Senate confirms Pete Hegseth to lead Pentagon
Category: News & Politics
Via: vic-eldred • 2 days ago • 164 commentsBy: Alexander Bolton (The Hill)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Vice President Vance on Friday broke a Senate tie to confirm Pete Hegseth as President Trump's secretary of Defense, capping a bruising two-month fight over the nominee, who faced a litany of allegations that included sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement and excessive drinking.
GOP Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.) voted "no," forcing Vance to step in and break the 50-50 tie. Murkowski and Collins had telegraphed their votes, but McConnell's emerged as a surprise.
It is believed to be only the second time in history a vice president has had to break a tie on a nominee. Former Vice President Mike Pence broke a tie to confirm Betsy DeVos as secretary of Education in 2017.
McConnell, surprised colleagues by opposing Hegseth on the final confirmation vote after voting to advance his nomination Thursday.
He said he didn't have confidence in the nominee's ability to lead the nation's military at a time of growing threats abroad.
"Mere desire to be a 'change agent' is not enough to fill these shoes. And 'dust on boots' fails even to distinguish this nominee from multiple predecessors of the last decade," McConnell, the chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.
He said that Hegseth had "failed, as yet, to demonstrate that he will pass" the "test" of managing a military with nearly 3 million employees and an annual budget of nearly $1 trillion.
And he said Hegseth's answers at a confirmation hearing didn't show much substance.
Hegseth, a former infantry officer in the Army National Guard who was awarded two Bronze Stars and later became a host at Fox News, is set to become the second-youngest secretary of Defense in history.
He is expected to aggressively pursue Trump's agenda for the Pentagon, which includes eradication of DEI programs and an office established by former President Biden to protect civilians in war zones.
He previously stated his opposition to women serving in combat roles, but he assured senators during his confirmation process that he would support preserving women's access to combat roles if they meet the standards for physically demanding jobs.
The Senate vote came at the end of a day of drama during which Democrats dragged out the floor debate as long as possible, refusing efforts by Republicans to move up the timing of the vote.
And rumors swirled through the Capitol Friday afternoon that Hegseth's nomination might be torpedoed at the last minute by Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and McConnell, even though they both voted to advance him on Thursday.
Tillis signaled to colleagues that he could change his mind to oppose Hegseth if he found compelling evidence corroborating the allegations of drunkenness on the job, fiscal mismanagement or other misconduct.
In the end, Tillis voted for the nominee while McConnell opposed him.
The North Carolina senator explained that he pledged to support Trump's nominees if they were reported favorably out of committees "absent new material information about their qualifications."
Hegseth wrote a letter to Tillis Friday disputing claims his former sister-in-law made in an affidavit that he had an alcohol problem and was "abusive" to his ex-wife.
Collins and Murkowski, meanwhile, had pledged to vote "no," raising questions about Hegseth's experience, qualifications and judgment.
Collins said she worries that Hegseth "does not have the management experience and background" needed to tackle the Defense Department's challenges while Murkowski raised concerns about his "judgment," citing the "multiple" infidelities he admitted to, including a sexual encounter with a woman who later accused him of assault.
Hegseth paid his accuser $50,000 as part of a legal settlement, but vigorously denied the assault allegation and claimed that he was the victim of a "smear" campaign.
Another high-profile Republican woman and military veteran, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), helped save his nomination by announcing last week that she would vote for him.
Ernst accused Democrats of playing politics by trying to drag him down with a mix of allegations spanning more than a decade.
She said colleagues tried to "score political points" at his hearing but "failed."
Hegseth won Ernst's backing after pledging to support women in combat and military procurement reform.
"Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles … given the standards remain high," he told Ernst at his confirmation hearing.
Senate Armed Service Committee Chair Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) praised Hegseth on the Senate floor as a "good choice" who would be "open to new ideas" and "not beholden to the status quo."
Wicker's unwavering support for the nominee was a big reason why he made it though the tough confirmation process.
The Mississippi Republican helped smooth the path by limiting senators to one round of questions at his confirmation hearing and declining Democratic requests to share his FBI background investigation widely among colleagues.
Hegseth's nomination united Democrats in strong opposition, giving them something to rally against after their stunning defeats in November's election.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) blasted Hegseth on the Senate floor as "one of the most erratic, unqualified and unfit Cabinet nominees we have ever seen in modern times."
He warned Republican colleagues to think carefully about Hegseth's thin resume and history of questionable conduct before placing him in charge of the nation's military.
"When you're the one responsible for leading our armed forces, erratic behavior isn't just a character flaw — it could mean the difference between entering or avoiding military conflict, between life and death for our troops," he warned.
Hegseth's path to confirmation was rattled earlier this week when Democrats revealed they had obtained a sworn affidavit by his former sister-in-law accusing him of being physically intimidating and frequently drunk, even while in military uniform.
The former relative said that Hegseth's second wife told her that she once hid in her closet because she feared her husband.
But the damage of the statement was blunted by his second wife, Samantha Hegseth, who told NBC News "there was no physical abuse in my marriage."
Democrats criticized Hegseth for refusing to meet with any of them except for Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Armed Services panel.
Democrats said Hegseth failed to explain how he would reduce costs and development times for critical military capabilities or invest in the defense industrial base, a priority
"Let's be perfectly clear about the stakes here—we are talking about who we will put in command of the most powerful military in the world. There is nothing on Mr. Hegseth's resume that remotely suggests he has the experience for the role," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, which funds the Pentagon's budget.
