« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Hagel: "There Is No Plan"
Here's Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) barnburner of a speech this morning during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on the resolution against the president's troop increase in Iraq.
An excerpt:
I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan. I happen to know that Pentagon planners were on their way to Central Com over the weekend -- they haven't even Team B'ed this plan.... There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.... We'd better be damned sure what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more lives into that grinder.... and I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide any more, none of us."
Update: We've added a complete transcript of this portion of his remarks below. From the transcript:
We are not about -- this resolution, those who I'm associated with, I don't think anybody in the Senate -- if there is one senator in the United States Senate that is all about defeating America, making America's position more dangerous, eroding our standing in the world, I don't know of that person.If you do, please let me know.
Every one of the 100 senators -- Republican, Democrat, independent -- that I know of has said, "How do we do this in a way that we look after, first, the national interests of America?" That still is rather significant.
I don't question the president's sincerity, his motivations in this. I never have. Nor anyone in his administration.
This president is sincere about what he said last night. He believes this is the right thing to do. I happen to disagree.
So, but we don't, somehow, project to the outside world that there's disagreement in our government, in our country, about the future of Iraq, I think that if that is what our role is going to be -- and yes, Mr. Lugar, we can hold more hearings, oversight. I don't know what that's produced. We are going to have more oversight.
Part of the problem that we have, I think, is because we didn't -- we didn't involve the Congress in this when we should have.
And I'm to blame. Every senator who's been here the last four years has to take some responsibility for that.
But I will not sit here in this Congress of the United States at this important time for our country and in the world and not have something to say about this. And maybe I'll be wrong. And maybe I have no political future. I don't care about that.
But I don't ever want to look back and have the regret that I didn't have the courage and I didn't do what I could to at least project something.
This resolution, by the way, does not tie the hands of the president of the United States. It does not tie the hands of the president of the United States in any way.
So I would go back to where I began, and pick up on a point that Chairman Lugar mentioned: coherence of strategy.
I don't know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy.
In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.
I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even team B'ed this plan.
And my dear friend Dick Lugar talks about coherence of strategy. There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.
These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.
And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide anymore; none of us.
That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.
Comments (65)
Shasta wrote on January 24, 2007 2:03 PM:What a breath of fresh air coming from Chuck Hagel. I agree with everything he said. Most expecially, the fact that if there had been this much discussion and oversight three years ago, we would not be in this mess.
I am glad to see the Biden/Hagel/Levin non-binding resolution was passsed. It's a start.
Will Divide wrote on January 24, 2007 2:24 PM:You get the feeling Hagel paid a lot more attention to Jim Webb than the Prez last night.
PSoTD wrote on January 24, 2007 2:28 PM:Sounds like echoes of what Edwards said on Martin Luther King Day. I wonder if the Clinton campaign will go after Hagel now.
Bill Selznick wrote on January 24, 2007 2:31 PM:HELL YES!
I like honesty. I believe Hagel is being honest with America. I'd have no hesitation voting for this guy. I'd rather have someone in office who is truthful, and i have politicaly disagreements with, than someone who is two faced -- i'm thinking of that list of what 44 Dems who don't want to pull out of Iraq because they are fiscal conservatives. Please, they make me sick.
After Preznit gave his speach last night some GOPer got on and said Bush was "Full throttle ahead" and "Full throated", and some other such nonesense. You'd think Bush has just won a NASCAR prelim or something. This guy wouldn't get my vote if he handed me the deed to my house.
Ken Houghton wrote on January 24, 2007 2:31 PM:Chairman Lugar? Not since the new term started, no?
pablo wrote on January 24, 2007 2:39 PM:we may have discovered a new species: a born-again realist. It's taken him a LONG time, and many 'loyalty' party-line votes...but he knows his decency has been molested by the GOP. Witness his therapy. The sincerity of his comments today were Feingold-esque. As impressed as i am...there's always a chance of relapse...so let's hope he stays away from presidential ambitions. Call his office in approval !!!
jam hamster jay wrote on January 24, 2007 2:43 PM:In a world of empty scrota the one-balled man is king.
Irfo wrote on January 24, 2007 2:55 PM:Hegel's gonna be the Republican nominee in 2008. Just watch.
ohiomeister wrote on January 24, 2007 3:00 PM:This is what I wish the Democrats in Congress had been saying for the past few years. Stop being scared of your shadows, stand up, and fight! Get those defunding resolutions ready and start threatening the President with them. The American people are behind you, and it's your patriotic duty to get us out of this mess. That's what you were elected to do, and you'd be wise not to forget it.
steve ex-expat wrote on January 24, 2007 3:14 PM:Give Hagel credit, but I don't agree with his assessment of Bush as "sincere." At least I doubt it.
Evan wrote on January 24, 2007 3:20 PM:Irfo is half-right. Hagel's definitely setting himself up as the anti-war republican candidate, but he won't get the nomination.
Jen wrote on January 24, 2007 3:22 PM:A little late dontcha think?
Eileen Barnes wrote on January 24, 2007 3:46 PM:Senator Hagel is angry! What a refreshing sight! It's about time but this man means business. He has seen the light and there's no going back. This is his reaction to Bush's SOTU and it's cause for celebration.
Kinnison wrote on January 24, 2007 3:56 PM:As to GWB's sincerity -- I agree with Hagel that he is sincere, but not what he's sincere about.
The President feels he's doing God's work. Just what that consists of isn't clear, but it's the epitome of hubris for one person to assume that mission, and reject informed advice from anyone whose counsel doesn't support his notion of God's work.
His messianic blinders have, to date, guaranteed disastrous results.
Can his hubris be restrained?
Ramu wrote on January 24, 2007 3:56 PM:Where was he 4 years ago?
The White House / RNC will truly disappoint me if they don't respond with a thorough swift-boating of Hagel: namely, dismissal of his efforts as nothing more than grandstanding in preparation for a presidential campaign; a "for the war before I was against the war" dismissal of him as a flip-flopper; and finally, a whisper campaign about a tryst in a corn field with a goat which produced satanic-looking offspring.
Allsburg wrote on January 24, 2007 4:14 PM:That's not a speech. It's a declaration of candidacy.
Malar wrote on January 24, 2007 4:20 PM:Bravo, Senator Hagel. I truly respect your and your courage. I felt so hope less about our leadership the last six years, I have hope now. Save this country's standing in the world and make us proud again.
judyinnm wrote on January 24, 2007 4:43 PM:Where was hagel 4 years ago? Didn't he vote against it?
Max Power wrote on January 24, 2007 4:47 PM:Hagel is not a candidate and he won't be.
Not every speech is triangulating.
erichwwk wrote on January 24, 2007 5:01 PM:Sorry this clip did not include the part where Hagel suggests Senators not wanting to do heavy lifting "should quit and sell shoes".
Perhaps there is at least one senator who's not
I am Dali wrote on January 24, 2007 5:06 PM:a "girly man."
give me a break. the guy is still crooked. "bush is sincere." nice try. if he was so sincere he wouldn't need so many trite denials all the time.
hagel things we should be debate the surge. the american people debated this years ago before the war began: we're called liberals.
hagel wants the senate to be sure "damn sure [they] know what [they're] doing". that would have been a much better idea a few years ago. for example, being damn sure that iraq actually posed a threat to america and had any weapons even worth talking about. even the CIA knew they didn't. let alone the rest of the free world who knew the war was a total joke.
are we supposed to support him just because he finally feels it necessary to say "there is no plan"?
3000 americans are dead with thousands more mutilated, and many many more thousands of iraqi men women and children are dead because of the war and its consequences-- and even though that's our responsibility, "american national security" is still our primary national interest. as if the war ever had anything to do with that whatsoever. the military tortured prisoners, they used white phosphorous. politicians shouldn't be congratulated for catching up to what intelligent people were saying 5 years ago. nice try.
a commentator above said "but he knows his decency has been molested by the GOP." that's what makes him cowardly scum like the rest. his decency was violated. how about the dead bodies.
hagel's speech was macho posturing, "be damn sure". macho posturing like bush, but a better speaker. a ridiculous example of so-called leadership, considering how little, and how late.
themann1086 wrote on January 24, 2007 5:38 PM:too little too late... but I appreciate Hagel being willing to take responsibility ["I am to blame"]. It's a step in the right direction.
ykcir wrote on January 24, 2007 6:14 PM:And yet he made a cowardly vote against the option to require congressional authorization to send more troops.
Spud1 wrote on January 24, 2007 6:42 PM:Perhaps someone can ask them to produce a plan for mid 2004? Hell, Sep 2005? Has there ever been a military plan?
I'm sure that there are all kinds of political ones, ones that pertain to U.S. politics of course.
k wrote on January 24, 2007 7:01 PM:Please, at this point such a speech does not require courage. What he's got is good timing, cameras that love him, and that easily-seduced section of the population that will never stop pining for a manly man.
LongTom wrote on January 24, 2007 9:13 PM:Remember--TNSTAAGR!
There's No Such Thing As A Good Republican.
Hagel, Specter, Collins, Snowe, Giuliani, Romney, Chaffee, McCain, Powell--they all suck, they're all corrupt, and none will ever stand up to the bigotry and fascism in their party. Just wait until Rove or Cheney waves some goody under Hagel's nose--like an appointment for his kid, or the vice-presidency for himself, or whatever--he'll hug Bush so hard W's nuts will drop.
I'm sick of Dems and lefties going ga-ga over some Republican turd like Hagel or McCain just because they dare, finally, to show some tiny scrap of sense or morality (and then only because it's politically advantageous). The only good Republican is one who's re-registered as something else. As long as that big R is next to their name, you can't trust 'em, you can't believe 'em, and you're wasting your time paying any attention to them.
Joe wrote on January 24, 2007 9:26 PM:I think that's a republican I could vote for.
Kevin Hayden wrote on January 24, 2007 9:46 PM:I understand your concern, LongTom, but there still is some good done from good timing, even this late.
What Webb and Hagel have effectively done is removed all the rocks so no lizard can hide under 'em now.
Those that choose poll-pandering now, even in the reddest state, will clearly be displaying visible cowardliness.
This creates a stampede and strips Bush of further power. He won't dare veto things that will now be overridden. And if the pressure keeps up, maybe, just maybe, we can head off his pending War with Iran.
stanbecker wrote on January 24, 2007 9:51 PM:hagel's statements today represent certain grounds for impeachment according to his very own stated standards and voting records.
AND, hagel has experience in this area:
i give you the oh so very bravely "brave" senator hagel:
"I write this statement at my desk on the floor of the United States Senate. After weeks of listening, reading, reviewing, reflection, analysis and contemplation I have come to the conclusion that I will vote to convict the President on both Articles of Impeachment.
The Constitution is very clear. It requires Members of the United States Senate to vote for or against each Article of Impeachment. No improvising. No substitutions. No censures. No findings of fact. The completeness of the charges against the President is powerful. The issue is abuse of power. Did the President abuse his power and therefore violate the Nation's trust in him? We must remember that trust is the only true currency elected officials have."
(full statement here):
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/hage...
ok chuck? let's get 'er done.--(yeah right)
i appreciate the senator's honesty in this regard, and so understand he'll take some heat from the party faithful (soon to be voted out)
...so for all those rushing to support the new avatar of the day, please again consider:
the man overtly tried to remove a sitting president of the united states over testimony given re: a consensual personal matter between adults!!
how much crippling damage did that little bit of nothing do to our nation? there was room for little else in the entire culture, and they loved every minute of it. trumped up nothing charges...but hey, at least be consistent, if you feel that way...follow through now.
The Senator presented a very reasoned (and extensive) explanation re: his advocacy, and his vote! in that matter.
isn't there some legal imperative for him to act, having first hand knowledge of this direct deceit...can he subpoenaed by an investigatory committee, or charged himself with accessory before, during and after the fact...
i read his statement very respectfully and carefully and i think he should continue that very protective approach with this president.
He is being called 'courageous'...he was hoping for 'telegenic' too!!
where was he on the page sex scandal?
Alice Smith wrote on January 24, 2007 9:56 PM:ahead of the curve and courageous?
or invisible.
he sure had his head in mr. clinton's pants, metaphorically.
'courageous' imo, would be a more appropriate word for a legislator who showed some ethical consistency here, strictly adhering to the rules and protections and letter of law, and moving an article of impeachment to the floor.
Consistency and "consequences," the wholesome republican hallmarks of endless rhetorical hype are nowhere to be seen in this regard?
call me cynical, tho i do appreciate his recent statements, i think he has nowhere else to go to stay politically viable...'saving his own ass' or 'keeping himself in the game' may also have been part of his equation here.
the statement re: impeachment, that he wrote from the very floor of congress, gives us more of a comprehensive picture of mr. hagel's values in action.
Thank you, Sen.Hagel, but where have you been while the evil men and women of the current administration have been putting all this over and sneering at those who have asked questions?? It has been six years of miserable government as the boys who organized under Reagan to hate government have run roughshod over all of us.When I asked a friend why he supported the liars in the White House, he said,"Because George Bush talks to GOD"---about WHAT? Forgiveness, perhaps, for the deaths W has caused ? Thanks, Chuck, but will this help?
El Cid wrote on January 24, 2007 10:05 PM:My god. I'm actually amazed. I may not agree with a lot of Hagel's views, but I'm beginning to respect him.
john in california wrote on January 24, 2007 10:33 PM:Hagel wants to drag all the other Senators into the vote to go into Iraq. I might have some repect for him if he named the Senators who weren't compliant to a nutjob tinpot. How about Kennedy, Bob Graham and Byrd? If he has so much courage, why didn't he demand a real plan when he first realized nobody had one? And why doesn't he disqualify himself from running for pres because of poor judgement, lazy scepticism or lack of courage in getting us into this mess.
Maria wrote on January 24, 2007 10:35 PM:Fuck Hagel!
Go Kucinich!
Thank God some folks are waking up. Hagel made my day when he spoke the TRUTH and the fact that AMERICAN LIVES ARE AT STAKE.
He's got my respect.
Thing Fish wrote on January 25, 2007 12:27 AM:"a complete transcript of this portion"
I'm looking for the complete transcript. Hagel said lot in "other" portions IMO. CNN should have one right?
Les Izmore wrote on January 25, 2007 12:29 AM:Let me add my voice to those saying too little, too late. Hagel's like the drunk who's wrecked his car killing a couple of folks and now he swears he's given up the booze forever. It is the very least he can do to take responsibility for the dead soldiers and civilians in the Iraq adventure he so willingly got us into in the first place and do his damndest to get us out now. I'm not a fan of this kind of 'conversion' myself. I'll save my respect and my vote for the folks who were right on this from the git go. Like Jim Webb said the other day there were plenty of experts and other folks who accurately predicted the bloody debacle that Iraq has become. Just because the papers and the establishment pols in both parties say we 'all' believed we had to go in doesn't make it true. Some of us have a memory. It was only 4 years ago after all.
joe in oklahoma wrote on January 25, 2007 1:03 AM:are we still a free people?
A vast percentage of the US population is against it,
The Democrats are against it,
Most Republicans are against it,
The Pentagon is against it,
The Government of Iraq is against it,
The people of Iraq are overwhelmingly against it,
Our allies are asking him not to do it,
Yet it appears that
President George Bush acting alone
is going to escalate the war of occupation in Iraq.
A vast majority of the US population is against it,
The Congress is against it,
The Pentagon is against it,
Our allies are asking him not to do it,
Yet it appears that
President George Bush acting alone
Is about to start a war with Iran which may involve
the launching of nuclear weapons
that emit deadly radiation that will drift into Afghanistan, India and Pakistan.
If he does these things and we do not stop him
Andy McSheffery wrote on January 25, 2007 1:18 AM:how can we continue to be called a government
'of the people, by the people, and for the people'?
If Hagel is to be truly believed and followed then he has to name names and demand that those named stand up and openly defy these "warriors" by either voting to shut off funds not related to a pullout or begin impeachment proceedings against this administration.
SqueakyRat wrote on January 25, 2007 3:47 AM:Resolutions are worthless against these arrogant fools because they have a well defined pattern of ignoring anything they do not agree with. If Hagel is this adamant about ending this debacle and holding those responsible for it then begin impeachment. He supported the impeachment of Clinton over a blow job because the honor of our country was at stake. Well our honor is being severely tarnished if not outright destroyed by the current occupants of the White House (this includes Cheney and his crowd). How about it Chuck?
Hagel's been critical of the war for quite a while now. He did vote for the authorization for the use military force in 2002. (Chafee was the only Republican who voted against it). I don't know if he's ever said he thinks that was a mistake. But hey, if people can't change their minds and get right, nothing changes. Give the guy a break.
LongTom wrote on January 25, 2007 6:57 AM:"Give the guy a break." Hey, give US a break. "The guy" is just another right wing shill, who now sees which way the political wind is blowing--and it ain't blowing toward more war!
As long as the Dems allow people like Hagel to define the 'middle ground", we'll be stuck with this shit.
Until Hagel gives up his party affiliation, he's just another fascist punk. The Republican Party is NOT recoverable from the bigots, religious fanatics, warmongers, sexual deviants, and corporate fascists that began their takeover in 1980 and completed it with the ascension of Bush. Any politician who is still immoral and cowardly enough to call himself or herself a Republican isn't worth jacksh*t, as a politician or as a human being.
Cavebot wrote on January 25, 2007 8:31 AM:jam hamster jay--
Bbo wrote on January 25, 2007 8:35 AM:English has finally rivaled the French expression "Au royaume des aveugles, les borgnes sont rois" with your "In a world of empty scrota the one-balled man is king". You are a poet, and your tag is further proof.
LongTom: I've got 5 bucks that says the Republicans would rather see Hillary elected than Hagel. Blind adherence to hateful posturing is what made the Republican party what it is today. Thanks for showing that Liberals are as bad if not worse.
Sinfonian wrote on January 25, 2007 10:05 AM:Hagel says some things in a recent interview that ought to lead to impeachment, if they were to get out in the mainstream ... but I know that's a big "if."
Sinfonian wrote on January 25, 2007 10:06 AM:Crap ... I forgot, no tags.
Here's a link to the Hagel interview (excerpts) and in turn a link to the whole thing:
http://flprogressive.blogspot.com/2007/01/chuck-hagel-in-his-own-words.html
Chabuka wrote on January 25, 2007 3:26 PM:Lets hear it for the man...while I am a registered Democratic...I appreciate the candor of Senator Chuck Hagel very much....
Disbelief x wrote on January 25, 2007 4:38 PM:Senator Hagel crossed a line in his comments and I have yet to see them in print. He invoked the Palestinians' cause when he spoke of their being "chained down". For that,the Zionists will make him pay. Presidential candidate? Never!By the way,has anybody seen that comment in print?
Michael Jones wrote on January 25, 2007 4:52 PM:Ex-Senator Burns had copies of "the President's secret plan for Iraq" that he held up in a news conference. Bush can't tell Congress what that plan is. What if the terrorists saw it? Seriously, Sen. Hagel's speach gave me a burst of hope that maybe this us vs. them, lock step partisonship might be starting to end.
Z4Me wrote on January 25, 2007 6:16 PM:"That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country."
Senator Byrd of West Virginia. Standing alone on the Senate floor. Demanding debate, demanding answers. And the Republicans came out with his KKK membership years ago. At least one Senator who was there years ago need not be ashamed.
Robin Boerner wrote on January 26, 2007 4:22 AM:Sorry this clip did not include the part where Hagel suggests Senators not wanting to do heavy lifting "should quit and sell shoes".
Perhaps there is at least one senator who's not
a "girly man."
