Democrats get the Dept of Transportation in Republican administrations and Republicans get the Dept of Defense in Democratic administrations. Doesn't seem like an equal trade unless, of course, you are of the belief that there aren't qualified Democrats to serve as Sec of the Dept of Defense. Obama has appointed two Republicans to his cabinet, Gates at Defense and LaHood at Transportation (he also appointed Gregg at Commerce but Gregg withdrew). Here's a rundown on recent cross-party cabinet members:

• George W. Bush: Democrat Norman Mineta, transportation secretary.

• Bill Clinton: Republican William Cohen, defense secretary.

• George H. W. Bush: none.

• Ronald Reagan: William Bennett was a Democrat when appointed as education secretary in 1985, but the following year, he became a Republican and has remained a conservative Republican voice ever since. I don't believe Bennett qualifies as a cross-party cabinet member inasmuch as he believes most Democrats are traitors or worse.

• Jimmy Carter: Republican James Schlesinger, who served as defense secretary under Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, was tapped by Carter as America's first energy secretary.

• Richard Nixon: Daniel Patrick Moynihan served as ambassador to the United Nations, which at the time was not a Cabinet-level position. This was before Moynihan entered politics.

• John F. Kennedy: Republicans C. Douglas Dillon as treasury secretary and Robert McNamara as defense secretary.

• Dwight D. Eisenhower: Labor Secretary Martin Patrick Durkin, who was replaced in 1953 by fellow Democrat James P. Mitchell, a so-called "Democrat-for-Eisenhower."

• Franklin D. Roosevelt: Republicans Frank Knox as secretary of the Navy and Henry Stimson, secretary of war.

I guess we are going to be stuck with another SecDef who wrongly believes solving the Israel/pal conflict will solve all other problems, and really wonder why anyone listens to Zbigniew Brzezinski,
BUT,
I have always been a Hagel fan, and he certainly has the backbone to "deal with the inter-service rivalries". I think a former Vietnam grunt facing down all those generals would be inspirational to our military services.
However, it is always good to remember that SecDef IS now part of the Executive Branch's foreign policy team, with possibly more influence than SecState. So much of the USA's foreign policy still seems aligned with weapons sales. Also, fwiw, at one point (2008?), Hagel was the only person in DC that Angela Merkel trusted.
Ask Steve Coll and Fouad Ajami to give Hagel a crash course in the 2012 reality of Political Islam.

I have been following this at Commentary (they are flogging Hagel at every turn), and read Bret Stephens WSJ op-ed earlier today (it's free!). I sensed Stephens is willing to give Hagel a new hearing. Hamas' Meshal's recent rocketpalooza was a serious eye-opener to the intransigence of Hamas.

Forget it. "Jewish lobby?" Enough said, appoint a Democrat.

Let me be clear: people who argue for a two-state solution and talking to Iran, I agree with on principle.

But, "Jewish lobby" is more than a bridge too far. And also I agree with Rayward. Why do Republicans get to control the big bucks and the big power? There is no fatter plum than "defense." Speaking of suckling on the Federal tit, to quote one of our oh-so-erudite Catfood Commisars.

Obama has always been seriously committed to nuclear non-proliferation, which is how he got so close with Senators Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel, and Susan Eisenhower.

Sam Nunn would be a much better choice, IMHO.

If Chuck Hagel is an example of "the worst kind of anti-Semitism there is" then I think we can confidently conclude that Jews could not possibly be any safer in this world.

The right-wing Israel lobby and the right-wing gun lobby sound just alike. Every piece of legislation that does not further the interests of the NRA is a mortal threat to all our freedoms. Every politician who doesn't want to give Likud governments everything they want is a mortal threat to Jews.

Yawn. Get bent.

The United States would be a lot safer at home and abroad if we stopped listening to both.

Appoint Michele Flournoy. She has earned it. Hagel will not gain the administration any bipartisanship points from the Repubs and, unlike Gates, he isn't the most obviously qualified person for the job. If anyone is, its Flournoy.

This is good reporting. But the important point is, did Hagel say anything incorrect on a Sunday talk show occuring in less time after the events at issue than it takes to find out the details about Sandy Hook (which happened on our own soil)?

