the Muslim Brotherhood by not moving to establish more of a theocratic state and not moving against other of the newly established political parties and movements in the country. At a public level, Morsi says he is acting on behalf of all Egyptians -- not just those who are tied to the Brothers. 

Morsi states that he is moving to reduce the authority and influence of those loyal to former President Hosni Mubarak -- and that first the army and then the courts have been havens for protectors of the old regime's interests. 

Is Morsi the kind of leader who will aggrandize total power and then liberalize like a George Washington or Abraham Lincoln? Or is he more like a Lee Kuan Yew who can build a state and the facade of a democratic system while holding tightly to power for decades in all ways that matter? 

We don't know the answer yet. But for those surprised by Morsi's moves -- as the State Department reportedly was after having just secured his pivotal support on a Gaza-Israel truce -- only naivete would lead one to believe that a healthy, balanced, checks-and-balance democracy would immediately succeed the kind of autocracy Mubarak mastered. 

Despite the claims in the media today that Egypt's judiciary was fairly independent and respected, the fact is that the system -- all parts of it, including the judiciary -- were ruthlessly managed and sculpted by forces that stewarded Mubarak's interests and power.

There were no checks and balances in Egypt during Mubarak; nor during de facto head of state General Mohamed Hussein Tantawi's short reign; and for the time being, there will be no checks and balances during Mohammed Morsi's tenure -- at least not in this phase. 

Given the conditions of Egypt's rotten political culture that are turbulent and unstable, it seems ridiculous to think that an Egyptian leader -- whether religious or devoutly secular, whether a man or a woman -- would automatically and successfully move the Egyptian political architecture into one based on checks and balance statecraft. 

This doesn't mean that the protests against Morsi in Tahrir Square are wrong or illegitimate. They are in fact vital in the absence of other political checks on Morsi. Note this excellent survey of the scene by David Rohde.

In a political system that has not been forged over decades and centuries of constitutional battle about the rights and prerogatives of branches of government, perhaps the people must rise in such a delicate time to empower other branches of government, while communicating what they believe to be the limits of Egyptian presidential powers. In other words, this conflict was inevitable: a new President whose party had been suborned and abused by the previous political order, mistrustful of institutions derived from that preceding era, is working to sweep aside those institutions and the people in them like any powerful executive would. 

In a system of checks and balances, other parts of the political order rise to challenge the executive, vigorously defending their own turf and legitimacy. The people must allow both sides, or all three or four or five, sides in the institutional square-off to ultimately win, so that institutions are balanced each other not because they want to be but because there is no choice. 

That is the strength and delicacy of democracy -- and Egypt is not nearly there yet. 

The United States is in the proverbial glass house on this one as its own demonstration of a system of checks and balances is at a darker stage at the moment, when parties seem to relish strangling the interests of the state and the people rather than compromising across political lines. The world today sees a victorious American President stymied almost immediately by challenges to his choice (Susan Rice) for Secretary of State as well as what looks to be a high-stakes game of brinksmanship over a tax and spending deal, or alternatively framed, an ideological train wreck going over what has become called "the fiscal cliff." 

The U.S. does have an active and vigorous system of checks and balances which can paralyze and stifle progress at times -- while at others, enabling enormous leaps forward as reminded by the Spielberg film's depiction of Lincoln ruthlessly securing passage of the slavery-banning 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. 

There have been numerous other times in U.S. history when a president or other Congressional leaders spent a vast amount of capital defying what many believed to be the immutable laws of political gravity as they then saw them. Universal suffrage was achieved this way. The nation's bipartisan commitment to advanced national security science and technology spending the same. Civil rights and voting rights for African Americans achieved. Educational fairness for women. Don't ask, Don't Tell's repeal. Major health policy reform during President Obama's last term. The passage of controversial nuclear arms reduction treaties. The list is longer than many might expect -- but each of these battles was extraordinarily difficult. 

Those working hard to secure democracy by putting their jobs, reputations, and sometimes lives on the line -- particularly as we saw and continue to see in Tahrir Square -- know how hard it is to really achieve. The bottom line is that democratic practice depends on institutions evolving side by side, each challenging over and over again the rights and prerogatives, and terms of authority of each other in front of the public eye. 

Egyptian President Morsi today says that he is committed to democracy and the rights of all Egyptians. He very well could be a power-hungry liar deceiving the nation as many other heads of state have done in the past. On the other hand, he may be telling the truth. 

The public's interests are not well served by giving Morsi the benefit of the doubt. The public should protest and should remind him from whence power in the nation is really derived. People should demand their rights; should demand a non-corrupt and fair judiciary; an impartial police and security apparatus. But these things will not happen because Morsi is a benign or generous leader or has a vision of how to fairly evolve and develop the power of other branches of government not under his control. 

These judges and their institutions; and then legislators; and perhaps generals must engage and secure their place in the democratic government equation. Indeed for Morsi to become a great leader and deliver on democracy and the successful transition from a dark era to a better one for Egypt, he needs to continue to challenge other weak or rotten sectors of society and should at the same time welcome the institutional battles that will ultimately limit his power. 

This is what the people need to focus on and deliver. Revolution is always difficult. But knocking a leader from power is fundamentally a binary process -- a zero or a one. But it is the combination of impulses, competition for power in government, and a more nuanced, and complex balancing of institutionalized political equities that ultimately delivers democracy to a people. 

After President Barack Obama's 2008 election when he was propelled to massive victory in part by standing as a refreshing foil to what many perceived to be the power-usurping White House of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard Cheney, I asked former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta what powers he thought an Obama White House would forfeit back. Podesta candidly and honestly replied, "Very few, if any." 

