MyDD :: Hagel: "We have got to get out."

Hagel: "We have got to get out."

by Scott Shields, Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:09:13 AM EST

The floodgates are opening. First, it was Democrat Russ Feingold. Now, it's Republican Chuck Hagel. Both Feingold and Hagel are expected to run for their parties' respective Presidential nominations in 2008. And both are now saying that the time is coming for the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq.

Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, acknowledged the U.S. military presence was becoming harder and harder to justify. He believes Iraq faces a serious danger of civil war that would threaten Middle East stability, and said there is little Washington can do to avert this.

"We are seen as occupiers, we are targets. We have got to get out. I don't think we can sustain our current policy, nor do I think we should," he said at one stop.
. . .
"The mood is one of a certain sense of unsteadiness," he said. "I have sensed that since September 11, 2001. Our people have still not found an equilibrium and when you get these shocks, like gasoline at $2.50 a gallon and projecting natural gas costs doubling and tripling from what they paid last year, that further shakes them."

"I don't think there's panic, I don't think there's cynicism. I think there's this steady unsure sense about where is this all leading -- the constant daily reports on Iraq, our people being killed there, the money being spent there," he added.

What is this going to do for Hagel's chances to win his party's nomination in 2008? I'm honestly not sure. Hagel is often considered to be a maverick, aligned with John McCain. While McCain's 2008 poll numbers have been very good, Hagel's barely registering. By differentiating himself on Iraq, Hagel may be positioning himself as the candidate more equipped to make national security policy decisions. If the GOP takes a beating in the 2006 midterms and the party turns against the Iraq War, Hagel will have staked claim to the conservative anti-war position early. No other major Republican is likely to do the same any time soon.

"Quite frankly, what is the military option, what are we talking about here? We lose credibility in the face of the world when we say things like, 'Well just don't forget what happened to Iraq could happen to you Iran. We could invade you, we could bomb you.'

"Oh come on now. First of all, where are we going to get the troops? Who's going to go with us? Where are our partners going to be with Iran?"

As others have asked in the comments, where are the Democrats? How is it possible that a Republican is out in front of our 2008 contenders on this? It's time for some people to speak up...

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment

Screw Hagel and screw McCain (2.00 / 1)

Now they think Bush is a fool? BS! He always was and they knew it - so why did they support his re-election? Can you spell W - H - O - R - E

by oakland on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:22:57 AM EST

Re: Screw Hagel and screw McCain (none / 0)

put the blame on partisanship where it belongs. since washington is now geared to write legislation based on lobbyist interests, not the american people - and the bills are 10,000 pages long -

when the time comes for the party to whip everyone in line and get the votes out for their candidate, like president - the american people that would have aligned themselves with hagel are misdirected, as was hagel himself

how can a party have a meaningful stance in light of this? they become vessels of empty rhetoric - in th end, they are there only to garner and spend money to the broadcasting lobby and line the pockets of the television advertisers and turn the whole thing into a dog and pony

by turnerbroadcasting on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:15:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Screw Hagel and screw McCain (none / 0)

I don't see how that helps anyone. You're not going to get many people to convert to your cause if as soon as they do you say screw em.

Editor
Ohio 2nd Blog

by ignatzmouse on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:35:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is a bold move by Hagel (none / 0)

Hagel is smart and he knows his constituents. He knows the RWNM is going to come after him, but is tossing the dice because he knows his support in Nebraska is solid.

Very good analysis Scott. I think Hagel may be running as the straight talk express candidate right at McCain voters. He knows he doesn't have a prayer of getting the wingnut vote, so he's targeting the independent and moderate Republican vote.

I'll go out on a limb and predict this will have the same effect in Republican straw polls that Feingold's announcement had yesterday. Hagel will not jump as much as Feingold did, but watch for any significant bump as a bellweather of Republican discontent with Iraq.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:33:10 AM EST

Re: This is a bold move by Hagel (none / 0)

Hagel is about as bold as a rat leaving a sinking ship. By coming out against the war now, Hagel is hoping everyone will forget his role in getting us in there.

I have to say, reading big shot lefty bloggers write about Chuck Hagel in 2005 is like watching Democratic Senators talk about Iraq in 2002. Both engaged in an act of willful stupidity.

by Alice Marshall on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a bold move by Hagel (none / 0)

Sounds like a personal problem Alice. My comment stands.

