Redstate

..."He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes,"...

This is some awfully offensive and provocative bluster. To quote someone, who I can't remember right now, words have meanings, and its the job of Club for Growth and the NRSC to impress the meanings upon the likes of Hagel and Graham.

Say what you will about Graham, McCain, Warner or any other moderate or "maverick", they are not saying garbage like this. Hagel is from Nebraska, we can do a lot better than this. The Democrats are highly unlikely to field a serious candidate, so let's get rolling.

BTW, I saw the part where he is not running against Hagel in a primary. But this guy has a campaign on the ground, and perhaps he could be convinced to help out.

Daddy loves froggy. Froggy love daddy?
- Attorney General Heady, 1873

Well, what do you expect from the guy when he thinks he can actually win the republican nomination for President despite the stances he has taken. He's obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed!

I do not see the problem with the impeachment observation. I do not believe its needed at the moment, but the House can impeach on any standard it sets seeing the constitution is fairly vague. Also, the Senate can convict on the same vague standard.

Hagel is just making a constitutional observation in my opinion.

is that if impeachment talk is going to be loosely bandied about, it should not be Republicans doing the chattering.

That said, according to Mark, Hagel didn't discuss impeachment. Mark's word is good enough for me. Hagel's isn't.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

See the Academy

But to his credit, and unlike Chuckie boy, he never pretended to be anything but a schmuck.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

admired by some folks who think he knows his beans about economics? My observation has been that he doesn't know beans about economics or finance, and he certainly doesn't know anything about stabilizing a peace or fighting a war to win it, "war hero" or not.

Democrats on Iraq: "We don't want to win. We just want to quit."

Hagel is one of the most consistently pro-growth Senators in the current Congress. You can attack him as much as you want for his activities in relation to the current war, but he always always always votes in the national economic interest. Please observe the following Congressional scorecards.

National Association of Manufacturers

Club for Growth

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Who mentioned anything about thought control in the article or the comments? Hagel is not advocating this stuff as a private citizen. He is a Senator. Most commenters and members of Redstate want the guy to be fired from his present job. We have every right to advocate against Hagel as much as he has every right (as a private citizen) to advocate for any particular view that catches his fancy.

I don't see how Hagel can continue to call himself a Republican, much less an American.

I would advocate banishment

This, boys and girls, is pure arrogance.

What's the message here? Because of Chuck Hagel's opinions, he should be kicked out of the Republican Party. I will tell you what "pure arrogance" is: the notion that there is only one acceptible viewpoint, and that any one person (or group of people) has a monopoly on deciding what those viewpoints should be.

If the voters of Nebraska think Hagel's opinions warrant electing someone else to represent them, then so be it. But the idea that anonymous posters on a blog are in a position to dictate to a U.S. Senator what is and is not a proper opinion--without any discussion of his opinion on its merits, whatever they may be--goes above and beyond the arrogance he accuses Chuck Hagel of.

We can dictate to a U.S. Senator, this is a democracy, is it not?

Just because he is a Senator does not mean his opinions are worth any more than mine.

Anyway, see lower comment.

Daddy loves froggy. Froggy love daddy?
- Attorney General Heady, 1873

From the last time I looked at the approval rating of Hegel, it was high. Considering its a fairly conservative state, his level of support should not surprise us.

The bigger tale of the Hegel statements is that many Republicans agree with them. Why is this war upopular with a clear majority in most Republican states? Many Republicans share the view of Hegel. I do not go that far in my views of the situation in Iraq, but I think there is definitely a need for some sort of change and the surge will only work in the short term. What will happen when the surge is reversed in six months?

Hagel is popular in Nebraska? Reference please.

Survey USA

59 approve, 35 disapprove. Pretty solid approval rating.

Since the Republican Party is not something you have a right to belong too, it is perfectly acceptable to call for the ouster of any individual who does not agree with any significant portion of the party orthodoxy...It is going too far to advocate banishment from the US, unless the argument can be made that Hagel's comments were treasonous - which is open for debate. However, banishment from the Republican Party is a perfectly acceptable consequence for engaging in Republican bashing...It's not saying what Hagel can think or say - only that he can no longer represent the party - he could still be a Senator. Look what Lieberman did when the Democrats said he didn't represent them anymore - he ran as an independent who stood up for the issue he felt was important and won - something Hagel could do as well...Once again - calling for someone to be expelled from an organization which they joined voluntarily and do not have a right to belong to does not constitute "thought control" - it merely serves to define more clearly the positions which the party supports or opposes.