I thought I posted a comment, but I don't see it here.
I think that attributing the number of toxic comments that Hagel has been heard saying
to "pro-Netanyahu" and "hardline Israel" is a real smear. See for instance the op-ed by Bret Stephens in the Wall St Journal (Dec 18), and the analysis there.

Yerubal: the juxtaposition of "Bret Stephens" and "analysis" made my head spin. Please, if you have anything to say, say it. But don't refer people to the WSJ or, worse, Stephens; it's a waste of retina energy reading the reference.

Why not a certain Clinton, H., as Secretary of Defence?

icarus-r:

Looks like Clinton, H. is done with government service -- at least for a couple of years.

Agreed on Bret Stephens. Why not quote Charles Krauthammer or John Bolton?

Ya'll are surprised that BHO probably appoints a Repub at Defense, proposes cuts in SS that Repubs reject and gives them SS cover for other cuts, pre-negotiates away his fiscal cliff advantages??? On what planet have you been for four years?? You're getting the results of what you elected: slow drift to the right in feckless negotiations. Unless the economy subsequently goes south, at which point you get a rapid rightward move that may last for a generation.

This is really funny.

All those who voted for a Republican for President like K2K because they are soooo "pro Israel" are now telling us that a Republican is anti Jewish. How could that be, aRepublican anti Israel?

For my part, the only NE Senator I trust is Bob Kerrey the former Senator.

Does any one here remember NE Senator Roman Hruska, they guy who said that even us "mediocre people" need representation. He went on to say (and tied is seldom quoted) that we cant all "be Brandeises or Cardosos."

Well, I recommend Bob Kerrey for the defense Department. He is from NE but he is not mediocre. That's more than one can say for Chuck Hagel.

John Judis isn't that much better than Stephen as news analyst. And Stephens gives the impression that he knows a lot more about what he is writing about even if you disagree with him.

There may be no reason concerning the holy land not to nominate Hagel, but it also gets you nothing, bipartisanwise--GOPers who care about foreign policy think he's a turncoat--and I see no evidence he'd make a good secretary (in particular that his understanding of the greater [and regular] middle east is up to the job--though I will admit his warning about 'dancing in the streets' is something [it seems pretty minimal, in retrospect]). So why bother?

Bob Kerry, sure, I guess. Isn't he, like, maybe a war criminal, though? I know his other, much more positive biographical details--that part still bothers me, even if I never was able to nail down the story to my satisfaction. My apologies to Mr. Kerry if my suggestion is inaccurate.

Bob "Kerrey." Sorry.

" In 2002, he urged Bush to meet with Palestinian Authority President Yasir Arafat. "

Clinton played host to Arafat more than 17 times, hugged him and fostered him as a world leader. We saw how well-judged and richly-rewarded that turned out to be.

2002 was the height of the suicide bombing Intifada in Israel. A really good timing for an American president to make nice to the Palestinian leader who had spurned Clinton's peace initiatives and in response launched a bloody onslaught on Israeli buses. Is this an example of the thoughtful and honorable policies of this candidate?

And what exactly was the mistake in calling Iraq, Iran and North Korea an axis of evil? Just because W. Bush said it, does it mean it is automatically wrong?

I agree with Noga regarding Hagel's attitude toward the Palestinians in 2002, though obviously not about the Axis of Evil--there's no sensible geopolitical linkage between those three countries, which were either geographically and strategically separated, or else sworn enemies who'd fought the nastiest war of the second half of the twentieth century against each other. It's also an example of 'out-party homogeneity bias' ('y'all aren't the same as us, and are in the opposition, so as far as we're concerned, you're the same) and crude foreign policy thinking of the type that fucked us in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The statement also unnecessarily made North Korea more paranoid and even more focused on creating their nuclear deterrent, at a time when our attention and resources were focused elsewhere and we couldn't respond militarily--at a critical moment in the process, I'd add. In short, W's statement was pretty much profoundly stupid foreign policy on all possible levels. There, Noga, is that enough?

"Bob Kerry, sure, I guess. Isn't he, like, maybe a war criminal, though? I know his other, much more positive biographical details--that part still bothers me, even if I never was able to nail down the story to my satisfaction."