Trump defended Hegseth as a "good man" earlier in the day but expressed some uncertainty about the outcome of the vote.
"I don't know what's going to happen. You never know with those things. But Pete's a very, very good man. I hope he makes it," Trump told reporters on the White House lawn.
He said he was "surprised" that Collins and Murkowski voted Thursday against advancing Hegseth to a final vote, even though Senate Republicans had long thought they would likely oppose him.
Trump, however, had appeared open to dropping Hegseth as his nominee in early December when he floated Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) as a possible Plan B to head the Pentagon.
Hegseth seemed to be in serious trouble after media outlets reported that a woman accused him in a police report of sexual assault at a Republican conference in Monterrey, California, in 2017.
That allegation was followed by reports of fiscal mismanagement and unprofessional behavior at the two advocacy groups he led, Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America.
Hegseth admitted he was "not a perfect person" at his confirmation hearing and pledge to Republican senators that he would stop drinking if confirmed to serve as secretary of Defense.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
The Vice President was the tie breaking vote:
Outstanding. Hegseth will do fine.
For me, a great litmus test for blind partisanship is the approval of Hegseth to lead the DoD.
Hegseth is without question the least qualified Secretary of Defense in our lifetimes. He has a history of executive incompetence and irresponsible behavior. In addition, short of serving in the military, he has NO qualifications to be the chief executive of one of the (if not THE) most important department in the Federal government.
Yet another Trump stake in the heart of morality.
It’s official then - experience, honesty, integrity, and good character have been universally outlawed in this country.
maga!
Can't be any worse than Austin, yet another DEI hire.
When Warren said this is a 24 hour a day , 7 day a week job...
Because he's black, right?
His military career spanned 41 years, reaching the rank of 4-star general. He had combat command experience at the highest levels, including division and corps levels, and at CENTCOM.
He was confirmed 93-2. What exactly made him a "DEI" hire?
Why do you immediately deal the race card? Regardless of his record, he was a lousy SOD.
Except, you dealt the first race card calling Austin a DEI hire...
Do you actually read your own comments? Talk about irony, and why was he a DEI hire? Because he is black?
1990s- Democrats teach a generation and set the standard that character doesn't matter.
Modern Democrats- Why doesn't anyone care about our character concerns?
There is NO ONE ELSE THAT COMPARES TO POS Trump, and his selections are also pos
Opinions do vary.
There were outlawed last administration; but we didn't hear a damn peep out of the left.
A DEI hire for sure.
... continuing her personal legacy of quickly submitting to males that outrank her.
Congrats to Pete. I wish him well
I for one will give the benefit of doubt to him.
If this man and all his baggage were hired as principal of your kids’ school would you be giving him the benefit of the doubt? Of course not - that scenario wouldn’t own the libs at all. No national security risk is too great when it comes to owning the libs though, huh?
Agree. If he messes up it was a bad choice. If he does a good job most of those that say he is a bad choice now will just say he was lucky. Of course that won't happen since most of the things he will be doing is against what they want. Be ready for HDS.
Why do the libs keep thinking anyone wants to own them? Reminds me of AOC saying everyone wants to date her.
If he messes up it was a bad choice.
Oh, bravo! What a great excuse for the intentionally risky choice to run the most powerful military on the planet. That statement encapsulates everything a troll could ever hope for in under ten words.
Why do the libs keep thinking anyone wants to own them?
Oh, I dunno. Perhaps the countless times it is uttered daily by right wing nutjobs? Maybe you can take a stab at answering the question I posed to Ed in 6.1.1.
Ah, when all else fails resort to name calling. Great strategy.
Actually no one on the right says that. It is only folks on the left that seem everyone wants to own them.
To me your question is somewhat of a non sequiter as he has not been found guilty or convicted of anything thus far that I'm aware of.
As for "..owning the libs..". Where have I ever said anything anywhere about owning the libs? Please do be specific.
Are you sure that comment is directed to me?
To me that question is somewhat of a non sequiter as he has not been tried, convicted or sentenced to anything that I am aware of. Unproven allegations only. So yes, I will still give benefit of the doubt.
As far as "..owning the libs..", I have never ever made any such comment to that effect. Please provide evidence if youcan, and do be specific.
That comment was supposed to be directed at Hal. Please accept my apologies.
No problem. It only took 2 minutes of head scratching for me to figure it out.
Just like how criminal behavior is still criminal when it goes uncaught, allegations that don’t rise to the level of prosecution are still accounts from people who know the truth. There is a mountain of it in this case, and you and the rest of maga is willing to believe every single allegation is a lie.[✘]
Now maybe you can answer the question about if someone with Hegseth’s reputation were hired to be the Principal at your kids’ school. It’s an easy question with an easy answer. Do you have the guts to answer it?
I answered your question in post #6.1.8. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear but that's all you are going to get so deal with it.
Still have not heard from you on where I allegedly said anything about "...owning libs..".
You obviously did not answer the question. Why on earth do you think that you did? It’s such a simple fucking question. It has nothing to do with anyone being arrested for anything, it’s all about this person’s back story as alleged by so many people who knew about him, including his own mother ffs. If you heard these allegations about the new principal at your kids’ school you would just waive them away unless they were backed up with arrest records?! What kind of parent are you?!
