Why Does Chuck Hagel Hate America So Much?
Clearly he is "objectively pro-terrorist," rooting for us to fail in Iraq, and part of the blame-America first crowd. Oh, and he has BDS! And he fails to realize that new evidence shows that Saddam really was behind Pearl Harbor! And...and...
Read about it.
Hagel is great--smart, knowledgeable, level-headed and honest. I've always liked and respected him and listened to what he had to say, even when I disagreed. I identify with Republicans like Hagel (few though they are) far more than with, say Democrats like Kucinich. It's not that Hagel's saying anything new here--everybody who's been paying attention knows that this administration is incompetent. And that's actually the nicest thing one can say about them. But the rules of the political game dictate that Republicans aren't supposed to say things like this even though everybody already knows they're true. Props to Hagel for putting country before party.
He actually says that he'd be willing to be on a Democratic ticket. Me, I've been hoping for Sam Nunn (Wes Clark is out, I guess, since he's hitched his wagon to Hillary), but I consider Hagel cut from the same mold as Nunn. Furthermore, Hagel would help move the ticket's center of gravity to toward the center, something I think is very important.
So I guess Hagel--like the entire world except for 28% of Republicans--has BDS.
Wonder how long before the right-wing noise machine starts talking about Osama bin Hagel?
[More Hagel here. Again, I realize that everybody already knows this stuff, but it's good to see somebody like Hagel saying it. Much of what's going on here is a rhetorical battle. The Bush dead-enders will keep denying what's patently obvious, and the more sensible people who fess up to the facts, the better for the country and the world.]
Clearly he is "objectively pro-terrorist," rooting for us to fail in Iraq, and part of the blame-America first crowd. Oh, and he has BDS! And he fails to realize that new evidence shows that Saddam really was behind Pearl Harbor! And...and...
Read about it.
Hagel is great--smart, knowledgeable, level-headed and honest. I've always liked and respected him and listened to what he had to say, even when I disagreed. I identify with Republicans like Hagel (few though they are) far more than with, say Democrats like Kucinich. It's not that Hagel's saying anything new here--everybody who's been paying attention knows that this administration is incompetent. And that's actually the nicest thing one can say about them. But the rules of the political game dictate that Republicans aren't supposed to say things like this even though everybody already knows they're true. Props to Hagel for putting country before party.
He actually says that he'd be willing to be on a Democratic ticket. Me, I've been hoping for Sam Nunn (Wes Clark is out, I guess, since he's hitched his wagon to Hillary), but I consider Hagel cut from the same mold as Nunn. Furthermore, Hagel would help move the ticket's center of gravity to toward the center, something I think is very important.
So I guess Hagel--like the entire world except for 28% of Republicans--has BDS.
Wonder how long before the right-wing noise machine starts talking about Osama bin Hagel?
[More Hagel here. Again, I realize that everybody already knows this stuff, but it's good to see somebody like Hagel saying it. Much of what's going on here is a rhetorical battle. The Bush dead-enders will keep denying what's patently obvious, and the more sensible people who fess up to the facts, the better for the country and the world.]
posted by Winston Smith at
11:49 AM
25 Comments:
I'll see your Hagel and raise you a Lieberman.
The irony being that Iraq and BDS aside, you'd agree with Lieberman 80% of the time on the issues, and Hagel 20.
The "center," indeed.
Do you think Hagel suffers from BDS because of his past statements, or is this a singular data sample because of what WS quoted?
, Hagel compared the Iraq War to Vietnam and openly mocked Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes."[8]
In November 2005, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "To question your government is not unpatriotic — to not question your government is unpatriotic." This was in reference to the increasing amount of debate surrounding the Iraq War, and his assertion that the United States should withdraw its troops.
In December 2005, in reference to Bush, the GOP, and the PATRIOT Act, Hagel made a much-publicized statement: "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."[9]
In January 2006, Hagel took issue with Karl Rove over controversial statements the White House advisor made concerning the mindset of Republicans and Democrats. Hagel said, "Well, I didn't like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it's the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context." He also said that "dark clouds" are hanging over the Republican party", and "If you look at the environment and the atmospherics politically in this town, read any poll. The sixth year of a governing party usually ... is not good ... the country is tired, a lot of complications in these international issues, we're at war."[10]
Hagel further criticized the Bush administration, saying, "National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party."[10]
In July 2006, Hagel again took issue with the Bush administration, this time on its handling of the Israel-Lebanon issue saying "The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop."[11]
After Republican losses in the 2006 midterm election, Hagel penned an editorial in the Washington Post highly critical of military strategies both employed and proposed for Iraq. He unequivocally declared that "There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq," and called for a "phased troop withdrawal"—making Hagel one of the most prominent voices in his party to do so.[12]
According to a SurveyUSA poll, Hagel has a 10% higher approval rating among Nebraska Democrats than Republicans.[13][14] OnTheIssues.org rates Hagel as a "libertarian-leaning conservative".