Bob Kerry's own reaction to the incident (his anguish and disgust with himself) tells me that he was no "war criminal."

I think too that he would make a splendid Defense Secretary.

" I'd add. In short, W's statement was pretty much profoundly stupid foreign policy on all possible levels. There, Noga, is that enough?"

Not really. Was it wrong, factually or morally, to refer to those three malevolent regimes as evil?? I don't get the explanation about there being "no sensible geopolitical linkage between those three countries". What "sensible geopolitical linkage" was there between Germany, Italy and Japan? Aren't North Koreans involved in Iran's nuclear program? If you take axis to mean only an openly acknowledged alliance among three countries, then perhaps the term was not perfectly accurate, perhaps.

"Evil" can be evil, even when the devil is out of the picture, you know.

But I appreciate your agreement with my reading of Hagel's attitude toward the Palestinians in 2002. Such thinking with regards to Palestinians from him is much more worrying than a mere disagreement about W's terminology.

From a Hagel endorser:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/13/top_five_reasons_obama_sh...

"5: He's got the right enemies. Hagel does have one political liability: Unlike almost all of his former colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn't been a complete doormat for the Israel lobby."

(Note the choice of language: Hagel's critics are "his enemies". And what's the enemy called? "The Israel lobby.")

I think the danger with Bob Kerrey is that he would get bored with the job after two years and drop it. But otherwise he would be a very interesting nominee.

Hagel would obviously be a signal that Obama is resigned to a nuclear Islamic Iran. As if the US, especially Obama, hasn't been conciliatory enough to Iran over the years. Can we live with the results of that? It is disingenuous of Hagel to recommend that we modify Hamas's behavior. Can we? He really has no intention of confronting Hamas, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood opposed to a 2-state solution to the Israel-Arab conflict. So, John Judis, too, is disingenuous in his professed support for the 2-state solution to Palestine, if he would grant legitimacy to Hamas and Iran.

Friends of Israel, other beleaguered Middle Eastern peoples, opponents of Islamism, and true Middle East democrats have good reason for concern about the direction of Obama foreign policy. Although we should be leery of repeating the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, the US still has an important balancing role to play in the region.

Noga, I appreciate your polite response to my intemperate post.

(TR really put it better than I did, about the Axis of Evil. Good foreign policy is often to 'walk softly, and carry a big stick.' W had a lot of swagger, but the our stick turned out not to be so effective. And that was a problem)

Beyond that, I will respond, in part, by saying that I don't think the nuclear cooperation between Iran and North Korea is anything like as important as the strategic alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan (two of those major military and industrial powers); Iran wouldn't declare war in solidarity with North Korea. In the World War, by contrast, there was even tactical cooperation between Germany and Japan during the assault on Singapore, if memory serves.

I do believe in evil, at least as a practically useful concept, but expressing it is not necessarily helpful, diplomatically--in fact, usually not. It didn't help Chavez when he called Bush II the devil; the neutral diplomats and foreign leaders hated it. Bush's (Frum's) line, and the surrounding speech, played into the snobby European image of our US leader (and, by extension, our policy, as it were) as a cowboy evangelical (they generally don't realize over there that he was a completely fake cowboy, and that his 'ranch' was not a ranch because it had/has no cattle), and also oversimplified important issues American citizens (and, it turns out in retrospect, he, himself) needed to understand about their foreign policy. All that's in addition to the important strategic mistake of putting NK 'on our list' at a time we were making our military resources unable to deal with them (and when they were already close to a bomb--I would have much preferred walking softly, there, and then threatening to carpet bomb Pyong-yang and their nuclear facilities if when time allowed, though I admit that 'plan' has problems of its own). In short, it alienated both friends and allies, and wasn't helpful in the long term to an assessment of the situation.

I would describe Salafist Islamism as evil, at least some of the time. It doesn't mean that the political dynamics are such that it's helpful for Americans to call them out that way--we can't just stamp the movement out, the way we helped do with the Nazis. Our cards must be played with care, and with an eye to the real limitations of US power and influence in a world in which Europe and other capitalist governments no longer need us (and don't bother to spend enough on their own militaries to be reliable allies, other than for basing rights, etc), and our own Defense spending is unlikely to exceed 5.5% of GDP.

