Good Luck

Submitted by Jean (United States), Jan 28, 2013 at 13:24

I hope you will be able to convince one Senator to fillibuster this terrible choice.

Chuck Hagel has made a phenomenal total reversal of his views on several major issues.

But in 2013, the Road to Damascus is too perilous to accept pretend conversions.

Hagel does not believe that a military option is an option even if negotiations fail.

He has just recently changed his previous stated views on this issue to making military plans against Iran his top priority, in order to advance his career. It means he now believes that it is expedient to use the threat as a public lever in negotiations, but if negotiations fail, he would advise in private, that the US should allow a nuclear armed Iran. Many of those who are in favor of confirmation such as Nicholas Kristof, writing in the New York Times, have said the same thing. Iran certainly understands this, and is rooting for him.

Iran's English language propaganda arm said last week that the choice of Chuck Hagel for secretary of Defense indicates that the United States would allow Iran to get a nuclear bomb rather than confront the Islamic Republic. The Iranians used a former Democratic Senator, Mike Gravel, as the centerpiece of their report.

A nuclear Iran has sworn to eliminate Israel and every mosque in Iran has a poster "Death To Israel."

After Iran drops an atomic bomb over Tel Aviv, the issue of whether Hagel is anti-Israel or pro-Israel becomes mute.

Iran has a high tolerance for the deaths of huge numbers of people. The war between Iran and Iraq ostensibly over a territorial dispute concerning 0.1% of Iran's land mass had a million casualties.

Iran has spread it's terror all over the globe and has murdered more than a thousand Americans.

It's ideology is identical to Al Qaeda, and certainly has America, the Great Satan in it's cross hairs.

A Hagel confirmation kills any chance of Iran agreeing to stop it's nuclear weapons program through negotiations. why would they take the tremendous political risk of telling their people that years of sanctions privations was for nothing when they know their really is no risk of an American military action?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".