General Discussion

KoKo

(84,711 posts)

45. I thought same thing when this was announced Friday & posted here on DU...

Mon Nov 24, 2014, 01:19 PM

Nov 2014

and since the announcement of Hagel's resigning said discussions had been going on with him for weeks it would fit the time frame of the "Secret Agreement." Could mean that Hagel was not in favor of escalation in Afghanistan and the disagreements couldn't be overcome. Interesting also that they may have known that Repubs would win the Senate so they would have to deal with McCain/Graham having the power to push more aggressive action. Or, it could be they were going to do the escalation, anyway, no matter who won the Senate and didn't want it to get out before the election.

Not good, whatever the truth of it is, though, imho.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Secretary Hagel resigning today. [View all] merrily Nov 2014 OP

Just hearing on Diaz-Balart that Hagel has been asked to resign. BlueCaliDem Nov 2014 #1

I heard that, too. No name within the White House was given. merrily Nov 2014 #3

Politico asked in January 2013: Is Hagel up to the job? (same wording!) merrily Nov 2014 #7

Good (nt) bigwillq Nov 2014 #2

Why? Hagel was probably the most reluctant to go to war among the whole national security team. Mass Nov 2014 #4

Agreed. Supposed to manage combat withdrawal ctaylors6 Nov 2014 #14

Does this mean Obama is a Neocon war hawk? ~nt RiverLover Nov 2014 #15

It's odd that he has that reputation when he voted Yes on every war he was ever asked to fund Bluenorthwest Nov 2014 #18

it's not like Obama really chooses. Grow up. librechik Nov 2014 #48

Hagel will stay on until the Senate confirms a replacement pinboy3niner Nov 2014 #5

Says whom? Mass Nov 2014 #6

CNN reported WH told them that about Hagel staying on until replacement is confirmed pinboy3niner Nov 2014 #16

They probably did not know what they were reporting, as usual Mass Nov 2014 #17

AP is reporting the same thing as CNN... pinboy3niner Nov 2014 #19

We' ll know soon, but it would be extremely awkward and stupid. Mass Nov 2014 #20

Holder, now Hagel. Shouldn't they have replacements already in mind before they announce? Nuclear Unicorn Nov 2014 #30

You don't know the story, maybe Hagel deserves diminishment. LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #32

I don't get it. Obama has two months to name someone before Republicans take over and merrily Nov 2014 #46

BBC... Triana Nov 2014 #31

I see. In this case, Obama has somebody he needs to fire in the WH. I do not know who gave Mass Nov 2014 #35

I suspect that Hagel was very against extending the war against ISIS. And he may have made it jwirr Nov 2014 #41

I think their biggest differences were over Syria policy pinboy3niner Nov 2014 #50

Interesting. Sounds reasonable. jwirr Nov 2014 #53

US defence secretary Chuck Hagel 'to step down' (BBC) eppur_se_muova Nov 2014 #8

Usually it's a 'spend time with my family' thing, asked to step down LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #33

Mhm. This White House doesn't fire people easily. Ykcutnek Nov 2014 #39

Hagel Said to Be Stepping Down as Defense Chief Under Pressure (NYT) eppur_se_muova Nov 2014 #9

I worry that a more hawkish defense policy is coming. marmar Nov 2014 #10

I worry too. I worry mostly because the White House is ridiculously busy humiliating him, Mass Nov 2014 #13

If a replacement is filibustered, the prez should call off our foreign wars. Orsino Nov 2014 #11

If that were Obama's plan, he would not have needed Hagel's resignation. merrily Nov 2014 #26

Just heard this on WGN. nt City Lights Nov 2014 #12

The war drums are beating. mmonk Nov 2014 #21

Have they ever really stopped since 911? merrily Nov 2014 #23

Nope. Just sick of it all. mmonk Nov 2014 #34

good samsingh Nov 2014 #22

My son the sergeant tells me VA_Jill Nov 2014 #24

from 1995? Hagel served in the military from 1967-68 and as Secretary of Defense from 2013. merrily Nov 2014 #27

My SON'S VA_Jill Nov 2014 #28

Yeah, I got it after a minute. Edited my post. merrily Nov 2014 #29

That Obama may be about to lose his support from the troops? jwirr Nov 2014 #42

Nah VA_Jill Nov 2014 #58

Okay, thank you for the definition. Obama had better think about who he puts in. Maybe someone jwirr Nov 2014 #59

Bring back a Seckertery who knows how to really kill for oil. Octafish Nov 2014 #25

probably directly related to the news this am from democracy now xiamiam Nov 2014 #36

Probably. mmonk Nov 2014 #37

I thought same thing when this was announced Friday & posted here on DU... KoKo Nov 2014 #45

There you have it then.. 2banon Nov 2014 #47

This White House doesn't fire people easily, so he must've deserved it. nt Ykcutnek Nov 2014 #38

"He wasn't up for the job" What Republican is ??? kelliekat44 Nov 2014 #40

Problems don't appear any more to be dem or repub. It's more like neocon and wall street parties TheNutcracker Nov 2014 #43

Looks like Hagel wanted to take a harder line against Assad: ucrdem Nov 2014 #44

Maybe not. merrily Nov 2014 #57

I wonder who leaked the changes in Afghanistan policy over the weekend? librechik Nov 2014 #49

Most transparent administration ever! merrily Nov 2014 #51

This is terrible LittleBlue Nov 2014 #52

Shitty thing for Obama to do. He's lost me now. TwilightGardener Nov 2014 #54

I don't see this as a positive sign. Tatiana Nov 2014 #55

Damn it! It is far past time that American allies Dawson Leery Nov 2014 #56