Sen. Hagel (R) lays out Iraq problem and need for debate

Thorgrim · 01-25-2007, 12:52 AM

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/...agel012407.mov

If you don't want to watch the movie:

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.

Republican I can salute, what elected congressional officials can you salute in both parties?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot · 01-25-2007, 02:08 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/...agel012407.mov

If you don't want to watch the movie:

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.

Republican I can salute, what elected congressional officials can you salute in both parties?

Hagel , a liar and coward masquerading as brave hero that will speak his mind.
If we dont debate this. HA !
How much damn senate or congressional debate was there over the president's military decisions during WW2?????
Answer that damn question before you attempt to defend these lowlife want to be usurpers.
The damn ignorant stupid idea that these senators and congressmen have that they know best is silly and dangerous!!! Damn idiots one and ALL !!!
There is to be ONE COMANDER IN CHIEF. The President is the supreme commander of the U.S miltary forces. All this political posturing and demands for debate on war strategy is not only silly its damn traitorous!
Each one of these brave want to be debaters wants to take power from the President, THATS THE SHORT AND SIMPLE OF IT. They want to take power from the office of the President of the United States!!

May a damn POX fall on the head of each and everyone of those so-called self proclaimed heroes!

They are nothing more than damn selfloving traitors!

Personally I am just damn sick of all the -"we support the troops" but in reality would just love to lose in Iraq lying bastards!-TZS

Scrum · 01-25-2007, 03:27 AM

Wow....just wow.

Pro Street · 01-25-2007, 05:21 AM

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

Hagel , a liar and coward masquerading as brave hero that will speak his mind.
If we dont debate this. HA !
How much damn senate or congressional debate was there over the president's military decisions during WW2?????
Answer that damn question before you attempt to defend these lowlife want to be usurpers.
The damn ignorant stupid idea that these senators and congressmen have that they know best is silly and dangerous!!! Damn idiots one and ALL !!!
There is to be ONE COMANDER IN CHIEF. The President is the supreme commander of the U.S miltary forces. All this political posturing and demands for debate on war strategy is not only silly its damn traitorous!
Each one of these brave want to be debaters wants to take power from the President, THATS THE SHORT AND SIMPLE OF IT. They want to take power from the office of the President of the United States!!

May a damn POX fall on the head of each and everyone of those so-called self proclaimed heroes!
They are nothing more than damn selfloving traitors!

Personally I am just damn sick of all the -"we support the troops" but in reality would just love to lose in Iraq lying bastards!-TZS

I'm sorry, but do you honestly think posting like this does ANYTHING to help explain your opinion?

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot · 01-25-2007, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Galactic Gigolo

I happen to agree with him. Anyone who doesn't believe Chuck Hagel wants the U.S. to lose the War on Terror is obviously a selfloving traitor.

I agree with me too.
Anyone that doesnt believe many of those politicians are putting their careers ahead of national security and sworn duty is either brainwashed or just plain ole stupid..
Hagel wants the world to notice Hagel.-TZS

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot · 01-25-2007, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Pro Street

I'm sorry, but do you honestly think posting like this does ANYTHING to help explain your opinion?

I did it more to get it of my chest .
However there was more honesty and more truth in my post than what some post here in a hundred posts.
Think it funny, good for you.
Happy to delight you ..
I always give my honest opinion as there is not a PC bone in my body.
If you realy do not see the hypocrisy of many of these politicians then I feel sorry for you!
Even more so when somebody like Hagel does it while proclaiming himself brave. HA!
Brave is what our soldiers are doing now.-TZS

DosEquis · 01-25-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

I did it more to get it of my chest .
However there was more honesty and more truth in my post than what some post here in a hundred posts.
Think it funny, good for you.
Happy to delight you ..
I always give my honest opinion as there is not a PC bone in my body.
If you realy do not see the hypocrisy of many of these politicians then I feel sorry for you!
Even more so when somebody like Hagel does it while proclaiming himself brave. HA!
Brave is what our soldiers are doing now.-TZS

Hagel served in Vietnam with his brother Tom in 1968. They served side by side as infantry squad leaders with the U.S. Army’s 9th Infantry Division. Hagel earned many military decorations and honors, including two Purple Hearts.

I find irony in that you call him a coward because he wants a different strategy other than adding more soldiers. Two purple hearts is far more brave than lackluster national guard service our current president went through. You could be right though that our president is very brave because he has the balls to order other peoples lives into a failed policy.

