‘Stop the impugning of people’s motives’

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee began working this morning on how best to deal with the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq. It appears that the number of committee members willing to stand up and defend the president’s latest escalation plan was about zero — the question was what the senators were prepared to do about it.

Dems and Chuck Hagel are rallying behind their non-binding resolution, which Committee Chairman Joe Biden (D-Del.) said is “not an attempt to embarrass the president. … It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq.”

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind) seemed to summarize the GOP position.

“I am not confident that President Bush’s plan will succeed,” said Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, senior Republican on the committee.

But he also said he would vote against the measure. “It is unclear to me how passing a nonbinding resolution that the president has already said he will ignore will contribute to any improvement or modification of our Iraq policy.”

“The president is deeply invested in this plan, and the deployments … have already begun,” Lugar added.

I can’t quite wrap my ahead around Lugar’s perspective. He clearly doesn’t support the president’s policy, but since Bush is intent on doing whatever he wants, Lugar seems content to shrug his shoulders and essentially say, “Well, the president’s going to do what the president is going to do,” as if the co-equal branch of government is entirely without power.

To be fair, I should note that Lugar said this morning that lawmakers could spend their time “planning for contingencies.” But if Lugar is right, how will the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s planning “contribute to any improvement or modification of our Iraq policy”?

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), as is frequently the case lately, tried to set his colleagues straight, challenging them to do their duty.

“We’d better be damned sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder,” Hagel said in an impassioned speech in a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. “We better be as sure as you can be, and I want every one of you — every one of us 100 senators to look in that camera and you tell your people back home what you think. Don’t hide anymore. None of us.”

Hagel also responded to fellow GOP committee member Richard Lugar who claimed the passing of Hagel’s resolution would likely send a show disunity between Congress and the president and show the nation’s enemies that “we are divided and in disarray.”

“We fail our country if we don’t debate this — if we don’t debate this we are not worthy of our country,” Hagel said. “We fail our country.”

“Stop the impugning of people’s motives,” Hagel added. “Stop the political stuff — all of us. All of us. This is much bigger than that. And if we’re not adult enough to understand that, we will loose the confidence of the American public. That’s what’s happened right now.”

You tell ’em, Chuck.

For what it’s worth, the number of Senate Republicans prepared to vote for some kind of resolution, whether it be Biden-Hagel-Levin or Warner-Collins-Nelson, seems to be growing, pressure from the White House notwithstanding. The AP noted that “at least eight other Republican senators say they now back legislative proposals registering objections to Bush’s decision to boost U.S. military strength in Iraq by 21,500 troops.”

Stay tuned.

I realize that Hagel has come to his senses in regards to Iraq, but let’s not forget that the guy is solidy to the right on pretty much every social and environmental issue out there. Granted, he represents Nebraska, so not too surprising, but still — let’s not hold this guy up on too much of a lofty perch because he’s finally started to talk tough about the Iraqi disaster.

BTW, did you check out what Hagel said in an upcoming article in GQ? ThinkProgress has the low-down.

  • and from Think Progress today,another bombshell delivered by Mr. Hagel. Say what you will about this man’s other conservative politics, his stance on Iraq has been as clear and as rooted to reality as Jim Webb’s for at least a couple of years.

    from Think Progress at http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/24/hagel-iraq-resolution/:
    Hagel: White House Originally Wanted 2002 Iraq War Resolution to Cover Entire Middle East
    The Bush administration has taken a series of steps in recent weeks that appear to be setting the stage for a military confrontation with Iran. Congressional leaders have been raising red flags. “I’d like to be clear,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last week. “The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization.” Recent comments made by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) explain why Congress’s resistance is so vital.

    In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region:

    HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

    GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

    HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

    GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

    HAGEL: 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.

    Asked about his vote in support of the final Iraq war resolution, Hagel told GQ, “Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.”

    Filed under: Iran
    Posted by Payson at 11:35 am

  • Um. Wow. I can imagine Hagel grabbing his peers by the collar and snarling in their faces. “Cut it out dirtbag!”

    I especially like Hagel’s dismissal of Dick Loogie’s “It helps the enemy” crap.

    The idea that “the enemy” is able to pull of sophisticated attacks but can’t figure out how to use a TV or Internet or anything else that might show that we are indeed divided is what got us into this mess in the first place. “Oh we’ll just go in, shock and awe them, give them some beads and mirrors and they’ll throw flowers!” Please.

