Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

If it ever narrows down to a choice between Hagel and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then Hagel will have my vote.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Chuck Hagel for President!

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted January 18, 2007.


If it ever narrows down to a choice between Hagel and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then Hagel will have my vote.
Advertisement

Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote.

Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can't or won't take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have.

Sen. Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War vet who learned the crucial lessons of that Democrat-launched debacle of post-colonial imperialism. Even more important, he has the courage to challenge a president from his own party who so clearly didn't.

"The speech given [Jan. 10] by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam," Hagel said. "We are projecting ourselves further and deeper into a situation that we cannot win militarily.

"To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong. It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong," he added.

If Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another Democratic darling, has uttered words of such clarifying dissent on the president's disastrous course, then I haven't heard them. Instead, too many leading Democratic politicians continue to act as if they fear that if they are forthright in opposing the war, they will appear weak, whether on national security or the protection of Israel, and so ignore the clear, strong voice of the American people that just revived their party's fortunes.

Ever since President Ronald Reagan painted foreign policy as a simplistic war of good versus evil, the Republican Party has been in the thrall of neocon adventurers. Yet, the national emergence of Hagel reminds us that, two decades earlier, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a war hero and a Republican, who was the only president to clearly challenge the simplistic and jingoistic militarism that most Democrats embraced during the Cold War. It was Eisenhower, in fact, who refused to send troops to Vietnam, and his Democratic successors who opened the gates of war.

True conservatives, going back to George Washington, have always been wary of the "foreign entanglements" that our first general and president warned against in his farewell address. And it is in that spirit, recognizing the limits to U.S. military power, that Hagel spoke this past Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, late of an oft-opportunistic Democratic Party that saw fit to nominate him as recently as 2000 for the vice presidency, had just finished accusing those who don't support President Bush's escalation of the war of being "all about failing." In his defense of the indefensible, Lieberman baldly repeated many of Bush's lies that launched this war four years ago.

"The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we're fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran," said the fear-monger. "Allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us, that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they would follow us back here."

Never mind the ridiculous image of "super-powered" Iran invading the United States, or the fact that foreign jihadists -- arriving after the overthrow of anti-fundamentalist strongman Saddam Hussein -- make up only a tiny fraction of the combatants in Iraq.

The question is how the apparently intelligent Lieberman doesn't understand that the main task of our troops for most of their stay in Iraq has been, de facto, to expand the power of Shiite theocrats trained for decades in Iran. Tehran couldn't have baited a better trap.

In any case, Hagel refused to bite on Lieberman's apocalyptic vision, which somehow manages to skip the hard truth that Iraq has collapsed because of our involvement, not despite it.

"[T]he fact is, the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq," Hagel responded, in what amounts to a radical opinion in paternalistic, arrogant Washington. "The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have understood, we've never comprehended [and] we now have to devise a way to find some political consensus with our allies [and] the regional powers, including Iran and Syria.

"To say that we are going to feed more young men and women into that grinder, put them in the middle of a tribal, sectarian civil war, is not going to fix the problem," he added.

Words of wisdom that set the standard for anyone running for president.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: war in iraq, chuck hagel, election08

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
ES&S
Posted by: ScottP on Jan 18, 2007 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's talk about how the man became a Senator. Before the election, he was CEO of ES&S, but didn't report that in his filing, effectively hiding it from the public. ES&S makes voting machines using proprietary software, with no paper receipt and no effective means of auditing the results. Those same machines were used to count the votes for his own election, in which he had a "stunning upset victory" that defied the polls. So once again: he ran the company that counted the votes in his victory, hid involvement in the company, the machines have no audit capability and no published software, and his company's results contradict the polls.

I agree with his current position on the war. However, one decent policy position does not make a decent man. I wouldn't trust him to hold my place in line at the market. In the scenario Scheer describes, I'd lodge a protest vote with a third party myself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: S&S Posted by: edith
» RE: S&S Posted by: badkitty
investigation and prosecution of Bush administration crimes
Posted by: scott.gregory on Jan 18, 2007 11:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For Americans to support ANY CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT, they must demand open and strong support for investigation and prosecution of Bush administration (1) war crimes, (2) crimes against humanity, (3) treason, (4) interstate conspiracy of vote fraud both 2000 and 2004 elections, (5) violations of the Neutrality Act and the Geneva Conventions, (6) independent special prosecutor appointment with grand jury investigations of the crimes of and on September 11, 2001 (the "inside job" fabricated cause for war resulting in 3000 Americans dead and billions of dollars of property damage), and (7) corruption and misuse of public funds.

The principal criminals and their accessories before and after the fact is not a small number of people; not just a handful of 8-10 top administration officials. This is probably 2000-3000 people when the accessories are counted, including corporate executives, media talking-heads, lobbyists, and think-tank ideologists.

Candidates must strongly support prosecution and severe punishment, including capital punishment where appropriate, of those found guilty.

The crimes of the Bush administration are so severe that they must not go unpunished. The integrity of our political process and our standing in the world requires that George W. Bush and those many other criminals be severely punished.

(This is copied from another web-post, but is the best way I can describe my conditions for support of any candidate for the 2008 Presidency, regardless of party.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Aw Shucks "Huck" For President
Posted by: pelle_in_goal on Jan 19, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sen. Hagel has taken a tough stance on the troop "surge" all right. I've been reading a few things today that might shed some insight on Hagel's more aggressive stance -- vis-a-vis Bush's Idiot-in-Chief approach.

