Comments

  1. Colin says

    Our servicemen and women, straight and gay, have been dying in the thousands the past ten years on pointless military actions. The most important consideration for the Secretary of Defense should be whether he or she has the right outlook on matters of war and peace. According to all sources, Hagel is a man who will resist putting our troops in harm’s way unless it is absolutely necessary and in the best interests of the nation. I think peace-loving citizens should support the nomination – and trust that the Administration’s support of gay rights and abortion access will not be undermined by the appointment.

  2. MichaelJ says

    In addition to grilling Hagel about what steps he will take to ensure that gay men and women are treated respectfully within the military, he should also be asked what steps he will take to rectify the military’s horrific record in dealing with rape and sexual assaults in its ranks. This is the subject of an excellent if very upsetting and infuriating 2012 documentary film “The Invisible War,” which I recommend (and which is on the short list for an Academy Award nomination). The military has done far worse than not taken complaints seriously — they have treated anyone who complains with suspicion at best and threats of violence at worse.

  3. Caliban says

    Rachel really is the best out there at breaking things down and explaining them clearly and concisely.

    I hadn’t really bothered to look deeper into the Hagel controversy. I wasn’t even sure there really WAS a controversy, since on the surface it seemed to be just another example of the GOP being “The Party Of NO,” opposing something merely because Obama is for it. Thanks to Rachel’s segment, now I see why it’s important, why the “Left” may have have very good reasons for opposing Hagel’s nomination.

    It also gives me a more nuanced view of the Log Cabin Republican’s opposition to Hagel, though I still think they need to disclose the source of their funding for their anti-Hagel ads. I seriously doubt that whoever is funding them opposes Hagel for any of the reasons Rachel Maddow discusses in the segment, they’re just using the LCR as a cover for their own agenda.

  4. iban4yesu says

    @ SoSeriouslyY

    Republicans don’t like this guy “in spite of” him hating on gays but mainly because he has a sensible take on Israel. Two separate issues.

    BTW, important quotes from the same source:
    “Steve Clemons, a well-respected and openly gay foreign policy hand in Washington who has known Hagel for years, writes that the former Republican senator “is pro-gay, pro-LGBT, pro-ending ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’” Glenn Greenwald, also a proponent of gay rights, argues that Hagel’s “primitive and ugly views on gay issues back in 1998” put him within the mainstream at the time and that his views, like the views of many other Americans, may have evolved since then.”

    I myself would say that Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are indeed are not NOT good ambassadors of the GLBT community and actually said so to their faces when they accosted me last time! Say what you want but some of us happen to be Catholics (And there are lots of Catholics who are dis-assoiciated with the Vatican)! Deal with it!

  5. am i right or ..... says

    The solution to both these problems (sexual assault and abortion) is so easy! Just segregate straight males in military units so that they have no access to fertile females. All the rest, females, gay and straight, and the gay males can be put in together. Problems solved!

  6. Buster says

    @Iban4yesu – regardless of your opinion about the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (which is, by the way, a charity organization that does much good in the communities in which it operates), the Sisters were not being nominated to be an ambassador.

    The fact that Hagel argued that someone’s attendance at an event at which the Sisters performed was reason enough to deny him a position as ambassador is one of the most absurd and discriminatory reasons against a confirmation vote that I can imagine. I suspect it would be pretty difficult to staff the embassies if we decided no one could be confirmed if there seemed to have enjoyed some sort of “inappropriate” entertainment in the past. Who decides what’s inappropriate? Do we include books read? Porn watched? What if the nominee engaged in “sexy dancing?” The entire line of inquiry is ridiculous.

    Finally, as for the Catholic thing – don’t kid yourself. Roman Catholicism is not a religion that allows a lot of personal choice in matters of doctrine. You can SAY you are a Catholic who is “dis-assoiciated” from the Vatican but, as you might recall from your European history classes (or Canon Law), rejecting the primacy of the Vatican doesn’t make you some sort of quasi-Catholic, it makes you a heretical Protestant. Further, most Protestant denomination don’t even have female religious orders of nuns. So maybe you can so you can stop harassing the Sisters, okay?

  7. tom says

    there is none smarter on tv and she has a way of making the whole world of politics fun and less dry and she gives a history lessen on the top and other stories..if you have not had the chance…check her out..she is the best!!!!!!

Leave A Reply