For these people it would depend on how "woke" the school administration was.
He won’t answer the question [deleted] [✘] Let’s not forget that Hegseth is proudly servile to Trump, and Trump has asked questions in the past like “why even have nukes if we can’t use them?” This is an issue of massive importance being treated by the right as if it doesn’t matter whether humanity is extinguished in a giant nuclear fireball.
"Onward Christian Soldiers " !!!
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
[deleted][✘]
Pete Hegseth is a demented Christian nationalist. Its all in his books.
I will let you know what I think after I read all his books.
Trump will continue to make bad decisions and the criticism will continue to be offered. Get used to it.
As has all presidents....but for some reason you only want to criticize the one with an R....not so much with the demented D that just left office.
"criticism will continue to be offered."
Probably by triggered nobodies posting on a very small social site.
Get used to it? I look forward to it. Nothing like reading how the world as we know it is going to end any day now while drinking morning coffee. And the next day after we are still here there will be a new list of why the world is going to end.
Of course there will be some valid criticism but that won't be half as entertaining as the more often nit picky and twisted whiny complaints. Those are always a favorite of mine
We dont have kings as rulers in America, no matter how much some people want it.
Correct. Can you supply data where people said they do want a king? And please don't use the bullshit anyone that voted for trump want a king.
I'm not doing any time consuming research, but here's at least one video of a trump supporter claiming to be ok with that...
There's very likely many more, considering the unconditional fealty to Trump we've seen on display from his supporters, like this dad of two Jan 6 convicts who recently said he'd die for Trump. It wouldn't let me embed a time-stamped URL, so jump forward to about 5:09 in the video...
You think that guy would have a problem with a Trump coronation?
And there's always this sick children's book from Kash Patel, Trump's FBI nominee...
Yep and we still don’t. But we do have plenty of angry, triggered leftist.
Many.
Why the religious beliefs of Trump defense pick Pete Hegseth matter
In 2023, Hegseth moved from New Jersey to Tennessee to join a church and school community that arises from a 20th-century movement, called Christian Reconstruction. It holds deeply conservative views about the family, roles for women, and how religion and politics are related.
The followers of the movement seek to make America a Christian nation , by which they mean a nation built on biblical law, including its prohibitions and punishments.
Christian Reconstructionists want to dismantle public education and replace modern ideas about family with a patriarchal family model because they claim that biblical law requires both. They believe that Old Testament biblical law applies to today’s society and to everyone, whether or not they are Christian. For them, all of life is religious; there is no separation between religion and politics.
A much needed improvement.
… and more importantly, the best that the Republican Party can come up with. A drunk white Christian nationalist womanizer who runs small organizations into the ground. Par for the course.
Why is his race an insult/disqualification?
It speaks volumes that that is the part of my comment you have a problem with. Clearly the rest of it is on point.
Because that's the interesting part. You created a list of things that are bad/disqualifying for a nominee. Why is white in the middle of the list?
Unless you have been living under a rock you are aware that “white + Christian + nationalism” is a theme so common that it creates countless internet search hits and autofills itself.
Lol. Cover for your freudian slip all you want. That's DEI in a nutshell. You can't hire him, he's white.
Imagine writing "Obama is the best Democrats could do. He's a completely inexperienced black serial liar."
Only to those who look at that as the boogyman.
No one else cares.
Would you be supportive if he was black Christian and had the same accusations against him?
My guess, and I am usually correct, is yes
Here’s a fun experiment for you. Google white Christian nationalism and then google black serial liar. One of them gets zero hits and one gets endless pages of hits. So you can imagine whatever you want, but reality speaks for itself.
My guess, and I am usually correct, is yes
🤦♂️
So you don't want to answer the question.
I don't think anyone is surprised.......because I am right.
Oh, it was a serious question? Lol! Is black Christian nationalism a thing? Google says no. Shocking. I couldn’t care less what color a drunk, chauvinist, womanizing, magatard is - if they are all that plus void of relevant experience they are wholly unqualified tor the job.
... uh yeah, sure ...
Never said black Christian NATIONALIST. I didn't have to.
You proved my point that you would have no problem with a black (hell, fill in the blank with whatever religion you want) with the exact same accusations Hegseth faced.
Again, no one is surprised.
[✘]
Of course blacks and any other race can be Christian nationalists. Racist to suggest otherwise.
Your google is broken
Black nationalism - Wikipedia
[✘] Who said anything about black nationalism?
They need a PR campaign. Nobody refers to them as black Christian nationalists. I wonder why?
PBS says you are wrong...again.
This Far by Faith . Albert Cleage | PBS
" Throughout the 1960s, Cleage was active in issues of education and black political leadership. By the late 1960s, his vision of Christianity had radicalized alongside the disappointments of the civil rights movement and rise of Black Power. He launched the Black Christian National Movement in 1967, which called for black churches to reinterpret Jesus' teachings to suit the social, economic, and political needs of black peopl"
" Jaramogi Abebe Agyeman died on February 20, 2000. The PAOCC continues his mission to uplift and liberate the Pan African world community through the teachings of Jesus, the Black Messiah."
If he gets rid of DEI and woke policies our military will be better, stronger and get and keep better people.
How comical. Get rid of the trans soldiers, put the female soldiers in the kitchen or behind a desk somewhere, and somehow convince more men with brains to defend an indefensible administration. Sure.
