Posted on 09/07/2007 10:54:26 PM PDT by LdSentinal
WASHINGTON - Chuck Hagel will announce Monday that he is retiring from the U.S. Senate and will not run for president next year, people close to the Nebraska Republican said Friday.
Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel plans to leave the Senate after two terms as a Republican Party maverick, people close to him say.Hagel plans to announce that "he will not run for re-election and that he does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," said one person, who asked not to be named.
Hagel has scheduled a press conference for 10 a.m. Monday at the Omaha Press Club.
According to one person interviewed, Hagel told Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky on Friday morning that he had decided to retire. Hagel's staff learned of his decision that afternoon.
The North Platte native earned national recognition as perhaps the most vocal, at times angry, GOP critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.
His outspokenness on Iraq and other key issues, including Social Security and foreign policy, fueled national interest in Hagel as he flirted with a possible presidential bid.
His national profile reached its zenith in March, when he headed to Omaha to hold a press conference on his political future.
But amid wide speculation that he was leaning toward a White House run, Hagel announced that he would disclose his plans later in the year.
His pending retirement leaves another GOP Senate seat without an incumbent at a time when the Republican Party is struggling to stem potential losses and must defend more seats than Democrats.
In Nebraska, the news will trigger a scramble among possible successors.
Attorney General Jon Bruning has been campaigning for the GOP Senate nomination since spring. A second Republican, financial adviser Pat Flynn of Schuyler, also already announced his candidacy.
Other Republicans who could enter the race are former Gov. Mike Johanns, now the U.S. agriculture secretary; former Omaha Mayor Hal Daub; and Columbus businessman Tony Raimondo.
Former Democratic Sen. Bob Kerrey, president of the New School University in New York City, has voiced interest in returning to the Senate.
Also mentioned by Nebraska Democrats are Scott Kleeb, who lost a race to Republican Adrian Smith in the 3rd Congressional District last year, and Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey.
Hagel, 60, would leave office after two terms, ending a career in which he was a frequently reliable Republican vote - but unafraid to show a maverick streak.
Armed with a deep voice and somber demeanor, Hagel rose quickly in the Senate, developing an international reputation perhaps faster than any previous Nebraska lawmaker.
He has become a leading Senate voice on foreign policy, promoting a pragmatic approach of reaching out to allies and adversaries alike to build economic, social and political relationships.
A decorated Vietnam combat veteran, Hagel drew the most attention for his break with the Republican president on Iraq.
Early this year, his frustration erupted after Bush announced plans for a troop buildup to try to curb violence in Iraq. Hagel labeled it "the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam - if it's carried out."
That and other criticism triggered a backlash from some conservatives, who viewed him as disloyal to the Republican president and potentially jeopardizing troops abroad.
Hagel didn't relish the attacks. He explained how Vietnam had a big impact on his view of this war. He recalled Congress' silence during much of Vietnam, as well as the 58,000 Americans who died. He said he didn't want that history to repeat itself.
"I'll be damned if I'm going to stand there and accept the status quo and let it all happen again," he said.
Chuck Hagel never just stood there.
Born in 1946, he was the oldest of four sons raised by Charles and Betty Hagel. He grew up in North Platte and in Rushville, Ainsworth and Columbus.
Life changed abruptly when his father died of a heart attack on Christmas Eve in 1962. It thrust Hagel, then 16, into the role of a father figure for his younger brothers, one of whom would die a few years later in a car accident.
Sent to Vietnam in 1968, he served for a time with his brother Tom, seeing the violence of war up close. The brothers saved each other's lives, they saw friends die, they lived in fear.
Chuck Hagel supported the war then, but changed his view later after hearing tape recordings of former President Lyndon Johnson saying he knew the United States couldn't win but didn't want to be saddled in history with defeat.
In 1971, Hagel landed a job on Capitol Hill as an aide to Republican Rep. John Y. McCollister, who promoted him within two years to chief of staff.
From the late 1970s to the 1990s, he worked as a lobbyist, Veterans Administration official, cellular telephone industry pioneer, USO official and investment banker.
In the 1996 Senate race, he upset then-Gov. Ben Nelson.
In 1997, he teamed with Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., to lead the Senate to a 95-0 vote opposing the Kyoto Protocol, a global warming treaty that was intended to curb the effects of greenhouse gases from developing nations.
He played a key role in reauthorizing the International Monetary Fund, which helps emerging economies worldwide.
Hagel-authored provisions to allow more easily traceable political contributions were included in major campaign finance reform legislation that Congress passed.
During Hagel's first year in the Senate, Washington Post columnist David Broder referred to him as "the freshman who probably has made the deepest impression on his colleagues."
He won re-election in 2002 with 83 percent of the vote.
Among second-term achievements were energy bill provisions promoting the development of clean-air technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
He worked on a number of Nebraska issues, including community banking, air service to rural areas and health care.
With a telegenic personality, Hagel has become a fixture on the Sunday TV talk show circuit, racking up more than 100 appearances. The topic often was foreign policy, Hagel's strongest passion.
