Another addition to Hagel’s greatest hits collection

November 16, 2005

Atrios noted this morning that Sen. Chuck Hagel’s (R-Neb.) “occasional muttered note of concern has done little other than increase his stock in our media obsessed with certain kinds of maverickness.” I think that’s largely true — Hagel’s admirable criticisms haven’t endeared him to his GOP colleagues or the White House, so there are no discernable results from his condemnations. Nevertheless, Hagel certainly deserves quite a bit of credit for taking public stands like this one.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House’s new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that “the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them.” […]

Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War “was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late.”

“To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic,” Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. “America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices.”

Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be constructive in their criticism, but he accused the administration of “dividing the country” with its rhetorical tactics.

To his enormous credit, Hagel has been practically the only conservative Republican lawmaker in the country to consistently take firm, principled stands like these. In August, for example, he told U.S. News that the White House’s policies in Iraq are “completely disconnected from reality,” adding, “The reality is that we’re losing in Iraq.” Asked if he was being a disloyal Republican, Hagel told the NYT, “War is bigger than politics.”

Last year, it was Hagel who joined Dems in stating the obvious: the war in Iraq has undermined the war on terrorism. And the year before that, it was Hagel who said Congress had given Bush “too much” power and had “really abrogated much of its responsibility.”

Hagel also defended Richard Clarke against a White House smear, defended John Kerry against some of Bush’s more ridiculous attacks, and criticized the administration’s handling of Afghanistan, saying Bush’s commitment to the country “does not come near” what is necessary.

This guy’s seeking the Republican nomination for president? Does he not realize that Republican primary voters don’t go for this kind of independent thinking?

That’s what he says, but how does he vote?

  • Agreed. How DOES he vote?

    These comments aren’t for the psychotic in the GOP (heh, the majority), but for the rational minority and, more importantly and primarily, for the voting independents and Demos. He knows what success McCain had in appearing as a “maverick.” He is looking to pull this group from McCain as well.

  • It strikes me that we are obsessing about the wrong period of Bushie malfeasance.

    Rather than focus on the period before the congressional authorization of force, when everybody seemed to think that Sadam at least has SOME weapons of mass destruction, I think we should look to the period between the authorization and the start of the war, when the INSPECTIONS were going on and no one could find anything more than a few old mustard gas shells.

    That was the time frame when the Bushies were insisting that Sadam was hiding all this stuff SO SUCCESSFULLY that we had to invade to be able to find it.

    If that isn’t spinning and lying and dragging us into war, I don’t know what is.

  • At this point, I think we need to focus less on the “how we got into this mess” and start focusing more on the fact that there is NO PLAN to get us out.
    Why haven’t we involved the U.N. in Iraq? Sure, we started the war, but shouldn’t we start making Iraq the responsibility of the world. After all, our failure there will be the world’s failure ultimately.

    And if you want American troops out, that means they have to be replaced with someone else’s and at this point, I think we can agree that the Iraqi’s are in no position to stand on there own.

    So let’s put aside timetable talk and start making the efforts to put the U.N. in place. This will not only assist our troops, but will give the citizens of the world a better sense of oversight (torture, chemical weapons use, etc.) and accountability.

    Of course, this is a pipe dream with the current admin in place. Caesar wants the spoils…

  • I like the things Hagel says, but he’s pulled off some very suspicious election victories.

    http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

    In 1992, investment banker Chuck Hagel, president of McCarthy & Co, became chairman of AIS. Hagel, who had been touted as a possible Senate candidate in 1993, was again on the list of likely GOP contenders heading into the 1996 contest. In January of 1995, while still chairman of ES&S, Hagel told the Omaha World-Herald that he would likely make a decision by mid-March of 1995. On March 15, according to a letter provided by Hagel’s Senate staff, he resigned from the AIS board, noting that he intended to announce his candidacy. A few days later, he did just that.

    A little less than eight months after stepping down as director of AIS, Hagel surprised national pundits and defied early polls by defeating Benjamin Nelson, the state’s popular former governor. It was Hagel’s first try for public office. Nebraska elections officials told The Hill that machines made by AIS probably tallied 85 percent of the votes cast in the 1996 vote, although Nelson never drew attention to the connection. Hagel won again in 2002, by a far healthier margin. That vote is still angrily disputed by Hagel’s Democratic opponent, Charlie Matulka, who did try to make Hagel’s ties to ES&S an issue in the race and who asked that state elections officials conduct a hand recount of the vote. That request was rebuffed, because Hagel’s margin of victory was so large.

    As might be expected, Hagel has been generously supported by his investment partners at McCarthy & Co. — since he first ran, Hagel has received about $15,000 in campaign contributions from McCarthy & Co. executives. And Hagel still owns more than $1 million in stock in McCarthy & Co., which still owns a quarter of ES&S.

  • “Why haven’t we involved the U.N. in Iraq?”

    Because Iraqi insurgents and foreign terrorists have in the past and will in the future particularly target them for assasination?

  • Everytime I hear politicians or citizens talk about the UN taking over in Iraq I shake my head. Because, while we wouldn’t want to forget about Poland…uh, the UN is made up of the other nations of the world, most not in the coalition of the coerced, and they are not likely to vote to embrace the tar baby. I mean, they didn’t want to do it previously when at least the naive didn’t know what a quagmire it would turn out to be. No, we wish it was possible and it sounds good–bring in the UN! But, it’s not going to happen because the UN may be largely ineffectual but it’s not irrational.

    • Comments are closed.