"What "sensible geopolitical linkage" was there between Germany, Italy and Japan?"

Noga,

The above 3 nations agreed in writing (the Tripartite Pact) that they would work on common goals. Hitler took the Pact so much to heart that he declared war on the U.S. 4 days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. I don't think North Korea, Iraq, and Iran have signed such an agreement. Again, G.W. Bush comes off as a supreme ignoramus.

Here's the Tripartite Pact, signed in 1940 in Berlin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripartite_Pact

BUsh's axis of evil was a phrase coined to remind people of the axis powers in WW2.

Of course, as Magboy said there were formal treaties between Germany, Japan and Italy just as there were formal treaties between the allies.

In the case of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea there was no comparable treaty agreement. Iraq went to war with Iran. Still all three powers were nasty, lawless and tyrannical and in that sense evil, but they weren't allied in any formal sense.

Here is the story of "The axis of evil":

"David Frum

The phrase was attributed to former Bush speechwriter David Frum, originally as the axis of hatred and then evil. Frum explained his rationale for creating the phrase axis of evil in his book The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush. Essentially, the story begins in late December 2001 when head speechwriter Michael Gerson gave Frum the assignment of articulating the case for dislodging the government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in only a few sentences for the upcoming State of the Union address. Frum says he began by rereading President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "date which will live in infamy" speech given on December 8, 1941, after the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. While Americans needed no convincing about going to war with Japan, Roosevelt saw the greater threat to the United States coming from Nazi Germany, and he had to make the case for fighting a two-ocean war.

Frum points in his book to a now often-overlooked sentence in Roosevelt's speech which reads in part, "...we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again." Frum interprets Roosevelt's oratory like this: "For FDR, Pearl Harbor was not only an attack—it was a warning of future and worse attacks from another, even more dangerous enemy." Japan, a country with one-tenth of America's industrial capacity, a dependence on imports for its food, and already engaged in a war with China, was extremely reckless to attack the United States, a recklessness "that made the Axis such a menace to world peace", Frum says. Saddam Hussein's two wars, against Iran and Kuwait, were just as reckless, Frum decided, and therefore presented the same threat to world peace.

In his book Frum relates that the more he compared the Axis powers of World War II to modern "terror states", the more similarities he saw. "The Axis powers disliked and distrusted one another", Frum writes. "Had the Axis somehow won the war, its members would quickly have turned on one another." Iran, Iraq, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah, despite quarreling among themselves, "all resented power of the West and Israel, and they all despised the humane values of democracy." There, Frum saw the connection: "Together, the terror states and the terror organizations formed an axis of hatred against the United States."

Frum tells that he then sent off a memo with the above arguments and also cited some of the atrocities perpetrated by the Iraqi government. He expected his words to be chopped apart and altered beyond recognition, as is the fate of much presidential speechwriting, but his words were ultimately read by Bush nearly verbatim, though Bush changed the term axis of hatred to axis of evil. North Korea was added to the list, he says, because it was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, had a history of reckless aggression, and "needed to feel a stronger hand"."

Curran and magboy: As I indicated in my previous comment, the term "axis"may have been used inaccurately, if it meant to imply an strong analogy to the historical Axis, which seems to be the case. But, and Frum explains, the earlier Axis was very much on his mind when he wrote the speech.

This is sharp and to the point:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/19/hagel-not-an-anti-semit...

"I reserve the term “anti-Semite,” like the term “anti-Israel,” for those bigots who deserve it. There are too many blatant anti-Semites and anti-Zionists in the world today—and I will not function as their recruitment agent by adding to their ranks. I also refuse to dilute the power of the accusation through inaccurate overuse. Just as calling the nationalist clash between Israelis and Palestinians “racism” and “apartheid” drains those words of their meaning, calling Chuck Hagel anti-Semitic based on two indelicate Jewish-lobby-oriented quotations is rhetorical overkill.

