He has been against military intervention in Iraq since before the war ever started and now, he is one of the few anti-war Republicans in the Senate. In other respects, he seems conservative but on this issue...
Hagel and six other Republicans joined with the Senate Democrats for a symbolic attempt by Democrats to reject President Bush's troop increase.
Seven Republicans voted with the Democrats to allow the debate to proceed, including Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Norm Coleman (Minn.), Arlen Specter (Pa.), Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) and Susan M. Collins (Maine). When Republicans voted to block a similar, albeit lengthier, resolution earlier this month, only Collins and Coleman broke ranks. Among these Republicans, all but Specter and Snowe are up for reelection in 2008.
Appearing on Meet the Press, he said that he wants the US to engage in diplomacy with Iran. He says that Congressional Quarterly rated him as the number one supporter of Bush policies in the Senate. He will decide and announce within a couple of weeks whether he will be a candidate for Presidency.
Ralph Peters writing at the New York Post and Tiger at Observanda both say the non-binding resolutions passed by the House and defeated in the Senate, are cowardly and treasonous.
Hagel says he just wants to have a debate.
Hillary HAS INTRODUCED a bill requiring the President to start withdrawing troops in 90 days, according to Cap Gain at Kudlows.ReplyDelete
The "kicker" is that if he doesn't Congress will remove authorization for the war.
Question: How does that work? Can the President "Veto" it?
Whit said: "What is it with Chuck Hagel? When it comes to American military intervention in the Arab world, he sounds more like a rabid Democrat than a Republican. One pundit claimed he is a Lebanese American but I haven't been able to verify that."ReplyDelete
Come on, Whit, that doesn't mean anything. For one thing, lots of Lebanese are Christians. Second, there is no such thing as a hyphenated American. Third, how come if a Republican breaks from supporting Bush's Iraq debacle he "sounds more like a rabid Democrat" but if a Democrat like Lieberman supports this deadly sideshow he's a "statesman in the mold of Scoop Jackson".
You've got the wrong link up for Kudlow. The correct link is:ReplyDelete
If, as many in Congress now claim, the war was begun because of a lie, then, Mr. Bush is a criminal and should be removed from office within 90 days.ReplyDelete
If, as many in Congress now claim, the war has been grossly mismanaged by Mr. Bush, then, Mr. Bush should be removed from office.
Since the majority of both houses now have voted against the President because of one or both of the propositions above, how can the Congress in good conscience leave such a man in office?
Let’s hear it from the brave Mr. Hagel, “Hey, hey, ho, ho, Mr. Bush has got to go!”
You must subscribe because I changed the post immediately and you still caught it. It now reads:
"One pundit bombastically claimed Hagel is a Lebanese American but Hagel's family has been in Nebraska for generations."
Analogous to Peters, both Lieberman and Patraeus expressed somewhat similar views.ReplyDelete
Hagel educated Lieberman with great convinction in the Senate. However, Hagel did not appear to have the same strength of his convictions when Petraeus was before him.
"In a move that is unusual for an active-duty officer, Petraeus also spoke against pending Senate resolutions disapproving of the new Bush administration strategy. Asked by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) whether those resolutions would give encouragement to the enemy by exposing divisions among the American people, he replied: That's correct."
Rufus, there is an article waiting for you at Asia Times...
I think Senator Lieberman should just say the hell with it and become a Republican. They could put him on the armed services committee.ReplyDelete
Is there really a Teresita? I am confused.ReplyDelete
BOB W. has posted just previous to this post. It is a good one and he brings up a very important issue that receives a lot of political criticism from both parties claiming the other indulges in nation building.ReplyDelete
"He has been against military intervention in Iraq since before the war ever started and now, he is one of the few anti-war Republicans in the Senate. In other respects, he seems conservative but on this issue..."ReplyDelete
So American military intervention in the Arab world is a conservative issue. One wonders from what tenet of conservatism it follows.
Let me know if you find it. Meanwhile, I'll double-check my George Nash.
Maybe it's just me, but that 12:18 comment sounds like a guy talking. Stocking puppet. And nylon, not silk. Some guys have no taste.
Trish, Ogden would be more enlightening at this point.
"Reflection on a Wicked World"ReplyDelete
by Ogden Nash
Why, thank you, James.ReplyDelete
"The only thing keeping Iraq from a complete meltdown are 150,000 US and allied troops. How they got there is meaningless. They are there now and the question is what happens when they are pulled?
"Pull them precipitously and..."
See, here's the thing. It is not the speed of withdrawal that matters. Do it precipitously; do it slowly. Iraq will go its own way, the dead dog headed downstream. Should we wring our hands that someone will then demand that "somebody do something"? Well, that's where you'll run into trouble, having already asserted that how we got where we are today doesn't matter. Dismissing the how as irrelevent, you encourage perpetuation and repetition of bloody error.
And judging from your response to bob w.'s post, you are even willing to back it up with a little coercion.
Well teresita morphed a couple of time and then into Barry who wanted her. Teresita was a lesbian ex-navy tech , but then Barry is ex navy. Teresita's pictures were on Barry's site, and both sites were similar to Woman Catholics. Perhaps I am over thinking it.ReplyDelete
Lucianne had this up earlier followed by the administration’s apologist. Strange that none of the “We LUV the troops” blogs have touched it.ReplyDelete
Yeah, war is so much more fun. Cleaning up the mess is such a drag.
Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility
Oh, by the way, I don’t doubt a word of it.
H/T Zenpundit via Austin Bay
What response to Bob W, Trish? I must be having a senior moment. Was just trying for a little "light." Everything's always so dismal.ReplyDelete
Deuce, his/her/it self description as Internet "perfomer" is key. That was clear from the beginning, but everybody had their jollies, yes? (Hey, even I was caught accidently touching upon sensitive issues recently and was asked to use someone else's name. But performer I'm not. My politics are straightforward and persona not manipulative.)
The site looks really good, btw.
2164th said, Is there really a Teresita? I am confused.ReplyDelete
I'll take that to mean I am not welcomed back.
Head of US Army's Walter Reed hospital acknowledges outpatient complaintsReplyDelete
While an acknowledgement is not an admission, it is a start. It is amazing how effective press coverage can be.
Another day, another dropped ball, as the Congress postures.
Sorry, james. I should have clearly separated two responses in the same comment.ReplyDelete
After thanking you, I was responding specifically to Deuce's thoughts in a previous post.
Always so dismal?
Oh my God.ReplyDelete
teresita, you are always welcome.ReplyDelete
teresita, you are always welcome.