Posted on 06/04/2008 6:01:01 PM PDT by Obadiah
SPIEGEL: Senator Hagel, your friend and Republican presidential candidate John McCain says that the United States Army has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq. Is he right?
Hagel: We have responsibilities, no doubt about it. We invaded Iraq, we are occupying Iraq and we have made Iraq dependent on us. By our actions we have done terrible damage to our own country and undermined our interests in the world.
SPIEGEL: What are the consequences?
Hagel: Our first moral obligation is to our own people whom we keep sending back to Iraq again and again. Four-thousand US soldiers have given their lives, over 30,000 have been wounded, many seriously. I just got an e-mail today from the father of a helicopter pilot. His son is going back to Iraq for the fifth time. That is not acceptable.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
“We invaded Iraq, we are occupying Iraq and we have made Iraq dependent on us”
I see: we helped the Iraqi people become independent of Saddam, independent of Iran, independent of the Saudis, and independent Al Queda and because each and every one of those entities does not like such an independent Iraq it is somehow a bad and ignoble thing that, in opposition to those forces they are “dependent” on us, for the security assistance we provide.
Mr. Hagel is either an idiot a dupe or both.
If your Senator is worthy of your support, don’t failt to support him. The last thing we need is 60 Dems in the Senate.
Because a conscious decision was made to become the "Big Tent Party".
Well as the Circumference of principles is diluted, the Sphere of treachery increases.
There are a LOT of RINOS in the Republican Party.
You seem to be of the opinion that it makes a difference if there are 40 R's or 20 R's and 20 RINOS.
It really don't.
But I'll vote for Grassley and I'll vote for Steve King. And I'll vote for Harkins opponent.
But I'm writing in Fred for Pres or leaving it blank.
There are still lots of people at the Pentagon who want to hang onto the NATO connection. Their performance in Southwest Asia, and in the Balkans for that matter, however, has shown how useless they are diplomatically or militarily. Their governments won’t support their own troops. What scares me is the possibility of the europanization of our own military. It is hard to guess what Obama really thibnks, since he changeshis tune weekly. Obama doesn’t strike me as a person who even thinks like an American. Corrupt though he is, I would rather have Jesse Jackson as president.
Why do you use the term RINOs when you mean liberal Republicans? It cxoes matter because party does matter. If there are 60 Democratic senators,and the President is Obama, the minorities in House and Senate will be impotent. The conservatives—or near-conservatives—in the Democratic Party are completely cowed. It is possible that we will see the most liberal legislation passed by Congress since the days of Lyndon Johnson. Only events will limit what they are able to do, but they have an agenda they are aching to make into law.
Look--the only reason Hagel exists is that he is a Kerry-veteran and the media keep his pathetic balloon inflated. Let this be a lesson to all-- the fact of having served in the military entitles one to respect, but in no way should be taken as meaning anything about the veteran's wisdom or judgment. An awful lot of veterans, like every other population group, have sh*t for brains-- and Hagel is one of them.
Even then they were mostly useful for holding our coats while we did the heavy lifting.
It should always be remembered--we formed NATO after Western Europe, supine and with legs spread before the savages of the RED ARMY, begged us not to demobilize and go home.
We have been in Europe because the feckless Europeans couldn't, wouldn't, didn't and haven't cut the mustard.
those are all denver bronco supporters in nebraska,
you hafta wonder why they vote for hagel.
NO, actually, that answers quite a lot.
It will be a democratic controlled congress that passes the amnesty bill, not John McCain. Why is there a Democratic congress? Because America “just said no” to ultra-conservativism. George Bush, by the way, is an ultra conservative as is his entire cabinet which moderate Republicans supported for two terms despite what was widely perceived as a pattern of gross incompetence at home and, most especially, at war. Now we pretty much have no choice but to run a moderate Republican or we risk losing much more than just a Presidential election. Given that moderate Republicans faithfully supported the ultra conservative candidate twice, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that you and other conservative purists support the moderate Republican this time around. I am politely and respectfully asking you to reconsider your position. I am respectfully asking you to support the Republican nominee despite the fact that he isn’t your ideal of a conservative.