In January 2007, Hagel openly criticized President Bush's plan to send an additional 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. He called it, "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."[15] Together with Democrats Joseph Biden and Carl Levin he proposed a non-binding resolution to the Democratic-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which rejected Bush's policy as "not in the national interest" in a 12-9 vote.[16] However, in a Senate vote of 94-2 to revoke executive power to replace federal prosecutors without a preliminary hearing, Senator Hagel and Senator Kit Bond were the only opposition.[17]
After an April 2007 visit to Iraq with Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Joe Sestak, Hagel expressed his belief that the occupation of Iraq should not continue indefinitely and defended Congressional actions to set a timeline for an end in occupation.
In July 2007, Hagel expressed his intention to cooperate with Senate Democrats in voting for a bill that would set a timeline to get out of Iraq.[18]
In November 2007, he rated the Bush administration "the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus -- almost every area" of any presidency in the last forty years. He also revealed he is open to running as vice-president with the 2008 Democratic nominee.[19] In the same month, he said, "I have to say this is one of the most arrogant, incompetent administrations I've ever seen or ever read about."[19]
Just this month, WS wrote:
Yeah, I've got BDS. Me and the rest of the world. I like your Homer Simpsonesque attempt to dismiss the Bush disagreement..."let's not get into who rabidly supports the worst president of the last hundred years and who doesn't..." Nice, again.
I've tried to engage with you Tom, but you've got a kind of relentless adherence to basically one note that just makes it difficult to see you as a serious interlocutor.
The accusation of other commentators and/or a take on an issue as being some sort of syndrome or 'mental illness' is a great illustration of what Mother Avenger taught me, that people who are crazy think they are the only sane person around, everyone else is crazy.(Unless they're working in a medical/dentention facility, or the current White House........)
Hagel's entitled to his opinion. So is Lieberman.
According to a SurveyUSA poll, Hagel has a 10% higher approval rating among Nebraska Democrats than Republicans.[13][14] OnTheIssues.org rates Hagel as a "libertarian-leaning conservative".
Surprise!
In November 2007...he also revealed he is open to running as vice-president with the 2008 Democratic nominee.
Double surprise, and he reminded us again today, just in case we forgot.
For the record, I didn't accuse Hagel of having BDS. ;-}
As for the center, I suppose it'll define itself in November.
Iraq and BDS aside, you'd agree with Lieberman 80% of the time on the issues, and Hagel 20.
So, you don't understand the use of a conjunction, or are you only accusing WS of having BDS?
Hagel's entitled to his opinion. So is Lieberman.
And I didn't make Lieberman an issue in my reply.
Also, to quote the late Senator from New York:
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
I fail to understand how mention of him and his opinions is relevant to what WS wrote, the error possibly due to a side-effect of BDS.
Surprise!
Yes, your 20% estimate was perhaps a bit low.
Double surprise, and he reminded us again today, just in case we forgot.
But, we knew that already.
He actually says that he'd be willing to be on a Democratic ticket.
Sure, he won't get near a Republican one. Dude needs a gig.
With a lifetime rating of 86 from the American Conservative Union
http://www.conservative.org/archive2/2008potus.asp
I doubt there's very much for a Democrat to like about Hagel except his stance on Iraq and his distaste for Bush.
Which is where the BDS comes in, dig?
So, Hagels' distaste for Bush isn't a sign of BDS, but admiring him for that is a sign of BDS?
dig?
Crazy, man, just crazy jive, but if only you could stick to something like an understandable line of reasoning, you'd have something worth digging............
"Why I Like and Respect Chuck Hagel, aside from his stance on Iraq and distaste for Bush." Discuss.
No fair googling...
A glance at this would suggest to the casual observer that you guys are trying to reason with Tom again.
Question: is this a rational course of action?
No, that wasn't the point of the post, your inability to respond to Hagels' position on Iraq and Bush(other than generously stating that Hagel doesn't have BDS) and WSs' endorsement of the same continues, despite your attempts to change the subject, which doesn't require googling, not surprisingly.
