"Hagel Interview More Anti-War Than Most Dems"
Yes, this one is filed under "Liberals."
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Featured Stories | Liberals — Comments (61) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
That's how the lefty "news" service Truthout titled their plug of the recent GQ magazine interview with "Republican" Senator Chuck Hagel (which was, itself, entitled "The Angry One: Republican senator Chuck Hagel sounds off on the sorry state of Congress, the president's lies, and the vote for war that he now regrets."
Leading off with the descriptive paragraph, "Sitting in his office on a recent afternoon, Hagel leaned back in his armchair to explain, in a voice reminiscent of sandpaper on rough oak, how he was deceived by the president, and won’t let it happen again," the interview features such gems as "[Baghdad] is not ours to secure," and "[there has been] no probing, no questioning, no oversight" conducted by Congress toward the President from before the war to the present.
More follows:
"It's a civil war!" Hagel had a lot to say on that topic, including this nice juicy quote:
Everybody calls it a civil war! Of course it's a civil war. The generals call it a civil war. And it's even worse than a civil war, because in addition to the sectarian violence, you've got Shia killing Shia. We have ethnic cleansing of major proportions going on in Baghdad. It's reminiscent of Bosnia. A truck pulls up and Uncle Joe is put inside; his body is found in a dump two or three days later, arms bound, usually tortured... We can't solve that!
The "real effect of the surge" Always optimistic, and with great faith in the American military, Hagel contributed these sage words of wisdom on the planned 21,000-troop increase in the Iraqi theater:
More American lives lost. Billions of dollars going into this hole. It will erode our standing in the Middle East and the world. It will destroy our force structure. It will divide this country in a bitter way not seen since Vietnam. And what do we get in return?
The real meat of the interview, though, comes during the discussion of the resolution authorizing the President to use force on Iraq, which Hagel voted for. From the article:
Do you wish you'd voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion?Have you read that resolution?
I have.
It's not quite the way it's been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That's not quite what the resolution said. [Note: Ah, nuance. Hagel and Kerry must be like peas in a pod.]
It said, "to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."
In the event that all other options failed. So it's not as simple as "I voted for the war." That wasn't the resolution.
But there was a decision whether to grant the president that authority or not.
Exactly right. And if you recall, the White House had announced that they didn't need that authority from Congress.
Which they seem to say about a lot of things.
That's right. Mr. [Alberto] Gonzales was the president's counsel at that time, and he wrote a memo to the president saying, "You have all the powers that you need." So I called Andy Card, who was then the chief of staff, and said, "Andy, I don't think you have a shred of ground to stand on, but more to the point, why would a president seriously consider taking a nation to war without Congress being with him?" So a few of us-Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I-were invited into discussions with the White House.
It's incredible that you had to ask for that.
[Note: Here's the good stuff from Comrade Statesman Hagel (a.k.a. "Chuckie the Duped"). It's amazing to me how many of the self-styled SmartestMenAlive™ were snowed by that idiot President Bush. Seriously, they'd feel about two inches tall if their egos would allow it. All emphasis added.] It is incredible. That's what I said to Andy Card. Said it to Powell, said it to Rice. Might have even said it to the president. And finally, begrudgingly, they sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.
It wasn't specific to Iraq?
Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. I mean, is Central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.
They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere they wanted in the Middle East?
Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up, and put our language in it.
But that should also have triggered alarm bells about what they really wanted to do.
Well, it did. I'm not defending our votes; I'm just giving a little history of how this happened. You have to remember the context of when that resolution was passed. This was about a year after September 11. The country was still truly off balance. So the president comes out talking about "weapons of mass destruction" that this "madman dictator" Saddam Hussein has, and "our intelligence shows he's got it," and "he's capable of weaponizing," and so on.
And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored.Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that's what we were presented with. And I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them." But I was told by the president-we all were-that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort.
You were told that personally?
I remember specifically bringing it up with the president. I said, "This has to be like your father did it in 1991. We had every Middle East nation except one with us in 1991. The United Nations was with us."
Did he give you that assurance, that he would do the same thing as his father?
