An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Quote Of The Day: Senator Chuck Hagel
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, talking to Senators about the Bush administration “surge” in Iraq.
‘’There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing – all of us – before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder… I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.’’
10 Responses to “Quote Of The Day: Senator Chuck Hagel”
This reminds me of the recent negotiations between the President and the Republican minority, where the President seems to have agreed (probably with fingers crossed – I mean, a signing statement) to measurable goals related to the surge. Does this imply that he still didn’t have any goals until forced to produce some? Honestly, I don’t know whether a surge or a withdrawal is a good strategic move, because I’m still not sure the White House knows when they’ve succeeded or not.
pacatrue,
I share your concern about measurable goals, but I don’t necessarily think that being reluctant to publicly state the benchmarks indicates that the benchmarks weren’t in place. Bush’s history gives reason for concern, but I do think that the staff replacements represent a good sign that realists are now calling the shots.
On the other hand, for PR reasons I think that announcing the benchmarks is beneficial to gain at least a little bit of support for the plan, and that outweighs the concern about tipping our hand to the insurgents.
Hagels statement is a classic. However, it timing is a year short for the Republicants and years short for the Democrat party. Many of the dissenters jumped on board after the November election, where were they for two years?
I think the GOP was afraid to buck the president on the war. He may not have been the greatest asset in midterm campaigns, but he and Cheney attended hundreds of fundraisers for candidates up for reelection. Candidates also relied on Karl Rove’s help as well as the RNC’s. That support would have been withdrawn had Republicans bucked Bush on his war policy.
Congress has, up until now, been so weakened that Cheney felt quite comfortable telling an interviewer that it no longer mattered what those in Congress thought- the executive was going to carry out its surge policy regardless.With such a renegade administration in power, Congress badly needs to reassert itself in any way shape or form that it can. I’m not certain how far the Dems are willing to go, with the national security onus on their minds for ’08, but I’m glad to see Hagel speaking his mind. He is one of the very few in DC who is not speaking from political calculations. (Jim Webb is another)
KR – Congress and the ‘Liberal MSM’ jumped on a bandwagon after 911. When Clinton ‘wagged the dog’ in Bosnia and Somali the likes of Lott and Santorum questioned our CiC during war time. Fringe Republican like Ron Paul and Walter Jones are ignored, you don’t see them on Hannity or Matthews, bimbos like Ann Coulter and the ‘cute blond Democrat’ at Fox get air time. From Ron Paul, addressing Clintons bombing of Iraq.
I would guess that his fellow Republicants cheered this speech. After Bush’s election Paul has given similar speeches, I doubt his fellow Republicant cheer now.
Excellent.
Rudi,
Kudos to you for including the quote by Congressman Ron Paul. I’ve been arguing for over a year that the most consistently anti-war politician is not a liberal Democrat but a libertarian Republican. He’s been speaking out against any pre-emptive invasion of Iraq since the late 90′s, just as you pointed out. He’s also made more than thirty speeches before the members of the House, condemning the Iraq War.
It’s funny (or sad) how, during the first three and a half years of the Iraq War, the media conveniently ignored all the Republicans speaking out against the war (and yet it had no problem focusing on Democrats like Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller, who have steadfastly supported the war).
nicrivera,
Walter Jones is another interesting Republican, but I fear his emotional attachment to soldiers families and their loses have affected his stance. I admire his positions(Jones), but he seems to emotional over the War. The thing about it is that the Jones, Paul and Hagel Republicans are ignored over the Roberts and Lindsay Graham. But I do like Graham and Hagel over McCain, McCain=Faustus
Great quote, Rudi- and you’re right, I watch a lot of the chatfests on MSNBC, and CNN -once in a while I can stomach FOX, but I have heard very little about Congressman Ron Paul – I did hear of Walter Jones very recently.
Even, if we had gotten Hussein in a bombing raid, there were still Uday and Qusai and a slew of other SOB’s surrounding him, so Paul was right. They would have taken revenge any way they could have.
Time magazine’s February 5, 2007 edition has a cover story on all of the candidates for the Presidency in 2008. All of the candidates are handicapped, even those with 1% name recognition (Vilsack, Gilmore, Hunter, etc.) All candidates in the race already, and those expected to run, are mentioned–twenty or more. All except one–Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul started an exploratory committee on January 11. He’s been a member of Congress for nearly 25 years. Nothing.