Comment: If I was a Senator it would

If I was a Senator it would be a tough call for me to vote for or against Hagel's confirmation:

Hagel made some statement's against the Iraq war after it was started, but he voted YES to authorize the use of military force in Iraq in 2003.

Hagel is an internationalist and supporter of the UN and other international organizations (especially NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, IMF and World Bank), but he "agreed with the statement that 'America is seen as a bully...' around the world". (agreeing with that statement is a pretty light weight accusation against Hagel, and pretty light weight evidence that Hagel is a step in the right direction for liberty and the rule of law)

Hagel made some statements about being "a US Senator, not an Israeli Senator". That took some guts, for sure, but has he actually followed that idea up in any vote he had to take that related to Israel? Perhaps Hagel had been voting against the status quo and that's why he was challenged with questions about Israel and other things. I have not seen that evidence yet, but I would like to.

My main point is that just because someone makes (or agrees with) statements that sound good, if they don't follow it up with reality -- in the case of a Senator, votes or legislation -- it doesn't matter in reality, only in debates among easily deceived people.

In the end, without knowing more specific details about Hagel's voting record (and specifically the reasons for his votes) or the trade-offs needed in the Senate to stop someone worse, like Brennan, I think Rand's thinking is as good as any I can come up with at this point.

Yes, as a Senator, I would have explained in the interview exactly what I just wrote. Rand was catering to Beck's audience more than I would have. But I would not say that I agreed with Hagel's positions if they were just a few statements and agreements with statements (slightly out of context) and not actual votes and policy.