DosEquis · 01-25-2007, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

How much damn senate or congressional debate was there over the president's military decisions during WW2?????
Answer that damn question before you attempt to defend these lowlife want to be usurpers.
The damn ignorant stupid idea that these senators and congressmen have that they know best is silly and dangerous!!! Damn idiots one and ALL !!!
There is to be ONE COMANDER IN CHIEF. The President is the supreme commander of the U.S miltary forces. All this political posturing and demands for debate on war strategy is not only silly its damn traitorous!
Each one of these brave want to be debaters wants to take power from the President, THATS THE SHORT AND SIMPLE OF IT. They want to take power from the office of the President of the United States!!

Personally I am just damn sick of all the -"we support the troops" but in reality would just love to lose in Iraq lying bastards!-TZS

Your knowledge on how government is supposed to work is clearly lacking. The commander in chief is not "king in chief". To think that not blindly following his idea is traitorous is far more silly. It is not about taking power from the president as all branches of government were designed to be equal. There is to be checks and balances and if one branch disagrees with his idea then they have a duty to tell him to fuck off.

Of course I am sure you felt the same way when clinton wanted to take care of Kosovo. I am sure you called all the republican disenters traitorous coward lying bastards.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot · 01-25-2007, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I find irony in that you call him a coward because he wants a different strategy other than adding more soldiers. Two purple hearts is far more brave than lackluster national guard service our current president went through. You could be right though that our president is very brave because he has the balls to order other peoples lives into a failed policy.

Yes , right you are . He is just thinking of our troops.
It doesnt have a damn thing to do with advancing his political career.
How silly of me. All those dems are patriotic as all hell too!
They are all for America winning in Iraq even though they have done thier best very to sabotage that! Right , I get you ...
I see Dems are patriotic as all hell too!
I bet you think you could sell ice to an Eskimo!
I don't need any ice jack!-TZS

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot · 01-25-2007, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Your knowledge on how government is supposed to work is clearly lacking. The commander in chief is not "king in chief". To think that not blindly following his idea is traitorous is far more silly. It is not about taking power from the president as all branches of government were designed to be equal. There is to be checks and balances and if one branch disagrees with his idea then they have a duty to tell him to fuck off.

Of course I am sure you felt the same way when clinton wanted to take care of Kosovo. I am sure you called all the republican disenters traitorous coward lying bastards.

I dont blindly follow anybody..
I have criticised Bush as much as I have praised him..
You didnt answer about FDR and WW2 did ya?
Thats because the comparison illustrates how cheap, decietful and downright sorry the dems have treated this President during a time of war!
A thing they could not have even been FORCED to do to a dem Pres. example FDR during WW2.
"They have a duty to tell him to fuck of." Damn man dont make me laugh.
If that was thier right/duty/attitude all they had to do was , READ closely now-- NOT FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ!
DID THEY DO THAT????
NO! WHY NOT??
Appears they are either cowards or unsure of thier convictions!
Answer is they have been playing politics . Playing political games instead of ACTUALLY supporting our troops.
You give them far too much valor, far too much honor.
Appears to me it is you that is lacking understanding not me!-TZS

DosEquis · 01-25-2007, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

Yes , right you are . He is just thinking of our troops.
It doesnt have a damn thing to do with advancing his political career.
How silly of me. All those dems are patriotic as all hell too!
They are all for America winning in Iraq even though they have done thier best very to sabotage that! Right , I get you ...
I see Dems are patriotic as all hell too!
I bet you think you could sell ice to an Eskimo!
I don't need any ice jack!-TZS

what have they done to sabotage it? Have a different idea such as withdrawl the soldiers to the borders of Iraq to keep the foreign fighters out of the mix? Keep the terrorists out so Iraqi's can figure this out themselves? Our military can't keep their freedom indefintatly. They need to stand up for it themselves. Our job at this point is to keep hostile foreign interests out. The 200,000-300,000 Iraqi police and soldiers need to maintain baghdad while we maintain their borders. Only Iraqi's can install a stable democracy. Putting our soldiers on every street corner and letting the Iranians and Syrias pour weapons over the border will not "win" this. That sounds no where near retreat and defeat.

There are plenty of democrats who have served our country in the military and many of them are very well decorated. Wesley Clark is the most decorated general since eisenhower. Jim Webb was awarded the Navy Cross, Silver Star, 2 bronze stars, and 2 purple hearts. The navy cross is the 2nd highest medal you can earn in the Navy and it is given for bravery. Of course, Jim Webb is a coward because he would rather our soldiers be on the border.

