TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Sen. Chuck Hagel hates America...

Sen. Chuck Hagel hates America...

...damn freedom haters never shut up.


http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c...&type=printable


Republican senator rips Bush on Iraq strategy
Hagel says war hurt U.S. in terror battle
- James Sterngold, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 30, 2004



Los Angeles -- Sen. Chuck Hagel, an influential moderate Republican from Nebraska, sharply criticized the Bush administration in an interview here Tuesday, saying that the war in Iraq appears to have hurt America in its battle against terrorism.

Hagel, a politician sometimes mentioned as a future presidential contender, also said the United States is going to have to consider restarting the draft to maintain its many military commitments abroad.

In a sharp critique of the leader of his own party, Hagel said he believes the occupation of Iraq by the American military was poorly planned and has spread terrorist cells more widely around the world.

"This put in motion a new geographic dispersion" of the terrorists, said Hagel, 58, in an interview before delivering a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. "It's harder to deal with them because they're not as contained. Iraq has become a training ground."

He added that although it is too soon to judge how the war in Iraq will ultimately influence the war on terror, in the short term it has created more terrorists and given them more targets -- American soldiers.

Hagel, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, said he agrees with President Bush that the duration of the war on terror might be measured in generations and that to sustain the badly overstretched military for the struggle, a new draft may be needed.

"We are seeing huge cracks developing in our force structure," he said. "The fact is, if we're going to continue with this, we're going to have to be honest with the American people."

Hagel is clearly trying to carve out a role for himself as a leading moderate voice within the Republican Party, particularly in foreign policy. He has given a string of speeches over the past year advocating a cooperative approach in foreign policy, and he wrote an essay in the current issue of "Foreign Affairs," a policy journal, in which he spells out his principles for a more internationalist and pragmatic Republican foreign policy.

A two-term senator, Hagel is regarded as a pragmatist who is ideologically out of line with the conservatives in the Bush administration. There were even reports recently that he had been courted by Sen. John Kerry, the likely Democratic nominee for president, as a vice presidential candidate.

Asked if he had been approached or if he would consider the offer, Hagel said he is a diehard Republican "and I'll stay in the Republican Party."

But after finding his moderate views largely ignored by the president, Hagel said he feels that Bush, who has taken a strong unilateral approach to foreign policy, is now being forced to embrace positions much closer to those Hagel and other moderates have advocated.

Hagel has pushed for the United States to work much more closely with the United Nations, NATO and America's principal allies in Europe. The president has been in Europe this week offering a more conciliatory face to the allies, and Hagel said the harsh reality of the war in Iraq has forced his hand.

"It's a whole different administration approach,'' Hagel said. "There is a newfound humility, a newfound realism" in the Bush administration.

In another area in which Hagel's views differ sharply from the president's, he suggested that the best way to ultimately win the war on terror is to earn the trust and respect of foreigners, especially younger people in the Arab world and other parts of the globe. The best way to do that, he said, is to make the United States more accessible to them and more open to immigration.

"We are pushing away our friends, our allies, the next generation around the world," Hagel said.

Re: Sen. Chuck Hagel hates America...

Hagel's voice along with McCain's and some other Moderates are refreshing to hear from the other side of the aisle.

The two extremes from both sides do nothing to help our country move forward in a positive direction. We need more moderates from both sides who are willing to make compromises.

We don't need bitching and moaning about Iraq, we're there, power has been transferred and we're trying to help them make a go of it. Don't believe a realistic solution to turn the minds of young Arabs is by bringing them into the US in an immigration status. This would probably only serve to provide an opportunity to plant more terrorist cells in the country. Security is the prime concern in Iraq now and NATO has come on line to help by training their police and security forces. Hagel has political motives else he would suddenly start jaw jacking and criticizing the administration.

quote:

Originally posted by emander We don't need bitching and moaning about Iraq, we're there, power has been transferred and we're trying to help them make a go of it.

"Bitching and moaning" from a conservative? The majority of Americans now believe invading Iraq was a mistake - does that mean the majority is doing nothing but "bitching and moaning" too? Or perhaps they disagree with Bush's foreign policies, and it is an indication that Bush ought to change his stance for future reference? That old saying about learning from your past mistakes.....

quote:

Security is the prime concern in Iraq now and NATO has come on line to help by training their police and security forces.

Funny how Bush snubbed NATO and the UN before, only to come begging for their help later. Most people around the world see your statement in reverse - Bush has finally come in line with NATO...

quote:

Hagel has political motives else he would suddenly start jaw jacking and criticizing the administration.

Can you name me one politician that doesn't have political motives? That's a given. But his voice of moderation is in desparate need, esp. with the extreme partisanship we have observed over the last 4 years. Bush promised to be a uniter, but the exact opposite has occurred. Who is to blame? Well, who controls both House and Senate?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 "Bitching and moaning" from a conservative? The majority of Americans now believe invading Iraq was a mistake - does that mean the majority is doing nothing but "bitching and moaning" too? Or perhaps they disagree with Bush's foreign policies, and it is an indication that Bush ought to change his stance for future reference? That old saying about learning from your past mistakes

this whole issue SHOULD be way beyond partisaned lines and you should know it.

quote:

Funny how Bush snubbed NATO and the UN before, only to come begging for their help later. Most people around the world see your statement in reverse - Bush has finally come in line with NATO.

WRONG! Bush took no for an answer, twice. that, you do know.

quote:

Can you name me one politician that doesn't have political motives? That's a given. But his voice of moderation is in desparate need, esp. with the extreme partisanship we have observed over the last 4 years. Bush promised to be a uniter, but the exact opposite has occurred. Who is to blame? Well, who controls both House and Senate?

the Dems have drawn the partisanship lines for four years without a strategy terrorism. as far as i'm concerned nothing the dems have said in four years have motivated anyone to unite around anything but
put the dems back in office.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1

Why do you hate America Mr. O?

