Posted on 02/12/2006 2:05:07 PM PST by nickcarraway
With a bluntness that seems habitual — and more than occasionally strikes fellow Republicans as disloyal — Senator Chuck Hagel started voicing skepticism about the Bush administration's fixation on Iraq as a place to fight the Global War on Terror more than half a year before the president gave the go-ahead for the assault. What the senator said in public was milder than what he said in private conversations with foreign-policy gurus like Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser in another Bush administration, or his friend Colin Powell, the secretary of state, who thought he still had a chance to steer the administration on a diplomatic course. The Nebraskan wanted to believe Powell but, deep down, felt the White House wasn't going to be diverted from its drive to topple Saddam Hussein. When he rose on the Senate floor that October to explain his vote in favor of the resolution authorizing force — he'd persuaded himself that his vote might strengthen Powell's hand — he gave a speech that would have required no editing had he decided to vote against it. What sounded then to the venture's true believers like the scolding of a Cassandra sounds fairly obvious three and a half years later, which is to say that Hagel's words can reasonably be read as prescient: "How many of us really know and understand Iraq, its country, history, people and role in the Arab world?. . .The American people must be told of the long-term commitment, risk and cost of this undertaking. We should not be seduced by the expectations of dancing in the streets." The president had said "precious little" about post-Saddam Iraq, which could prove costly, Hagel warned, "in both American blood and treasure."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
If the NYT loves Hagel so much, why don't they suggest him for the 2008 Democrat nominee?
YEAH, Like Republicans are going to listen to the DNC NY Times. As if Hagel's mouth had not all ready written his political Obit, this is the kiss of death.
Yeah sure NY Times. Anything else we can do for you?
The power of the ole dinosaur media on display.
A snowballs chance in Hell comes to mind.
I plan to vote against him in the primary for Senate. There are plenty of folks in this neck of the woods who think he needs to STFU...He'll never get the Nomination...
Thanks NYT, but no thanks! You have entered the "NO RINO" zone.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Yes, I made it up but we all secretly wish the VP would do it
A correction is required here. "Senator Chuck Hagel got the memo with the talking points about how to oppose President Bush's policies, no matter what they are, because they have nothing else to offer themselves"
You're welcome, Mr. Lelyveld.
Hagel Season.
Right about now Hagar Hagel has got to be thinking: "Awwwww, geeze,... la embrazza de muerta to my plans!"
Hagel will never get the nomination.
Maybe it's just cover for McCain.
This is in the finest traditions of the New York Times, didn't they endorse Gus Hall of the old CPUSA, and Henry Wallace back in FDR's day? Now Hagel might not be a Commie, but after this endorsement, he is definitely TOAST.
Not that he wasn't before.
Hagel Season.
French Toast.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I was living in Ne when he first ran for the senate. He blew in from the beltway with a well-financed media campaign. I am not sure who he really represents, but the people of NE deserve better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.