Just me, WS.
You are correct about the logic of attempting to reason with TVD, so I changed my tactics like a good student of Sun Tzu.
I've taken to stating facts, to which TVD responds to like the proverbial vampire shown a crucifix..................
What facts? You didn't present any.
As for Hagel's position on Bush and Iraq, he's entitled to his opinion. He may be right.
In January 2007, he also called the prospect of the "surge" "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."
The surge, not the Iraq war itself, mind you.
Fact.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,459369,00.html
As for "Why I Like and Respect Chuck Hagel, aside from his stance on Iraq and distaste for Bush," this is quite germane, and of course will go unanswered.
Crucifix, indeed, my man. You just got it backwards.
I presented a number of facts in a previous comment, you even attempted to use one of them to bolster a point that was already made by WS.
As for Hagel's position on Bush and Iraq, he's entitled to his opinion. He may be right.
That's more than you'll allow for from WS and others such as I who share Hagels' opinion, but we have BDS, of course.
As for the surge, it was suppose to give the Iraqis time to cobble together a political solution that would allow for an eventual reduction of American forces, so it isn't a blunder on the scale of Vietnam. Yet.
OTOH
To attempt to evaulate history while the ink is still fresh on the page is something you inveigle against us doing around here, but you engage in doing so when it suits your purpose, which, against all odds, is usually when it comes to evaluation of the current occupant of the WH.
this is quite germane, and of course will go unanswered.
Because that's not what started this thread.
As you refuse to deal with the issue as WS laid it out, aside from one article more than a year old, you'll be wanting to
change the direction when the discussion has developed not necessarily to your advantage, as with this thread from your "Lieberman" attempted diversion.
You just got it backwards.
Thanks for the compliment, Rhadamanthus.
Odd allusion, as it seems complimentary. But interesting.
That's more than you'll allow for from WS and others such as I who share Hagels' opinion, but we have BDS, of course.
The opinion and the BDS are separate things.
But if I've not been clear before, you certainly could be right. I believe I've said often that the argument from prudence against the Iraq thing in general was a valid and principled one.
My own position has been that toppling Saddam was an arguably good idea, that the Bremer years were a disaster, and that since Bush is not up for re-election, America should discuss where to go from here with a minimum of ugliness.
As for Hagel, he means as little to one side as Lieberman does to the other. Just arguing from perspective. And if we are to indulge the silliness of Hagel "hating America," then Lieberman surely loves it.
But the rules of the political game dictate that Republicans aren't supposed to say things like this even though everybody already knows they're true. Props to Hagel for putting country before party.
One could say, props to Lieberman for putting his political career before his political party.
I like the way you refer to "the Bremer years", as if there was nobody anywhere else at that time that was overseeing, or perhaps, what's that word that conservatives use a lot
responsible?
for what happened there.
since Bush is not up for re-election, America should discuss where to go from here with a minimum of ugliness.
Yes, after all the attempts to tar opposition to the Iraq war as DFH traitors with BDS, let's put all that aside and start to work together, let bygones be bygones.............
Sorry, Legate, as the saying goes, that won't play in Peoria.
As for my allusion, I was referring to the fact that you see yourself as the only one fit to render judgements here, see my remark about history above.
As for Hagel, he means as little to one side as Lieberman does to the other.
You can make a case for the former proposition without bringing in Lieberman, but then that would require research and thinking, not reflexative "What about B? And what about my pseudo-counterargument C?" that you display on a regular basis here.
Oh, you did manage to get this far without using the word inquiry. That is worthy of note.
One is thankful for small favors sometimes, WS. :>)
If there were blogs in 1975, there would have been a cadre of Nixon dead-enders online insisting that Watergate was just a third-rate burglary, and that all the liberals who were claiming otherwise were just a bunch of partisans afflicted by NDS who were secretly rooting for the commies to win.
Since you're probably too young to remember Watergate, this seems to be relevant:
Insisting that inferences can always be drawn from any given fact, Hungate suggested that "if someone brought an elephant through that door and I said 'That's an elephant,' someone would say, 'That's an inference. It could be a mouse with a glandular condition.' ".
From your helpful link, DA, is see that Rhadamanthus' judgements were "inflexible."
My judgments are far more flezible that the norm around here. For instance, I'm much easier on Clinton and even Carter than WS is any Republican president, even Reagan, who, by many judgments was not that bad at all.
As for Hagel, the left "respects" him solely for his opposition to Bush, a point that doesn't need Lieberman to make.