    As for being in “disarray” I think any competent observer can figure out that if the best military on the planet is still trying to quell violence in two countries three years later, something is amiss.

    Sheesh. Would it be too partisan of me to say I feel kind of weird approving of anything a Republican says?

  • Why don’t people seem to understand the concept behind this non-binding resolution? The Congress was absent from the policy up to this point but now they are engaged. First step is a loose resolution to set parameters. After Bush ignores that they can move forward and tighten the noose a little more.

    Lugar is obviously a good liar sinc he was able to take two opposing positions at one time. There needs to be recorded votes on this stuff and the people who vote against Congressional oversight and participation need to be skewered during the next campaign.

  • I’ll wait till I actually see Hagel’s name in the “Aye” column before I break out the champagne, but I like where he’s coming from verbally, at least.

  • Personally, I’d almost do a deal with Satan von Cheney himself, if it would get those kids out of Iraq..Their lives; their blood; their very survival is of a value far greater than anything I can say, think, or possess. And given that “george” has hinged everything from his presidential legacy to the kitchen sink on this single-issue pedestal of Surge-opoly, the best way to bring the tyrant down from the perch—is to kick the perch out from under the tyrant.

    We fan fight the fights for Habeus, freedom from warrantless searches and eavesdropping another day. First and foremost—get those kids out of the meatgrinder….

  • Lugar has a point, by the way, Bush will deploy the troops regardless of any non-bniding resolution. The question is will he vote for the Kennedy bill?

    #2 – I saw that, the question is why hasn’t Biden ever mentioned anything about it? If what Hagel says is true, Biden should be asked that question.

  • Here’s a sampling of what we have over in Iraq, liberating the hapless inhabitants, many of whom apparently don’t appreciate the sort of liberation an eternal dirt nap brings.

    “Sgt. Sprague, from White Sulphur Springs in West Virginia, passed it [the ruins of the ancient city of Ur, founded 8,000 years ago] on his way north, but he never knew it was there.

    “I’ve been all the way through this desert from Basra to here and I ain’t seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant,” he said. “These people got nothing. Even in a little town like ours of twenty five hundred people you got a McDonald’s at one end and a Hardee’s at the other.”

    Thanks a lot for making us proud, Sergeant Rockhead.

  • wvng, I saw the ThinkProgress post as well. I believe it raises a very important question. Many who voted for the authorization to use milliatar force in Iraq, John Kerry comes to mind, claimed that they voted for it in the belief that BushCo would use it leverage arms inspections in Iraq. Shouldn’t BushCo’s effort to get authorization to use force in the entire Middle East set off alarm bells about BushCo’s true intentions?

  • “Shouldn’t BushCo’s effort to get authorization to use force in the entire Middle East set off alarm bells about BushCo’s true intentions? ” — rege #9

    Yes, and it would appear those intentions have not changed.

  • Why are we letting Republicans like Hagel steal the thunder on the anti-war initiatives? Fuck them and their resolutions. Too little too late.

  • It’s not as though what Hagel’s saying here is all that radical, revolutionary, leftwing, progressive or even risky (except when it comes to his dealing the wackos in his party, of course). “We fail our country if we don’t debate this….” is pretty much what the writers of the Constitution had in mind, isn’t it?

  • The non-binding resolution will be a powerfull thing. If it passes, it will squarely put Bush and Cheney in the minority of the government and directly opposed to the entire legislative branch. This will no longer be a Dems v. Repub issue, nor a neocons v. doves issue but a legislative v. executive branch split.

    If Congress passes any action regarding the war, it will have about as much impact as the non-binding resolution since Bush will issue yet another signing statement and cause a Constitutional crisis. The first step is to get a consensus vote on the issue which then enables Congress to proceed with more deliberate actions. The resolution is a pawn in the game that has to move before the rook can be maneauvered into place.

  • I think the Dems should make this resolution as strong as possible. It’s a win win. If the Republicans do vote for it then it’s good. If the the Republicans don’t vote for it, then they’re marked in 2008.

    I can see the strategizing behind this all, but while the Congress plays Chess, Bush is playing Checkers.

  • “The resolution is a pawn in the game that has to move before the rook can be maneuvered into place.”