Let me add the obvious. Within the context of the Republican Party this is a bold move for Hagel. Allow me to add another observation. Within the overall political context this will make it increasingly difficult for Democrats to continue to support Bush's war.

I thought one of the clearest points of Scott's diary was that Hagel had been talking to his constituents. I suspect that a lot of Democrats and Republicans are going to be getting an earful from their constituents over the recess. In fact, a group of us from Code Pink are going to pay a visit to an Ed Royce (R) town hall meeting in Orange County this Saturday.

I also plan on paying a visit to Loretta Sanchez (D) over the recess, but I haven't heard of any town hall meetings she is holding.

Are you going to visit with your Congressman or Congresswoman over the recess Alice? Screw the "hot shot lefty bloggers." What they say doesn't matter near as much as what Democratic politicians hear from their constituents during the recess.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:34:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a bold move by Hagel (3.00 / 0)

Virginia has three Democratic Congressmen. Jim Moran was against the war from the very beginning, since the summer of 2002. I don't know about Bobby Scott (I think he is opposed) or Rick Boucher.

As for my congressman, Tom Davis, he knows in a big way his district is not happy with the war. We will continue to hear from us.

But you are correct about one thing, as Republican rats leave the ship it makes it much more difficult for the DLC caucus to keep pretending. Actually ever since Sheehan burst upon the scene they (the elected ones) have been remarkably quiet.

by Alice Marshall on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 12:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is a bold move by Hagel (none / 0)

Right on! Way to go Alice!

Have you thought about stopping by and saying howdy to that Senator fella who thinks he wants to be Prez? What was his name again?

OH YEAH! Sen. Warner. That's right. I'm taking this to my DFA steering committee to see if we can get four or five people to stop by and say howdy to Sen. Feinstein. In a nice, friendly neighborly fashion of course.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 12:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hey, Alice... (none / 0)

I and others here are Americans first and Democrats and leftists not-first. Chuck Hagel is a great man and a good man. He does not stand on the other side of a metaphysical abyss from me because he is a "Republican". In all actuality, he is true republican, hearkening back to the glories of Rome, and the glories of America's founders. I'm so very glad that Chuck will get over 70% of the vote in Nebraska and candidates that adopt your rhetoric won't even make pass the Democratic Primary.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:05:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why isn't this every Democrats message? (3.00 / 2)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

by Jerome Armstrong on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:49:04 AM EST

Dems have no political discipline (3.00 / 1)

It's like the old cat herders' Super Bowl commercial.

GOPers, for all their flaws, are like a goddamned Macedonian phalanx.

Look at their treatment of the Balkans War. The GOP advocated not getting involved in stopping wholesale genocide in Europe. They squacked about Clinton's cock when Clinton simply ambled up to the bar and did the right thing.

Isn't it funny that GOPers tear the Europeans and the liberals down for opposing the Iraq War, yet where was the GOP during a war of genuine moral conscience?!

That's discipline -- fuck the sitting president from every angle possible, even if the war in question is just and can be conducted expediently and with few casualties.

Dems need to learn that. No one wants a Democratic Party walking around the yard with the GOP as its protector.

In the yard of American politics, you're either a wolf or your someone's bitch.

by jcjcjc on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 02:22:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Love your rhetoric, but... (none / 0)

how, in your opinion, does the uber-discipline of the republicans correlate with sound governance?

how does the dems lack of discipline correlate with sound governance?

Discipline is not the end of politics, only one of the possible means to the end, which is sound government.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 05:29:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Corruption is the end (none / 0)

Let's face facts: when you pay people less than $200,000 a year to administer a multi-trillion dollar entity, you shouldn't be surprised that you don't get good governance.

Discipline is everything.

Look at history. In every instance, even an undermanned, underpowered group has shown more staying power by holding discipline.

Does discipline yield good governance? Well, history says no.

But it is hard as hell to dislodge a disciplined, determined enemy in any environment.

by jcjcjc on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 07:51:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hagel (3.00 / 0)

Hagel's also said this as of yesterday:

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told CNN it would not be "a wise course of action" to set a firm deadline for pulling out of Iraq.
"However, I do believe that the United States will begin to withdraw troops home from Iraq next year," he said.
Hagel said the next six months will be critical in Iraq, as Iraqis develop a constitution and hold a referendum on it.
"We're going to see whether the Iraqis will be capable of governing themselves, defending themselves and supporting themselves," he said. "The Iraqi people will determine their future, not the United States."