My judgments are far more flezible that the norm around here.
Your inflexibility when it comes to matters like BDS is a matter of record, like it or not.
For instance, I'm much easier on Clinton and even Carter than WS is any Republican president, even Reagan, who, by many judgments was not that bad at all.
That you can be rational and reasonable on topic A doesn't negate your irrationality on topic B.
As for Hagel, the left "respects" him solely for his opposition to Bush, a point that doesn't need Lieberman to make.
or, perhaps, as WS suggested, they see Hagels' willingness to put his country above his party gave 'teh left' something to respect.
It perhaps led them to believe(sheer madness, from your POV perhaps) that he has a rational approach to Bush and Iraq, something you've never wanted to discuss(hence the continued invocations of Lieberman in this thread)now or at any other time in the past.
But I didn't say Hagel was irrational. You're projecting, because that's how you slime your opponents, it seems.
There can be no rational disagreement with your position. That's Derangement Syndrome.
One could say, props to Lieberman for putting his political career before his political party.
Oh, and stuff like that. It's not enough to disagree with someone, you have to impugn their character.
That's ugly in a nutshell, man.
No, but you've implied that to agree with him is to have BDS, and the rest is left to the student as an exercise.
There can be no rational disagreement with your position. That's Derangement Syndrome.
No, the fact is that you've given no basis for a rational disagreement with Hagels' POV, talking about Lieberman doesn't do it, fwiw. You could try using facts and logical reasoning for doing so, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
It's not enough to disagree with someone, you have to impugn their character.
No, that's a statement of how he got re-elected: He ran despite losing his party's primary, so he put his own political career before the wishes of those CT citizens who voted against him in the primary, to continue his career in the Senate.
Your description would be more in line with the way you've been writing about Obama here lately.
As James Thurber said, you could look it up.
Hey, DA--
I'm not that hard on all GOP presidents. I'm rather a fan of Ike, and I'm neutral on Bush '41...despite the fact that he, too falsified data about Iraq to get us into war. (The phony satellite evidence, most notably.) No reasonable person can have a high opinion of either Nixon or Shrub...so that leaves only Reagan as a controversial case.
And wasn't it Casey Stengle who was famous for saying "you could look it up?"
As for the right's burgeoning ODS...isn't it peculiar that Obama--who's pretty damn promising by any reasonable standard--has elicited more vitriol from some of those folks than Bush (demonstrably incompetent and dishonest) has? I mean, talk about warped judgment!
WS:
I was quoting Legate Van Dyke about Republican Presidents in order to nullify his stance that since he's reasonable about them, he's being reasonable in other matters as well.
As for the catch phrase, it was used as a title of a story by Mr. Thurber, who in turn probably got it from Mr Stengle.
I'm not that hot about Obama myself, but it does seem strange that a lot of conservatives seem more fearful of a candidate who is more eloquent than Bush and running on a slogan and sentiments similar to those used by Bush in his 2000 campaign.
Perhaps they balk at a similar outcome?
Ah, got it.
No, but you've implied that to agree with him is to have BDS, and the rest is left to the student as an exercise.
I don't believe I did. Regardless, my posiiton is that those with BDS claim to "respect" Hagel only for his posiiton on Iraq.
Got it?
For the record, I believe Hagel's position is sincere and principled. I do not need to impugn his character to disagree with him. As for "rational" reasons for my disagreement, you must have missed the last couple of years around here.
Of late, I've given up. The arguments are old and moldy, several years out of date, and it's 2008 now.
There is a fine debating point about the Democrat vs. GOP presidents, which if properly narrowed, you are correct.
However the greater point is that I'm more flexible in my judgments across the board. I think the presidency is a tough job, mistakes will be made, and again I don't need to damn someone as a human being because I disagree with him politically.
I don't need to damn someone as a human being because I disagree with him politically.
If that's why you think WS and I have BDS because of a political disagreement with Bush, then you're way off the mark.
As for "rational" reasons for my disagreement, you must have missed the last couple of years around here.
Then it should've been quite easy for you to cite from threads over the last couple of years around rational reasons for your disagreement here rather than yell "Lieberman" as you did in many of your responses to WSs' post.
This comment is as true now as it was then:
It really seems like you hold the position that we are wrong, and then when you face argumentation regarding that position, you revert to some sort of "Well, everything sucks, so you can't really say he sucks more than any of the other presidents.." in order to defend your belief that we are wrong.
Word.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home