As a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has traveled widely overseas, building relationships with foreign leaders that have given him a personal and independent view of foreign policy matters.
Hagel always freely expressed his opinions, often in a provocative manner. His temper can flare as it frequently has against the Bush administration over Iraq. Friends say that passion, coupled with his intelligence, have made him unusual in Washington.
"Chuck is one of those political leaders who marches to a drummer of his own," Colin Powell, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state, said several years ago. "He decides what he believes, then he speaks out."
Petraeus vs. Hagel (RINO Alert)
American Thinker ^ | May 1, 2007 | Ray Robison
Gen. David Petraeus recently returned from Iraq to brief the leaders of our government about the war there. Perhaps most notably, he took direct aim at the “Iraq is in a civil war” mantra of the media and Democratic leaders by stating that “80 percent to 90 percent of the suicide attacks” - the spectacular car bombings racking up the horrific fatalities - are carried out by foreign fighters who are al Qaeda members or affiliated with al Qaeda.
At nearly the same time, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) sat down at an interview with Robert Novak for the Washington Post. The Senator just returning from another trip to Iraq brings bad news. He sides with Democrats in determining the war in Iraq is a losing effort against sectarian violence with US forces stuck in the middle. The Senator claims that al Qaeda is only responsible for “maybe 10 percent” of the violence. He says “Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today.” By contrast, General Petraeus says “Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign and we devote considerable resources to the fight against al Qaeda Iraq.”
This condition of contrasting views is aggravated by the fact that the Senator is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Which begs the question: where is Senator Hagel getting the military intelligence to form his opinion if not from the senior uniformed military commander of the war? Who is telling him that al Qaeda is not the central opponent or the leader of the anti-Iraqi forces? Did he derive his viewpoint from military briefings? Or does it come from other, more political, considerations?
The Senator doesn’t say in his Novak interview. In fact, he presents almost no specific information to support his views. But we can evaluate the claims of both men based on free press and military reporting from Iraq.
American Forces Press Service (AFPS) reports that a senior al Qaeda leader who was closely associated with Usama bin Laden was recently transferred to Gitmo after being picked up some time late last year. He was captured while traveling to Iraq to direct the al Qaeda efforts there in late 2006. (He is also a former Iraqi army officer, a fact that fits nicely with the research that ties Saddam and al Qaeda together in my new eBook, Both In One Trench: Saddam’s support to the global Islamic jihad movement and international terrorism.)
But perhaps six or seven months ago is not timely enough, and the Senator was talking about more recent developments. Did al Qaeda pack up and leave Iraq since then? Dated April 29th, 2007 AFPS reports that twenty one al Qaeda terrorists were taken into custody in actions against that terrorist network.
Our friends certainly think Iraq is a central front for al Qaeda. Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer just responded to another horrific car bombing by stating,
“This is a deliberate attempt by al-Qaeda to incite sectarian violence in Iraq and it’s very important that the international community understands what al-Qaeda’s tactics are.”
The Iraqi government seems to think al Qaeda is the chief opponent. It worries in this Reuters article that the political infighting in the US is being exploited by al Qaeda.
Even al Qaeda seems to think al Qaeda is responsible for the worst of the violence as evidenced by dozens of recent news article - such as this one from the AP, which is also notable because it refers to al Qaeda as an “insurgent group”. Just search the phrase “al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility” under Google News and you will find dozens of references to al Qaeda claiming responsibility for the worst attacks.
It would appear that our military, our allies, the Iraqi government and even al Qaeda itself believes that Iraq is the central front in the war against al Qaeda. At the other end of the spectrum is the Democratic leadership and Senator Chuck Hagel, oh yes, and certain media outlets, which insist we have set off a civil war with al Qaeda responsible for a minor share of violence.
Given the opportunity the Senator has had to influence the review of prewar intelligence, it is more than a little disconcerting that he has ignored our own military intelligence, allies and the admission of the enemy, in determining his stance.
Ray Robison is co-author of the book Both in One Trench, a blogger, and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.
Yep. It's very annoying to see conservative group embrace the MSM definitions. Here in Illinois, one newspaper headline boomed "Topinka Can Turn Illinois Red". Yep. She'd make it "red" if she'd won, alright. Freakin' marxist.
Also, some goofy "conservative" group (that I will decline to name) has come up with an idiotic plan to put the state back in Republican column by selling armbands that read "THINK RED". (Makes as much sense as the libs trying to cure AIDS by wearing ribbons).
10 zillion armbands sold and Illinois is still as communist as ever. I certainly do "Think Red" when I look at their ridiciulous armband idea.
Whenever I post election maps here on FR, I stick with uselectionatlas.org because they continue to use Commie RAT Red and Republican Blue (plus Green Party Green and appropiately Libertarian "yellow")
Now THIS is my ideal America:
Nope. 2000. Go do some research. No one with a straight face identified Conservatism with Communist Red before that, and doing it now defies all logic and reason. The Canadians don't have this bullcrap bizarro world color scheme for their parties.
