An unnamed senior Obama administration official told the National Journal that the White House is “very confident” the Senate will confirm Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.

According to the report, the administration’s whip count currently stands at 57 votes in favor of confirmation, with a few others opposed to the 60-vote threshold. The official said that the total tally in favor of Hagel could be as high as 72 votes.

Hagel’s neocon detractors see the filibuster as the last option in their anti-Hagel arsenal (which began by trying to smear the former GOP senator from Nebraska as an “anti-Semite”). Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who sits on the Armed Services Committee, threw cold water on that idea last week. Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY) briefly revived the idea on Monday when he wouldn’t rule it out during a local radio interview.

But Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who appears unlikely to vote in favor of Hagel’s confirmation, said later on Monday that he would not support a filibuster. And with the 55-seat Democratic majority, two Republican senators saying they supported Hagel’s nomination, and two others saying they’d also oppose the filibuster, the New York Times noted that, barring any unforeseen circumstances, “Hagel will almost certainly head the Defense Department.”

“[T]here appears to be enough GOP opposition to an unprecedented filibuster of a Cabinet nominee to, if necessary, generate the 60 votes required for cloture,” Roll Call reported on Tuesday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) suggested that President Obama “reconsider” Hagel’s nomination but when asked about McCain’s new position, the South Carolina Republican seemed unaware. “Did he say that? I didn’t see that. I’m not there yet. But filibustering is something I do very reluctantly,” he said, adding, “Time will tell what we should do.”

If the Republicans decide to filibuster, as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow noted on Monday, “that means that the Republicans would have to do something historically unprecedented and truly radical if they are going to stop Chuck Hagel`s nomination.”

Chuck Hagel’s neocon critics are likely glowing after his lackluster performance during his Senate committee hearing on his nomination to become the next Secretary of Defense. But while the usual suspects are reveling in their one moment of joy in their anti-Hagel smear campaign, the hearings probably said more about the direction of the Republican Party (see: Ted Cruz) than anything else. The Republican senators’ bitterness, lack of civility and contempt for a decorated war hero who volunteered for front-line service in Vietnam didn’t do any favors for the image of their party.

Yet most fair-minded Americans didn’t see much to disqualify Hagel as the next Pentagon chief. With the exception of the Wall Street Journal — whose neocon editorial board has allowed its pages to call Chuck Hagel an anti-Semite — the nation’s leading newspapers agree:

The New York Times: [I]t’s clear that Mr. Hagel is very much in the mainstream of American foreign policy, has a résumé and experience that would be valuable at the Pentagon and is capable of speaking his mind, even if he allowed himself on Thursday to back off on some positions, like his concern for Palestinians, in the face of a Republican attack on his nomination. Republicans on the military affairs panel may vote against him for political reasons, but they have no cause to do so, and he should be confirmed by the full Senate.

Los Angeles Times: It was clear before former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearings that he possessed the necessary personal and professional qualifications to serve as secretary of Defense. Hagel’s testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday demonstrated that his views about foreign and defense policy are not only well within the mainstream but consonant with those of the president who selected him.

USA Today: Republican senators roughed up their former colleague Chuck Hagel throughout his confirmation hearing Thursday to be secretary of Defense, but they produced no convincing proof that his views are outside the mainstream or that the decorated Vietnam combat veteran is unfit to head the Pentagon.

The Washington Post didn’t publish an editorial on Hagel’s hearing in today’s newspaper, but the Post ed board wrote early last month that it supports the former Republican senator’s bid.

Most of Hagel’s hearing focused — not on pressing issues the Defense Department may face, like Syria, force structure, military spending, veteran unemployment, homelessness and suicide or national security threats like climate change — but rather on smears and policy distortions on Israel and Iran the neocons have been leveling at Hagel for the past two months.

And while Hagel didn’t handle the onslaught as well as he probably could have, as CAP’s Matt Duss writes today in the American Prospect: “Despite yesterday’s performance, the odds are still good that Hagel will be confirmed as our next Secretary of Defense. He’ll move on. But it appears that congressional Republicans, who continue to play to the same right-wing base with the same belligerent ultra-nationalism that majorities of Americans have rejected in two successive presidential elections, simply can’t.”

One of the main themes senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee committed themselves to today during Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of Defense was — not wondering whether Hagel fully supports a diplomatic approach to Iran’s nuclear program, as most Americans do — but rather, whether the former Republican senator is willing to take this nation into another war in the Middle East if necessary.

Senator after senator, both Republican and Democrat, repeatedly sought Hagel’s reassurance that he is committed to starting a war with Iran — as if the last 10 years of a disastrous war in Iraq had never happened.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) was one of those senators. During one series of questions in which Ayotte wondered if Iran was “responsible” enough to deal with, Hagel explained that his priority is diplomacy. “I think it’s always wise to try to talk to people before you get into war,” he said:

AYOTTE: Because here we have a regime that doesn’t respond to in a responsible or sane behavior as a state-sponsor of terrorism and why that would be an appropriate manner for us to address them?

HAGEL: Well first I said engagement and I think we should talk, we actually are indirectly in the P5 plus one, we have been. I think that’s responsible. I think it’s always responsible to try to talk first. North Korea. I don’t consider North Korea a responsible, sane administration but we’re talking to North Korea. We’ve been talking bilaterally to North Korea. We are talking with the party of six to North Korea. I think that’s wise. I think it’s always wise to try to talk to people before you get into war.

Ayotte continued to badger Hagel about his past support for talks with Iran. “I’ve always thought that that’s smarter and wiser” to push countries into international organizations, Hagel said, adding:

HAGEL: Because when they go in to world bodies they have to comply with some semblance of international behavior it doesn’t mean they always will, they won’t, they cheat. But I think we’re smarter to do that. I’ve never thought engagement is weakness. I’ve never thought it was surrender. I never thought it was appeasement. I think it’s clearly in our interests. If that doesn’t work then I think the President’s position and his strategy has been exactly right. Get the United Nations behind you. Get the international sanctions behind you. Keep military options on the table. If the military option is the only option, it’s the only option.

Watch the clip:

“At Hagel hearing,” the Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran observed on Twitter, “136 mentions of Israel and 135 of Iran. Only 27 refs to Afghanistan. 2 for Al Qaida. 1 for Mali.” Indeed, the neocons aren’t dead, yet — at least not in the Senate.

(Photo: Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Chuck Hagel received two new high profile endorsements on Sunday for his bid to be the next Secretary of Defense. Retired Air Force General Michael Hayden and retired Army General Stanley McChrystal said on CNN’s State of the Union that Hagel is a good choice to take over for outgoing Pentagon chief Leon Panetta.

Hayden, former National Security Agency head during the Bush administration and CIA Director in both the Bush and Obama administrations, said Hagel is someone “you could talk to” and “have an honest dialogue” with. When host Candy Crowley asked the former generals if they see “any red flags” that would disqualify Hagel, McChrystal, most recently the top allied commander in Afghanistan, said “no” while Hayden said, “not at all.”

CROWLEY: From what you know of Chuck Hagel…what sort of reception would he get from the military.

HAYDEN: I think he will be fine. I know Senator Hagel. He was on my oversight committee when I was in the intelligence community. He was a member, and this is not a universal condition, he was a member that you could talk to, have an honest dialogue, not necessarily disagree but on a personal basis, have a candid exchange of views. You could always speak with him and frankly given my time in uniform, that’s a tremendous attribute. So I actually think this will work out well.

Watch the clip:

The “neocon smear machine” and other well-financed right-wing groups are trying to derail Hagel’s Defense Secretary bid but the former Republican senator from Nebraska has received widespread, bipartisan support from former top foreign affairs and defense officials in recent weeks and key senators have said they would vote to confirm Hagel.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — rumored to be a potential roadblock in the confirmation of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, today announced his support of Hagel’s bid — following a lengthy meeting between the two.

Schumer was thought by many to be a bellwether on whether coordinated attacks on Hagel’s stance on Iran and Israel by neoconservatives were having the desired effect. In the aftermath of a ninety minute meeting between the two on Monday, Schumer made clear that the smear tactics of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin and others had not swayed his decision, announcing his support in a prepared statement:

Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation. I encourage my Senate colleagues who have shared my previous concerns to also support him. [...]

I know some will question whether Senator Hagel’s assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don’t think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.

In his statement, Schumer also noted that Hagel provided assurances on his commitment to female and LGBT service members, another concern of several members of the Senate.

By announcing his support, Schumer joins Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) in firmly stating their backing of Hagel in the coming confirmation fight. “After speaking extensively with Sen. Hagel by phone last week and after receiving a detailed written response to my questions late today, I will support Sen. Hagel’s nomination as secretary of Defense,” Boxer said in a statement.

Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Elliott Abrams in a National Review Online (NRO) post on Saturday backed away from his charge that Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel is anti-Semitic, but in the very same piece, Abrams again suggested that Hagel may be anti-Semitic.

Abrams, a former Reagan and Bush administration official, said he never meant to frame the debate about Hagel in such an incendiary manner in both his Weekly Standard piece and during his interview on NPR last Monday. On NPR, Abrams said Hagel “appears to be” an anti-Semite and that he “seems to have some kind of problem with Jews.”

But Abrams backed away in his NRO piece, saying that he was referring to the fact that the “press has carried several articles now suggesting some sort of a problem between him and the Jewish community.” Never mind that all of those articles quote Abrams or his neoconservative allies as the ones making the suggestions.

Abrams even makes clear from the onset of his NRO essay that he doesn’t intend to engage with Hagel’s record and in no way wants to imply that Hagel should not be confirmed because of his policy views. Instead, the bulk of the piece is used to further attack Hagel’s past statements on Israel under the guise of further suggesting that Hagel is anti-Semitic. In particular, Abrams takes issue with Hagel once telling an audience member at a talk that he was U.S. senator, not an Israeli senator:

What, then, is the meaning of his reply if not this: that he is loyal to the United States, and his oath is to the Constitution of the United States only, “not to Israel,” unlike some people, who put Israel’s interests first. This remark seems to me more than merely irascible; it suggests that those who challenged his views have different loyalties. Can such a statement really be left unexamined and unchallenged? [...]

Today most pressure from the organized Jewish community over foreign-policy issues is related to the security of Israel and the Iranian nuclear-weapons program. To be treated with indifference by an elected official is bad enough. To be told by a future nominee for very high office that, “I’m a United States senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States senator,” and “my first interest is I take an oath of office to the Constitution of the United States” is insulting and unacceptable. It suggests that Senator Hagel believes such lobbying by American Jews to be illegitimate and offensive, and is indeed evidence of loyalty to another country.

Hagel himself has explained what he meant regarding the “Israeli senator” line. “A couple of these guys said we should just attack Iran,” Hagel said, adding, “And this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn’t supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said let me clear something up here, in case there is any doubt.”

Aaron David Miller, a former adviser to six Secretaries of State who first published the quote that Abrams takes issue with, said, “I think Hagel has a view that is not commonly expressed among senators and representatives, and that is, yes, we have a special relationship with Israel, but that special relationship is not exclusive.”

Read more

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) president Richard Haass said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday that ad hominem attacks on Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s choice as the next Defense Secretary, are “over the line.”

In an effort to derail Hagel’s nomination, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol and the neocons have been trying to convince the public that Hagel is an “anti-Semite.” CFR Senior Fellow Elliott Abrams, a former Bush administration official who was convicted of charges related to the Iran-Contra scandal, claimed last week that Hagel “seems to have some kind of problem with Jews.” But Haass, Abrams’ boss, rebuked those charges and the tactics Abrams and his neocon allies are using:

HAASS: The only thing that should be relevant George I would say are his ability to run the Pentagon and his views on policy … Where I think people are going over the line is with an hominem attacks, questioning for example whether he is an anti-Semite. I’ve known Chuck Hagel for more than 20 years for what it’s worth, I think that’s proposterous. I also don’t think that has a place in the public space. We often ask, why aren’t public debates better, why aren’t sometimes the best people going into public life, but this is one of the reasons. … I really don’t think there is a legitimate place in American political life for ad hominem attacks. These are loaded words that are being cast about and I think they’re simply beyond the pale.

Watch the clip:

A Council spokesperson last week backed away from Abrams’ baseless attacks on Hagel, saying they don’t represent the views of the Council on Foreign Relations. But Haass has now formally criticized Abrams’ attacks.

Critics of Abrams for his anti-Hagel comments are now calling on him to apologize. “I hope that Abrams rethinks his position and apologizes to Hagel and welcomes a genuine debate, Council on Foreign Relations-style, about their policy differences,” Atlantic editor-at-large and New America Foundation Senior Fellow Steve Clemons said this week.

The neocon smear machine failed to prevent Chuck Hagel’s nomination as the next Secretary of Defense as President Obama announced on Monday that the former GOP senator is his choice to succeed Leon Panetta at the Pentagon. Fresh off their defeat, it seems like the neocons are getting desperate in their efforts to derail Hagel’s bid.

The Iranians today responded to the Hagel nomination and used it to take a backhanded slap at the United States: “We hope there will be practical changes in American foreign policy and that Washington becomes respectful of the rights of nations,” the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson said.

“Hagel nomination cheers Iran, worries Israel” a CBS headline to the story read, and with that, the neocons gleefully promoted Iran’s participation:

CBS: ‘Hagel Nomination Cheers Iran, Worries Israel’: CBS reports: bit.ly/WsZLIn

— weeklystandard (@weeklystandard) January 8, 2013

Hagel nomination cheers Iran, worries Israel cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-5… via @cbsnews

— Keep America Safe (@KeepAmericaSafe) January 8, 2013

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who was previously Hagel’s best friend in the Senate but now has concerns about his nomination, tweeted out the the story as well, which AEI’s Danielle Pletka retweeted.

And if that CBS headline sounds a bit misleading, it is. The one worried Israeli the story quoted was a right-wing Likud Party member. In another piece on what Israelis think of the Hagel pick, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said of the Nebraska Republican: “I have met him many times, and he certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S. ally.”

The first question we have is: who cares what Iran thinks about Chuck Hagel? But it’s sad the neocons have become so desperate in their anti-Hagel smear campaign that they’re now promoting anti-American propaganda from Iran’s foreign ministry to make their case.

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and his neocon allies went all-in to try to prevent Chuck Hagel from being nominated to be the next Defense Secretary. While the noise and “disgusting” attacks on the former Republican senator have indeed sucked a lot of oxygen in the beltway media and beyond, what really matters is what U.S. Senators think — as Congress’s upper chamber will ultimately decide Hagel’s fate. But it appears that Hagel’s chances of taking Leon Panetta’s job aren’t as bad as the media circus surrounding Hagel’s nomination is making it seem. As it stands right now, there are just five Senators — all Republicans — who have said they would vote against Hagel: Roger Wicker (MS), John Cornyn (TX), Ted Cruz (TX), David Vitter (LA) and Tom Coburn (OK).

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has perhaps been the most vocal Republican senator attacking Hagel, spending 5 minutes laying in to Obama’s nominee on CNN on Sunday, for example, claiming Hagel is “antagonistic” toward Israel (he’s not). But even Graham said in the same segment that he has not made a decision on whether he’ll vote to confirm Hagel:

HOST CANDY CROWLEY: Are you opposed enough to filibuster the nomination?

GRAHAM: The hearings will matter. He can set some of this straight. Maybe these are statements taken out of context, but when you put all the statements together, you have somebody who is very antagonistic towards the state of Israel and the issues we jointly face.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) refused an opportunity to attack Hagel when asked about his nomination on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, “Whoever’s nominated for secretary of defense is going to have to have a full understanding of our close relationship with our Israeli allies, the Iranian threat, and the importance of having a robust military,” McConnell said, adding, “So whoever that is, I think, will be given a thorough vetting. And if Senator Hagel’s nominated, he’ll be subjected to the same kinds of review of his credentials as anyone else.” And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an influential voice within the GOP on military matters, has also not made up his mind on Hagel.

Yet the conventional wisdom on Hagel appears to be that his confirmation is in doubt. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd reported on Monday before Obama’s announcement that he knows of at least 10 Democratic senators who would oppose the nomination and that “Republicans look like they’re going to be fairly united in opposition to Hagel.”

But the evidence doesn’t necessarily back that claim up. Along with the high-profile support Hagel received yesterday after his nomination (and throughout the last month), two top Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Carl Levin (MI) said they would vote for Hagel (thus making it more likely that their fellow Democrats will follow suit). And the top Senate Republican saying Hagel should get a fair hearing doesn’t necessarily signify “fairly united” GOP opposition.

As far as Hagel’s confirmation goes, what matters is Senate votes, not the right-wing noise machine. As one observer on Twitter noted, “It’s almost as if the opposition to Hagel is centered around dyed-in-the-wool neocons.”

President Barack Obama announced today that he has nominated his top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan as the next CIA director and former Republican senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel for the position of Secretary of Defense, ignoring weeks of neoconservative criticism of Hagel’s record.

“Chuck Hagel is the leader that our troops deserve,” Obama said in the East Room of the White House during the announcement. “He is a champion of our troops, and our values, and our military families.” Outgoing Secretary Leon Panetta said that Hagel is “a patriot, a decorated combat veteran…and I believe his experience and judgment makes him an excellent choice for Secretary of Defense.”

In taking over at the Pentagon from Secretary Panetta, Hagel is tasked with implementing a time of change that began in Obama’s first term. Hagel — who served in the Senate from 1997 to 2009 — was an early supporter of the Iraq War, but quickly became an extremely vocal thorn in the side of the Bush administration as an outspoken critic of the war’s prosecution. That war has now ended under President Obama, with the war in Afghanistan due to come to a close during Hagel’s service in Obama’s Cabinet.

Despite his credentials, and the strong likelihood that he will be confirmed, the path to the Pentagon will be one littered with false attacks and cheap shots that ignore the nuance of Hagel’s past statements. The smear machine has been gearing up for weeks as President Obama weighed his final decision and the White House sent out trial balloons. In response, an avalanche of bipartisan and high-level support has come out in defense of Hagel’s strong record, a few selections of which are listed here:

Read more