As I have been watching the hearings for Elena Kagan, I am growing more frustrated by the day. At the outset of the nomination, several antagonists made obscene remarks against President Obama's nomination. However, not a single comment has been as worrisome as Pete Hegseth's.
I have watched Pete Hegseth badger this woman, from the halls of congress, to CSPAN and now the Wall Street Journal.
Summing up Hegseth's remarks, he claims, "Kagan does not support the military, thus she does not deserve an appointment to the Supreme Court".
I become more displeased by the day as Pete and the right wing media attack her. I am not badgering conservatives, but increasingly I am perplexed by the ideology used against her.
As a veteran of both Enduring and Iraqi Freedom and as a commentator on American politics, I find Pete's remarks misleading, and unjustified.
Kagan, a woman, one of the best and brightest legal minds of our time is undergoing thorough scrutiny for her positions on "don't ask, don't tell" and military recruiters on Harvard Law School.
In order to be fair, lets clean up Hegseth's hot air.
While at Harvard, Kagan allowed the military access to the campus and the military recruitment numbers of Harvard Students went up while she was the dean.
That is right!
The military recruitment numbers actually rose as the "anti-military" Kagan ruled the halls of Harvard Law.
Secondly, she has hosted veterans and military service members in her office, at her home, and heard their concerns about the whole process.
So my question is, what is Pete Hegseth's gripe all about?
Why is it so important for Hegseth to ridicule a woman, and secondly ridicule a genius legal mind?
Thirdly, why does Pete have to use his military position to call Kagan "anti-military".
Kagan, obviously a brilliant woman, with unprecedented academic credentials, finds herself attacked by fraudulent claims of Hegseth. Harvard Law only sends 2-3 students per graduating class to the military. What is all the buzz about?
How are Pete's arguments even logical? Why are his remarks so important for the Wall Street Journal opinion page and a congressional hearing panel?
Oddly, the 1996 Solomon Amendment requires schools to give military recruiters equal access to campus facilities. Many of the nation's law schools had similar anti-discrimination policies and refused to allow military recruiters on campus.
Did Pete or other right wing pundits attack those schools? Not at all.
Why?
In my opinion, many right-wing anti Obama congressional figures use Hegseth and other veterans to demonize President Obama. Pete uses his veteran status to promote far right wing dogma. He is a pawn of the far right wing and he uses "freedom" language as his fuel.
Pete has had an opportunity to attack anyone who leans left or criticizes Generals. He does not stand for logic in the constitutional sense. Rather, Pete suffers from the indoctrination of the Bush administration freedom agenda, and continues to use his Veteran status to downgrade anything that is not male and military friendly.
I am personally offended if anyone hates the military. I grow more disgusted by many of the flag burning exercises of the far left/socialist pundits. I think the disrespect is deplorable. Yet, Pete's actions make me equally repulsed.
Kagan does not hate the military, but even if Kagan despises the military, does that make her incompetent to serve on our nations highest court?
Does the constitution demand the Justices have profound desire to love and protect traditional laws of the UCMJ for the military?
NO
The Supreme Court's job is to uphold and interpret the law for the constitution of our country.
Pete's logic says, John Yoo, the advocate of torture, is fit for the Supreme Court because he protects soldiers who are permitted to perform water boarding.
Whatever one thinks of water boarding is irrelevant, but the logic is ridiculous. Just because one wants to defend water boarding does not mean he is fit for the Supreme Court.
Pete is a brave American who gave up a Wall Street job in order to serve his country. I applaud his tremendous sacrifice and his political skill. However, Pete is no lawyer, and Pete is hurting the American Veteran's community by blasting over broadband his rightwing nonsense.
Anyone discussing politics that is a veteran becomes weakened by Pete's sexist rants and right wing babble. Pete has overstepped his place as a citizen/soldier. Kagan is one of the finest legal minds of our time. Yet, somehow this "left leaning, anti military" woman, cannot get the Pete's support.
As a vet, I say Pete Hegseth's patriotism is unquestioned and his dedication to Veterans is unprecedented. However, his bantering against Kagan is absolute nonsense. She is more than fit to perform the tasks of the Supreme Court.
As a Veteran and a Conservative Evangelical Christian, I stand with Republican Senator Lindsay Graham: "There's plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote no, but there are plenty of reasons for a conservative to vote yes.""She is a loyal American, very patriotic,"
Pete, the right wing dogma has to stop, you're hurting sensible Americans more than you're helping. You and VFF were spot on for the Iraq surge, but since then you have been coopted by anti-Obama right wing punditry.
Being conservative means more than attacking the left and giving the Generals unconditional support.