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
Ronald Reagan

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

I don't remember advocating groupthink, perhaps you should reread my post.

Anyway, as said above, Chuck Hagel is a Senator, not a private citizen. While he does not represent my state (leave that to Snarl'n Arlen and the Dunce), it is not arrogent of me to wish for the citizens of Nebraska to have a choice to replace this cad.

Daddy loves froggy. Froggy love daddy?
- Attorney General Heady, 1873

Spiker ... leaving aside the merits or lack thereof of launching a Primary challenge against Chuck Hagel (which I'm currently ambivalent about), I need to ask you, what exactly is it that makes you a Republican?

Is it just the R behind your name or should it actually stand for something - a set of beliefs, a set of principles, a set of ideals and an expectation of some loyalty towards those who wear the same letter on their names as you do?

Your type of partisanship is the same as that which wailed whenever anyone complained of Jim Jeffords' repeatedly voting on every piece of major legislation with the Democrats. He only voted GOP when it came to Leadership and on meaningless procedural votes (which were often unanimous). On every other thing, he voted Democratic.

Yet, whenever anyone complained, people like you shrieked that the GOP needed to be a big tent and skip past the fact that Jeffords had a voting record indistinguishable from that of Ted Kennedy. Then, of course, he bailed for the Democrats.

The thing is, I have seen you parachute in to any thread where anyone expresses displeasure with a Republican who takes the Democrats' side on an issue and start accusing everyone of insufficient dedication to the principle of the "big tent."

So here's my question; do you believe that a Party actually needs to stand for anything at all? i.e. Should the GOP welcome Patrick Leahy with open arms and discourage primary challenges against him if he decided to switch parties but maintain the exact same liberal voting record?

The first is to your strawman argument (which is most of your post) about accepting anybody who is willing to put an (R) next to their name: Can we do better?

In Vermont, can we replace Pat Leahy with a Martha Rainville? Will the voters of Vermont go along with that? In all likelihood, probably not. So if Pat Leahy wants to continue his voting record, but is willing to vote for Republicans to chair committees, then its better than Pat Leahy with an identical voting record and no vote for Republican chairmanships.

My second response is a rebuke of the notion that Chuck Hagel is like Lincoln Chafee or James Jeffords. As has been noted by other posters in this thread, Hagel has one of the most, if not the most, conservative voting records in the Senate. He is a tried-and-true conservative. The question appears to be whether he can be accepted as a Republican.

It will always be a debate, within this party and within other organizations, where to draw the line between accepting everybody and putting your foot down on principle. But in this case, we're talking about a man who has a longer and more conservative record than activist favorites like Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn. Hagel has a singular independent streak, the war and Bush's execution of it. To equate that with a lifetime liberal voting record like Chafee, Jeffords, and Leahy is disingenuous.

Here is the bottom line: Chuck Hagel's conservative credentials are above reproach. They can't be questioned. So what is driving this animosity, and the idea by some (including you) that Hagel isn't worthy of being in the Republican Party? Its his aggressive stance against this White House.

This stance obviously isn't caused by any liberal/Democratic sympathies. Hagel has been a staunch conservative, and his aggressive campaign against Nelson in '96, and again by proxy in '06, prove that he has no sympathies for even a conservative Democrat. His stance isn't caused by caving to public pressure, as though the majority in Nebraska find the Iraq War unfavorable, they haven't gone as far as Hagel has in opposing it. And he's certainly not posturing for political gain, since he's winning no friends in the party with his position.

So his position was reached because of his conscience. And what message does it send out when we rebuke an otherwise solid conservative for reacting to what his conscience told him to be right?

I don't want to be part of a party that has no room for independent thought, regardless of my disagreements with Chuck Hagel.

Your first mistake is assuming that I'm actually in favor of Primarying Chuck Hagel - I am ambivalent about it; I wrote it right up there.

Another mistake is assuming that I think he's posturing for political gain, even though the lionization and praise he gets from the MSM surely plays a role.

