Death of A Nation DVD Advertisement

The Problems with Hagel

email Email

For two reasons, Chuck Hagel is a disastrous choice for  Secretary of Defense:


  • First, there’s the worldview problem: he clearly believes the nation would benefit from a less powerful military, with fewer resources devoted to national security. This attitude shouldn’t disqualify a nominee from serving in another Cabinet position, but it’s totally inappropriate for a Secretary of Defense: if he doesn’t fight for the Pentagon’s interests, who will?


  • Second, there’s the competence problem: Hagel’s bumbling, unprepared, inarticulate performance in his confirmation hearings showed an aging politician utterly unqualified to run one of the most complex, sophisticated bureaucracies on earth. If he can’t stand up to tough questions from Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz, how can he stand up to Iran or North Korea?


His experience long ago as an enlisted infantryman serving in Vietnam showed courage, but hardly constituted administrative leadership.

email Email

Comments (26)

Leave a comment
  1. Robert Jane  •  Feb 8, 2013 at 6:37 pm

    Hey, Hey, Ho, HO…..’dis clumsy ‘ol oaf just ‘gotta GO!

  2. JOHN WIGGINS  •  Feb 8, 2013 at 6:49 pm

    NOT MINE !!!

  3. Victor Dziuba  •  Feb 8, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    From what I’ve seen and heard from this individual, he will hinder any realistic approach the US needs to take in order to keep this country safe. Also, the depth of his views toward our adversaries are questionable!

  4. Edward A Posuniak, Jr  •  Feb 8, 2013 at 9:28 pm

    nyone who believes the nation would benefit from a less powerful military, with fewer resources devoted to national security is not the man for this position. He and Mr. Obama want a weaker America in the presence if a more dangerous world that wants America to be a third worl nation. That concept is not in the genes of the American people who believe in the Constitution and the FOUNDING FATHERS.

  5. Edward A Posuniak, Jr  •  Feb 8, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Anyone who believes the nation would benefit from a less powerful military, with fewer resources devoted to national security is not the man for this position. He and Mr. Obama want a weaker America in the presence if a more dangerous world that wants America to be a third worl nation. That concept is not in the genes of the American people who believe in the Constitution and the FOUNDING FATHERS.

  6. dapcat  •  Feb 9, 2013 at 12:17 am

    Hey Michael why don’t you do a little more research on your guests before you put them on your show and claim them as conservatives. Karl Rove is the furthest thing from a conservative these days. The man is a liar. Within the last 24 hours he’s claimed to have worked on the Reagan Presidential campaign, yet no one that did work on the campaign can remember Karl. Or the fact that he has lied about quoting Pete King and whether or not he agreed with Todd Akin’s comment regarding rape victims. True conservatives have morals and values to be running around lying. Karl is not a conservative. He is a big government establishment republican plain and simple.

    • Winston O'Dell  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 2:02 am

      Agreed! I haven’t respected the likes of Karl Rove since the early years I first heard him in the media, boasting. Rove’s candor seems to be what made him a kingpin in the republican party. I think it’s fair to say he was a loose cannon. Early on election eve I still had hopes for a republican win until I heard Rove on TV predicting a win for the republicans. His TV presence gave me the depressed sense of a bad premonition. Also, and an important distinction: The value set of a true conservative in part holds to honesty and integrity and allows no boasting and bragging! I’m personally convinced this is not Karl Rove.

  7. Jeff Noncent  •  Feb 9, 2013 at 4:04 am

    whatever he does Obama need to be in Jail with chuck

  8. Lee Price  •  Feb 9, 2013 at 5:39 pm

    As a former Marine who loves his country and worries about it’s future ability to protect my children and grand children, and all Americans, from terrorists threats, I believe Mr. Hagel is naive and out of step with reality.
    I vote NO!.

  9. joan forrest  •  Feb 10, 2013 at 9:31 am

    Poor decision. Mr. O has his reasons for wanting Hager for this post and it has nothing to do with the good of the Nation. Our enemies will dance in the streets if this nomination goes through-and it probably will. Trace the foreign money he has refused to discuss.