Horseshit.
He’s been clear that women who can meet physical standards of combat MOS’s, will be allowed to serve in combat MOS’s.
Stop lying.
Hegseth belongs to a religious sect that preaches biblical patriarchy.
Yes, it is purely coincidental that his opinion changed the moment Trump let him know he was his pick. When Pete was enlisted Trump considered him a sucker / loser, but once he got on a Fox morning news show he was cleansed. Trump routinely speaks of his brother’s alcohol addiction that killed him, yet he is unconcerned if Pete’s alcohol addiction kills the whole country. Some would say that Trump’s goal is to ruin the country, and this appointment confirms it.
But only when he sober.
That’s probably horseshit as well but regardless. It has nothing to do with my comment, his position on women in combat positions in the military.
Yawn ….
You should probably start working on an excuse for his failure now. He’s an alcoholic, he has no control over his condition. When he ends up vomiting blood all over the situation room table you’re going to want an excuse for him handy.
Yeah, I heard he drank a beer on Saint Patrick's day and sipped whiskey on a podcast. He's a maniac.
lol, yes - you guys are very well known for your selective hearing condition.
You should probably stop trying to make this about me.
This should be an obvious red flag that you’ve selected a poor nominee for the position. You can’t blame this on partisanship. Marco Rubio was approved 99-0, so it’s not like Democrats are unwilling to approve everyone Trump might nominate. They’re just unwilling to approve the shitty nominations.
Apparently, not one person wearing a star on their shoulder is qualified to do this job. It seems the number one qualification is that you spend years on television blowing sunshine up Trump’s ass.
Yeah, I was not happy with this nomination either. I felt he didn't have enough experience to run the department. But a president gets to pick who he wants for cabinet positions and he didn't ask for my opinion.
The best thing I can say about Hegseth is that he's not a product of the military/industrial complex like so many of his predecessors have been.
The Constitution declares that your opinion matters, though. Cabinet members are placed with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the Senate represents you. Presidential nominations have historically proceeded very smoothly, but that’s because they usually pick people who are obviously qualified for the job.
Actually that is incorrect . The senate , or upper house of congress represents the interests of the individual states , not the people , the interests of the people , are represented by the lower house of congress , the house of representatives .
Who votes them into office does not change their constitutional responsibilities .
You cite a distinction with no relevant difference. This is particularly so since the passage of the 17th amendment. Everyone in Congress represents the people, some by district, and some by state.
Untrue, the 17th simply changed how senators are chosen , it never changed the basic responsibility they had to represent the interests of the state they represent , or the nation as a whole .
If you can point out in the 17th , where that is stated , i would be grateful.
the reason we have a bi-caramel legislature , is because 2 distinct groups needed to be represented on the federal level , one was created to represent the people , thats the HoR, it is larger in body because its membership is tied to population representation, with representation per state never to be less than 1in that particular house of congress.
The other house, the senate represents the individual state governments and legislatures even if that means denying the peoples wishes and desires .
Sometimes what is good for the people , is not good for the state , and sometimes whats good for the state is not good for the people , thats why both are represented as i stated , so that neither can subjegate the other .
But this is basic civics , and basic US government 101. Some seem to have forgotten it .
I’d prefer if you explain to me how Senators don’t need to care about the opinions of the people. That’s what this whole thread is based on.
i explain this , you tell me where in the 17th it changed a senators job description to where they represent the people and NOT the state ? and not because the people vote them in ,is not an acceptable answer as has already been shown the 17th only changed how senators are appointed , not who they work for .
About the only time a senator will worry about the opinion of the people , is if its time to be re elected , the rest of the time they can wave the opinion of john Q public away like a fart in the wind . i would agree , that is not a wise thing for any politician to do that wishes re election .
but then again , most of the public realizes who and what a senator is suppose to be doing which is looking out for the state as a whole , getting their states share of the fed funding , being competitive in government bidding for projects . a whole slew of things that ultimately are for the betterment of the people , but also insuring that tha asses in the masses dont bankrupt the system with largess to the excess to benefit those asses in the masses known as" the people".
The more I think of it , the more i think Ronald Reagan was right .
No, I wish you to read the thread you jumped into and appreciate that the context was about Senators caring about the opinions of citizens. Twisting it into a wonky debate about the constitutional responsibilities of senators is an irrelevant tangent.
Ok, well your cynicism doesn’t concern me (nor is that in the Constitution, since that’s the rabbit hole you wanted to go down). Whether you personally find it effective or not - or constitutional or not - millions of people have expressed their concerns to their senators over the years on every issue you can imagine, including confirmations. Sometimes, those efforts are persuasive - and not just at election time.
What an embarrassment. Talk about an unqualified DEI hire.
Cue the SNL skits of Hegseth getting a crisis call in the middle of the night, and him answering the phone while drunk, half-naked, and chasing strippers around at a house party somewhere.
Do Democrats really not understand what DEI means? Or is this just their latest assault on the english language where they take a word they don't like and redefine it so they can claim Republicans do it too?
Maybe you should ask them. I'm not actually a member of any party.
However, it is fairly apparent that MAGA's fetish-like hostility toward DEI is based on the claim that it advances unqualified personnel solely because of race, ethnicity, or gender, regardless of merit. That description fits Hegseth to a T, who was an utter joke of a nominee, and is absolutely unqualified and unfit for the appointment he just received.
Of course, they do. DEI is when you get preference because of a specific characteristic that is deemed to be underrepresented, but not qualified. What the Dems are saying is that these appointments are based on being teacher's pets that are obedient and are also unqualified. It really doesn't matter the basis for being picked, if you are still unqualified.
It’s strange so many left leaning people are against folks like Hegseth.. it’s effectively a blue collar appointment in military parlance. Not a general or established bureaucrat who will parlay the job into six figure corporate jobs or board positions they actually are completely unqualified for.
You know, since left leaning folks are suppose to be for the “ blue collar” common man and all.
Yep, strange …..
He is demonstrably the most unqualified person to lead the DoD in our lifetimes. It should be obvious why people recognize that this is a horrible choice to lead one of the most important departments of the federal government.
You should be asking why some people try to defend Hegseth as a responsible choice for Secretary of Defense.
Ok TiG, let us examine those with "qualifications" in our lifetime:
Let us begin with Robert McNamara. He graduated from UC Berkeley and the Harvard Business School. He was the longest serving Defense Secretary and served both JFK & LBJ.
All those credentials helped him do what?
He was the architect of the most outrageous way of fighting a war in Vietnam, which he was the leading proponent of and then later was the leading opponent of.
Can anyone do worse that such a well-educated failure?
Leads me to wonder exactly what the qualifications are to lead the DOD. Probably thousands of opinions about it.
The only one that really matters is the guy doing the hiring. In it's simplest form the guy doing the hiring has a vision and wants to hire the person he thinks will implement his vision best. He decides what qualifications he thinks are important.
Many of those that have an issue with Pete actually have an issue worth Trumps vision and none of Trumps picks would have been OK.
Would I have picked Pete? Probably not but my vision for the military doesn't match Trump on all issues.
Yes, I think most people see it that way.
Would I have picked Pete?
Very good question. Most Presidents might not, but there is a good reason why Trump chose him. You see, last time around Trump nominated the people who were recommended to him. Those people didn't really take Trump seriously and they did what they wanted, not what he wanted. That was part of Trump's education. Pete will serve the President.
So you are actually trying to argue that because a qualified Secretary of Defense oversaw a war that we lost, that JFK and LBJ should have put someone like Pete Hegseth in charge? That someone with profoundly less experience would have likely done better?
Apparently you totally disregard the complexity and breadth of the DoD. The Secretary of Defense is first an Executive managing millions of people, billions of dollars and half a billion facilities. Do you NOT think that JFK or LBJ (or, really, any other PotUS other than Trump) would laugh you out of the room if you made your argument and proposed someone like Hegseth to run this massive organization?
Take a look at the most recent Secretaries of Defense in this millennium. Compare them to Hegseth:
William S. Cohen (January 24, 1997 – January 20, 2001)
Donald H. Rumsfeld (January 20, 2001 – December 18, 2006)
Robert M. Gates (December 18, 2006 – July 1, 2011)
Leon E. Panetta (July 1, 2011 – February 26, 2013)
Chuck Hagel (February 27, 2013 – February 17, 2015)
Ashton B. Carter (February 17, 2015 – January 20, 2017)
James N. Mattis (January 20, 2017 – December 31, 2018)
Patrick M. Shanahan (Acting; January 1, 2019 – June 23, 2019)
Mark T. Esper (July 23, 2019 – November 9, 2020)
Christopher C. Miller (Acting; November 9, 2020 – January 20, 2021)
Lloyd J. Austin III (January 22, 2021 – Present)
With the exception of Shanahan ( Trump's interim SoD) these men all had substantial experience in the federal government with a concentration of experience dealing with the military or in high-ranking positions that would give a broad perspective of the complexities of US operations and the role of the DoD. Even Shanahan had substantial experience as a private citizen due to decades of working with the DoD as a Boeing executive.
Cohen and Hagel have the least DoD related experience but were long-standing senators.
Even Trump's first-term picks had good qualifications for the position.
And then we have this:
Pete Hegseth
Was pushed out for misuse of funds, womanizing and drinking.
Under what fantasy is this guy qualified to lead the armed forces of the United States? A high-level strategic and tactical executive position controlling our national defense. Nice academic credentials and achieving Major in the National Guard does not compare to the experience of the historical Secretaries of Defense. Then add in character, ethics, and utter failure in relatively easy executive positions and one would have to be irrational / irresponsible to nominate such a person for one of the most important cabinet positions.
So make your argument.
Present an actual argument for why Hegseth is a rational, responsible choice to be the next Secretary of Defense.
Exactly, Hegseth was almost certainly picked because he will do what Trump says and not object when Trump is wrong. A true loyalist and lap dog. Qualification number one for Trump.
What an excellent choice for PotUS
... someone who views the presidency and the federal government as his base of power to rule like a King rather than take the office as a solemn duty and a responsibility to do what is best for the nation.
I did.
It looks like you have no answer.
The President's policy is wrong?
Since when?
You cannot see my post @1.1.8? You do not see my upfront rebuttal to your argument?
You deem this to be 'no answer'??
The projection you are employing here is acute.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Of course.
You do not see my upfront rebuttal to your argument?
All I see is a list of former Defense Secretaries who served the policies of the Presidents who appointed them. One of whom said that Joe Biden was wrong on every foreign policy issue. I notice Biden didn't appoint him based on his credentials.