Your third mistake is failing to read what I wrote; Chuck Hagel is ancilliary to this post. I'm not too bothered about Hagel but at this point while I would be opposed to Primary challenges against Susan Collins, I cannot bring myself to care much about Hagel's future in the Senate.

The question I'm asking you is where do you draw the line? How much can an elected Republican deviate from the GOP line before you stop calling it "Independence?"

But since you're willing to accept Patrick Leahy and his voting record for the cheap price of a leadership vote (that he will undermine and render useless at every step, just like Chafee and Jeffords), I guess I have my answer.

I don't want to be part of a party that has no room for independent thought ...

Quit the benighted moral posturing ... and leave that poor straw man alone.

You are right, I made assumptions about you. I thought you were the original poster, and so I was qualifying your remarks with the ones that he made, and I mischaracterized your opinions. For that I take responsibility and apologize for.

I don't think my criteria for drawing the line is far-fetched. Who can we elect in Vermont that will defeat Pat Leahy? He's up for re-election in 2010. Let's find a candidate and get behind him and oust him. The problem with that is the political reality that Vermont is a blue state, and the liberal voting record of Pat Leahy and Karl Sanders is a perfect fit for the state. I would welcome the candidacy of any Republican who could win, but I don't think one exists.

So if we're stuck in a situation where no one from our party can dislodge Pat Leahy, or Ted Kennedy, or Barbara Boxer, but your hypothetical situation comes true and one of them offers to keep their voting record but switch to the Republican Party, then what can we do? We can either say, "Sure, all things being equal, gaining a leadership vote is better than not gaining it" or we can say, "No thanks, we'll make do with the minority we have."

To answer your larger question, I believe there is room in the party for people like Lincoln Chafee. Why? Because despite the consevative blogosphere's differences with him (and my own), Chafee identified himself as a Republican, and he legitimately believed in what he thought were conservative principles. And he's not wrong. If we accept that, not only can consevative mean different things to different people, but even when they are analogous there are different opinions on how to achieve those results, then we can accept that Lincoln Chafee was a conservative, albiet a moderate one.

I will respond to your larger question with one even larger of my own: Can we accept divergent viewpoints as not only valid, but also as acceptable? If Lincoln Chafee legitimately believes that many of his positions (and I offer no judgement of my own on this matter) are conservative, then even in disagreement with him can we not say that we embrace his intention? Maybe he's wrong and we're right. Maybe he's right and we're wrong. Or maybe parts of what he is saying is accurate, and parts of what we're saying is accurate. Should the end result of progressing the conservative movement be our greater goal, or should it be the purging of different opinions in the name of "streamlining" our brand?

I wonder how conservative activists viewed Ronald Reagan in his upstart '76 bid. Were people like who post on this site critical of him as being a Governor from a liberal state and a former advocate of FDR? Or were they willing to accept part or all of his idea of conservatism?

Ideological purity is based off the opinion that not only is there an absolute definition of "conservative", but also that one person or group knows what it is and can pass judgement on others. I reject both notions. Maybe Lincoln Chafee isn't a conservative, but what if in our purge of Chafee Republicans, we lose some who are?

"Conservative" is a definable term. If Chafee "legitimately believed in what he thought were conservative principles", he was WRONG in that thought, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

If we accept that, not only can consevative mean different things to different people, but even when they are analogous there are different opinions on how to achieve those results, then we can accept that Lincoln Chafee was a conservative, albiet a moderate one.

If we accept that conservative means different things to different people, where do we go from there? Cheer on everyone that advocates conservativism, even if their definition of conservativism means higher taxes, abortion on demand, increased federal control of the economy, and weakness on national security?

Redstate isn't here to advocate a label. It's here to advocate a set of principles which combine to form a clearly defined and well-understood position. A good Republican will support most of these principles. An acceptable Republican will support some of these principles, and support them well. Lincoln Chafee supports none of these principles.

-
NARF

Using your logic, so long as Ted Kennedy calls himself a "Conservative" who are we to say no when he advocates taxes going up to 70%, slashing the Army down to one division, Federal legislation mandating gay marriage, and wage/price caps?

