Talk:Chuck Hagel

neutrality, not press release type language
There are various reports about the circumstances of Secretary Hagel's departure, such as the Syrian policy and management directly from the West Wing.

Several ways to handle it.

One is to state the fact and leave the reader wondering. That is not necessarily bad because the reader can research it. We can write that Hagel resigned. We could go a little further and write that Hagel resigned amid reports of policy and management disputes.

The other is to write what is happening. This would take a whole lot of effort, trying to balance users' opinions, getting references, etc. However, the worse is to just leave a slightly biased press release type statement. "But after much discussion, the President and I agreed that now was the right time for new leadership here at the Pentagon." is not right for Wikipedia.

I am not going to write anything for now...too much of a hot potato.

Eating Glass Is Bad (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Iraq was about oil, quote
On this fairly reputable site, it states ''Alan Greenspan, former chair of the Federal Reserve, has declared that “…the Iraq war is largely about oil” in his recently released memoirs. “People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are,” said the Republican Senator from Nebraska Chuck Hagel to law students of Catholic University last September. “They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs.”'' http://fpif.org/the_costs_of_war_for_oil/

Worth investigating further, or could/should this reference stand-alone? 109.125.17.114 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chuck Hagel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/24/us-usa-military-hagel-idUSKCN0J81AK20141124
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121215230604/http://www.webb.senate.gov/issuesandlegislation/upload/Webb_NewGIBill.pdf to http://www.webb.senate.gov/issuesandlegislation/upload/Webb_NewGIBill.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Constant vandalism
Someone by the IP of 178.41.225.120 has continually vandalized this article all morning with his personal beliefs, and has made threats against him, particularly "He should be assassinated and burned at the stake along with his spouse and children." I can't stay here forever to monitor the article to undo any continued changes by this IP, but I recommend someone stay on-station for the next hour or so to undo any more vandalism. Cheef117 (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Service of brothers in the Vietnam conflict
I believe this article should be edited where this article states “it is believed this is the only instance where brothers served in the same infantry squad in Vietnam”. Why do I say this? Because myself, Jerry Lee Chism and my older brother, Tommie Allen Chism served for 9 months (69 - 70) in the same infantry squad in B Company of the 4th Battalion of the 503rd Infantry Regiment of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. I believe the article should state that “this is only one of many instances where brothers served in the same infantry squad in Vietnam.” My brother Tom retired from the Army as a Sargent First Class in 1988. I retired as a Major in 1995. This is all verifiable through U S Army records. I still retain assignment orders from 173rd headquarters assigning me to B Company with the note on the orders “EM (enlisted Man) has brother in gaining unit”. I can’t believe the Chism’s and the Hagels were the only brothers to serve together in Vietnam. I do believe there are others. 18:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)2601:485:4280:A90:D0AB:68DE:F75D:FD4D (talk)