  10. Harvey Flax  •  Feb 10, 2013 at 3:31 pm

    With all the qualified people in our country why does Obama keep coming up with these misfits,
    (i.e. Janet Napoliteon) to important posts? Her with her contempt for our returning service men,
    now Chuck Hagel with his wonderful intentions to shrink our Armed Forces. At a time when the
    world seems to be in the most dangerous condition since Adolf Hitler,his solution would be to have less protection from the lunatics who promote genocide on a Nation that has risen from a
    barren swamp to one of the most productive country’s in the world,Israel. After that they can then concentrate on eliminating the rest of the civilized world, thanks Mr. Pres. any other great
    appointees you have in mind? H.Flax

  11. Ed Kreamer  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 12:16 pm

    No To Chuck. I can;t believe that this man was nominated. Oh wait….Mr Obama nominated him. I guess I can believe it

  12. Mark Hurwitz  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    Say NO to Chuck. He is not prepared and not qualified. He will weaken our military and put this country and our allies in greater danger

  13. Jon Morrison  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    Say NO to Chuck. We cannot afford to put the country in a weaker more dangerous place in the world. Mr. Hagel is not qualified to be Secretary of Defense.

  14. jennie waddington  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 9:05 pm

    I would like to say “NO” to Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense

    • jennie waddington  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 9:06 pm

      I would like to say no to Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

  15. Raymond Rowe  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 9:44 pm

    Want to join your “No on Chuck” message to the Senate but could not find it. R.A.Rowe

  16. W.L. O'Dell  •  Feb 11, 2013 at 11:38 pm

    A firm ‘NO’ to Hagel as SecDef. The two reasons stated above are enough, but there might be a John Murtha might be lurking in that man, leading to my suspicion of another reason he was nominated. And, as a republican he doesn’t seem to rally well behind his party. But, then if he did I suppose he wouldn’t have been nominated.

  17. David Hackett  •  Feb 12, 2013 at 1:19 am

    No to Chuck, not qualified for Defense Secretary

  18. d. kayden  •  Feb 12, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    no to hagel

  19. jlwitte  •  Feb 12, 2013 at 9:58 pm

    Like others, I too wanted to sign the NO Chuck petition and couldn’t find it on the site.

  20. John RS  •  Feb 15, 2013 at 1:28 pm

    God help me, I’ve stumbled into a nest of fascists. Do you people really believe that a country with enough fire power to destroy the world needs more arms? Does human welfare mean so little to you?

    • Mike  •  Feb 15, 2013 at 4:42 pm

      John…you’re grossly misinformed…the US has given more humanitarian aid than any country in the history of the world. And when you take that aid in…it needs to be protected with guns…or the thugs get it….

      second point…the only reason Iran, North Korea, etc. haven’t launched any reallyheavy artillery is they know they’ll get their backside kicked.

  21. Mike  •  Feb 15, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    A nation, our nation, will only be kept safe through insurmountable military might…period. Disarming the nation is like disarming the law abiding citizens in Chicago…the gun murder rate skyrocketed… The thugs (terrorists or otherwise) will always have guns…you (and our nation) have to be prepared and constantly ahead of the curve.

    A disarmed nation sounds nice in a platitude…but only means you’ll be overrun…sooner rather than later.

  22. steve M  •  Feb 15, 2013 at 10:42 pm

    Dispite what a certain part of society believes, The US does not have the strongest military any more. Anyone who believes that North Korea or China’s military is not stronger fails to grasp reality. Yes, we have more technology than those countries, But not strength. After a month of fighting North Korea or China, We would have as many losses as we suffered thruout the entire Iraq debacle. Chuck Hagel’s ship sailed years ago and being a grunt in another war decades ago earns him respect from the grunts in todays army and marine corps, But thats about the extent of it. Running the DOD is equal to running a major corporation. Chuck Hagel appears confused when he testifys and demonstrates weakness and indecisivness. We can do better as a nation.

  23. John D. Fiat  •  Feb 22, 2013 at 6:07 pm

    So who do you want, another Israel-first chicken hawk with no military experience? Yea, I guess you do. Iran is a threat? Don’t make me laugh! Iran, unlike Israel, is a member of the NPT, and thus has a right to nuclear power. Israel is sitting on 300 illegal and undeclared nukes. Has Iran attacked another nation in the last 200 years? No. However, Israel attacked us at the Lavon Affair in 1954 and the USS Liberty in 1967. Get a clue, guys!

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn