The hearing yesterday was
brought to order by Committee Chair Roger Wicker who struggles with
speech and the English language. I haven't been so uncomfortable
hearing a Committee member speak since disgraced Corrine Brown left the
House of Representatives and did a prison stint. Like Corrine, Roger
struggles with the most basic of words -- "contributions" to cite but
one example -- if you need another "colleagues" and by the time he
mangles "candidacy" (can-a-day) and mispronounced "ethos" I was done
with the idiot. My life will not be wasted trying to accurately portray
the stupidity flying out of his mouth.
He also
reads poorly. There's no excuse for stumbling over your own prepared
opening statement that you're reading off a piece of paper. There's
also no excuse for stumbling over someone's name as though you've come
across it for the first time. David Bellavia is a name he knew he
was going to pronounce since it was in his prepared statement and since
he was quoting from Bellavia's letter endorsing Hegseth.
The
first question that comes to mind is how did such an idiot get made
Committee Chair? But then you think a moment and grasp how MAGA has
infected and destroyed the GOP and you grasp that Wicker's Committee
Chair because he is, sadly, the best that the party has.
Ranking
Member Jack Reed used his opening remarks to make clear that he could
not support Hegseth's nomination. He noted he had previously voted in
favor of every Secretary of Defense nominees including the two Donald
Chump nominated in his first term. To clarify, that would be Mark Esper
and Jim Mattis. We have to clarify that because in his first term,
Chump left the office vacant. Esper replaced Mattis in July of 2019 and
then left November 9, 2020 when Chump fired him. There was no real
Secretary of Defense from November 9, 2020 to the end of Chumps term
(January 20, 2021). Chump cared so little about the military and the
defense of the United States that he fired a Secretary of Defense and
then left the position open. (Christopher Miller would be acting
Secretary of Defense which isn't the same thing -- it's a tactic that
thug Nouri al-Maliki perfected when he was prime minister of Iraq -- it
let Nouri control things but it didn't protect the Iraqi people.)
Reed
also expressed his surprise and disappointment over the fact that
Hegseth refused to meet with any Democratic Party members of the
Committee other than Reed. During her time, Senator Jeanne
Shaheen would also note the refusal to meet with Democratic senators
other than Reed. She pointed out that this was not the case in the
previous Trump administration and it wasn't the case under other
presidents. She's served on the Committee for eleven years.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Do
you understand that if you're confirmed to be Secretary of Defense,
that you will have a responsibility to meet with all members of this Committee, not just Republicans?
Pete
Hegseth: Senator, I very much appreciate and understand the
traditionally bipartisan nature of this Committee. There -- National
defense is not p-partisan. It should not be about Republicans or
Democrats.
Shaheen
noted that, had they been able to meet before the hearing, she was going
to discuss the issue of women in the military with him.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Because
you've made a number of surprising statements about women serving in
the military. As recently as November 7, 2024 on THE SHAWN RYAN SHOW
you said, and I quote, "I'm straight up saying that we should not have
women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective." The quote
went on a little bit longer but that was the gist of it. That was
before you were nominated to be Secretary of Defense. Mr Hegseth, do you
know what percentage of our military is comprised of women?
Pete Hegseth: Uh, [shaking his head 'no'] I believe it's 18 to 20 percent, Senator.
Senator:
Jeanne Shaheen: It's almost 18 percent and DoD's 2023 demographic
report indicated that there are more women serving now and there are
fewer separations. So they make up a critical part of our military,
wouldn't you agree?
Pete
Hegseth: Yes, ma'am. Women in our military -- as I've said publicly --
have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of
our battlefield.
Jeanne
Shaheen: Well you also write in your book THE WAR ON WARRIORS with the
chapter "The Deadly Obsession With Women Warriors," that "Not only are
women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, but
they are more likely to be objectified by the enemy and their own nation
in the moral realms of war." Mr Hegseth, should we take it to believe
that you believe that the two women on this Committee who have served
honorably and with distinction, made our military less effective and
less capable?
Pete Hegseth: I'm
incredibly grateful for the two -- two women that served our military in
uniform and including in the Central Intelligence Agency contributions
on the battlefield -- uh-uh --
Pete Hegseth: Senator I would like to clarify
[crosstalk]
Pete Hegseth: -- effects readiness which is what I care about the most
Jeanne Shaheen: I understand --
Pete Hegseth: -- readiness
[cross talk]
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Your
statements publicly have not been to that effect. After your
nomination you did say to a group of reporters that you "support all
women serving in our military today who do a fantastic job across the
globe including combat." So what I'm confused about, Mr Hegseth, which
is it? Why should women in our military, if you were the Secretary of
Defense, believe that they would have a fair shot and an equal
opportunity to rise through the ranks? If on the one hand, you say that
women are not competent, they make our military less effective and on
the other hand you say 'Oh, no, now that I've been nominated to be the
Secretary of Defense, I've changed my view on women in the military
what do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women who are serving
today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise
through the highest ranks of our military.
He talks nonsense and then she asks him if he's familiar with a law, The Women Peace and Security Agenda?
Pete Hegseth: Yes, ma'am, I am.