Without rehashing the entire debate, as senator, Hagel was more of an Israel skeptic than an enthusiastic Israel friend, no Ted Kennedy, or John McCain, or Joe Biden, or Hillary Clinton was he. And for that reason, snarky comments about the “Jewish lobby” and about being a “United States Senator” and “not an Israeli Senator” rankle. Prejudice has a pedigree. Just as we winced when Biden as a candidate called Obama “articulate”—because of the twisted history that had many people questioning black people’s brains and eloquence, respectful American leaders should not stir the hornet’s nest around the Israel lobby question. "

Without having anything to say about the matter from any other aspect, my curiosity is rather piqued as to why a Democratic President goes to look for his Defense Secretary among the Republicans. Didn't Clinton do the same when he appointed William Cohen?

If the Hagel nomination doesn't make it, Obama could always try to tap Jimmy Carter or, perhaps, Walt and Mearsheimer for a joint appointment, or Brzezinki or James Baker (if he's still alive). After that, it'll be hard to find people who have a more visceral hostility toward Jews and Israel than this select group.

The fact that J-Street supports Hagel speaks for itself. The fact that Israel is coming up against Iran in the next few months and Obama want someone like Hagel in the driver's seat also makes clear how much Obama cares about covering Israel's back.

Anybody who still believes in "outreach" to the ayatollahs and Hezbollah is a deluded idiot, not fit to run a candy store, let alone the Dept of Defense. The fact that TNR publishes a hit piece like this accusing the "Jewish Lobby" of smearing Hagel makes me want to puke. I've had it.

"The fact that J-Street supports Hagel speaks for itself. "

77: It is indeed a dead giveaway. How they have the gall to define themselves as a pro-Israel organization defies comprehension.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3756.htm

"In a recent column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, columnist Dr. As'ad 'Abd Al-Rahman wrote about the Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, arguing that its importance is in that it provides the U.S. administration with "political and media ammunition" against Israel, especially in the absence of an Arab lobby in the U.S."

Funny how it emerges that the "pro-Israel, Pro-peace" J-street, de-facto, acts in lieu of an Arab Lobby.

"The fact that J-Street supports Hagel speaks for itself. "

77: It is indeed a dead giveaway. How they have the gall to define themselves as a pro-Israel organization defies comprehension.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3756.htm

"In a recent column in the UAE daily Al-Ittihad, columnist Dr. As'ad 'Abd Al-Rahman wrote about the Jewish-American advocacy group J Street, arguing that its importance is in that it provides the U.S. administration with "political and media ammunition" against Israel, especially in the absence of an Arab lobby in the U.S."

Funny how it emerges that the "pro-Israel, Pro-peace" J-street, de-facto, acts in lieu of an Arab Lobby.

I don't understand why the double posting. Sorry about that.

Hagel as "anti-Semite" is risible. But he's never run anything remotely like the DOD, and for that matter neither has Kerry. Both are good guys with great grunt cred, but is that really who we want at the top of a critical and gigantic bureaucracy that's facing really tough down-sizing choices and a probable turning point in US foreign policy simultaneously? Flournoy is probably the best choice among the obvious candidates, unless O can pull off a total surprise option. Why not Petraeus? At least he knows the turf.

RP: Rumsfeld and Cheney both had "run" big organizations and both proved abysmal at the job. It seems to me what you need in the position is not so much a CEO as a Chairman of the Board; someone with capacity to make deals and to get the squabbling cats to drink from the same saucer. I don't know much about Hagel - other than that he was committed the heresy of opposing Iraq after it became impossible for sane people to continue to support it - but I suspect that Jennifer Rubin's blogs or McCain "scoffing" at Hagel's being a Republican are not going to hurt his chances much. Obama was forced to give up on Rice - assuming he really wanted Rice in the first place - and I suspect he will not have his hands forced this time. More to the point, I think that the strategy might very well be to draw out Republican crazies in the Senate - this is not about the Mooslim Kenyan Anti-colonial communist Democrat, but rather a decorated war veteran and a reliably conservative (he voted to convict Clinton for Heaven's sake) former Republican Senator from Flyover Country. The confirmation hearings alone are likely to depress Republican numbers by half a dozen points among Independents.

The stories of Hagel’s looming nomination have aroused intense opposition--but almost exclusively from individuals and organizations that back Israel’s right-wing government and find Hagel’s views on Israel repellent.

