Laura W. Murphy, director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, had the following concerns with the president's choice to fill this critical national security post.

[snip]

"The Senate should not move forward with his nomination until all senators can assess the role of the CIA--and any role by Brennan himself--in torture, abuse, secret prisons, and extraordinary rendition during his past tenure at the CIA, as well as can review the legal authorities for the targeted killing program that he has overseen in his current position," Murphy said. "This nomination is too important to proceed without the Senate first knowing what happened during Brennan's tenures at the CIA and the White House, and whether all of his conduct was within the law. "

[snip]

"To the extent these questions can be answered by the Intelligence Committee's still-undisclosed report on the CIA's role in torture, the Senate should use the report to determine what role Brennan had and whether his conduct was consistent with both the law and American values," Murphy said.

[snip]

"The Senate should not move forward with the nomination of John Brennan until it is clear that he is committed to making sure that the CIA will end its targeted killing program, and agree to work with the Senate Intelligence Committee on the declassification review and disclosure of the committee's report on the CIA's past role in torture and abuse," she said. "These steps would help assure all Americans that the past wrongs of the CIA have ended, and won't be brought back."

Not that I'm going to hold my breath waiting for this to happen, or anything...

So now he is free.

And he selects Brennan.

He is very game to trot on TV and tell a lie so if that's the quality we're going for, great choice.  

Do you trust this guy?

I can't wait for the pick for the Supreme Court.

Hagel was opposed to repeal of DADT, and, unlike Colin Powell and even the odious Sam Nunn,  did not show regrets or signs of evolution at that time.   Of course, on the eve of his nomination, he apologized to James Hormel and anyone who might have been offended, acknowledging that his remarks were "insensitive". Not wrong, but insensitive.  

Now, that is a long time ago, and he is clearly the only person in the country that is qualified for being at the helm of Defense.    He has some nice anti-war rhetoric and I am willing to overlook his votes to continue  to fund the wars he came to oppose.  

And, I will forget that Hagel was a very conservative Republican, because we need a Republican at Defense and  he brings the coveted bipartisanship that will make it easier to work with the Republicans, although their present opposition may degrade that attribute.  Moreover, Hagel's reasonableness will counterbalance Brennan.  

It matters, I don't care what the doughy faced never saw body armor or a push-up  flaba$$ from the Weekly Standard has to say about what he thinks soldiers think.  If you can get someone with some service in their history it does matter.

Just look at what Rumsfeld and Cheney thought was okay to do to a military and for what reasons and it is pretty obvious that past service matters, if and when that is a good choice for other reasons as well.

In choosing Brennan to lead the spy agency, Obama gave a clear signal that he intends to expand the illegal program of drone assassinations that has already killed thousands of innocent civilians--men, women and children--and mutilated thousands more in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. ...

The White House and Justice Department claim that the president has the right to unilaterally order the killing of any individual, anywhere in the world, as part of the so-called "war on terror."

This open repudiation of the most basic democratic rights and assertion of dictatorial powers has evoked no serious opposition from any section of the liberal establishment or its pseudo-left periphery.

Last month, Mr. Hagel issued a statement in which he described his comments 14 years ago as "insensitive" apologized to Mr. Hormel and insisted he is "fully supportive of 'open service' and committed to LGBT military families."[my emphasis]

Hmm, mighty quick and timely evolution on the subject. If he had really had a change of heart, why wait until Obama is about to nominate him for SoD? Why not apologize privately sometime in the past fourteen years, or even right after Obama evolved last year during his desperate pursuit of gay money and votes.

Well, I doubt this will be a major issue in the Senate, but at the very least the following questions should be asked during the confirmation hearings:

1. Since the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) currently prevents the military from providing marital benefits to gay and lesbian families, what will you do to standardize the way the Pentagon treats all troops?
   
2. What will you do to ensure that DOMA is quickly repealed so all troops are treated equally under the law? Will you testify in support of the Respect for Marriage Act currently under consideration in Congress? (Yes or No answer please.) What key points will you make in your testimony?
   
3. What will you do to repudiate the conscience clause of the defense budget bill that President Obama signed this month. Since that clause created special rights for service members who oppose serving with gays and lesbians on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs,  how will you mitigate the damage to lesbian and gay service members until it is eliminated?
   
4. Since the statute repealing DADT did not include a  non-discrimination mandate in the military's treatment of gay and lesbian troops, are you willing to sign an official Pentagon directive or call for a White House executive order to prevent discrimination? Simple answer, Yes or No.
   
5. What specific steps will you take to prevent anti-gay harassment currently occurring in the ranks?
   
6. There are transgender troops who are already serving with distinction and honor, but whose readiness and morale are compromised by a host of discriminatory Pentagon policies. What specific steps will you take to address the current discrimination against our transgender service members?