Everyone knows that in order to stay safe from the A-rats we must shred the constitution and kill all towel heads.

/Cspan caller

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ Everyone knows that in order to stay safe from the A-rats we must shred the constitution and kill all towel heads.

thats not entirely true

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 "Bitching and moaning" from a conservative? The majority of Americans now believe invading Iraq was a mistake - does that mean the majority is doing nothing but "bitching and moaning" too? Or perhaps they disagree with Bush's foreign policies, and it is an indication that Bush ought to change his stance for future reference? That old saying about learning from your past mistakes..... Funny how Bush snubbed NATO and the UN before, only to come begging for their help later. Most people around the world see your statement in reverse - Bush has finally come in line with NATO... Can you name me one politician that doesn't have political motives? That's a given. But his voice of moderation is in desparate need, esp. with the extreme partisanship we have observed over the last 4 years. Bush promised to be a uniter, but the exact opposite has occurred. Who is to blame? Well, who controls both House and Senate?

OK, you belittled me pretty good at first glance aand I admit it. Hopefully, the majority will realize we're in the muck and backseat driving doesn't do anything for future foreign policy. Believe the administration is trying to make amends now and get the world back into it. Bush never snubbed NATO, NATO snubbed him by refusing to provide forces and they still take that stance. They only agreed to provide a cadre of trainers to help Iraqi security forces, but will not put forces in harm's way. To ensure that, they even want to train the Iraqi security force outside of Iraq; a preposterous offer. Bush has weathered the storm and we don't need Kerry or even Nader. Kerry will give a left nut to get elected just to drag us back into the Jane Fonda era of bowing to threats against our own country.

At least some people can see the forest for the trees on this. This full-page ad appeared in the USA Today this morning.

quote:

Originally posted by emander Kerry will give a left nut to get elected just to drag us back into the Jane Fonda era of bowing to threats against our own country.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Everyone knows that Kerry would give his right nut to get elected. He's got to hang on to everything he can on the left side. Can you imagine if the wrong group of liberals found out that Kerry had sacrificed his left nut? It would be pure, unadulterated chaos, I tell ya.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok At least some people can see the forest for the trees on this.

Great!

So you're all set to volunteer to serve in Fallujah?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo this whole issue SHOULD be way beyond partisaned lines and you should know it.

For the most part, it is beyond partisanship. Even the ardent Bush bashing Dems. want a democracy in Iraq - I mean really, what choice do we have now?

But does that mean that everyone should be in lockstep with Bush's foreign policy decisions?

Would you honestly expect Conservatives to be in lockstep with a Democratic President if the reverse situation was true? Shall I bring up a few well-known opposing Conservative quotes in opposition of Clinton's choice on Bosnia?

There's always going to be partisanship, whether it's appropriate or not. The fact that the majority of Americans now believe Iraq was a mistake, however, seems to tell me that the opposing argument by Democrats is not unfounded. Couple that with the fact that there's some descent logic involved with the Dems. counterarguments as well. For example, imagine not having al-Zarqowi around right now - it could have happened, but for some reason Bush turned down the opportunity to take him out not once, not twice, but several times:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Does criticizing change events now? Certainly not. But if this President doesn't get his head out of the collective neo-conservative asses and realize his past mistakes, we just might be walking into another invasion situation that fatally attracts more terrorist organizations to that given region, and an ill-conceived post-war plan as well. Personally, this is my greatest fear about Bush being in the office another 4 more years.

My second fear, of course, is where the economy will go with a monumental deficit to cover and the baby boomers retiring, but I digress.

quote:

WRONG! Bush took no for an answer, twice. that, you do know.

Not to be naive, but could you clarify? From what I've gathered, we have snubbed the help from the UN and NATO until recently (I'm speaking strictly in terms of military assistance, not financial).

quote:

the Dems have drawn the partisanship lines for four years without a strategy terrorism. as far as i'm concerned nothing the dems have said in four years have motivated anyone to unite around anything but put the dems back in office.

Clarify. What has the Dems said that led you to come to your conclusion?

Their strategy involving terrorism, for the most part, is a simple one - it is a global strategy to bring down known terrorist organizations, esp. Al Qaeda. This did NOT involve attacking Iraq, because Iraq was not a direct threat to our country in the sense that Al Qaeda and organizations similar to it are. There is a bi-partisan effort to tighten our borders and strengthen Homeland security, yet it is YOUR president whom has underfunded this project.

We must also keep in mind that much of the Democratic voice is squashed in both the House and Senate as a result of Republican majority. Many of their criticisms are left unchecked or followed up on, primarily because the Republican majority in those given Congressional Committees perform their agendas and overrule any dissenters' ideas. So if you do hear a lot of criticism, but very little follow through, you can also attribute much of this to Republican majority overruling all.

Hagel is right on the mark with this statement, BTW:

"This put in motion a new geographic dispersion" of the terrorists, said Hagel, 58, in an interview before delivering a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles. "It's harder to deal with them because they're not as contained. Iraq has become a training ground."


Many others tend to agree with him, including the guy who said this:

"My instinct tells me that the Iraq war has hindered the war on terrorism. You had to deal with Al Qaeda first, not Saddam. We had not crippled the Al Qaeda organization when we embarked on the Iraq war."

That guy, BTW is Kenneth Pollack, one of the nation's leading experts on Iraq, whose book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq made the most authoritative case for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.