Add to Hagel's opponents the Washington Post editorial board. No mention of Israel in the editorial.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defe...

".. he was committed the heresy of opposing Iraq after it became impossible for sane people to continue to support it -"

If supporting Iraq war was so popularly insupportable as to be insane, how is it "heresy"to oppose it? Doesn't that rather suggest conformity with a popular position, the very opposite of what "heresy" means?

______________

" Obama was forced to give up on Rice - assuming he really wanted Rice in the first place -"

If Obama wasn't sure he wanted Rice in the first place, how could he be "forced" to give her up? Doesn't "forced to give up" mean that one's explicitly acknowledged wishes are deliberately and aggressively thwarted?

I saw a pair earrings I liked. They were OK but a little too pricey and I wasn't sure about the quality of the silver. As I stood debating whether I really liked them enough to pay that price, some other woman came in and bought the pair. Do I feel as if I were FORCED to give them up?

Good Noga. I almost bought those earrings myself.
icarus--Rumsfeld was a disaster because he was TOO good. He managed a real revolution in DOD in terms of planning and procurement, rearranging the force structure to reflect realistic needs, and more. It ultimately redounds to Dubyah's undying discredit that he allowed Rummy to overrule Powell and State, throw out ten years of CENTCOM planning, appoint and play along with overt incompetents like Gen's Franks and Sanchez, authorize Bremer's rule of error--well, you know the story.....

We need an accomplished manager and creative thinker at DOD. They're out there, but probably not amongst the ex-Senators. I still think Petraeus is the best available talent for the job, scarlet letters be damned.

Judis seems to be going to an awful lot of electrons to state his belief that Hagel should be supported because of his positions on "Israel and its American lobby".

"...but I can say with confidence that Hagel is a honorable man who served with distinction as a senator and that his foreign policy views, including his positions on Israel and its American lobby, are, if anything, a reason to support rather than oppose his nomination. "

Notwithstanding Judis' assertion that Hagel's foreign policy views are "close to Obama", unless Judis knows something the WP doesn't they don't appear to be close to Obama, or the mainstream of American public opinion.

"...On the contrary: Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term — and place him near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm him..." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chuck-hagel-is-not-right-for-defe...

But then again, I'm not surprised by Judis' apparent animus, in his November 21 post about the aftermath of the latest Hamas/Israel round, he seemed to me to be stating a moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel.

"...With governments like these, war is hard to avoid: Netanyahu’s Likud Party and Hamas are different sides of the same dystopian coin. Netanyahu’s Likud party is the latest incarnation of Zionist Revisionism, which originally advocated a Greater Israel that included both the West Bank and Jordan. Many in the party remain committed to a one-state solution. Hamas, which originated out of a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, is also committed to a one-state solution, but an Islamic rather than Jewish state..."
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/110404/three-reasons-why-the-ceasefire-won...

PS - thanks to Sighthnd for the WP link.

"The stories of Hagel’s looming nomination have aroused intense opposition--but almost exclusively from individuals and organizations that back Israel’s right-wing government and find Hagel’s views on Israel repellent."

To some people Israel is the only issue that matters. These folk are obsessed with the Jewish State.

Some people here complain that those who oppose Chuck Hagel have deficient analytic powers. They point to Stephens article as proof even though he wasn't analyzing but documenting Hagel's views on what he calls the "Jewish lobby."

Only Jews pace Hagel have no right to lobby their elected officials. Hagel also doesn't differentiate between a "Jewish lobby" and a pro Israel lobby which even Mearsheimer and his ilk took such pains to do.

Judis' article btw reads like an endorsement of Hagel for some imaginary higher office:

"On foreign policy, though, Hagel was his own man. He became interested in foreign policy after returning from Vietnam where he had served as an infantryman and had been twice wounded. He returned to finish college, where he read widely on the subject, and harbored doubts about American intervention, that would burst forth later. Once elected to the Senate, Hagel asked for a seat on the Foreign Policy Committee, which was thought to be a backwater under Sen. Jesse Helms."

Hagel is a Christ like figure being threatened by those "perfidious Jews."