Yep. He said, "That's what we're going to do." But the more I look back on this, the more I think that the administration knew there was some real hard question whether he really had any WMD. In January of 2003, if you recall, the inspectors at the IAEA, who knew more about what Saddam had than anybody, said, "Give us two more months before you go to war, because we don't think there's anything in there." They were the only ones in Iraq. We hadn't been in there. We didn't know what the hell was in there. And the president wouldn't do it! So to answer your question-Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.
And you feel like you were misled?
I asked tough questions of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld before the war: How are you going to govern? Who's going to govern? Where is the money coming from? What are you going to do with their army? How will you secure their borders? And I was assured every time I asked, "Senator, don't worry, we've got task forces on that, they've been working, they're coordinated," and so on.
Do you think they knew that was false?
Oh, I eventually was sure they knew. Even before we actually invaded, I had a pretty clear sense of it-that this administration was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq.
Even if it meant deceiving Congress?
That's right.
Further, on the subject of Congress's "leverage to stop the war": "Well, we still have power, starting with appropriations, oversight, the power of the people, the polls." And why would it be tough to cut off war funding? Because of the troops who wouldn't get the ammunition, protection, or logistical necessities they require for mere survival in Iraq? Of course not! The only reason why cutting off funding for Iraq would be difficult is because "it can be seen as political. It is touchy."
On President Bush's election: "Some might argue that he wasn't elected the first time. With the popular vote, he actually wasn't."
On the administration's lack of military experience:
Look, it has not gone unnoticed that President Bush served a little time in the National Guard. Secretary Rice never served. Wolfowitz never served. Feith never served. Cheney had five deferments. Rumsfeld might have done something at one time. But the only guy that had any real experience was Colin Powell. And they cut him off. That's just a fact. That's not subjective. That's the way it was.
On America's descent from the "moral high ground":
We have always, certainly since World War II, had the moral high ground in the world. But these secret prisons and the treatment at Guantánamo destroy all of that. We ought to shut down Guantánamo. There shouldn't be any secret prisons. Why do we need those? What are we afraid of? Here we are, the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Why can't we let the Red Cross into our prisons? Why do we deny they exist? Why do we keep them locked up? What are we afraid of? Why aren't we dealing with Iran and Syria?
And the closing, in response to the interviewer's statement that "You don't hear very many politicians say that both sides of an issue are reasonable these days":
We are living through one of the most transformative periods in history. If we are going to make it, we need a far greater appreciation and respect for others, or we're going to blow up mankind. Look at what zealotry can do. Religious zealotry has been responsible for killing more people than any other thing. Look at the Middle East today. It's all about religion. We need to move past those divisions and learn to be tolerant and respectful. If we go out there full of intolerance and hatred, we'll never make it.
And there's the last word from the Sage Senator Hagel: it's all about "tolerance."
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | How to respond to a new nuclear neighbor (who wants what you have)? — Comments (12) »
"Hagel Interview More Anti-War Than Most Dems" 61 Comments (0 topical, 61 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
To put Senator Hagel - a recipient of two purple hearts as a consequence of his tours of duty in Vietnam - in the same category as two obvious traitors is obscene and utterly contemptible. You should be ashamed of yourself. (And don't get clever with me about your use of the word "related." The drift of what you are trying to say is unmistakable.)
Because the purple hearts and Vietnam service are the be all, end all. Nothing since can erode patriotism or public standing.
I'll have to remember that.
His successful business career? His generally conservative voting record in the Senate? His wife? His kids?
We aren't talking Duke Cunningham here, a war hero who did screw up. This is a guy who, even if he is wrong as wrong can be on Iraq, has an otherwise pretty exemplary record.
It's easy enough to disagree with him without equating him to traitors and terrorists. To the extent this site, and this site's community, tolerates cheap comparisons of Republican Senators to criminals, we just allow the site and the community to be demeaned.
Regardless whether I personally find his - and other Senators' - actions and public positions on the war and on America's security to be traitorous, sedtitious, or treasonous, I challenge you to find one single instance where I have been vocal about any such belief.
which does equate him with Lindh (a traitor) and Adam Yahiye Gadahn (a terrorist).
