← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Sertorius
Thread ID: 19113 | Posts: 10 | Started: 2005-07-12
2005-07-12 15:24 | User Profile
T.D.,
I believe that he is starting to turn against this fiasco. Hagel has really got the Neocons on Neocon radio mad at him for asking questions they don't like. I'll go one better. You can read Hagel's words for yourself. Here are some excerps from the 3 July program from Meet the Press:
MS. MITCHELL: Senator Hagel, is Iraq the latest battlefield in a war that really began on September 11?
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL, (R-NE): Well, unfortunately, it is now a battle about terrorism. It wasn't when we went in to Iraq. Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with September 11. Factually, as Senator Dodd noted, Saddam Hussein had no relationship with al-Qaeda or terrorists. Our objective, if we recall, going into Iraq almost two and a half years ago, was to strip Saddam Hussein of weapons of mass destruction, regime change, and make the Middle East a more peaceful and stable area. Now, it has shifted to, in fact, a real battle against terrorists. And as we see, as General Abizaid said before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, we're seeing more insurgents pour into Iraq, terrorists, across those borders that Senator Dodd talked about. So it has widened now into a deeper and wider effort.
And I think it's very important that the president define the objectives, as will be the case as we've got coming up here on July 11th, when the Pentagon is due with a report to Congress, which my colleague, Chairman Duncan Hunter, knows an awful lot about on the progress--the matrix. David Broder talked about it in The Washington Post this morning. The American people need to have some kind of measurement standard in Iraq, and not only the objective of what we have now, but the progress report so that we don't drift and just every now and then get a new speech saying, "Well, we're doing fine and just stay the course." Stay the course is not a policy.
[edit]
MS. MITCHELL: Senator Hagel, you were very negative today and also in some comments you made to U.S. News. What you said to U.S. News is that "Things are not getting better, they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality. ...It's like they're just making it up as we go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."
Now, both Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney took you to the woodshed saying that you are flat wrong. Do you still feel that we're losing in Iraq?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, I don't just come up with these comments and make some judgment out of thin air. I mean, if we look, as I said earlier, at some measurements, some standards, I mean, where are we? for example, the last two months our casualties are up, American casualties are up. There are higher casualty rates than average at any time since we've been there almost in the last two and a half years. Last two months, the Iraqi armed forces, the worst two months, bloodiest two months.
General Abizaid's comments to the Armed Services Committee last week with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld sitting there, saying more insurgents are in there today than they there were six months ago. They keep pouring in. Less oil being produced, more insurgency pipeline attacks, less electricity being produced, quality of life going down, more unemployment. Are there some success there? Of course, the $34 billion that was obligated, committed two years ago from our coalition partners, of that $34 billion--the president talked about that--$20 billion's coming from the United States, $14 billion from our partners, but only $2 billion of the $14 actually been committed, $18 billion the Congress committed a year and a half ago to economic development, about $6 billion of that spent. Our coalition partners the president talked about, over a dozen of them have pulled out. Two of the largest, Ukraine and Poland, will be out sometime later this year completely. So I make some measurement here before I speak. I also said I think we can win. I also said we must win. I also said we need to make some adjustments. For example, regional-provincial successes we've had, why aren't we focusing there? Because when you're in a counterinsurgency war, it's not about military only, it's about a political settlement. And the Sunni tribal dynamic of this, I think, makes us close to probably some real very serious internal conflict going on. So those are why--those are some of the reasons why I made the statement I did.
MS. MITCHELL: Well, not surprisingly, MoveOn.org, a liberal action group, took your words to heart.
Here's a portion of the television ad that they put up.
(Videotape, "MoveOn PAC" ad):
Announcer: Now, even a Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, is saying, "The White House is completely disconnected from reality. It's like they're just making it up as they go along." Iraq: We got in the wrong way; let's get out the right way.