In a 1994 interview, Hagel mentioned he worked on the 1980 Reagan campaign. Hagel had a relatively minor role at the RNC -- he helped plan Reagan's Inaugural balls -- but is better known for a sit down conversation he had with RWR prior to the Carter-Reagan debate.

Talking with Tavis Smiley (this was just after Reagan's death) Hagel briefly mentioned working on Reagan's 1980 team. At Nancy Reagan's request Hagel was given an audience with The Man himself. Chuck got a whopping 30 minutes to explain how America (read: "the good guys") somehow lost in Vietnam despite it being a "noble cause." [A phrase Reagan would repeat during his Presidency.]

The irony of explaing Vietnam to Reagan -- who as two-term Governor of California -- had more than a chilling effect on campus protests at UC-Berkeley and other state campuses must have escaped Chuck. Reagan the Great Patriot was putting down protests against a war he knew little or nothing about.

Hagel was rewarded for this contribution to Reagan's election by being appointed as Deputy Director for the Veterans Administration. He served less than two years in that role -- leaving to become government liason (i.e., lobbyist) for Firestone Tire & Rubber. During the Reagan years, the VA was nearly run into the ground by staffing and budget cuts, and having to manage with outdated, shoddy equipment and diagnostic tools. Reagan and Congress were eventually forced to raise the Dept. of Veterans Affairs to a Cabinet-level position to sort it out.

That's not all Chuck's fault, of course. But it might have given an honorable man some pause to reflect. Has Hagel been supportive of the wounded, burned, and emotionally crippled men and women returning from Afghanistan and Iraq? The Iraq And Afghanistan Veterans Of America gives Hagel a D+ rating for 2006. His voting record as judged by the DAV has, however, come up to 60% for 2006. But that's an improvement over the 42% for 2005 and the -- get this -- 0% rating he received in 2004. Yep...Chuck's our man all right. He's been riding shotgun for our veterans since day one. No doubt he will again.

Prior to his "getting tough" with Bush over Iraq/Afghanistan, Chuck had been a strong advocate for pulling NATO and the EU into the Middle East mess. Too bad they've already been out to the bog in Kosovo themselves -- with no way to extricate themselves from that mess for years to come.

Sorry, Bob. I expect more from a man who won re-election to the Senate with an unbelieveable 83% of the vote. But his talents might better serve America if he can come up with a real rapproachment with North Korea instead. At least he understands how their electoral process works.

pl

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unadulterated b*******
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 19, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excuse me, but people like Chuck Hagel are the reason we are in this illegal war of aggression. He had the opportunity to vote against it, but he voted for it. He had the opportunity to vote against Bush's judicial nominees, but he didn't. He has followed Bush down the line until recently, and frankly, if he couldn't see Vietnam coming down the line for a second time (I guess he didn't learn anything from that experience), he's not competent to be president. And given ES&S's record, his integrity may not bear looking at either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lieberman
Posted by: JSquercia on Jan 19, 2007 1:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Joe is NOT the Senator from Conneticut but rather the Seantor for Israel .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But I Guarantee...
Posted by: bob t on Jan 20, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... you Robert Scheer he(hagel) will never have my vote, and he shouldn't have yours but you have to decide. Hagel is a Republican and has always supported Bush and his band of criminals. As part of the rethug corruption that is shredding our constitution and rapidly and rabidly destroying America, I would beg you to reconsider your vote.

Don't listen to what Hagel says, just look at what he and his political party have done in the past years, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and now the worst of all Bush 43. It is they and Big Religion who have deeply divided/fractured and polarized America and even much of the world, especially people/nations in the Middle East and Europe.

And Hagel and Co. have done a good job of stirring up Russia and China. So Robert you decide, I already have. I won't cast any vote for any rethuglikkkan until the Dems can undo the enormous damage the rethugs ahve done to America and the world. Quite possibly the Dems may never be able to undo that enormous amount of damage. I'll give them 20 years before I start complaining or voting against the Dems.

And I'm not even a Dem.

PRAY FOR PEACE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great information
Posted by: Jeanne on Jan 20, 2007 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why I like Alternet. Learning facts, hearing opinions, getting background from actual people about the "celebrities" in politics. So enlightening.

The fact of 2008 is that no one who supports (or supported) Bush's War will find it easy to get elected. So, the fact is that (barring Bush expanding into Iran) public sentiment and votes will go against anyone who remains an advocate of Bush Administration's foreign policy. We will have an anti-Bush's War next administration. It's what happens before the 2008 election....can we get US out of Iraq? There's the real dirty work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gerald
Posted by: Gerald on Jan 20, 2007 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Robert,

A couple of nights ago I happened to see segments of Sen. Hagel, Oboma and Hillary during the same half hour news cast. Suddenly it came to me that Hagel made Oboma look like a teenager and Hillary like, well...ah...ah, a woman in over her head. Merits, positions and intelligence aside I couldn't help thinking I would vote for Hagel over either one of them. I'm been a Democrat (since 1964). I'm not sure I could bring myself to actually vote for a Republican but my reaction scares not just a little.
Keep up the good work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

joshua
Posted by: joshuawelch on Jan 21, 2007 2:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we vote for a Presidential canidate, we vote for a party and an ideology. One Republican's position on one important issue is not reason to put a party in the White House that leads the way fo tax cuts for billionaires, bigoted legislation, the removal of environmental protections, the war on public schools and on and on and on. C'mon Robert, get a grip!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]