Hagel isn’t happy

On Tuesday, Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) joined a bi-partisan group of senators demanding a full-scale congressional investigation into Bush’s domestic-surveillance program, suggesting he was one of a handful of GOP lawmakers who were less than pleased with the president’s approach to the rule of law.

It wasn’t clear, however, just how irritated Hagel is until talked to the Grand Island Independent, a Nebraska newspaper, about his perspective on the administration.

“Every president, that we know of, has complied with the law (FISA),” Hagel said. “No president is above the law. We are a nation of laws and no president, majority leader, or chief justice of the Supreme Court can unilaterally or arbitrarily avoid a law or dismiss a law. If the vice president holds a different point of view, then he holds a different point of view.”

Based on the facts that are out there concerning whether domestic spying abuses were taking place, Hagel said, there was a “breakdown.”

“I take an oath of office to the Constitution,” he said. “I don’t take an oath of office to the vice president, a president or a political party. My obligation and responsibility are to the people I represent and the country I serve. I do what I think is right for the people I represent and the country I serve.”

He also seemed particularly unimpressed by the Bush-Cheney team’s commitment to “changing the tone” in Washington.

Hagel, referring to President Ronald Reagan, said people trusted him because he was not a “vitriolic person or one to impugn the motives of people who disagreed with him.”

“Never did he do that,” Hagel said. “There is no place for that in politics because it debases our system and our process. You can agree or disagree with your leaders and say whatever you like about your elected leaders and throw them out, but I do draw the line on the vilification and impugning of motives because someone disagrees with you.”

He said the American people are “sick and fed up” with that type of politics.

“Cheney’s poll numbers are very, very low,” Hagel said. “This should be about elevating the debate and enhancing America and finding the solutions that we need to move forward. It doesn’t help when you characterize people who disagree with you or threaten them or characterize them as unpatriotic or not caring about our people or our security. The American people see through that and it is beneath the dignity of this country.”

Hagel’s been on a roll lately, as he’s struggled to contain his disappointment with the Bush White House. It won’t help Hagel’s presidential ambitions, but it will help his credibility as a senator who can put partisanship aside for the country’s benefit.

Hagel is right to invoke Reagan, here. George W. Bush isn’t fit to tie Ronald Reagan’s shoelaces, and I say that as no great admirer of Ronald Reagan.

The thing is, any Republican who is honest with his- or herself knows this, too. When are they going to start saying so?

  • Isn’t it about time Chuckie changed parties–particularly if he still has presidential ambitions? A fiscally conservative Democrat would be a possibility. Come on Chuck, jump! The water’s just fine. Leave the corruption and the Rovians behind.

  • What do you suppose motivates Hagel?
    If we assume that all politicians act soley
    in their own best interests – and there’s
    plenty of evidence for that level of cynicism
    today – what’s in it for him?

  • CB: Hagel’s been on a role lately…
    hark: what’s in it for him…

    Doesn’t anyone believe in politicians anymore? hark is cynical and CB’s unconcious is betraying him.

  • “It won’t help Hagel’s presidential ambitions…”

    This is an interesting point.

    The slow Joes, Hillary, and Obama lean right because they know they don’t have a chance unless they control the middle.

    They have faced the facts. Not one of them has a chance of winning one lousy southern state. So they must lean right to corral Ohio and Florida.

    So what about Hagel leaning left?
    Is it the same thing? Does he have his eye on Ohio and Florida?

    All of which leads me to Wes Clark, the native southerner.
    He doesn’t have to lean left or right.
    He doesn’t have to pretend he is something he is not.
    He can actually win some southern states.

    He really is the only chance the Dims have in 2008.

    And five will get you ten those dummys will run Hillary….

  • Hagel has been one of my favorites for a while; going back to the tempered, measured comments he made in GWB’s dishonest run-up to the invasion. If you look at Hagel’s statement regarding the 2002 Authorization for Force against Iraq, he sounds very much like John Kerry. Since then, he’s been probably the most consistent ‘big name’ Republican to tag the Bush team. Good for him; regardless of party, I think he’d be a formidible ’08 candidate if he talks the talk and sweeps away much of the nonsense that’s come with the Bush Presidency.

    That’s obviously just my two cents.

  • No, Reagan gets no pass. He may have carefully (and pusillanimously, and dishonestly) avoided indulging in character assassination out of his own personal mouth, but under his watch the Republican Party propaganda machine flourished, promising to place the Party faithful above the law as soon as sufficient power could be gained. It was at this time and for this reason that America became a totalitarian nation, as it remains today. No pass for Reagan, who ranks right alongside George W. Bush as one of history’s foremost criminals against humanity.

  • Comments are closed.