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
I was responding to Vietnam service and purple hearts being the be-all, end-all of virtue.
For the record: The top comment was not tasteful in the least, and I disagree completely - and agree that it is a level of rhetoric which is not in the best interest of, or common at, RedState.
On the same page now?
-JE
Clear enough for you? He should be kicked out the Republican caucus. The good people of Nebraska ought to heat the tar, pluck the chickens and pull the rail and run his sorry butt all the way to San Francisco.
And don't bother me with your hipocritical, self righteous outrage.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Hagel has every right to speak his mind. Otherwise we are no better than our enemies.
Since when does dissent = traitor?
Why does Hagel scare you so much?
I know it's easy to blame the dissenters for our Iraq debacle. But the blame lies solely with the people who planned and executed this war. The incompetence of the administration has been glaring and unceasing. Now it's about politics, not principles, dooming us to failure.
So if you don't like dissent, blame your president. He is the man who is responsible for the situation we now find ourselves in. Policing a civil war, trying to secure an area the size and population of Chicago, with some 150K non-Arabic speaking troops. Ridiculous. Meanwhile the Taliban is thriving in Afghanistan and they are well on the way to another bumper opiom crop this year.
I'm tired of you guys blaming everyone except the people responsible. George W Bush has been an utter failure at being a war president. His credibility is shot. This last surge/escalation is a pitiful example of far too little, far too late.
So now I'll await my banning...
It's been fun.
I really enjoy this site. There are lots of good minds here. But I can't stand the hateful rhetoric anymore.
Thanks
Chris
his mind. Denying someone the right to speak is a tactic reserved for liberals. However, having spoken, there are consequences. Dissent does not equal traitor. Giving aid and comfort to enemy does. Hagel is a Senator with, in effect, a direct line to the White House. He also can debate on the Senate floor. Grandstanding in committee hearings and bloviating in second rate magazines is not the appropriate forum for a US Senator to dissent.
I assume you will being joining the lovefest of Kos to escape hateful rhetoric?
BTW, your post hardly rates a banning. Maybe if you stomped your feet....
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
it would be a huge mistake to make support for the continuing occupation of Iraq a litmus for membership to the Republican caucus. Like it nor not, the majority of the American people no longer support the occupation and if we want to avoid dropping under 40 senators in 09, we can't excommunicate everyone who disagrees with Bush's policy.
reliable votes. And while I applaud Hagel for his Vietnam service, it doesn't make him one bit less a braindead, thoughtless, cut and run coward who has no clue about the long term impact of his policy choices emboldening Islamic terrorism. Hagel should be tossed off the top of the Capitol Dome, he's been in Washington too long and is totally irrational.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
If what Hagel is telling the truth in this article - if it unfolded this way and he truly believes what he says, I admire the hell out of him. I already did for his service in Vietnam and his solid conservative voting record.
I don't really give a crap about Iraq - just the US. Nobody has proved to me that we must win in Iraq - personally, i think us leaving Iraq would be a nightmare for the Sunni terrorists (the guys responsible for 9-11) - they would find themselves in a war with the Shiites they can't win and one they can't get out of.
Am I cold hearted about the people of Iraq? Yup, guilty as charged - I care about my country and my people (even the libs).
Don't forget us leaving Vietnam lead to the emboldened Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which sped up their downfall considerably. Hitler was emboldened to invade Russia. Japan was emboldened to attack Pearl Harbor. Emboldening an enemy isn't always bad
Don't forget us leaving Vietnam lead to the emboldened Soviet invasion of Afghanistan which sped up their downfall considerably. Hitler was emboldened to invade Russia. Japan was emboldened to attack Pearl Harbor. Emboldening an enemy isn't always bad
I am speechless!
It was that, in war, you can't predict the future.
Too many people have equated losing in Iraq with losing the GWOT. I don't buy that. Far from it. I wonder how the Sunni terrorists are going to survive in Iraq without us restraining the Shiite. I don't see how they will be able to leave or how they will be able to win. They will be in a never ending meat grinder.