This is the reality of executives that run governments everywhere. Their job is not to balance the various powers of government as a goal unto itself. They tend to want to be monarchs, achieving their vision as they see it for the benefit of the nation -- or all too often for themselves personally or the clans they represent. 

Those who want to build democracy must shore up the other branches of government -- generals who will secure the interests of the military, smart policy-practitioning legislators who will protect their institutional power, judges unafraid of other branches of government. Achieving equilibrium among these conflicting corners is how democracy is ultimately forged -- and leaders like Morsi if they are true to their democratic rhetoric will both wince at the costs that come from other power centers and welcome their engagement. 

I don't have a clip of Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton, David Axelrod, or other Democratic Party heavyweights crowing that Barack Obama will "win definitively" over Mitt Romney in today's election. Perhaps they are out there -- but the Obama communications machine has not sent me such statements.

In contrast, the Romney campaign just sent me this irrationally exuberant claim from former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie that Romney will clobber Obama decisively today.

Here is the statement and the YouTube post:

The fact is, we can't afford four more years like the last four years. And Governor Romney has been out there putting forward a positive vision and a plan to turn the economy around, to create 12 million jobs, unleash domestic energy, get us to a balanced budget. That's why he's got momentum here on election day. And I think that's why he's going to win tonight, not just win, but win decisively. I don't think there's going to be any doubt at the end of tonight who the next president is going to be.

Please. I like Gillespie and appreciate his loyalty to Romney. That said, I think that people in positions of leadership like him need to restore some honesty and occasional objectivity to political commentary.

It is most likely that neither Obama nor Romney will beat the other decisively. A close race has been brewing for a long time -- and Gillespie knows it's tight. It is wrong for either side to describe the situation in the nation as anything other than divided.

There will be a winner, but the divided aspirations and perspectives in the country deserve more respect and affirmation than Gillespie offered today.

In terms of total increase in "federal debt to GDP" under U.S. presidents in the post-World War II era, Republican presidents during their terms have contributed far more to the debt load of the nation than Democrats.

Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all added to the federal debt significantly on a percent of GDP basis. On the Democratic side, President Obama -- who inherited the worst financial crisis in this era from his predecessor -- also ranks high in terms of contributing to the federal debt as a percentage of GDP.

Who reduced debt as a percentage of GDP the most?

When comparing by presidential term as in the chart to the side (click image to make larger), the big winner is Harry Truman, followed by Bill Clinton.  Eisenhower is next, followed by Johnson and Nixon, the Kennedy, and finally Jimmy Carter. All of these presidents reduced debt as a percent of GDP.

While absolute levels of debt may have been growing through much of this period (though not all), what really matters is what percentage of GDP that debt represents. Most U.S. presidents have been able to keep the debt to GDP ratio declining -- but in the very modern era, since 1980, only Bill Clinton has succeeded in massively decreasing America's federal debt to GDP levels.

When considering it on a per annum basis, the chart of presidential debt-reducers and debt-increasers remains mostly the same, though Barack Obama wins among those adding to the debt load with a per annum increase in debt to GDP of 12 percent. Ronald Reagan is next at 7 percent. As shown in the chart to the left, Truman and Clinton still clobber other presidents in terms of a per annum decrease in federal debt to GDP. 

When looking at the charts this way, it is fascinating to see what a stand-out the Bill Clinton presidency was in balancing the budget and achieving revenue surpluses. 

These data sets were assembled by a close collaborator and credit expert Richard Vague as part of a larger history of debt project that he and I are working on.

As the debates on who is responsible for the levels of federal debt continue to play out in the next 10 days before the election and the 66 days before the US hits a fiscal cliff, remember that the worst contributors to America's debt load were mostly GOP presidents -- with the single exception of Obama, who had a global economic tsunami crashing in on the White House and nation when he took the helm.

While Martha Raddatz was masterful last night actually moderating a genuine and thoughtful debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, she failed to pose a key question to the contenders: What is your view on same-sex marriage?

Some will say, well, there are a long list of issues she had to get in the mix -- Afghanistan, the Libya debacle, abortion a few times, the economy, Medicare -- and that is true. But the issue of gay marriage is one that matters in this election, and it was not mentioned at all in either the first presidential debate or the standoff between Biden and Ryan.

Biden was the person who kicked open the door on this subject in this election by stating he was "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex marriages. For a couple of days at least, the public divide between Obama and Biden was wider than on any other issue since they had been in office -- a greater chasm between them than on Afghanistan policy where their differences were known but sewn together as a process leading to a conclusion everyone supported. 

Many argued at the time that Obama coming out days after Biden in support of gay marriage would cost him North Carolina. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have decidedly different views on the subject and oppose same-sex marriage, and even civil unions.

With gay marriage is being considered this season on state ballots across the United States -- and with the man who played a star role in kicking the civil-rights battle forward sitting on stage in Danville -- Raddatz should have queried them publicly on the movement broadening traditional marriage.

The final presidential debate, moderated by Bob Schieffer, will focus on foreign policy and international security, so unless he asks how gay soldiers and Marines are doing fulfilling their SEAL team duties, the question won't come up then. That leaves it to the citizens gathered on October 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, for a town-hall debate to do what Jim Lehrer and Raddatz did not manage to do and pose this question. (CNN's Candy Crowley will moderate.)

Many of the divisions between Romney-Ryan and Obama-Biden on national security and the economy are overstated. They are both pretending at the moment to be more hawkish on China than they really are. As Ryan said last night, core national interests and assessment of the unique circumstances of every conflict in the Middle East would guide a Romney White House's decision to deploy force -- which is exactly the position of the Obama White House.

But on gay marriage, there are substantial differences, and America should learn more about the rationale each side has for their positions.