Republican Chuck Hagel blasts the administration

[Master Capper]

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran and critic of Bush policy on Iraq, excoriated the Administration Tuesday in a speech to Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday.

Hagel blasted the Administration for going after Iraq war critics and turning the war into a political cause.

"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration?s policies."

He also suggested the members of Congress who failed to question the war could be responsible for another Vietnam.

"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic ? to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Hagel emphasized the role of international cooperation.

"The international community must now recognize the changed circumstances of a constitutionally-based Iraqi government and join Iraq?s neighbors by investing in Iraq?s future success," he said.

"The role for international institutions will grow in importance as Iraq becomes more self-assured and able to govern. The World Bank, the United Nations and NATO all need to be more actively engaged in Iraq. The Oil-for-Food debacle is a stain on the UN?s reputation in Iraq. But that is not the UN?s role in Iraq today. The United Nations can help provide Iraq both a broader political umbrella, and greater support and expertise to help build and coordinate government institutions, programs and structures. Last weekend?s visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Iraq ? his first visit since the war ? should help lead to this expanded role for the UN."

 

[Chadman]

VERY well said. There is at least one conservative in the Senate that represents common sense virtues and gets past the talking points long enough to rationally examine the issue.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

I like parts of his speech and disagree with some--I agree we should not have went to viet nam--but once committed we should have finished job--the results of not doing so cost millions of lives--and gave every enemy in the future a blueprint in fighting us--ie the pen is mightier than the sword.

On speeches I was more partial to Cheneys---


The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone ? but we?re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history

CHENEY FIGHTS BACK
Wed Nov 16 2005 18:56:46 ET

Excerpts As Prepared For Delivery Tonight by Vice President Cheney

THE VICE PRESIDENT: "As most of you know, I have spent a lot of years in public service, and first came to work in Washington, D.C. back in the late 1960s. I know what it?s like to operate in a highly charged political environment, in which the players on all sides of an issue feel passionately and speak forcefully.

In such an environment people sometimes lose their cool, and yet in Washington you can ordinarily rely on some basic measure of truthfulness and good faith in the conduct of political debate. But in the last several weeks we have seen a wild departure from that tradition.

And the suggestion that?s been made by some U. S. senators that the President of the United States or any member of this Administration purposely misled the American people on pre-war intelligence is one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city...

Some of the most irresponsible comments have, of course, come from politicians who actually voted in favor of authorizing force against Saddam Hussein. These are elected officials who had access to the intelligence, and were free to draw their own conclusions.

They arrived at the same judgment about Iraq?s capabilities and intentions that was made by this Administration and by the previous Administration. There was broad-based, bipartisan agreement that Saddam Hussein was a threat ? that he had violated U.N. Security Council Resolutions ? and that, in a post-9/11 world, we couldn?t afford to take the word of a dictator who had a history of WMD programs, who had excluded weapons inspectors, who had defied the demands of the international community, who had been designated an official state sponsor of terror, and who had committed mass murder.

Those are facts.

What we?re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures ? conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers ? and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone ? but we?re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.

We?re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we?re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.

We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right ? and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable ? and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory.

 

[Master Capper]

the only thing is that Cheney has absolutely no credibility when it comes to talking about Iraq as he has made misstatement after misstatement about Iraq for over 4 years now. Yes those are facts, but he fails to note that the information that Congress had at the time was not all the information that was available as you may recall the White House stonewalled them about releasing certain information that could of painted a different picture and possibly changed the way many of them voted. At this point I cannot think of any subject that the American people would feel that Dick Cheney is a credible source on since he has been misleading throughout his tenure. You have to ask yourself whom do you believe more Hagel a person that both sides of the political spectrum feel is a upfront and honest guy or Cheney whom has been well known to distort the truth to seek his agenda? I think most American people would be inclined to side with Hagel since the last poll I saw had Cheney's approval rating at 29%!

 

[djv]

Hagel getting in position to be Mc Cains V P.
Master Cap you are right who would want to believe Cheney anymore. When they start to say we didn't lie. Look Out.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Just saying everyone ought to here both sides of the story--If they dish it out they ought to be able to take it.

Classic example: In todays headlines shows Clinton overseas telling them Iraq invasion was poorly planned--this coming just weeks after dissing this admin about domestic failures with Katrina.

Wish Bush(or a few reporters at these events) had the balls to comment on Clinton's post event quaterbacking--and bring up fact of how Clinton handled war related events (Somolia) and Domestic (Waco) two of the biggest blunders in modern era.

--and while Clinton noted in his speech we didn't have enough troops on intial assualt on Iraq--he failed to mention the troops turkey, in last minute decision, would not let into Iraq to complete the hammer and anvil offensive.