(End videotape)
MS. MITCHELL: Aren't you undermining your own president on the war effort?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, Duncan Hunter and I served in Vietnam. I watched, as Duncan Hunter watched-- and he can speak for himself; he will. I watched 58,000 Americans get chewed up over a process of 1961 to 1975--that's the casualty rate during that time--during a time when, in fact, we had a policy that was losing. And the members of Congress were interestingly silent and absent in asking tough questions. As long as I'm a United States senator, I will do everything I can to ensure that we have a policy worthy of these brave young men and women who are sacrificing their lives and doing the things that they do for this country. I don't think that policy is there today.
And as I am sitting here today and still in the United States Senate, however long it takes, I will ask the tough questions. I will provide alternatives and solutions. I owe it to the people. I owe it to the country. And when I don't say anything, I fail those I served with, I fail those 58,000 Vietnamese families--or Vietnam victims, and I fail the families of those who already lost their lives in Iraq and been maimed. So I don't apologize for questioning. That's part of my job. And I will stand on my record against anyone having the right to ask those tough questions.
During the hearings in the runup to the war, Hagel expressed skepticism for the reasons and the "evidence" about the "threat" Saddam posed. Unfortunately, he voted to give Bush a blank check. Too bad he has a lousy voting record on immigration.
2005-07-12 16:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]SEN. HAGEL: Well, Duncan Hunter and I served in Vietnam. I watched, as Duncan Hunter watched-- and he can speak for himself; he will. I watched 58,000 Americans get chewed up over a process of 1961 to 1975--that's the casualty rate during that time--during a time when, in fact, we had a policy that was losing. And the members of Congress were interestingly silent and absent in asking tough questions. As long as I'm a United States senator, [I]I will do everything I can to ensure that we have a policy worthy of these brave young men and women who are sacrificing their lives and doing the things that they do for this country. I don't think that policy is there today.[/I]
And as I am sitting here today and still in the United States Senate, however long it takes, I will ask the tough questions. I will provide alternatives and solutions. [B][I]I owe it to the people. I owe it to the country. And when I don't say anything, I fail those I served with, I fail those 58,000 Vietnamese families--or Vietnam victims, and I fail the families of those who already lost their lives in Iraq and been maimed. So I don't apologize for questioning. That's part of my job. And I will stand on my record against anyone having the right to ask those tough questions[/I][/B]. [/QUOTE]This country needs more Chuck Hagels and much fewer Cheneys, Bushes and tough-talking Jews. Hagel speaks for many Americans, most certainly to include me.
2005-07-12 16:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]This country needs more Chuck Hagels and much fewer Cheneys, Bushes and tough-talking Jews. Hagel speaks for many Americans, most certainly to include me.[/QUOTE]
Me too, Edward. As I stated before the thread split, I was impressed with what I heard from the Senator regarding Iraq. These days it's quite rare to hear anyone in the Republican party sound like a traditional, disciplined and principled conservative on any issue, much less doggedly ask tough questions of and take the current administration to the woodshed. I could tell that Tony Snow was a bit taken aback by it. Of course we don't know if anything will come of it, but let's hope Sen.Hagel gathers some momentum on this quest and hopefully show him some support.
2005-07-12 17:35 | User Profile
Good. I'll have to put him in my good book. I like politicans that are not more loyal to their political party than they are to the American people.
2005-07-12 21:07 | User Profile
Sen Hagel has been outspoken for the last couple of years, and as I recall, was a voice of modest dissent even before US hit Iraq -- maybe just after -- He was not adhereing to the party line back then, either.
I think he has been trying to pick his fights. I had a bunch of his comments on a hard drive that got eaten by a bad power supply, 2003 vintage and 2002. Sorry not to be able to share. His record in immigration is not in his favor. :evil:
[QUOTE=Sertorius]T.D.,
I believe that he is starting to turn against this fiasco. Hagel has really got the Neocons on Neocon radio mad at him for asking questions they don't like. I'll go one better. You can read Hagel's words for yourself. Here are some excerps from the 3 July program from Meet the Press:
[edit]
During the hearings in the runup to the war, Hagel expressed skepticism for the reasons and the "evidence" about the "threat" Saddam posed. Unfortunately, he voted to give Bush a blank check. Too bad he has a lousy voting record on immigration.[/QUOTE]
2005-07-12 23:20 | User Profile
T.D.,
I trust this answers your question. He has made many an apperance on Russert with Biden to the point that "Conservative and Republican" Laura Ingraham refers to him and Biden as "Bagel". No complaints from the Ziocons to my knowledge.