Posted by: erichwwk
Date: January 24, 2007 05:01 PM
They are not girly men...well maybe...but they are best described as war profiteering, unindicted co-conspirators.
Talking to God...I mean on the direct line...bring on the End Times nut baskets....
Halliburton Bag men....
The Constitution is just paper ignorants....
Chimps in flights suits......
Yeah, they could be girly men, but that's giving them way too much credit for bravery.
Robin Boerner wrote on January 26, 2007 4:26 AM:Chimps in flights suits......
Sorry...that was supposed to be Chimps in flight Suit Wannabes.
Then again, the Chimp in the flight suit is a wannabe success at ANYTHING to start with.
truth wrote on January 26, 2007 10:44 PM:I would like to know why you didn't show Hagel's full testimony. I recommend people visit other sites to get the full version.
The media silence is deafening. Nothing. No commentary...absolute silence. They are reporting about Hillary's run for president...ridiculous.
Fancy Dirt wrote on January 27, 2007 3:06 PM:No Draft = No Huge War Protests
It was really puzzling to me that there were no wide scale public protests against Bush's bogus foreign policies, and why Bush was getting away with working the National Guard troops overseas to an extent I'd never seen before. I finally got the answer! No draft = No outrage among the public at large!
You can bet I'd get up off my keester and raise some hell if any of MY kids were drafted to get killed for NOTHING!! As it is, I've just been saying, "Something is really wrong with this picture." It felt so odd that we Americans were comparatively complacent about a war based on lies. I've just watched the hell that is happening to our soldiers and the people of Iraq and hoped someone would make it stop.
I feel like a fool for not seeing it sooner. They played us and we (I) fell for it! I was suckered by the relief that my kids were safe from being forced to go to war. I've felt awful about the needless loss of life; but thank God it wasn't my family.
rvqmy iszto wrote on February 1, 2007 7:27 AM:vqtpyhln nylbh lhyframkq zjehgwpk vjnfzs cuvgrp vqxaky
ihjqvto rinbplx wrote on February 1, 2007 7:28 AM:xcdnq kgqvbtlyr avflwnj fodgu jkru dbyjlf dimcyzoe ktanlhoi tspmu
jdmyvst rzav wrote on February 1, 2007 7:29 AM:kzqmdop qpgmtij lmktgczv olsknhev dgiqjexs xnmgp zurpkbo [URL]http://www.jhbmy.yjizldhsc.com[/URL] vzti thbpq
Bert wrote on February 4, 2007 11:59 AM:Get em Chuck, get em! Good to hear SOMEbody calling this clown circus on the carpet for some public accountability, to lay their cards on the table, if the other 99 had Chuck's integrity, I think Iraq would have been ended a long time ago. But, that's just exactly what he's talking about. The previous Congress ended up acting as a perpetual rubber-stamp, and this Congress is in danger of being used for the same purpose. 'Defense' is Big Business, the allure of billions, if not trillions is overwhelmingly strong, who can resist the pull? Who, indeed.
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:21 AM:People will kill for money, and that's where it's really important to have people that can buck the norm, challenge the status quo, and ask the tough questions, and what he's talking about with oversight is a necessary if not even critical part of the entire business. In my view, Congress needs to fully re-assert their authority under the War Powers Act, and end the Iraq war.
MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:21 AM:MSN
MSN I NIIPET
Bill wrote on May 31, 2007 11:21 AM:MSN
MSN I NIIPET
FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS wrote on October 7, 2007 2:13 PM:MSN
Hi, there!..7c42e27cc8ad4175ccb8b14059e0fee3
Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 12:32 PM:streets her slang arrogantly,Suzuki broom Farnsworth ...
Test wrote on November 24, 2007 1:47 PM:Hello
Test wrote on November 24, 2007 1:54 PM:Bye
Hi all!
Test wrote on November 25, 2007 3:42 AM:G'night
Hi
Test wrote on November 25, 2007 3:42 AM:Bye
Hi
Test wrote on November 25, 2007 3:42 AM:Bye
Hi
Bye