"Conservative" isn't just a label, Spiker, it does mean something ... and furthermore, Reagan was a complete and total Conservative in 1976, far more so than Gerald Ford. Have you actually read any of his speeches from that period, especially his "Pale Pastels" speech that he gave to CPAC in 1975?

Maybe Lincoln Chafee isn't a conservative, but what if in our purge of Chafee Republicans, we lose some who are?

That's facetatious. If one shares the exact same beliefs as Lincoln Chafee, who never once called himself a Conservative, anyway (contrary to what you say), one is not a Conservative. So if we kick out Chafee Republicans i.e. Republicans who vote like Democrats on every issue, there is absolutely no chance we'd be kicking out Conservatives.

Let me be clear here - and in the words of Ronald Reagan; "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers."

If we were talking about William Weld, Rudy Guiliani or Gary Johnson, then you'd have a point. They were all socially liberal but steadfast when it came to civic, fiscal and security issues. Lincoln Chafee shared absolutely nothing in common with any other Republican in the Senate and having him in the caucus did not advance Conservatism by an iota.

That's the problem I have with your form of partisanship, Spiker, no offense intended. It is shallow and simply about numbers, not principle.

The reason I'm running into a brick wall in this argument is because I'm trying to apply it to Lincoln Chafee. Not only is he a much-maligned figure on these boards, but there's also not much that's defensible about him. My point is much more easily carried over to somebody like Chuck Hagel.

But going back to Chafee, if memory serves me, his voting record was more conservative than any Democrat, except Ben Nelson, which means he's not a Ted Kennedy liberal. I'll have to double-check his position on the issues, but I'm certain that there were several hallmarks of conservatism that Chafee embraced. To say that he has "nothing" in common with the GOP seems a bit extreme.

My point is not to swell the numbers of the Republican Party, but to accept multiple points of view. Specifically, I mean this with respect to Senators Hagel, Warner, Graham, and McCain, though I tried to carry over the same argument to Chafee (unsuccessfully, at that).

My point about conservatism is not to accept anybody that says that they are; obviously, there are parameters on that. But on the other hand, those parameters are not as strict as some on this site (maybe not you, but definately people like the original poster) would like, and there is room within those parameters for dissent on a wide range of issues. Perhaps not enough for Lincoln Chafee, but definately enough for Chuck Hagel.

Chafee is the only person I've been concerned with. I accept McCain and Hagel as conservatives, albeit not conservatives I could vote for . . .

Here are some 2005 ACU rankings:
Senator (Party-State, 2005, Career)
--------------------------------------
Chafee (R-RI, 12, 37)

Landrieu (D-LA, 44, 20)
Salazar (D-CO, 32, 28)
Nelson (D-FL, 20, 41)
Nelson (D-NE, 60, 53)

Specter (R-PA, 63, 45)
Snowe (R-MA, 32, 50)
Collins (R-MA, 32, 55)
McCain (R-AZ, 80, 83)
Hagel (R-NE, 96, 86)
---------------------------------------

Note that Specter was the closest Republican Senator to Chafee for Career rating, and the Maine contingent were closest to Chafee for the 2005 Senate.

Chafee had three positive marks (out of 25) on ACU's scorecard for 2005:
-Cloture on John Bolton -- Roll Call 142 (though not on the nomination itself)
-Exposing Earmarks -- HR 2744 / Roll Call 238
-Physician Senators Right to Practice Medicine -- Tax Relief Act of 2005. S 2020 / Roll Call 335

-
NARF

http://public.cq.com/public/senate_unity_state.html

Party unity score: Chafee ranked a 44%, which is the worst among Republicans, but if you inverse it, its a 56% score among Democrats, which is by far the lowest among Dems (except Ben Nelson, who voted 42% with Dems [58% with GOP, for those keeping score at home]).

The ACU are cherry-picked (note, I don't mean that in a bad way) rankings of specific votes, where the CQ score is every roll call vote over two years.

I'm still not going to continue to argue that he's a conservative, but he voted with Republicans more than any Democrat besides Nelson.

So your are essentially saying that Chafee was the second best democrat in Congress.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

I am supporting my earlier assertion that Chafee had more than "absolutely nothing" in common with Republicans. He voted with them 42% of the time in the 109th. Again, not commendable, but more than any Democrat.

