When it comes to [tag]Republicans[/tag] who are willing to break ranks and denounce the [tag]president[/tag]’s foreign policy mistakes, it’s rarely the self-described centrists (Chafee, Snowe, Collins) who step up; it’s Sen. [tag]Chuck Hagel[/tag] (R-Neb.).
[Hagel] said that in the previous 48 hours, he had received three telephone calls from four-star generals who were “beside themselves” over the Pentagon’s reversal of plans to bring tens of thousands of soldiers home this fall.
Instead, top Pentagon officials are suspending military rotations and adding troops in Iraq. The Pentagon has estimated that the buildup will increase the number of U.S. troops from about 130,000 to 135,000.
“That isn’t going to do any good. It’s going to have a worse effect,” Hagel said. “They’re destroying the United States Army.”
As TP noted, Hagel went on to say that [tag]Iraq[/tag] had descended into “absolute anarchy” and the war was “an absolute replay of [tag]Vietnam[/tag].”
What’s more, Hagel broke ranks again and denounced the Bush administration’s approach to the Israel-Lebanon crisis. Hagel urged Bush to “call for an immediate [tag]cease-fire[/tag].” [tag]Hagel[/tag] told CNN, “How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend — the country and people of Lebanon — is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East?”
In a purely political context, Hagel’s denunciation is a) part of a trend; b) rarely followed with action; and c) a unique 2008 strategy.
No Republican in the country has been more consistent and more forceful in criticizing [tag]Bush[/tag]’s handling of foreign policy than Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran. In August 2005, 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.”
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.
Best of all, last November, after the White House began a new offensive against critics of the war, Hagel said, “To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic.”
As much as Hagel deserves credit for his encouraging rhetoric, I’m afraid they’re the full extent of his actions. Hagel is still a conservative Republican. During the recent Senate debate on Iraq policy, Hagel denounced the “cut-and-run” name-calling — but he still voted with the GOP when it counted, as he almost always does. I appreciate his full-throated criticism, but if it were followed by some real action on his part, it’d be even more worthwhile.
As for 2008, Hagel is running for president, and he seems to have stumbled upon an empty niche: the conservative Republican anti-Bush.
There are at least 10 top-tier contenders for the ’08 nomination, and they’re all carefully choosing areas of subtle disagreement with the president while generally maintaining party loyalty. They assume, probably correctly, that hard-core, far-right primary voters still like Bush, and see little utility in bashing the president publicly.
Bill Frist is trying to be “the next Bush.” John McCain was the “anti-Bush,” before he decided that the path to the nomination ran through Bush Land. It left an opening for Hagel, who hasn’t been shy in his criticisms of the White House.
As strategies go, it’s not entirely without merit. As Bush’s presidency continues to deteriorate, and the GOP base grows increasingly annoyed, maybe Hagel will be in the perfect position to say, “I was an anti-Bush conservative before being an anti-Bush conservative was cool.”