This is what Judis article and some comments here that support this view amount to.

Perhaps some people are not really aware of the difference between analysing and documenting. As some people do not seem to be able to make the difference between a heresy and a truth universally acknowledged ...

I still think the 'axis of evil' term was a little misleading in the sense that two of the three powers in the original axis (Axis 1.0, so to speak) were significant industrially and technically advanced societies and the third was politically weak but historically it held some of the origins of European civilization. Leaving aside the question of express political alignments vs. informal liaison, no member of the Axis 2.0 had/has anything remotely like the scientific, military, and educational capabilities that Nazi Germany could draw on -- because it was Germany, essentially.

It appears that if a state, though declaratively and effectively devoted to wiping out another state, and financing terrorism and aggression, if it does not meet the standards of modernity and industrialization of Nazi Germany, cannot and is not to be described as evil.

Irony, '.. two of the three powers in the original axis (Axis 1.0, so to speak) were significant industrially and technically advanced societies and the third was politically weak but historically it held some of the origins of European civilization..."

Italy was not exactly an insignificant industrial power in 1940 nor was it technologically backward. I think it was militarily rather than politically weak (Mussolini wouldn't have thought he was weak, anyways).

Italy's GDP in 1940 ($1990 147 billion) was not much lower than France's ($1990 164 billion), its population (44 million) was larger than France's (39 million) and its GDP per capita ($1990 3,357) was 28% higher than Japan's ($1990 2,627).
http://www.onwar.com/articles/0302.htm
http://www.populstat.info/Europe/italyc.htm
http://www.populstat.info/Europe/germanyc.htm
http://www.populstat.info/Europe/francec.htm
http://www9.ocn.ne.jp/~aslan/pfe/jpeak.htm

And, speaking of evil:

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bad-egg-article-1.1157764

"Chuck Hagel Out of Consideration for Secretary of Defense Nomination?"

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/19/chuck-hagel-out-of-consideration-for-sec

Ed Krayewski|Dec. 19, 2012 5:12 pm

"Former Republican Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel may no longer be President Obama’s favored pick to run the Defense Department, sources told theFree Beacon.

Hagel immediately drew a frosty reception from observers who criticized him for advocating in favor of direct unconditional talks with Iran and for backing sizable cuts to the defense budget.

Those who have worked with Hagel and have an intimate knowledge of his managerial style also expressed concerns about his possible appointment.
The Free Beacon uses multiple unnamed Washington sources to “corroborate” the view that Chuck Hagel is a poor manager and a foreign policy lightweight. There are also accusations that Hagel is an anti-Semite being floated in the media, no doubt helped by an “endorsement” from Iran. Last week I explained a few positive points about a potential Defense Secretary Hagel; he opposed the war in Iraq, and has said as recently as last year that it was time for America to “start heading toward the exits”. Nevertheless I recommended cautious pessimism.

Meanwhile, CATO’s Christopher Preble explained last week why a potential Hagel nomination ought to be welcome news to anyone tired of decades of U.S. foreign interventionism. Preble also said he didn’t “put much stock in the neoconservative echo chamber’s claim that Hagel will have a tough time being confirmed,” so maybe there’s hope to be held out after all.

Ed Krayewski is an associate editor at Reason 24/7."

I don't say it was entirely wrong, but I wasn't thinking of the nature of evil so much as the way in which the term 'Axis' obscures -- whether by ignorance or design -- the hostility between Iraq and Iran left over from a brutal war 15 years earlier in which Iraqi missiles had rained down on Teheran. This fact had in turn something quite important to do with the later rush to war in 2002/3 and its consequences: the Iranian regime's ambivalence about our invasion (they liked the idea of Saddam being taken out, but . . . ); the way Teheran used Curveball, pushed by Chalabi and the Iraqi National Council, to help tart up the shaky intelligence on WMD; how the current Shi'a dominated Iraqi government will do nothing to prevent Iranian assistance flowing to Syria.

I think that if anyone had said back in 2003 that our problem would be in ten years that the Iraqi state that we helped bring into being is now a major stumbling block in some critical foreign policy issues, would have stared at as if they were mad.

"they would have been stared at as if . . . "