Don't need to do any reserach as I have lived through elections going to Kennedy vs Nixon. CBS used red states for Republicans as far back as 1984 for Reagan / Mondale. I remember it well. Its true that not all media used that scheme until 2000 which is what you are probably referring to. But the red state = Republican has been used for decades and eventually prevailed. So get over it. Now is now and then was then.
Maybe Tom Osborne?
Bingo. As I said, they can stick that red where the sun don't shine.
"Also, some goofy "conservative" group (that I will decline to name) has come up with an idiotic plan to put the state back in Republican column by selling armbands that read "THINK RED". (Makes as much sense as the libs trying to cure AIDS by wearing ribbons)."
Yeah, if somebody came up to me telling me to put on a red armband for the cause of Conservatism, they'd be wearing it in Larry Craig's happy place.
"Whenever I post election maps here on FR, I stick with uselectionatlas.org because they continue to use Commie RAT Red and Republican Blue (plus Green Party Green and appropiately Libertarian "yellow")"
Dave Leip's site. That's the only one I use. Everything else looks back-asswards. I know that map you posted without clicking on properties as the 1972 Nixon-McGovern contest.
So what ? One screwed up network doesn't make it so. I've got political research books, the works of Prof. Ken Mardis, and my own personal works going back well over 20 years, and I never saw any legitimate sources with a Blue=rodent, Red=GOP base. I did see a red & white color scheme (but white is difficult to use unless you have a background color, and works quite poorly on the internet).
"Its true that not all media used that scheme until 2000 which is what you are probably referring to. But the red state = Republican has been used for decades and eventually prevailed."
Yet for somebody who has been studying politics for a quarter century, I've seen only one network reference to the misguided scheme and nothing else.
"So get over it. Now is now and then was then."
Forget it. I'm not going by your media psych warfare color switcheroo newsspeak. You want to swallow the Commie Kool-aid, I'm not stopping you, but don't expect me to, pal.
So he's another Romney?
Quite telling.
As you can see from above, they've used all kinds of silly color maps over the years to indicate what states were won by what party. Republicans have been blue, red, green, white, gray, yellow, you name it. The idea that RED = GOP didn't come about until the contested 2000 election, where the news channels kept tossing Florida up on the big board and came up with phrases like "red state", "dimpled chad", "butterfly ballot" and the rest of those infamous terms we'd all soon forget.
On the other hand, using "RED" or "PINK" to be synonymous with communist is a tradition that goes back decades, and like fieldmarshaldj, I intend to keep it that way. You won't find any transcripts from earlier years where people say "I think Fidel Castro is a blue"
Good. Hagel gone. Now to get rid of Paul in the primary and we will have made a significant dent in the Copperhead Republicans.
If you get your panties in a wad over such a silly thing like this I'd hate to see how you react to something of importance. :-)
The convention now is to display Republican states as "red states". Its been used for decades by some and now everyone uses it. That is how it is. You can deny reality all you want. Doesn't really matter.
My advice is to get yourself a cool one and chill. Life is just too short. I wish you well.
Hagel finally realized that he would probably not be reelected. He was invested in an American defeat in Iraq before Saddam’s statue was toppled; he voted for the “comprehensive” amnesty bill; he opposed tax cuts. Some RINO’s can command a following because they’re articulate and skillful politicians. But Hagel was a RINO with NO ABILITY. Good riddance!
With respect to the bottom map, the colors of blue and green in that instance don’t provide much of a stark contrast (it looks more like a contest between a Republican and a Greenie). Even the first map screams psych warfare with a red and green hue. Note associating Nixon with the negative “red” (”stop”) vs. Kennedy’s positive “green” (”go” or “forward”) and the ugly brown for VA Sen. Harry Byrd (”dirt”). People not well-versed on how you associate ideologies/candidates with colors is all a part of a psychological campaign.
Because it isn't silly. This is all part of a deliberate effort at psychological warfare and an attempt by the media left to disassociate the long-negative color of red (the very epitome of international Marxism) from the Democrats. If you don't see that as serious, you don't get it. Politics doesn't just happen at the ballot box, and for our side to not even realize that this is part of a deliberate effort shows our own ignorance. We should've rightly rebuked this attempt when it began en masse in 2000. I surely did, and will continue to correct those that play along with aiding this media psych warfare campaign, either knowingly or unknowingly.
"The convention now is to display Republican states as "red states". Its been used for decades by some and now everyone uses it. That is how it is. You can deny reality all you want. Doesn't really matter."
Damn convention when it's wrong. If everyone jumps off a cliff, do you ? I will not be a party to it. You're a useful idiot for their cause when you defend the practice. Even more so when repeating the falsehood of "it's been used for decades" when only obscure sources has done so (CBS as a reputable source ? They're one of the worst offenders of propagating this psych warfare campaign, and that goes back a half-century).
"My advice is to get yourself a cool one and chill. Life is just too short. I wish you well."
Like I said, I'm more than happy to publicly correct those in error on the facts. We need to be united in facing down the media lies and psych warfare.
I must admit that I could not understand why the GOP allowed themselves to be the “RED” Team.
Those of us from the Cold War days do NOT like anything political that is associated with “Red”.
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.