... when it comes to issues such as Conservative or even Party unity voting records.

There are a lot of other votes that happen during a Congress that are often unanimous or with 90 or more Senators in favor; things like a vote for recess, resolutions honoring someone, etc. How many of these votes in which Chafee voted with the majority of his party were also votes in which the majority of Democrats voted the same way also?

I distinctly remember Chafee's defenders against the charge that he had a Democratic voting record citing these votes as a defense ... until Laffey's folks pointed out that the bulk of them were either unanimous or nearly so.

Which is why we use ACU (and ADA) ratings. They're focussed on what differentiates Republicans from Democrats. Take away Chafee's organizational, some procedural, and his non-controversial/unanimous votes and he has more in common with Ted Kennedy than Susan Collins.

Wait...no, no...10.

"There are ways to deal with that"

There is not much of a difference between what he said and outright advocation.

But what is really bad is that Hagel, when giving the reason for this 'impeachment', he implicated that Congress would not impeach him for any specific crime(perjury, OOJ, etc..) but for doing what he is constitutionally empowered to do, that being command of the troops in wartime.

Daddy loves froggy. Froggy love daddy?
- Attorney General Heady, 1873

Instead of responding that impeachment is not an option he let Steph. keep kicking it around. That gives the impression the it would be okay with Chuck. Chuck needs to read his pocket constitution siting "high crimes and misdemeanors" are grounds for impeachment, not ignoring Chuck and the Dems. I don't care about his conservative voting record. Pulling out of Iraq now is a hugh disaster. Impeachment of a president during war is unthinkable. If Chuck doesn't have proof of crimes then get out from in front of the cameras and shut up.

I am somewhat in agreement. Now I DID and DO support the war, although to me WMD's were only a secondary reason. However, it is safe to say that the path followed by Rumsfeld and others in the administration after the hot war was over, was a very bad way to try and run an occupation (some still carry water for Rumsfeld, I have no Idea why) and they were allowed to go on far too long before making a change in policy.

Lets face it, This administration, while it responded well to initial attacks and other problems, has been feckless, cavalier, and very incompetent.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

People on Redstate have criticized the President on the war and many other things. Many of us do share his goal in the war: a democratic Iraq. I do get upset with the blind criticism of this goal.

The goal of a democracy in the Middle East is noble, but I do not feel they approached it by the right means. Democracies do not happen overnight and the Bush administration has pushed one of the Iraqis in such a fashion. Dismissing the army, one of the most respected institutions in Iraq was the fundamental mistake. What we should have done is established a transitional regime led by the army for a few years then opened up the democratic process.

That shoudl read "now voting" not "no voting"

Sorry about that.

Support for a war is not blind. You can support it until the leadership has done a bad job. Now I do not think the tactics being used some are the best way to change the tactics.

Name one war where everything went according to plan or opportunites were not lost.

None, but the Bush administration has been too idealistic. Going into a war being so idealistic as they were is very very dangerous. They had a plan and stuck to it too much is the problem. They should have set the bar lower and went forward from there.

as a visionary in 50 years and Hagel will be a mere footnote.

Hagel should keep his big mouth shut.

He voted for the war - like alot of others who are trying to back away from their votes - as a politically convenient prelude to the 2002 elections.

Didn't he realize that difficulties might present themselves and the war might last for a good while? Didn't he, a combat veteran of Vietnam, weigh the possibility that the American people might not have the will to fight a prolonged war? I know that I thought of these things.

Hagel, as a former soldier who served in Vietnam, evidentally has forgotten that those soldiers - who are right now in the service of this country - don't have the luxury of backing down on their committment.

Fundamentally, we achieved our objective in Iraq of removing the Hussein regime. Bush did this with competence.

The performance of President Bush in post-invasion Iraq can be best described as pathetic. It is not a bad situation that caused his failures, but numerous strategic failures and missed opprotunities along the way. This is how history will judge Bush: The President who could start a war, but could never act quickly enough to finish it.

I invited you to name one war in which there were no mistakes or lost opportunites on the part of leadership.

You could not name one.

If you were to take an honest look at what has transpired in Iraq since Saddam was removed from power, you would see that our efforts in Iraq have been successful, and not pathetic as you insist. Start with the liberation of 25 million people, the birth of a sovereign nation with its own constitution, a democratically elected government.

