Hagel´s going to be a disaster for the country in the position he´ll be in,regardless of the number of nay votes he gets.His anti-American and anti-Israel positions should be more than enough to sink him but people still cave under the overhang of Obama and media bullying.

he is perfect a weak sec for a very weak pres

Here is where the Administration punishes the Red States. Didn´t Nixon close down MA after McGovern vote? Hagel will reward CA and punish TX etc. just watch.

If a nominee for Secretary of Defense ´´doesn´t have the confidence of the vast majority of the Senate, which weakens him in that position,´´ yet the majority of the Senate votes to confirm him anyway, why have Congressional confirmation hearings at all?

Why insult everyone´s intelligence and make a mockery of the Constitution´s ´´advise and consent´´ clause, instead of just allowing presidents to choose whomever they want for any position and be done with it?

Once Chuck Hagel becomes Secretary of Defense, he will be required to appear periodically before the same Senate Armed Services Committee that confirmed him. When that happens, what will Committee members like John McCain, who has stated he considers Chuck Hagel unqualified for the job but will vote for him anyway, going to say when Chuck proves he truly is unqualified for the job by creating a military mess that causes the loss of many American lives?

Once a Senator is elected, his/her actions affect every citizen of the United States.
My question is this: Do Senators vote to do what is best for America, or best for their own political future, America be damned?
If Hagel becomes secretary, I will do everything I can to see that those irresponsible Senators are punished.
THEY have forgotten that they work for We the People and as such, MUST answer to us.

When a politican puts the best interests of the people of the USA ahead of party, that politican is savaged.

THIS, is just unbelievable- they know- they absolutely Know - this man is a walking disaster of a Defense Sec- yet, they are going to approve him! I am utterly appalled!

THIS IS WHY I HATE THE GOP. they will play the kabuki dance and all vote no, while the key vote is the committee where Deb Fischer and all the rest who asked for details on Benghazi as a prerequisite for voting cloture, cave like cheap suits. worthless. The Dems never exhibit this weakness, they vote as a bloc. I am sick of GOP

I´d like to think that any pubs voting for Hagel might be setting themselves up for trouble if they´re running for reelection in 2014 but the reality is that voters probably will not care as long as he/she is bringing home the bacon.

With our asymmetric adversaries and the proven effectiveness of drone strikes, our military needs a 21st Century makeover. Many in the Beltway still think of war on terms of WWII. In reality, tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, and battle ships are largely obsolete tools of war. Bad news for the communities that have grown dependent on the government teat. We simply cannot afford our bloated, antiquated military. I hope Chuck recognizes this fact. I have high hopes for him based on the caliber of people who have so cravenly tried to smear him.

Hagel will be a disaster and when it occurs President Obama will blame the military and the Republicans.

Hagel can only become secretary if the GOP allow it.

1. Posters are correct in all brickbats flung at these Senatorial 4-year-olds.

2. #10 -- wrong across the board, IMHO. I will back that up, not just make assertions.
a. "[Heavy weapons systems] are largely obsolete tools of war." That conclusion is a common error. It assumes our enemies, who have little or nothing like these weapons, are right. Actually, two other factors are in play: 1. they can´t afford such weapons [hardware; training; manpower; support]; 2. they know any attempt to fight the US like-against-like would see their forces crushed [see Saddam´s Iraq].
b. tanks -- they bring great firepower to land war; destroy infantry; overrun enemy artillery; and seize enemy territory and high-value targets like transport hubs.
c. bombers -- the alternative to nuclear weapons for bringing wide-spread destruction to: ports; troops in large numbers; air bases; industrial hubs; and similar large targets.
d. aircraft carriers -- simply no better/other way to hold air superiority anywhere in the world. Invaluable for supporting troops fighting in enemy nations; protecting shipping; and staying in the fight. Look what the Brits did with a few low-capability Harriers flying off jury-rigged container ships. No, they are not "utterly defenseless against enemy missiles. Too complex for here.
e. battle ships -- what? No one operates battleships. We used them last, over 10 years ago, and have none in service.

#10, Chuck smeared himself.