There's a significant gap between he and Feingold.

by blueflorida on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:45:21 AM EST

Re: hagel (none / 0)

Hagel's position should be a benchmark for the Democratic party. There is no reason for any Democrat to have a more hawkish stance on Iraq than Hagel.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 12:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The thing is, (none / 0)

he's right. Telegraphing our intentions as to when exactly we're leaving is just begging for trouble. Better that people just notice one day that we're gone.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 11:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Hagel should stake out that terrirtory.... (2.00 / 1)

Some things are likely to happen in '08 that will work to Hagel's advantage.

1st---the War will become less and less popular as it drags on, and it will probably be increasingly unpopular with a growing number of Republican voters (not a majority but a significant minority of them).

2nd--The GOP will probably field 7 or 8 Presidential candidates of which all but Hagel will have pro-stay the course positions on Iraq, leaving Hagel's position distinctive.

3rd--GOPers in Iowa and New Hampshire are likely to lean more dove-ish than in most of the rest of the nation.

In this way Hagel may be able, by distinguishing himself on Iraq, to carve out a niche candidacy that can garner media attention and maybe 15-20% of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire--enough in a multi-candidate field to finish if not 1st, a strong 2nd or 3rd.

In some ways Hagel could rise the way Dean did in '04 by arguing against the Iraq War when Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt were all on record supporting it.

I doubt Hagel can become the party's nominee, but if he does Hillary Clinton, Biden or anyone who has argues for a stay-the-course on Iraq approach would be at risk.

The Democrats need to talk exit strategy and yes Chuck Hagel is an opportunist with blood on his hands jumping from a sinking ship, but at least he is jumping. We need more jumpers, regardless of party affiliation--we need to end this war.

by Keith Brekhus on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:21:58 AM EST

Hold your tounge (none / 0)

Chuck Hagel does what he thinks is right. Period. He has Vietnamese blood on his hands and he is probably angry that of his generation, the people holding the reins of power are the draft dodgers who don't know $#|+ about war and sacrifice. He's probably angry that the same idotic mistakes of LBJ (a Texan) are being recapitulated by GWB (a Texan -- sort of). He's probably angry that the war he voted for is no longer the war we are fighting, and he's probably tired of his constituants being maimed and killed for W's frail ego.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 05:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hagel 2008 (3.00 / 0)

What this says to me is Hagel is running for President in 2008. Not Vice President, not Secretary of Defense, but President.

He's smart to stake out this ground now. Many in the GOP feel the same way in private, witness Walter Jones' statements yesterday:

RALEIGH, N.C. - U.S. Rep. Walter Jones said Thursday he has about 50 co-sponsors on a joint resolution that calls on President Bush to announce by year's end a plan for withdrawal from Iraq.

The resolution - introduced in June by Jones, another Republican and two Democrats - calls on the president to begin executing the withdrawal by Oct. 1, 2006. It does not set an end date.

..."If I had known then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the resolution," said Jones, who had coined the term "freedom fries" as a show of support for the war in Iraq.

There's a constituency within the GOP waiting out there for someone to stake out this ground, and Hagel is the best-positioned to do it. And given that Iraq in some way is likely to be the biggest issue in 2008 (something most Dems still don't get), it's an even smarter move.

by tparty on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 10:45:18 AM EST

The New Straight Talk Express (none / 0)

Very good insight thirdparty. I hadn't carried his statement to it's logical conclusion. You are right on target.

Hagel is running right through the heart of McCain's core constituency. He is making his bid to be the moral conscience and truth teller in the Republican party. Hagel just put McCain on notice that he is not going to play second fiddle to McCain on national security or any other issue.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:02:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pretty Much (none / 0)

I tend to think the 2008 future we are heading towards could very well be Hagel against Hillary with him winning. He's a fiscal conservative but has signed off on the typical Washington pork. For that reason, the economy has to APPEAR relatively healthy while Iraq will seem utterly in ruin for him to be the nominee of choice. If Iraq appears too sunny or the economy becomes undisputably dire he won't win out.

But give the guy credit for being intelligent to figure out what issues to lead with. Hopefully the serious Dem contenders are taking notice.

by risenmessiah on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 12:11:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Many Republicans may agree with the sentiment (1.00 / 0)

But they sure as hell aren't going to reward Hagel for expressing it.

by Cyt on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:14:40 AM EST

A good race (none / 0)

Maybe Feingold and Hagel should run together. A bipartisan anti- war ticket would do very well.