2005-07-13 00:13 | User Profile
Too bad he has a lousy voting record on immigration.
Maddening, but if they're anti kill-for-Israel, they're almost always pro-Third World immigration. I hate to be an additional spoilsport, but this glared out at me, too:
During the hearings in the runup to the war, Hagel expressed skepticism for the reasons and the "evidence" about the "threat" Saddam posed. Unfortunately, he voted to give Bush a blank check.
To me that says I knew then what I know now, but back then it wasn't politically safe for me to vote nay....so I didn't. Now that it's clearly a debacle and less risky for me to condemn the war - I'm condemning it. Hey, Bush can't run again, but [u]I've[/u] got to.
It's a smart move. Sooner or later, this adventure will be aborted....and sooner or later, somebody is going to start objectively looking at the Big Picture - starting with PNAC, onto/beyond the administration stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation, and all points between - and nobody too closely associated with the Bush/AIPAC White House is going to pass History's smell test or find themselves graded on a curve. Hegel's cutting his ties now, while he can. I only wish he would've acted on his convictions three years ago, when it mattered.
As a semi-hopeful sidebar, this will be the formula followed for the Great Congressional Backtrack on Mass Immigration. There, too, once the problem has gotten so far out of hand that only a blind man could claim that more Third-World diversity will make us stronger and safer, politicians will begin being sighted on the Sunday morning talk shows, making sure they're seen discussing their 'long-held private reservations' about open borders ......on as public a forum as possible.
If I seem bitterly skeptical, it's because - insofar as the guy who says no, this is a godawful idea [u]before[/u] the irreversible damage is done (whether about Iraqi regime change, or amnesty for illegals, or gay marriage, or what-have-you) - nothing has changed. He'll be a 'racist' or a 'traitor' or a 'bigot' tomorrow, same as he was yesterday....and someone we maybe should've listened to after it's already too late.
2005-07-13 13:09 | User Profile
IR,
Hagel leaves alot to be desired, there's no doubt. At the time of the run up I thought there was a slight chance he'd vote no on the blank check. As you point out, he is now running for prez and wants to seperate himself from something he should have voted against. It isn't like the information wasn't out there. I found it by simply looking at the stuff Anthony Cordsman and others collected and could see, even with the chemical weapons he was accused of having, (I never believed Powell's claims) their army was so much junk with an equally junk doctrine. I don't even need to comment on their airforce.
It is almost hard for me to say which is worse. Fighting on behalf of Israel and Wall Street or failing to do anything about immigration. I'd have to say the latter, a war, sooner or later we can get out of. A shift in demographics and culture is fatal. This is why I can overlook Tancredo voting for the war. I can't overlook Hagel.
2005-07-14 05:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]IR,
It is almost hard for me to say which is worse. Fighting on behalf of Israel and Wall Street or failing to do anything about immigration. [u]I'd have to say the latter, a war, sooner or later we can get out of. A shift in demographics and culture is fatal.[/u] This is why I can overlook Tancredo voting for the war. I can't overlook Hagel.[/QUOTE] That is my number one concern. Enemies domestic.
2005-07-14 10:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius] It isn't like the information wasn't out there. I found it by simply looking at the stuff Anthony Cordsman and others collected and could see, even with the chemical weapons he was accused of having, (I never believed Powell's claims) their army was so much junk with an equally junk doctrine. I don't even need to comment on their airforce. [/QUOTE] Tony Cordesman is the man. I have always suspected that some old Eastern Establishment heavyweights got in touch with him, Schwarzkopf and others to enlist their help in derailing this stupid war. The Boy King was determined to show off for Poppy though.