My point was clear. The example of Robert McNamara as the elite highly educated public servant who did more damage to the US military than just about anyone I can think of, was in your terms "qualified." Therefore, I think it may be time to give a veteran with dust on his boots a chance.
I can't make it any plainer.
It means if you disagree with the President's Defense strategy, you don't take the job.
There are easily hundreds of qualified people (at least more qualified than Hegseth) who agree with Trump's Defense Strategy (whatever that might actually be, if one exists).
Trump is surrounding himself with loyal servants who will do the King's bidding without question. Hegseth's top qualification.
He’ll do fine.[✘]
You are then (intentionally) missing most of the content.
How ridiculous! There are plenty of soldiers with more experience than Hegseth. You think Hegseth can even remotely compare to a career military officer who has risen to the rank of General or Admiral?
Clearly military experience is NOT Hegseth's defining characteristic.
And what qualifies you to make that judgement?
You keep coming back to resumes. Those people have not served us well.
Why can't this President pick his own?
(whatever that might actually be, if one exists).
You don't know? The mission now is restoring the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military, and reestablishing deterrence . Pete is going to have to remove all the woke BS that Obama & Biden infested the military with. End the pervasive DEI program. Get recruitment back up, which should be easy without the feeble, the timid and the innefective.
Experience and education, Vic. You have a problem picking people who have the right experience and education for an important position??
He obviously can. And most presidents make rational choices. Trump, in contrast with every other PotUS in recent history, has picked someone who is wholly unqualified in terms of experience and has the added negatives of being morally compromised, irresponsible, and an incompetent executive of (relatively) tiny organizations.
I do not believe Trump knows.
And Vic, a mission statement is absolutely NOT the same as a defense Strategy. A strategy is a well-conceived framework to accomplish an enterprise's mission. You start with the mission statement as the intro to the strategy. The strategy itself is substantially more complex and detailed.
Trump might have a concept of a strategy ... at best.
Maybe, maybe not. If you look at it objectively it seems they are on the same page as to the future vision of the military. Will Hegseth tell Trump when he does not agree? Again, maybe maybe not but you can be sure he will ultimately defer to Trumps decision. As any good solder or SOD would surely do.
Try not to make it about me.
How ridiculous! There are plenty of soldiers with more experience than Hegseth. You think Hegseth can even remotely compare to a career military officer who has risen to the rank of General or Admiral?
Unfortunately, there are too many generals in the modern military and recently some rose up because of ideology, such as Milley. The same kind of officers who would flag Hegseth as an extremist because he had a tattoo they didn't understand. I assume that is another reason Trump chose him. Hegseth was the victim of woke officers.
Clearly military experience is NOT Hegseth's defining characteristic.
How dare you say that about one who served so admirably.
I am a member of this site. Thus I can opine as I see fit.
Go ahead, make your argument to show how Hegseth is a good choice to run the DoD.
Of course, platitudes with no content.
Yeah, who knows, anything is possible, right? Do you actually believe that Trump is NOT intentionally surrounding himself with sycophants who will do his bidding without question?
It is also a civilian position. It's generally been the bipartisan consensus that the Sec Def should not be a General or Admiral. There's a law to that effect. He's experienced without being captured by the institution, which makes his history ideal.
It is you penning the comments, Vic. So when you pen a comment, that content is YOURS.
You find that to be sound reasoning on Trump's part? Choosing the person to lead the DoD because he is atypical? If so, that just illustrates yet again how irresponsible and incompetent Trump is.
I will remind you that we are talking about the role of Secretary of Defense. You raised the issue of military experience so given that, Hegseth does not hold a candle to career military who have risen to the highest ranks.
Ah, the ole lame accusations when a response to a valid point can't be found.
Unfortunately, our colleges & universities are not educating very well anymore. I want people who are committed to the mission, wherever they come from.
He obviously can. And most presidents make rational choices. Trump, in contrast with every other PotUS in recent history, has picked someone who is wholly unqualified in terms of experience and has the added negatives of being morally compromised, irresponsible, and an incompetent executive of (relatively) tiny organizations.
I know you hate Trump, but repeating the word unqualified isn't going to work. Trump is taking a big risk with Hegseth because if some major incident takes place that the US military can't handle Trump will take all the heat. Then again Trump's reputation as the guy who is liable to push the button will probably continue to keep our enemies in lockdown.
And Vic, a mission statement is absolutely NOT the same as a defense Strategy. A strategy is a well-conceived framework to accomplish an enterprise's mission. You start with the mission statement as the intro to the strategy. The strategy itself is substantially more complex and detailed.
Trump might have a concept of a strategy ... at best.
Deterrence is the strategy.
Making the military strong again and as Trump told Kim Jong Un: "You may have a button, but I have a bigger one."
You offer nothing other than note that (obviously) something might be true or might not be true.
Make an actual point.
I did. Either you did not understand it or don't agree with it. Neither one of those possibilities is my issue.
So you do not care how unqualified the person is or the person's morality, integrity, honesty, or the person's executive experience (and, maybe, the fact that he did not twice fail as a baby executive)?
Trump is unfit to be PotUS. Hegseth is unqualified to be Secretary of Defense.
Yeah, I would say Trump is taking a ridiculous big risk. It is an unforced error. Trump is irresponsible.