Of course, these guys below were not cowards when they questioned Bill Clinton.

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

Tom Delay - Republican

"You can support the troops but not the president"

Tom Delay - Republican

"My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they’re made … not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do."

Trent Lott - Republican

DosEquis · 01-25-2007, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

I dont blindly follow anybody..
I have criticised Bush as much as I have praised him..
You didnt answer about FDR and WW2 did ya?
Thats because the comparison illustrates how cheap, decietful and downright sorry the dems have treated this President during a time of war!
A thing they could not have even been FORCED to do to a dem Pres. example FDR during WW2.
"They have a duty to tell him to fuck of." Damn man dont make me laugh.
If that was thier right/duty/attitude all they had to do was , READ closely now-- NOT FUND THE WAR IN IRAQ!
DID THEY DO THAT????
NO! WHY NOT??
Appears they are either cowards or unsure of thier convictions!
Answer is they have been playing politics . Playing political games instead of ACTUALLY supporting our troops.
You give them far too much valor, far too much honor.
Appears to me it is you that is lacking understanding not me!-TZS

They have said they will fund the war. Secondly WW2 and Iraq are not even close to similar and they are dead wrong to compare. You can compare Iraq to Vietnam if you want, because they share a lot of similarities. How about you compare apples to apples.

Thorgrim · 01-25-2007, 09:47 PM

DefenseLink News Release: DoD Identifies Army Casualties

2 Colonels
1 Lieutenant Colonel
1 Major
1 Captain
2 Command Sergeant Majors
1 First Sergeant
1 Sergeant First Class
2 Staff Sergeants
1 Corporal

Anyone here thinking that helicopters transporting commanders might be getting leaked by iraqi agents working for militias?

Donkey® · 01-25-2007, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

DefenseLink News Release: DoD Identifies Army Casualties

2 Colonels
1 Lieutenant Colonel
1 Major
1 Captain
2 Command Sergeant Majors
1 First Sergeant
1 Sergeant First Class
2 Staff Sergeants
1 Corporal

Anyone here thinking that helicopters transporting commanders might be getting leaked by iraqi agents working for militias?

Eh, possible...but more than likely just plain luck.

Thorgrim · 01-25-2007, 10:54 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Eh, possible...but more than likely just plain luck.

Not too many US military helicopters have been downed in Iraq

One carrying all those high ranking officers?

It just seems odd

thatguyoverthere · 01-25-2007, 11:32 PM

Well, there wouldn't be a need for debate about what to do about Iraq in 2007 if only Bush had won the war in 2003, would there?

Why do people who want us to support failed wars always blame everyone else for the failure of their war? It's always someone else who lost their war for them. Why is that?

Why do they insist upon everyone supporting a leader who has proven incapable of winning the war he started? (Oh, that's right. He can't win because "they" won't let him!)

That then begs the question: If Bush is incapable of beating the spineless traitor Democrats and the lying liberal media, why on Earth would any self respecting Republican still support him? (Unless they were supporting him blindly? Hmmm...)

Back to the OP: Hagel has huge balls. It must be tough for him to walk. To me, his words are the definition of patriotic speech. I'm heartend by them. I wish there were more people in Washington (heck, in the country and in the world) who would speak with such candor.

/+1 rep for Hagel

avsp · 01-26-2007, 06:40 AM

I think continually casting this debate in terms of US domestic petty party political point-scoring does nothing to aid the troops & may be harming them by making their task harder by undermining the credibility of Coalition motives for intervention in the first place.

Further, attempts to stifle debate of this nature is fundamentally undemocratic & definately serve to discredit commitment to democracy

The idiocy of the party political nature of the debate militates against apprehending the reality of the situation.
The US party political fallout of Iraq is significant & important but its a very very very minor matter compared with the other problems in the situation.

The inability of the admin to excerise effeective control/leadership in the debate is because they destroyed their credibilty by deliberately & knowingly misrepresenting the nature & quality of the WMD evidence.
Quite why they did this is still unclear but I believe they did so because they lacked belief in the appeal of their true cause with the American electorate &/or the people's ability to understand the true case for the action.

Whatever the case it is entirely the admins fault that they cant effectively push for a concensus & I very much regret this. Not least because I feel the case for the Surge is a good one, ..., but then IMO the case for diplomatic engagement with Iran & Syria is a good one too. I dont see the efforts as mutally exclusive either.

But no course stands any chance of being effective without recognition of the long term nature of the commitment that may be needed.