New York Times Editorial, "A Confirmation Ordeal": Observe Hagel's Freudian Slip

Acknowledging that "Hagel was disappointingly unsure of himself at times" during his confirmation hearing yesterday, a New York Times editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/opinion/a-chuck-hagel-confirmation-ordeal.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0) cheerfully concludes that the Senate "should now confirm Mr. Hagel." Although the Times was disappointed that Hagel did not explain why he said "such ridiculous things about a gay ambassadorial candidate in 1998," the Times would have us believe that Hagel is firmly opposed to allowing Iran to build its first atomic weapon:

"Mr. Hagel repeatedly proclaimed support for Israel, and he firmly agreed with Mr. Obama’s policy that Iran’s nuclear program must be prevented, not contained. But no explanation by Mr. Hagel was ever enough for his camera-concscious [sic] critics."

Oh, really? Observe the following segment from the hearings:



Further evidence of Hagel's "qualifications":



"Disappointingly unsure of himself" or simply frightening? If Kennedy surrounded himself with the "best and the brightest," it would appear that Obama is taking on the "worst and the dumbest." Camelot it isn't.