Senator
Jeanne Shaheen: This is a law that was signed during president-elect
Trump's first term. It was legislation that I sponsored with Republican
Senator Capato of West Virginia. It was co-sponsored by Marco Rubio,
the nominee for to be the president elect's Secretary of State. It was
led in the House of Representatives by Kristi Noam, the president
elect's nominee to be the Secretary of Homeland Security. It mandates
that women be included in all aspects of our national security including
conflict resolution and peace negotiations. And at the Dept of
Defense, it has been the law under both the Trump and Biden
administrations. The DoD has incorporated women throughout its decision
making as a result. Every single combatant commander across two
administrations has told this Committee that this law and its
implementation at the Dept of Defense provides them a strategic
advantage operationally. Based on your comments, it appears that the
example you would like to set not only for women in this country but for
women across the globe, 50% of the world's population as the
prospective nominee to lead the most combat credible military in the
entire world is that women should not have an equal opportunity in our
military. So will you commit to preserving The Women Peace and Security
Agenda law at DoD and including in your budget the requisite funding to
continue and resource these programs throughout the DoD.
Pete
Hegseth: Senator, I will commit to reviewing that program and ensuring
it alings with America First national securities priorities,
meritocracy, legality and readiness. And if it advances American
interests, it's something we would advance. If it doesn't, it's
something will look at it.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen: Since former president Trump signed the law, I hope he agrees with you.
Right there, he demonstrates that he is not qualified to serve in any federal government capacity.
I don't know why the Sheehan exchange is not what the press ran with.
Do you understand the two sentences I just dictated?
I hope you do but Hegseth doesn't.
Now he evaded and he lied throughout. And after we saw what Trump's Supreme Court Justices did -- despite lies that they told in their confirmation hearings -- that should be troubling. I'm not rolling that out. His sexism and his stupidity was on display throught and I believe Senator Tammy Duckworth more than established that in her questioning.
But stop everything for just a moment.
For a nominee to tell a Senate confirmation committee anything other than "Yes, I will" when asked if they will follow the law?
That's disqualfying.
I really don't care what the drunk thinks about the law.
It is the law.
If confirmed, he would have to take an oath to uphold the law.
As a Cabinet Secretary, he does not get to pick and choose what laws to follow. Nor does he make law.
Congress does. They passed the law in 2017, Trump signed it into law.
It's now the law of the land.
And yet the drunk sat there sweating through his hearing and asked if he would follow the law, he responded that he would have to review it to make sure it fits with his own beliefs.
That's not how the law works.
I'm sure many crooks wish it did work that way. 'Yes, I killed the man but, your honor, I don't believe in the law that murder is a crime.'
It doesn't work that way.
The law is the law.
And for a Cabinet nominee to sit in front of a Senate committee insisting he's qualified for a job and yet to also insist that he'd have to look at a law to determine whether or not he would follow it?
That's not the way it works.
With that response, just that one exchange, he is unfit to serve.
There are many, many other reasons but with just that, he's unfit to serve.
When you're nominated to a federal post, your confirmation begins and ends on whether or not you will follow the law. If you say you have to review it, then you don't know enough about government to serve in it.
He could have easily said, "I don't agree with it but it's the law. Therefore I will follow it." Or, "I don't agree with it but I will follow it while I advocate for Congress to change it."
But to say you need to review the law before you can decide whether or not to follow it?
That's an immediate disqualifier.
Once Congress passed it and a president signed it into law, you don't get a choice. That he doesn't grasp that goes to how immensely unqualified he is. We do not have time, as a country, to wait for someone to give him a basic high school tutorial on how the government works. He's not fit for the job and shouldn't be confirmed.
The
key thread of the hearing was Hegseth's refusal to answer questions.
He'd hem and he'd haw and he'd pretend not to remember -- such as with
regards to the woman he previously admitted to having sex with but
insisted he didn't rape her (though he paid her a six figure settlement
and made her sign a NDA -- and even the most basic questions that
required only a "yes" or a "no" were sidestepped by him.
Senator
Elizabeth Warren, for example, noted that he had gone on record
sometime ago with his belief that retiring generals should have to wait
ten years after retirement before going to work in the private
(corporate) defense industry. Would he himself follow that guideline?
He wouldn't answer. At one point, he thought he was so cute, he
informed Warren that he was not a general. No, and he was not cute.
That greasy hair is disgusting. FOX "NEWS" didn't let him go on air
like that. Is it because he keeps sweating? Is that why he's doing the
greasy, wet look?
Would he pledge to follow that guideline if he was confirmed?
Like Elizabeth Warren, we were all left without an answer.
He'd
just avoid answering. Warren noted that this was on top of his refusal
to meet with her when they could have discussed before the hearing.
The
hearing moved on down the line with the GOP grinning manically - Wicker
had everyone else beat in that area -- and refusing to tackle any real
issues. For the Democrats? Hegseth repeatedly refused to answer
questions -- even those requiring either a "yes" or a "no" -- and he
came across with all the integrity of a used car salesman.
After the hearing, Senator Reed issued the following statement:
“I went into today’s hearing with deep concerns about Mr. Hegseth’s
qualifications to be Secretary of Defense, and my fears were confirmed.