 

[spibble spab]

Not to mention he came on an intern during his presidency.
Nice Commander-in-chief!!

 

[kosar]

Waco, Somalia and you can add the Elian Gonzalez debacle to the list were all poorly executed. At least in Somalia we weren't dumb enough to think that the mighty US Army was going to change a countrys mind-set or way of life or political system or to nation-build. We never should have gone there to begin with. Fighting warlords is not what our military should be used for.

You refer to Somalia all the time, yet all I see from you about Iraq is how you support it.

I know you will cite how Slick 'turned tail and ran.' Would you rather that we were still there going house to house chasing ghosts and having our guys getting shot and blown up for absolutely nothing? The difference is that some leaders can see the folly in their decisions, admit their mistakes and take a new course. And some can't. Some will just stubbornly 'stay the course', no matter how bad an idea was and how futile the mission.

Wayne, do you think this Iraq occupation has been well-executed?

The above question has nothing to do with what Janet Reno did 7 years ago, fwiw, so no references to Slick needed.

 

[spibble spab]

Fighting warlords is not what our military should be used for. :bsflag

I think french canada is accepting applications, kosar

 

[kosar]

Yeah, ya figure we should be all over Africa fighting tribal wars, huh Einstein?

 

[spibble spab]

Warlord: A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it. (see Uday Hussein)

No beach out of reach kosar. SYRIA< YOUR NEXT!!!

 

[Master Capper]

Syria....LMAO....with the lack of trust and credibility that Cheney and Bush now have there is no way we go into Syria or Iran unless they attack us first. You would be hard pressed to find any member of Congress that would blindly follow these guys again unless there was an actual attack on the USA by a foreign country.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Saddam, Uzi and Quazi Hussein are responsible for the shallow graves of over 400,000 innocent Iraqis. Almost half a millio innocent people were murdered.

Thank god 2 weapons of mass destruction are gone and one is in U.S. custody.

400,000 MASS GRAVES --- That's genocide!!! Poison Gas used....just like Hitler.

Thank you Bush!!! :clap:

 

[kosar]

No beach out of reach kosar. SYRIA< YOUR NEXT!!!

It's easy to sit here cheering on more invasions. You probably got a hard-on when they showed footage of the first bombs dropping. 'Shock and awe...uhhhhhhhh, sweet relief.'

I don't think that the troops serving their 2nd and 3rd tour over there with no end in sight would agree that more occupations are what we need.

We are stretched to the limit. If Iran joined the fray in Iraq or North Korea invaded the south, we would need a draft immediately. I figure you're in your teens, but hopefully you're younger than 18 or you may get a chance to show your patriotism and fervor in person!

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

400,000 mass genocide graves Kosar, thank you for completely ignoring that statement. GENOCIDE.

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world." - Bill Clinton from the Oval Office - Dec, 1998

 

[kosar]

400,000 mass genocide graves Kosar, thank you for completely ignoring that statement. GENOCIDE.

Not even the idiots in office have ever used the term 'genocide', in regards to Iraq.

Whatever the case, yes, he killed a lot of his own people. He was a bad, bad man. He was a ruthless dictator. It was unwise to oppose him. Tell me how any of that is/was our problem, especially right after 9/11.

Or try explaining to the families of the 2045 soldiers killed how that was our problem. Please explain how this has furthered our security. No need to blather about how we've been 'safe' for 4 whole years unless you're willing to give Clinton a medal for no homeland attacks in his last 7 years. Whoopie.

How about the 16,000 soliders maimed so far? I'll bet they're thrilled that Saddam is out of power, seeing as how he was such a meanie to his own people. That sounds like a cause worth losing an arm.

Easy to sit at a keyboard acting like you give a shit about slain Iraqi civilians. You never gave them one seconds thought until you were told to.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Tell me how any of that is/was our problem

Here Kosar ...I'll let Bill Clinton tell you.........


"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."

THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD KOSAR :clap: Clinton said it!!!!


PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT!!!!

 

[kosar]

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world."[/B]

THE SECURITY OF THE WORLD KOSAR :clap: Clinton said it!!!!

That's why it was so necessary to keep him under wraps, and we did. I would need to see the context of that quote, but I imagine it had to do with convincing somebody that sanctions needed to be continued or strengthened.

 

[Master Capper]

400,000 mass genocide graves Kosar, thank you for completely ignoring that statement. GENOCIDE.


If you want to use the word genocide correctly then you would need to get your geography straight since Genocide has been occurring in Rwanda and Sudan under Bush's watch for the past two years and he has not lifted a finger.

 

[gecko]

In an ideal world Saddam would not be in power. But if you read the entire Clinton speech, he mentions the use of military force such as strikes, and other political and diplomatic means to topple Saddam. Here's the exact passage from which the un-sub Manson extracted that quote:

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."