I care about the GOP only to the extent that it is an instrument of the conservative movement. If it is not such an instrument, I do not care about it’s fate. This does not necessarily mean I would never vote for a RINO, since it might be necessary as a patriot to do so to defeat someone worse.
it was a joke!
It DON'T! In case it's slipped by you, liberalisms winning across the board! And R's have had the Congress for 15 years now and for a good number of those years, they've had the Presidency at the same time.
Gay marriage is moving slow, but it's winning. Amnesty for illegal criminals is the hallmark of Conservativism nowadays. Who was it who passed that obscene Prescription drug plan? That's a conservative policy? Who's added 4 trillion to the Federal Deficit over the past 2 terms? Who added this HUGE layer of bureacracy to the Federal Govt known as the Homeland security Dept?
We don't need liberals. Republicans are doing just find passing liberal positions.
I said YEARS ago I would never cast a vote for John McCain and I will NOT! He doesn't in the slightest represent my values or the values that I've instilled into my family.
If he's the best that the Republican party can do, then the Republican party deserves to die.
Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, shame on you.
Fooled me with George bush being conservative, won't CAN'T do it with McCain.
Of the two, the Republican party is the only one where “conservatives” have had a place at the table. Conservatives, however, are not all of one mind. And if people are dissapointed ith the Bush administration, let us not forget that many were disappointed with the Reagan administration. The question is what is the point of calling oneself a conservative if one does not try to secure power to achieve certain goals. Hard to blame the Republican party for the traversty of gay marriage, or even the Democrats. Once sex was made synonymous with the idea of pleasure, and was tolerated outside of marriage, libertine behavior followed as night follows day. As the gays point out, it is illogical to grant deliberately childless couples the benefits intended to support a family with children and at the same time deny to two males or females who come togetherfor the same purposes as the man and the woman. One can argue that awful things result from such a policy, but our society does not like to think in terms of consequences.
Hagel is neither blind nor dishonest. Nor is he a RINO. What he is, is a throwback to the origional Republican Party. In the upper midwest there is a deep streak of isolationism. Some of it is cultural. Some of it is religious. The Nordic and Germanic sect influence is still very strong. The Quakers and the anabaptists have had a considerable influence. It is not driven by ideology although it will sometimes align with the left. They are a pacific people yet not quite pacifist.
They are skeptical of war but, when convinced, will fight like hell. George McGovern flew 35 missions in a B-24. Hagel was pulled off point in Vietnam only to watch his replacement be blown to smithereens. In any question of military action I try to look at it from the perspective of a Nebraska wheat farmer.
Hagel won his last election with 83% of the vote. I disagree with him on the benefits of the war. I think it was a necessary war. I do not disagree on the cost. Was it worth it? It is beginning to look like it was.
May explain McGovern’s support for Wallace in 1948.
What I was referring to was the isolationist streak, the feeling that we have no business interfering in the rest of the world. I noticed a story here yesterday where the author noted that his family fought in the Revolution, the Civil War and WWII. No mention of the other little unpleasantries in between. But the same pattern fits my family and others I know from the region. For the big ones, they are there to a man. The government can keep their political wars.
I feel your pain and I'm sure we're both getting flamed today for our troubles. Pass the hot dogs, would ya?
You can’t stop progress but you can slow it down. Liberalism is just another word for progress and if you sit back and allow Obama to beat John McCain, you will speed it up. McCain isn’t perfect but he’s not a $%#@ liberal. Obama, on the other hand, is the king of all liberals in case you haven’t figured it out. He will change your world in ways you can’t even imagine. I can not believe that President Barack Obama is more appealing to a true conservative than John McCain. Passionate cries to not support John McCain by “conservatives” amounts to tacit support for Barack obama, the biggest liberal in the world. The question is, why would a supposed conservative do this?
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.