More like a principle underlying a strategy. And this has been a principle for a very long time. A strategic plan is not a few words. It is, first, a plan. It is based on substantial analysis which in part seeks to predict likely scenarios into the future and then provides a framework for evolving the organization to best deal with those scenarios.
I doubt Trump has a strategy. I doubt Trump has ever engaged in strategic planning. Trump is short-term, emotional, transactional. Always has been.
Absolutely. Choosing the victim of a woke administration is the best way to curing the problem.
I will remind you that we are talking about the role of Secretary of Defense. You raised the issue of military experience so given that, Hegseth does not hold a candle to career military who have risen to the highest ranks.
It is called promoting from within.
It is you penning the comments, Vic. So when you pen a comment, that content is YOURS.
And the personal attacks are YOURS.
Exactly. In others words, less qualifications than Pete has for SecDef.
That is a more or less wasted time but I’ll voice my opinion here, again.
Hegseth is a departure from the normal academics and generals usually picked for this job at a time when it is needed. One key indicator of that is most of the forces are missing or barely meeting their recruitment goals. The bottom of the pyramid that supports all else. That keeps going south and the rest doesn’t matter. He talks of fixing that problem and supporting what really matters. Our line Airman, Soldiers, sailors, Marines, etc.
But that’s not to say he doesn’t have academic and military experience chops. He does. I challenge my friends on the left to give him a chance instead of trying to torpedo him before he even starts.
Don’t expect it but can ask ……
Integrity?
We just had 51 former "qualified" officials try to interfere in the 2020 election with a misleading statement about the Biden Laptop. Some of them were on your list. I think I'll take a brave red blooded American over them any day and twice on Sunday.
Trump is unfit to be PotUS. Hegseth is unqualified to be Secretary of Defense.
The voters disagree. You do believe in "democracy," right?
Yeah, I would say Trump is taking a ridiculous big risk. It is an unforced error. Trump is irresponsible.
Well, if you see anything comparable to the mad exit out of Afghanistan which left 13 service members dead and many more wounded, with all that military equipment sitting at the Bagram AFB as Americans and our allies were left in the lurch ...please be sure to let us know!
More like a principle underlying a strategy. And this has been a principle for a very long time. A strategic plan is not a few words. It is, first, a plan. It is based on substantial analysis which in part seeks to predict likely scenarios into the future and then provides a framework for evolving the organization to best deal with those scenarios.
You mean up until 2020. That is when the one-eyed Jack was turned over by Joe Biden for all to see what the democrat party had become. The US military was mocked & weakened, and our enemies were on the move all over the world.
Whatever Trump does will be a drastic improvement.
That is utterly ridiculous. The best way to cure a problem is to pick someone with the best qualifications. So if Trump wanted to curtail chauvinism in the military and chose a woman as the Secretary of Defense who, other than gender, was wholly unqualified (and had demonstrated moral problems, integrity problems, responsibility problems, and failed twice as an executive) would you argue that this is the best way to cure the problem?
Yeah, Vic, I was talking about promoting within. You know, the idea of Trump picking from career military executives (generals, admirals) if military experience was the top criterion.
The fact that you are offended is your problem ... being offended does not ipso facto mean that the comment is a personal attack.
I am not up for the job of Secretary of Defense so your rebuttal is nonsense. I stated that military experience is NOT Hegseth's defining characteristic for the job. That is a fact since there are thousands of career military with better experience than Hegseth. I am perfectly qualified to note that fact in a comment.
Trump could have picked someone who has lower level military experience like Hegseth who is NOT:
See, Sparty, the DoD is an incredibly large and complex operation. No responsible PotUS would put a failed baby executive with Hegseth's additional negatives in charge of arguably the most influential / critical department in our federal government. There are plenty of better choices.
Hegseth was a terrible choice based on facts and common sense.
Of course. If picking people with what you perceive are the best qualification got you into a mess the best thing to do is pick another and hope for different results.
I am sure alot of out of business businesses did just that.
Yes. Hegseth has a real problem with integrity. You do not see this??? Add these to the list:
A plurality of the electorate put Trump in office. Are you trying to argue that the electorate always gets it right? If so, your comments over the past four years railing against Biden become quite curious.
Of course, you deflect from the point.
Not only is that an irrational prediction of the future, but it defies facts.
Do you think it is good for Trump to violate the law and attempt to remove jus soli? Is it good for Trump to make public, aggressive threats against Denmark, Greenland, Mexico, Canada, Panama, and China rather than first engage in private negotiations.
Do you think that imposing tariffs ... which will raise consumer prices ... is a drastic improvement?
On and on. Trump has already shown that he is emboldened and is going to use the presidency to satisfy his personal whims. That he does not view the office as a solemn duty and responsibility to do what is best for the nation and its people.
Open your eyes, Vic. Trump is bad news and the likelihood that he will improve and is at best remote.
Thus Trump screwed up by picking Hegseth because clearly Hegseth does not have the best qualifications to run the DoD. Not even remotely close. He is a terrible choice.
Lectures not required.
My comments stand and as noted, this was a total waste of time.
As always, the platitude "my posts stand" in lieu of an actual rebuttal.
So you responded to the sarcasm, ignored the actual comment and repeated the same old claim.
Weak sauce.