You sound very much like a victim of the main-stream media which seldom stresses the importance of what I just listed.

History will speak favorably of George W. Bush in the years to come, and not only here in the US. He will live on in the hearts of the people in Iraq as will those who made the ultimate sacrifice in order for the Iraqi people to live in freedom.

I am a Romney supporter right now, but I have given throught to supporting Hegel. He is a good conservative without a doubt and lives what he believes. Now I do not completely agree with him on Iraq, but I agree with him on most issues more than the current President who has significantly increased the Federal debt, enlarged the nanny state, and basically botched the post invasion aftermath in Iraq.

I want to see him with goose egg poll ratings. Anyway, he is not really a Republican anymore, if he runs it will probably with bloomberg on some indie ticket.

Molon Labe!

Again another Republican defines party membership by lockstep support for Bush.

Hegel is more conservative than Bush on most issues. The Republican Party has been led down a path of supporting bigger and bigger government by Bush with few taking exception. Hegel is one of these people who have fought for limited government against the Bush tide of supporting bigger and bigger government. If anything, Hegel is the true Republican while Bush is something else.

Two things.

First, you were very cavalier with the use of the word "Gestapo" on an earlier thread. You had an opportunity to apologize -- an apology opportunity offered at the time -- and you neglected to do so. Accordingly, your account was disabled. We had a software glitch, and here you are again.

So, if you would like to do penance for calling others Nazis, there's a contact form awaiting you.

Second, it's Hagel. We're not discussing the German philosopher.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

been saying all along they have already joined the war.

You must one of those Republican "moderates" the New York Times tells us the GOP needs more of i.e. Republicans who prefer being in the minority and assisting Democrats in passing liberal legislation.

Let me guess; your fondest wish is for the GOP to "listen to both sides and get 'things' done", right?

George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.

_I don't like Chuck Hagel's personality. But he is correct regarding Iraq. We never should have invaded that country in the first place._

I don't agree with you about Iraq and nor does Chuck Hagel. He voted *for* the war. So, if correct about Iraq, then you are wrong. You seem to be disagreeing with yourself here. Good luck with that.

_If the latest "surge" isn't successful, I predict Hagel won't be the only republican calling for Bush's impeachment._

And I predict that Hagel won't be among those calling for Bush's impeachment. (Nor, incidentally, will any other prominent Republican) If you read past the headlines, you would know that he hasn't joined that crowd yet, and I don't think he is likely to do so.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

in the first place."

I wrote a diary not long ago about how returning Vietnam vets were greeted by a similar phrase from those who once stood in support of the war.

Even as one of the fortunate ones who returned without a scratch, I never was quite able to reconcile this statement.

After many years had passed, and with the advent of the internet, I was able to come into contact with the mother of Jerry Corp and the daughter of Kenneth Gill. I have attended reunions of my old company and have encountered among the surviving wounded several who are 100% disabled by Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, including my old Commanding Officer.

What Senator Hagel and others who regret their votes should do is pay visits to surviving family members and wounded soldiers from their respective legislative districts.

They should look into their eyes and tell them how much they regret the votes which lent justification to the mission, and weigh the reactions when they state that we should not have gone in the first place.

All Hagel has done, in my opinion, is show a failure on his part to contemplate the responsibilty involved in making the hard decision to go to war.

Since he is a veteran of the same war in which I fought, I find his behaviour incomprehensible.

damn peacemongers.

If you recall, Ronald Reagan's went against the wishes of many of the "war mongers" inside the party back in the 1980's when he pulled the US marines out of Lebanon. Doing so saved lives.

And it was Ronald Reagan who went against the wishes of the "war mongers" inside the party when he signed a peace treaty with Gorbachev which included the elimination of hundreds of nukes.

Not a bad guy that peace monger Ronald Reagan.

'Course, they were Lebanese, which means that you probably could care less.

I'd comment on your take on the nuke thing, except that I expect that your eyes would glaze over as soon as the phrase 'relative cost effectiveness' was uttered the second time.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Moe says->"'Course, they were Lebanese, which means that you probably could care less."