He lacks the requisite character, competence, and commitment to do this
job. Indeed, he is the least qualified nominee for Secretary of Defense
in modern history.
“In addition to his own alarming statements, there are simply too
many disturbing reports about Mr. Hegseth to ignore. A variety of
sources accuse him of disregarding the laws of war, financial
mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks, alcohol abuse, sexual assault,
sexual harassment, and other troubling issues.
“If a servicemember had the same record of misconduct, they would be
disqualified from holding any leadership position in the military, much
less being confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.
“Mr. Hegseth dodged and deferred questions about his conduct. He
instead focused on complaining and calling our military weak and too
“politically correct.” I am concerned that confirming Mr. Hegseth would
send a message to our troops that they will be evaluated on political
standards rather than merits, and that he will inject politics into a
nonpartisan organization.
“Further, Mr. Hegseth failed to convince us that he is capable of
running any organization remotely as complex as the Department of
Defense. He financially mismanaged two veterans' organizations and
created a workplace culture of misconduct, including several incidents
of public intoxication. This is unacceptable behavior for a Secretary of
Defense nominee.
“Further, he defended his recent statement that: “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.”
“Finally, I am disappointed by the investigative process for Mr.
Hegseth. The point of a thorough FBI background check is to confirm that
there is no derogatory information that would compromise a nominee’s
ability to do their job.
“The FBI process designed by the Trump Transition Team for Mr.
Hegseth has been woefully inadequate. Investigators neglected to contact
critical witnesses and whistleblowers, and the final report has not
been shared with other members of the committee.
“I was also disappointed that the committee could not have a second
round of questioning with Mr. Hegseth. There are important questions
that remain unanswered, and I will continue to seek them.
“Today’s hearing has adjourned, but I believe the jury is still out. I
encourage my Republican colleagues to carefully examine the facts.”
Here's Lawrence O'Donnell reporting on the hearing.
Today, combat Veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)—a
member of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee who served 23 years
in the Reserve Forces—slammed U.S. Secretary of Defense expected nominee
Pete Hegseth on his utter lack of experience and qualifications to lead
the Department of Defense at his confirmation hearing. Pointing to a
framed copy of the Soldier’s Creed—a copy that hangs over her desk in
the Senate and hung above her bed during her recovery at Walter Reed
Medical Center after the helicopter she co-piloted was shot
down—Duckworth urged Mr. Hegseth to follow this Creed as our
servicemembers do every day, placing the mission above personal
ambition. Duckworth’s full remarks can be found on the Senator’s YouTube.
“Every day, our servicemembers follow the Soldier’s Creed as
we ask them to leave their families, walk into enemy fire and be ready
for the mission until their very last breath,” said Duckworth. “How
can we ask these warriors to train to the absolute highest standard, if
we confirm a guy who is asking us to lower the standard to make him
Secretary of Defense? The very idea that Pete Hegseth is the person to
lead our heroes is an insult to the troops who sacrifice so much for the
rest of us.”
At the hearing, Duckworth demonstrated some of the areas where Mr.
Hegseth lacks the experience or knowledge that a serious Defense
Secretary nominee should have, grilling him on basic questions that he
failed to answer. She asked him if he ever led an audit. He would not
confirm. She asked him to describe at least one of the main
international security agreements a Secretary of Defense is responsible
for leading. He could not name any. She asked him to name at least one
nation that is a part of ASEAN, an organization with several member
states who have mutual defense treaties, alliances or enhanced defense
cooperation agreements with the U.S. None of the three countries he
named were correct.
The full text of the Soldier’s Creed reads as follows:
I am an American Soldier.
I am a warrior and a member of a team.
I serve the people of the United States, and live the Army Values.
I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills.
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.
I am an expert and I am a professional.
I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.
I am an American Soldier.
Since Donald Trump tapped Pete Hegseth to serve as Secretary of
Defense, Duckworth has remained one of Hegseth’s sharpest critics. This
week, Duckworth and U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ)—a fellow combat
Veteran and member of SASC—penned an op-ed
underscoring that Pete Hegseth lacks the merits to be our next Defense
Secretary. Last month, Duckworth joined her fellow SASC members in sending a letter
to Susan Wiles, President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming Chief of Staff,
about whether Pete Hegseth’s attitudes toward women and allegations of
sexual assault and harassment disqualify him to be the next Secretary of
Defense.
Duckworth is a proven leader and fierce advocate for our servicemembers, Veterans and their families. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that was signed into law, Duckworth secured
several important provisions that support our servicemembers and their
families, enhance strategic partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region,
improve logistics to bolster readiness and energy resiliency as well as
continue to restore American competitiveness.
Sorry that there were no overnight posts. I got pulled into something and didn't realize that I hadn't done them. There's a problem community wide with some sites. This one's fine and Trina's is as well but there's a Blogger/Blogspot issue for the other sites. I'm not sure I can fix it. I tried last night with Mike's and had no luck. But I spent about two hours on that and when I got done, I went to sleep and didn't realize that I hadn't done six or more posts to go up overnight.