PS: Emboldened by inflicting terrible losses on the US army at Fredricksburg and Chancelorville., Lee invaded MD in 1863. How did that work out for the enemies of the United States?
Well, let's walk this road for a moment, shall we?
We leave Iraq. This tells our enemies that we ill not stand up to our commitments and that even a major stike against US soil (Iaqis may not have been behind 9/11, but a lot of people fighting us there now had a hand in it) will not bring a response that they can't weather if they just stck it out long enough. We won't level their nation, we won't reintroduce them to the true horrors of war.
Next step, Israel. We have already proven we won't help our friends, why not go about crushing Israel the same way they will have crushed the new Iraq? Too hard? open up some chemical or biological weapons (they probably don't have nukes ready at this point). America complains, throws some cruise missiles around, then joins the UN in censoring Israel.
Truly emboldened by the West's compete lack of balls, they open up all the way in Europe. They already have Well over the 10% of a population supposedly neccessary to win a general revolution And they are nearly as well armed as the official militaries in that area. America, pissed off over lack of support fromEurope in anything for the last 40 or 50 years, sits back and says, "I told you so."
Finally, it's just America and our harsher far Eastern allies. But without America, the others should fall pretty easily. One of two things happens now. Either they try the same in America that they tried in Europe, or they wipe out one of cities with WMDs, probably nuclear (which they most certainly will have at this point).
Either way, they kill off a few hundred thousand, or even million (depending on which city they choose) Liberals. The surviving Liberals sit down, shut up, and get out of the way (or even join; a lot of Liberals I know are truly barbaric when they get mad enough) and the rest of America slaughters bloody near every Muslim on planet Earth. And if You think that less blood would sate our need for vengeance, then you don't know what lives next door. Let alone who.
End of the problem.
THAT is here emboldening our enemies takes us. America won't lose, but I, personally, don't want to wake up one morning with the blood of billions on my hands. Do you?
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
If you can 100% prove that this is exactly the future, then you have my total support.
I remember hearing that if we leave vietnam, we will all be speaking Russian. Didn't happen.
Tell me how the Sunni terrorists get out of Iraq if we leave?
emboldened by what they did, and acted on it in cold wars and hot wars. Saddam's defiance + 9/11 emboldened US.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
I would like to submit this entry in the "2007 Redstate Most Interesting Display of Logic" Category in the "Let the Enemy Kill People Until They Run Out of Ammunition, then We Win" Division.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
unless they opt for the politics of I am morally superior because I care more...
Some purple hearts recipients have gone on to commit murder. Some draft dodgers have gone on to be elected president. One of the great heroes under general Washington went on to be be convicted of treason.
So can we please argue the facts.
1 - The legal elements of the CRIME of treason are very specific and technical, by design (given that the founders that participated in the revolution, were, by definition, traitors to the Crown), and, clearly, Hagel is not a traitor,
but,
2 - Aid and Comfort - The CRIME requires, either (a) levying war against the US
or
(b) adhereing to the enemy, and providing aid and comfort.
Clearly, Hagel, all dems but Lieberman, and some other repubs, by their statements, votes, and what they don't, but should say and do, provide aid and comfort to the enemy to varying degrees that would have been unthinkable in most of our past wars.
3 - Most vets generally and in congress disagree with the above but don't get MSM coverage.
4 - The aid and comfort provided to the enemy by Hagel, et al is infinitely more valuable to the enemy than the actual traitors identified.
5 - The only way we can lose this war, and the main damage done to our deterrance is by Hagel, et al and their clear signal of weakness to our enemies.
UBL said so, as does common sense.
Wouldn't we love it if pols in terror states and/or terror group laders said publicly, or were discovered to have said privately, that they would give up by a certain date?
I would. In fact, I love the fact that several intercepted messages from Zawahiri to terrorists in Iraq evidence their despair at their losses and their pessimism due to the power of our troops, the fact that they have stayed as long as they have, and their desperation that Iraq not be a stable ally of the US.
Yet, the MSM, Dems, and libs never cite that.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
Highly decorated and brilliant, agrees with you. His name is Benedict Arnold.