And as usual, your simple non acceptance of a rebuttal, does not exclude it from being one. Not even close actually …...
Sometimes "my post stands" is all that is needed and a perfect rebuttal.
Especially when they are perfectly good rebuttals.
‘Sometimes "my post stands" is all that is needed and a perfect rebuttal’
All of my posts stand. I don’t care what the irrelevant resistance thinks.
That is a pretty illogical comment.
What about the years since and all of the intervening SoDs? I could see if the subsequent leaders of the DoD were bad (and this is operating on the assumption that he was actually bad at his job, which I am not so sure about) saying, "OK, Let Pyle try it." But TiG has given you a list of Secretaries of Defense since then, and I have not heard you quibble and rail against them unless they were appointed by a Democratic President. You argue a variation of "from the one to the many", and as we all should know, that is a logical fallacy. You would have to prove that the majority of SoDs were in fact detrimental to the military, not just one almost 60 years ago.
Especially when one has nothing else to argue.
Nope. Try again.
You tell me. Let us now go to Loyd Austin. Rate his performance.
Did he protect American interests?
Did he make the military stronger and better prepared?
What are you afraid of, Red Dawn?
Are Chinese Paratroopers with no weapons supposed to be scary John?
Ask Vic, he seems to think we are on the brink of being invaded
OR
he thinks the best way to attack "wokeism" is to claim our "weakened" military might get overrun.
Hegseth is all about getting rid of "soft" commanders.
So you tell us what threat there is that WILL exploit our weakness.
No. You prove that he wasn't good, right after you prove what I asked you to in my last post.
I am not going to do your work for you.
Don’t need to. That bullshit is all your creation not his.
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon Inspector General released a scathing report Wednesday about Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s failure to alert the White House and his senior staff about his hospitalization in early 2024, noting that his actions risked national security "unnecessarily."
Austin, suffering from complications after surgery for prostate cancer, had sought to keep his condition and the fact that he had been incapacitated while under general anesthesia secret from President Joe Biden and Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin risked national security 'unnecessarily,' Inspector General says
In addition, 2 of the three SecDefs appointed by Clinton were nothing more than congressmen and/or were CEOs of defense companies. What an easy way to get contracts when you are a member of Congress AND a CEO of a defense company.
Neither of them had any military experience,,,,,,,,,,,but Truuuuuuuuuuump.
And I don't recall any outrage over their nominations.
Probably because they were accomplished individuals (as opposed to Hegseth who failed as the chief executive in two relatively minor organizations), who did not have known character issues, were not known as drunkards (no allegations of public drunkenness, drinking on the job, etc.), and did not have flawed notions of the importance of women in the military.
Of all of these, the most important are experience and competence. Hegseth is woefully unqualified to be the chief executive of one of the most important departments in our government.
It is clear that most Trump supporters will rubber-stamp anything Trump does. Even putting an incompetent boob in charge of the DoD is defended. This is sickening.
... you know those SNL skits are coming. hegseth's job qualifications were based on merit, the maga version ...
SNL is still on the air?
Of course they are. The "check the block" POTUS is out of office.
So you blindly believe any story that comes along that supports you views?
What story, Greg? None of the following is fiction.
He's a long time drunkard who felt he had to publicly promise to not drink if confirmed. Like that's going to happen. If it was that easy, AA wouldn't exist.
His own mother called him an abuser of women. His ex-sister-in-law did too. Not physically, but mentally.
He was accused of rape, but charges weren't filed and the woman took a payoff of $50,000.
He mismanaged not one, but two small veteran advocacy organizations and was removed from both, for reasons such as financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct. He started a PAC once (again, very small) and unlawfully spent a third of its tiny resource pool of $15,000 on Christmas parties for family and friends before shutting it down.
His military leadership experience is limited to platoon leader as a lieutenant in Iraq and Afghanistan, and later served at a training school for the Afghan military as a captain, but I've been unable to clarify if he was ever a company commander. Regardless, he has no senior military or national security experience. None.
He actually stated in his book that U.S. troops shouldn't have to follow the Geneva Conventions!!!
Are you telling me you think someone like that is fit to lead something as large, expensive, and important as the DOD?
If so, please tell me why. What qualifies him, precisely?
Trump said so
14 hours and no response to your question, Dig.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for one.
Lets be honest , there are two reasons Hegseth was nominated , most importantly he is a Trump lackey. Hegseth has spent years on tv worshiping the ground Trump walks on. That is his most critical qualification. Then , Hegseth has written a couple books attacking "wokeness" in the military and in society in general. The combination of the lackeyness and the anti-wokeness gave Hegseth the inside track.
I doubt if Trump even gave a single thought to Hegseths drunkenness and alleged sexual misconduct.
I didn't know there was a time limit on responding to posts. Some don't spend every waking moment on here.
True
True again. Do you have a point ?
Democrats believe that only congressmen/members of a defense contractors board are capable of leading the DOD.
That's led to an organization that can't pass an audit and has lost track of billions. They want the status quo, where the DOD serves as a piggy bank to reward donors with the added bonus of it being a politicized organization that rewards political generals. What it needs is common sense and a focus on basics.
As to "qualifications" in general. The only qualification to serve the last President was the ability to keep silent about his mental incapacity. It's how Biden went through a four year term filled with disasters without holding anyone to account. They knew his secret and couldn't be fired. Anything is a step up from that disaster.