No, you are wrong. I do care when people die. But I care even more when US soldiers are put in a position of acting as "international policemen", as was the case in 1983 in Lebanon, and is the case now in Iraq. A few hundred US marines died for no reason in 1983 and Reagan was mature enough to realize that his policy was wrong and as such, the US pulled out. At some point you will come to the same conclusion about Iraq. (Although I'll admit it might take Hillary, Rudy, or Fred to show you the way)

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

We had the opportunity to nip Islamism in the bud and we ran away. The policy was right.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

So, what are you suggesting Reagan should have done ? Should he have started a war ? Exactly who would he have started the war with ? And once we occupied Lebanon, how long should we have stayed ? And at what cost in US bloodshed ?

I know that will offend your Buchannite Soul to it's very core, but had we dealt with Hezbollah in 1983, and allowed the Israelis to finish off the PLO when they had them bottled up to the last murderer in Beirut, we would not have the problems with Islam that we face today.

The cost in US bloodshed would have been small when weighed against the benefit of driving a stake thru the heart of radical Islam THEN, instead of having to do it now.

Like it or not Pat, sometime we are going to have to face the fact that they are at war with us whether you like it or not. We are going to have to deal with it, whether on the streets of Lebanon or the streets of Baghdad or the streets of New York. Take your choice. I'm with the evil neocons.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

I would only add that the pullout from Lebanon, after the murders of 241 sleeping Marines, served as one more example of America's loss of will and has contributed to far more subsequent deaths of innocents at the hands of Islamists.

A pullout from Iraq will accomplish much worse.

Hezbollah wasn't particularly well armed, well organized or well supported in 1983. They were more generally a suicidal mob as opposed to the military force they are today. It would have been, in my LTHO, much less painful to kill the snake then.

This incident, and Reagan's call to get the Israelis to stand down when the PLO was bottled up and had sworn to die to the last man, were the real low points of Reagan's time in office. To his credit though, he did win the Cold War!
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

if we'd taken on hezbollah

i'm not saying it wouldn't have been worth it, but lebanon in the early 80's wasn't an easy place to operate in (still isn't)

"Do the day's work."

casualties would have been well worth it.

Let's say we lost 15,000 US military.

Let's say we live today in a world where Islamic terrorists know we won't buckle at first sight of blood and if attacked, even in a small way, we hunt down and kill (NOT "bring to justice, KILL) everybody we can find who had anything even remotely to do with the attack.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

the islamofascists are not. one set didn't want to die, the other does. Reagan had the great advantage of a feasible cold war. Bush does not have that luxury.

"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher

Thatcher was correct. Many of the "ism's" found their roots in Europe. Whether it be communism, socialism, nazism, etc...But in the case of Iraq, the only "ism" at fault is "neoconservatism". The cure for that particular form of illness was somewhat rectified in 2006. But to totally irradicate the illness, more elections must take place. Hopefully the "realists" in the republican party will restore order soon.

See the Academy

Sorry Socrates, I'm not going to allow you to get away with that. How dare you try to link the 9/11 terrorist attacks with what is going on in Iraq. They are two different issues.

I fully supported GW Bush efforts in Afghanistan to wipe out the terror training camps. In fact, I believe we have yet to finish the job in Afghanistan, as well as in parts of Pakistan and Syria. Unfortunately, we are currently bogged down in a civil war inside Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. Hopefully, the next administration will refocus efforts on fighting terrorism in areas where terrorists already existed, rather than invading countries like Iraq which had the effect of seeding future terrorists.

See the Academy

"most Americans" between commercials for American Idol, we will never win a war again.

Molon Labe!

Doc, the American people are not the fault for the mess in Iraq. I don't recall marches in Washington back in 2003 clamoring for an invasion of Iraq either.

No, an ideoligical group of people within the administration ignored the advice of grownups such as Brent Scowcroft, GH Bush, etc.. The consequences of ignoring experienced foreign policy experts has lead us to this point.

The question is, what will Hillary Clinton or Fred Thompson do about the Iraq mess in 2009 ?

grownups. right. after you're done playing make believe with the "grown ups" you can come talk to those of us who recognize the need for real work.

Then duck.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

will veto.

Hagel is one Republican I will never vote for.

and correct again under the different circumstances of 2003.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of