    Nicely put, Petorado (#13), and a very apt way of thinking about all the current maneuvering on both sides of the aisle. The game is no longer Rep vs Dem but Congress vs. Cheney/Bush. And it is much more like chess than smackdown wrasslin’, too.

  • Wasn’t that a non-binding resolution that Rs rammed through last June in “support” of Bush and the troops, and in reaction to Murtha? Maybe non-binding resolutions are only meaningful when there’s an R majority.

  • i have been very disappointed in the last several years in Lugar, who for a long time I respected greatly and considered one of the few reality-based, heart-in-the-right-place, intelligent and thoughtful Rethug elected officials. Maybe it is loyalty to Poppy that makes his go squishy for Junior; I just don’t know why Lugar is suddenly a party-line-no-matter-what sort of guy.

  • I’m a bit distressed that a number of posters here can’t look at Hagel’s now substantial record on the Iraq war and simply give him the credit he deserves for being unafraid to speak plainly and clearly about the insanity in oppostition to virtually all of the other voices in his party. Reflexive name calling is what THEY do (you know, THEM, the reThugs). Reasoned discourse is what Hagel offers and what the Carpetbagger ably promotes on this site.

    Richard Dreyfus (yes, the actor) made an impassioned plea for a return to civil discourse on Bill Maher’s show last year that should be required listening for every American (despite an historial oops). Its at You Tube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7p1SGMuqU

  • Re this:
    “I’ve been all the way through this desert from Basra to here and I ain’t seen one shopping mall or fast food restaurant,” he said. “These people got nothing. Even in a little town like ours of twenty five hundred people you got a McDonald’s at one end and a Hardee’s at the other.
    Thanks a lot for making us proud, Sergeant Rockhead.

    What makes you think an American soldier needs to know anything of these things? You think that they’re important, I think they are, but Sgt Rockhead as you style him is there because he was sent there, and may well die there, for reasons that have nothing to do with his thoughts on city planning or gastronomy, or for that matter history. It isn’t Sgt Sprague who should be ashamed, it is you, Democracy, for using your better education to sneer at a man who is doing a job that none of us wants to do. You make it sound like he deserves to die because he hasn’t read Gilgamesh.

    Look, I travel a lot. When I go to Paris for instance I make a point of going to museums, and I make an especial point of dining well–opportunities for which no city on earth equals Paris. Many other people go to Paris and do none of that–some shop, some simply drink, some look at architecture, some visit cathedrals, some spend their money on whores. Which of them deserve to die because they don’t want to eat at Taillevent?

    The fact of the matter is that countries don’t have armies for the purposes which you seem to be suggesting. They have armies because they want to kill people or deter other people from killing them. And they never, I repeat, never, much care if the soldiers are appreciating the scenery they are reducing to a wasteland. They care that the soldiers are willing do die when the time comes. The least we can do for those poor bastards who are going to die I think, Democracy, is not to get the vapors when the show that they aren’t your “sort” by using the wrong fork at table.

  • I’m a bit distressed that a number of posters here can’t look at Hagel’s now substantial record on the Iraq war and simply give him the credit he deserves for being unafraid to speak plainly and clearly about the insanity in oppostition to virtually all of the other voices in his party.

    Don’t get me wrong — I’m all for giving credit where credit is due. But:

    1. He didn’t come out this strongly against the war when he knew damn fuqing well Bush wanted carte blanche to start a war anywhere in the Middle East, no matter when, where or how.

    2. He’s still someone who thinks legislating bigotry is a dandy idea.

    3. He’s still got a horrific record in voting for women’s rights, the environment, and other such issues.

    Again, I think his statements against the war and escalation are beautiful, wonderful and sorely needed. But it’s also important to remember that being correct on this one issue does not make him some sort of progressive poster child.

  • re: Unholy Moses. I have no illusions about Hagel’s record on social and environmental issues, and do not see him as a “progressive poster child.” But he clearly is a politician with some real convictions who is willing to state them honestly even when it costs him. That’s worth celebrating. I wouldn’t want him as President, but I think I would enjoy having a conversation with the man.

  • Hagel told GQ, “Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.”

    Thank you Senator Hagel. You now stand with John Edwards and John Kerry on that.