I don't give a fig that Hagel won medals in Vientam, when it ocmest obetraying the nation today.
He is a cheap, hypocritical, cowardly, opportunistic poultroon. He voted for a war and now he betrays the troops he voted to put in harm's way with the intelelctually dihonest false claim that he fell for the President's lies.
What a load of pap.
If he is the only candidate on the ballot in 2008 I would find a way to vote against him.
He is a cheap and slimy conartist liar.
If anyone runs against him in his next Senatorial primary I will donate money against him.
If anything close to reasonable democrat runs against him in his next race if he somehow gets out of the primary, I will send money to that candidate.
He is worse the Chafee. At least Chafee kept his yap shut.
"Maybe I’ll be wrong and maybe I have no political future. I don’t care about that. But I don’t ever want to look back and have the regret that I didn’t have the courage and I didn’t do what I could." [...] “I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this" [...] "If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes."
--Sen. Chuck Hagel
One can also have the "courage" of a fool. What the three persons have in common is that they give aid and comfort to our enemy--two much more so, and with intent, and one less so, without intent.
Hagel's critics don't have to be "shoe salesmen" either.
...Oliver Stone served honorably in Vietnam, too. Timothy McVeigh served in combat.
Personally, I'm pretty tired of people using service in the military as some kind of get-out-of-jail-free card.
Hagel's entitled to his opinions, of course. But these Senators who are saying "they wuz duped" are bunch of gutless wonders. It makes me all the more certain that sticking a finger in their eye with "the surge" is the right thing to do.
omly Flyerhawk is allowed to have a subject line of simply:
wow
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
That Lieberman caucusing with the GOP would be bad for the GOP. Lieberman being a Liberal and all...
But I would take that trade. I care npthing for the GOP. I care for this nation and its survival as the beacon of hope and freedom in the world and Victory in this war is neccessary for that.
Bring on The Lieb!(how do I do that "tm" thing again?)
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
sob for Lincoln Chafee.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I'm thinking that Hagel is probably not going to get the Republican nomination.
Imagine for a moment that the Republicans nominate a pro-war candidate, such as McCain, and the Democrats nominate someone, such as Hillary, who hasn't been nearly antiwar enough for the antiwar branch of the Democrats.
There could easily be a third party antiwar ticket. Hagel could easily be on it, along with some solidly antiwar Dem.
Here's the question: who does that help? I'm thinking it splits the natural Democratic vote, and could actually help the Republican candidate win in 2008.
The McCarthyites weren't about to support Hubert Humphrey. I think we may very well see a similar situation in 2008. I don't know if it will be McCain playing the Nixon role, though.
Anecdotal: I live in Portland, Oregon, one of the most liberal cities in America (and full disclosure requires me to state that I would be considered liberal by most commenters here, though I am considerably to the right of center in my city). It is impossible to overstate the depth of dissatisfaction with the Congressional Democrats and their "nonbinding resolutions". Most people I talk to say they would rather Congress did nothing than make a meaningless political gesture. Congressional Democrats are looking like the dog who finally caught the car. The Republican Party will be in much better shape in two years.
It all depends on what if any progress takes place in Iraq. If the Iraqi troops perform at the level that they have in the past and Ameircans have to do most of the front line work, I am not so sure. The surge has to have a timeline and even the President has agreed to benchmarks. With that said, I do not see a third party on the horizon.
They remain ignorant of the historically phenomenal success we have had there to date, and the democrats simply cannot ever allow Iraq to be seen as a success. They are invested in defeat. they have already decalred Iraq a failure. Their party would be totally discredited by success in Iraq.
Who will tell the public the truth?
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
They have shown an Amazing lack of ability (or is it just desire?) to force the MSM to give them airtime in favour of the war. Even the President and his bully pulpit have been incredibly silent...
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
repubs than Bush.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
designed to rile up the demosheep.
They want the mall in DC full of screaming stoned sheep bleating for declaring defeat ASAP.
They are already letting dhimmie vandals in to deface the capitol in a show of what crypto-fascists the lefties really are.
The resoltuions are the first step.
Next will be cirminal investigaitons of everyone and everything for anthing excepting DNC corruption.