Max Friedman

by Max Friedman on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:15:46 AM EST

let's force the issue (3.00 / 0)

I propose the blogosphere make a coordinated effort to ask members of Congress and Congressional candidates about the Feingold proposal.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 11:37:55 AM EST

Maximum pressure (none / 0)

Absolutely Carl. This is the perfect time to put maximum pressure on every single Democrat to stop playing coy and make a clear statement of their position on Bush's war.

I'm going to be paying personal visits to Loretta Sanchez and Diane Feinstein with as many DFAers as I can round up.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maximum pressure (none / 0)

Do you want to co-chair the project?

I figure we'll need helpers in most states.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 02:31:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maximum pressure (none / 0)

What would it take? I don't know about co-chair. I can't make a heavy time committment right now, but I would be glad to handle the California end.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 03:05:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An Honest Republican Congressman (none / 0)

Who will be the "First Honest Republican Congressman" that sees the war in Iraq for the mess it is, that see what Bush has done to this country on any number of issues, and is willing to speak out against the crimes and manipulations of Karl Rove.

THIS is why we need a 50 state initiative, to ask every GOP member of Congress to answer these questions.

A President in a league of his own, the Bush League!

by Tuba Les on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 09:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That would be (none / 0)

Ron Paul.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 10:02:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hagel: Nixon to China (none / 0)

An "anti-war" Republican like Hagel would be difficult to beat in 2008. He would have (unfortunately) the cred on military matters because he is GOP and because he served. It doesn't work for Democrats, of course. This is a Nixon-to-China thing, IMHO, and I think it's damned smart of him. He might even believe it. At least he's not being a Bush-bot. I'd hate like hell to see a Republican favoring pullout running against some spineless stay-the-course-but-be-"smarter" Democrat. We lose that one big time.

by tuffie on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:14:25 PM EST

Re: Hagel: Nixon to China (none / 0)

You might be right about an anti-war Republican being difficult to beat, but at the same time, I still have trouble (unless we sweep next year's midterms) believing that an anti-war Republican can win the GOP nomination.

by Scott Shields on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hagel: Nixon to China (none / 0)

Hagel is by far the strongest candidate the Republicans could run and will almost certainly be the nominee.

by Alice Marshall on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 02:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't count Gingrich out (none / 0)

I haven't heard anything from him on Iraq lately, but he's ruthless enough to take a cut and run approach if the numbers are there. Newt would kick Hagel's butt in a GOP primary and a stay the course Dem in the general.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 03:08:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats are warned (none / 0)

If they don't adopt a viable withdrawal strategy then Republicans will beat them to the punch. Bush's political capital is draining so fast that, by the time 2008 comes around, being anti-war may be the only means by which a Republican can win the Presidency.

Hell, Bush is enough a political cynic that I wouldn't be surprised if he eventually adopts a withdrawal strategy and then claims credit for being anti-war.

And he just might get away with it.

by Chris Andersen on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 01:19:38 PM EST

Re: Democrats are warned (1.00 / 0)

If Lieberman and Biden have anything to say about it, Bush will be an anti-war hero.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 03:09:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

France, 1785 (none / 0)

Chuck Hagel knows that he no longer has a hope of winning the Republican nomination. The powerbrokers already have spoken. That is why he is no longer holding his tounge for tactical purposes. He despises the fact that a frat boy draft dodger is President and not a good man like McCain, Kerry, or yes, himself. The pendulum that has swung sharply to the right in the past thirty years has already begun swinging back the other way; you can feel it in the air... shall I quote Wordsworth?

Oh! times,
In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
The attraction of a country in romance!

OH! pleasant exercise of hope and joy!
For mighty were the auxiliars which then stood
Upon our side, we who were strong in love!
Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven!

Not in Utopia, subterranean fields, Or some secreted island, Heaven knows where!
But in the very world, which is the world
Of all of us,--the place where in the end
We find our happiness, or not at all!

by Paul Goodman on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 06:23:35 PM EST

Re: France, 1785 (none / 0)

Chuck Hagel knows that he no longer has a hope of winning the Republican nomination. The powerbrokers already have spoken.

Chuck Hagel is a power broker.

by Alice Marshall on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 08:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LtE in today's LAT: (none / 0)

And just who will Bush use to attack Iran, old women with pitchforks?

I read that this morning, and after noticing Scott's update I just had to post it here.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

by catastrophile on Sat Aug 20, 2005 at 03:21:36 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.