    Right now, folks, I can’t figure out if we are in January 1933 Germany or September 1938 Germany, but we are at a point in this country where everything has to be done to stop this madman in the White House before he drags everything over the cliff through his incompetence. So right now, everyone who doesn’t support him is in the same boat of being aboard the Titanic with the captain deciding to ram the iceberg a second time after hitting it the first time (to use a cartoon I just saw). Anybody who wants to step up and oppose this, whatever else they may do or think on any other topic, is deserving of support and public aprobation. It doesn’t matter if it took them a long time to come around, it doesn’t matter if they haven’t come as far as some of us have, none of that is important. Right now, we need a broad popular front that is Anti-Bush. Once this is dealt with, this mortal threat to the Republic, we can sort out everything else, agree to disagree and return to a democratic republic where these things get worked out. Right now, we have to save that Republic, and that fact takes priority over everything else, because if we don’t do that, nothing else will matter.

    So hurrah for Hagel, and hurrah for anyone else who sees the light and gets with the program. “I told you so” is not a tactic or a thought we need to use now.

  • It’s funny but Luger should understand what this non-binding resolution really is. Republicans were big on bringing legislation to the floor that they knew had no hope of passing. It was all about symbolism. Democrats and Republicans how are vote for this know Bush/Cheney will do what they want no matter what the Congress or the Consitution say. He has been doing it for 6 years. Look at all the signing statements has he issued after all. However, to not debate the issue of the escalation/surge and to vote against the resolution gives support and credence to the presidents actions and assumptions. Congressmen owe their consituents and the soldiers more than just the perfunctory yammering if all/many of both groups think this escalation/surge idea suck royally.

  • re: Unholy Moses. I have no illusions about Hagel’s record on social and environmental issues, and do not see him as a “progressive poster child.” But he clearly is a politician with some real convictions who is willing to state them honestly even when it costs him. That’s worth celebrating. I wouldn’t want him as President, but I think I would enjoy having a conversation with the man.

    I would have to agree. Great post.

  • But he clearly is a politician with some real convictions who is willing to state them honestly even when it costs him.

    Or put to put it another way. Do you prefer a man who acts on his convictions or a man who acts like a convict? /snark.

  • Hagel’s entire speech below. Whatever else the man may stand for that you disagree with, you cannot say this is not one of those speeches that is going to be remembered by history:

    We are not about — this resolution, those who I’m associated with, I don’t think anybody in the Senate — if there is one senator in the United States Senate that is all about defeating America, making America’s position more dangerous, eroding our standing in the world, I don’t know of that person.

    If you do, please let me know.

    Every one of the 100 senators — Republican, Democrat, independent — that I know of has said, “How do we do this in a way that we look after, first, the national interests of America?” That still is rather significant.

    I don’t question the president’s sincerity, his motivations in this. I never have. Nor anyone in his administration.

    This president is sincere about what he said last night. He believes this is the right thing to do. I happen to disagree.

    So, but we don’t, somehow, project to the outside world that there’s disagreement in our government, in our country, about the future of Iraq, I think that if that is what our role is going to be — and yes, Mr. Lugar, we can hold more hearings, oversight. I don’t know what that’s produced. We are going to have more oversight.

    Part of the problem that we have, I think, is because we didn’t — we didn’t involve the Congress in this when we should have.

    And I’m to blame. Every senator who’s been here the last four years has to take some responsibility for that.

    But I will not sit here in this Congress of the United States at this important time for our country and in the world and not have something to say about this. And 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 to at least project something.

    This resolution, by the way, does not tie the hands of the president of the United States. It does not tie the hands of the president of the United States in any way.

    So I would go back to where I began, and pick up on a point that Chairman Lugar mentioned: coherence of strategy.

    I don’t know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don’t think we’ve ever had a coherent strategy.

    In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.

    I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven’t even team B’ed this plan.

    And my dear friend Dick Lugar talks about coherence of strategy. There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.

    These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.

    And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don’t hide anymore; none of us.

    That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we’re not willing to do it, we’re not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don’t debate this, if we don’t debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.

  • Post #26 (Tom)–

    Wow … just … damn! Now THAT is what this country has needed for a long, long time.

    I may disagree with Hagel on pretty much everything else, but that speech was truly magnificent.

  • Hagel: I don’t know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don’t think we’ve ever had a coherent strategy.

    In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.

    Welcome to the angry left, Chuck. We been sayin’ that for how many years now?

  • Comments are closed.