Then the war will be defunded in a big showdown that will threaten to shut down the entire nation.
Then they will go for impeachment of the Prez and VP.
This has only begun.
We are sitting around arguing over who is conservative enough. They are planning to make Pelosi Prez.
Evan Bayh was my "favorite" suggestion for an anti-war Dem to run with Hagel. Of course, Hagel would have to lay off his nutcase antics, but he did a fine job of that on FTN a few weekends ago. Plus, if he felt like ratcheting up his personal violence, Evan Bayh is the perfect counterbalance. In fact, if Bayh ever tried to become emotional, probably most people would find it funny or at least cute.
You know, I want to like Chuck Hagel. I used to like what I saw as his honesty, even if he did seem a little naive, and I honestly thought it was cute the way he seemed to rhetorically follow Joe Biden around on matters of foreign policy.
By Jove, I've just hit on the third party's dream ticket: Biden/Hagel! I'm not sure they'd take votes from anyone, though.
defend Hagel to this day and tell the senator's critics to "show respect."
It is utterly disingenuous of the senator to claim he didn't authorize war. He did. Most of the fine folks who serve in that once-august brothel did. If Senators voted that way out of cowardice and/or fear of electoral consequences--and I submit many did in 2002--they are mere dung on the president's shoe heels. If he and the others were duped to this extent, they are unfit to be dogcatchers in Omaha. And frankly, I would prefer unfit dog catchers to prostitutes.
We need to get really serious in our party primaries in 2008 and bloody up the water. It is one thing to be a principled opponent of the Iraq war. It is quite another to be a media whore. Hagel is the latter, and he was the latter when he gave Bush authorization to go into Iraq. In that narrow sense, he has been consistent.
should be pleted with rotten eggs.
Hagel, clinton, kerry, etc. all voted for the war and knew it.
They knew every bit of the intel.
They are flat out liars when tehy deny it today.
They are simply weak and cynical and cowardly twits when they bleat out that mindless drivel for the anti-American fools trying to take this country - and a few million of our friends- down the Vietnam path they love so much.
politicians like Hagel is expected considering his self-centered nature. However, the fact is that his statements embolden the enemy and cost young soldiers their lives and limbs. He and the rest of the hand-wringers need to be held to account. Either the RNC deals with it or they're going to lose plenty of donors next election cycle. How about not putting themselves at the center of their universe and consider the lives of the troops for a change. The fact that a veteran does this is even worse - he has no excuse. Time to go home for Mr. Hagel.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
Hagel, I know the name from somewhere. What party is he going to be running from?
Can someone tell me how Hagel got the GOP nomination in Nebraska in the first place??
The state which gave Bush nearly his highest percentage, sends TWO pathetic Senators to D.C. Anyone understand this? Can anyone explain it to me??
Let's literally chuck Hagel! out of the GOP! Let him run as Gore's VP. LOL!
For someone to tell me how the Sunni terrorists are going to get out of the Shiite meat grinder if we leave. My sense is they will feel like they have to stay, won't be able to win and will die by the thousands. I got no problem with that.
and the Iraqi army and police are closer, but not yet strong enough to secure the country within from well armed enemies or from without.
The job is not done either with respect to al qaida that have come there and created a new front after the fron they established in NYC and DC, and still come to fight us to prevent a free US ally from being established in "their" backyard.
It would be strategically, practically and morally wrong to leave before the job is finished so that we might have to come back; to leave in defeat so as to embolden enemies; and to abandon the Iraqi people a seciond time, and send messages to allies that we cannot be trusted to keep our word.
Then, of course, there is the main enemy, Iran, whom we have surrounded and whose gulf is now an American Lake.
That as long as their goals are met (America's current Iraq policy failing)then they have no reason to stay. They don't care about the normal Sunnis who will be slaughtered in that situation. They want America and Israel, in particular, and the West in general, destroyed and they will follow their targets wherever they go.
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal comfort... has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stuart Mill
Related subjects:
John Walker Lindh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Walker_Lindh
Adam Yahiye Gadahn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Yahiye_Gadahn
Chuck Hagel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel