Hegseth
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Pete Hegseth, while sporting an impressive resume, is woefully unqualified to lead the Department of Defense.
Of course our current SECDEF went off the job without bothering to inform his superior and no one noticed he was missing. Then there's the curious case of a Commander in Chief who has been mentally AWOL for four years. I wouldn't be concerned about Hegseth's qualifications were I you. He'll show up for work with his wits intact and that will be a pleasant change
Define qualified because going down the list of previous DOD Secretaries over the last few decades, he looks a lot more qualified than a number of his predecessors (both D and R).
He ran 2 non-profits into the ground, has never managed more than 15-20 people and if we not on Fox News, he would never have been considered for the position.
What do any of those people have to do with Pete Hegseth being a poor choice?
Because there is no “job description” for any of these positions so everyone is going to have a different view of who is “qualified”. You even stated that he has an impressive resume, and then cherry picked to qualifications that you felt are important (span of control and running a non-profit).
From what I saw yesterday the vast majority of criticisms were aimed at his views on women in combat, the sex assault allegation and drinking habits.
If we’re being honest though, and picked what type of qualifications you would want in the secretary of defense before someone was nominated, no one here would say an army major who has been a media personality for the last 10 years. He as considered for veterans affairs in Trumps first term but was passed over, and since then has been on TV which makes him the first choice for a much higher level?
That doesn’t mean he can’t do a good job, but he does not have the experience most people would want to see in this high level position. Veterans affairs would have been a much more suitable roll for him where he could prove he can run something well.
And that was the point I was making earlier on other DOD Secretaries. No one here would have said they were qualified based on their resume before being nominated.
There are aspects and experiences of his background that are relevant. Having battlefield experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that is recent and excellent communication skills have value.
I have no idea if he can or will do a good job, but with no job description it becomes very subjective as to what’s important. We’ll know soon enough because it looks like he’s going to make it.
I wonder if Dems really believed little mayor Pete was qualified to be transportation secretary.If they did they were obviously wrong.Or the energy secretary who didn’t. know how much oil was produced daily in he US after being in the job for 18 months.
Aspin and Cohen earned their reputations though though stints on relevant committees though. Carlucci was certainly qualified as Deputy directory of the CIA and department of defense before being nominated. Not sure why he's on your list.
Aspin was named chair to the armed services committee. Cohen was on the armed services and intelligence committees. Not the ideal experience running an organization, but earned the respect on their colleagues for an advise and consent on their abilities.
When Mattis was named, you said he was a home run. How can you think he’s a home run when there is no job description? It’s because you know who you’d ideally want to see in the role and you know Hegseth just doesn't fit.
I think it's ok to say that Hegseth isn't qualified, but is a good communicator, did well in his hearing and hope he will be effective if confirmed. We've had qualified people who weren't effective on the other end.
He wasn't. It was certainly a trade for his support on the campaign trail.
Also, not nearly as high of a profile as Secretary of Defense.
Plenty of "gotcha" moments for Hegseth as well yesterday.
Is there something she did on the job that upset you? Do you dislike that we are producing more oil than we ever have and are more energy independent than we ever have been while she was secretary?
Serving on a committees is kind of light, no? And “earned respect” strikes me as pretty subjective, but if that’s your measurement, then that’s fine, without a job description to compare.
But that’s my point… without a formal job description, we all have our own views on what a “Homerrun” is. Subjective like I said.
But “qualified” is subjective without a job description. I’m not saying I believe he’s completely qualified by my personal views, but he does have some very relevant qualifications.
The qualification goal posts move all of the time. It's just a talking point. Sadly no republican pick will be good for democrats and it works the other way with no democrat will be good enough for republicans. At some point we have to stop playing politics and just say is he good enough or not. Hegseth not qualified because of number of people worked for him. He only had 15-20 people working for him. Ok great. Did all these people vote for Trump because he's more experienced running things than Kamala. Probably not but goalposts fit good here on Hegseth and they will move them when they have to. I'm curious how many of these hearings will result in 80-85 senators agreeing the nominee is good or bad. Or will it be all party line votes, exactly what the American people are sick and tired of seeing.
Not getting the difference between whataboutism and context…totally on brand for you.
The measurement is the senates ability to advise and consent.
Experience on committees though not ideal as I stated would give them the ability understand the person at least. How thoughtful they are, their views on foreign policy and if they have the ability to lead etc.
Exactly... and none of us would chose Hegseth if we're being honest though. None of our views would have suggested we want a media personality here. This isn't just some random cabinet post. It is probably the most powerful cabinet post.
My personal view is that the position be filled be a general who has shown an ability to lead, is well respected and supported by the military. That's not going to change if a democrat wins next time.
You speak for everyone now?
Convenient to cherry pick one aspect of his resume to support your narrative.
So you already think he will do a bad job? He’s going to be the Secretary, and I hope he is successful.
Just calling it like I see it. No one on this board would have been supportive of the pick with his same credentials if Biden were in office.
Yes, I was just cherry picking what he has been doing the last 10 years... Come on.
Never said that.
He is correct. Democrats did a pretty bad job in the hearing. Kaine was particularly bad.
Moved the goal posts to the other end of the field…lol
Rather than 14 years in the military with deployment experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, with multiple commendations. Come in back at you.
Once again, based on what I think is important, he lacks a number of qualifications. But he also has some very relevant qualifications.
