Hagel Calls Bush's Iraq Policy "Dirty Trick"

[Janett_Reno]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/0...p_n_64595.html

[Jack.Kerr]

So why is Hagel retiring from the Senate, i.e. "quitting"? Why doesn't he stay and help reform what he considers to be the failed policies of the Bush administration? If he has all these valuable insights into the situation in Iraq, and he MUST because he has served in the Senate while all of these policies were being conceived and implemented, then how doesn't he feel any obligation to put things back on course? And clearly, CLEARLY, he must have an answer because he feels so free to criticize and accuse.

Apparently far-left liberal nut-jobs aren't the only ones who advocate cutting and running.

F*ck Hagel and his ilk. I would not so much as wave to alert them to a bullet speeding at their heads.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

So why is Hagel retiring from the Senate, i.e. "quitting"? Why doesn't he stay and help reform what he considers to be the failed policies of the Bush administration?

Hagel is quitting because he is fulfilling a campaign promise to the people who voted for him. When he first ran for senator in NE he promised he would only serve two terms -- term limits versus career politicians were something of an issue back then.

He has made it quite clear that he would remain engaged in the issues in some capacity, but not as a Senator.

That you'd spout off like this without doing a rudimentary bit of research indicates that you're not only a prick, but a moron as well.

Cheers

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

Hagel is quitting because he is fulfilling a campaign promise to the people who voted for him. When he first ran for senator in NE he promised he would only serve two terms -- term limits versus career politicians were something of an issue back then.

He has made it quite clear that he would remain engaged in the issues in some capacity, but not as a Senator.

That you'd spout off like this without doing a rudimentary bit of research indicates that you're not only a prick, but a moron as well.

Cheers

It sounds like a convenient fulfillment of a promise--the gravity of the situation in Iraq far outweighs any two-bit campaign promise. Different circumstances call for different priorities.

As for the personal part of your diatribe, I can appreciate that you are sensitive about having exposed yourself (a la Larry Craig) to be a bigot. I personally would far prefer to be both a moron and a prick than a bigot.

Also, if you think my postings are going to cause you to show yourself to be a bigot, a prick AND a moron, I'd invite you to ignore me rather than risking further humiliation.

Tally-ho.

[alexamenos]

you were the one arguing from abject ignorance, not me.

[alexamenos]

Jack, in re your private communication to me ...

Originally Posted by jack.kerr

Keep the personal comments out of the threads, cocksucker.

oh come on now, a little flame war is fun from time to time....

if you've got to be a prick, at least don't be a thin-skinned little prick.

cheers

[AxdemxO]

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

So why is Hagel retiring from the Senate, i.e. "quitting"? Why doesn't he stay and help reform what he considers to be the failed policies of the Bush administration? If he has all these valuable insights into the situation in Iraq, and he MUST because he has served in the Senate while all of these policies were being conceived and implemented, then how doesn't he feel any obligation to put things back on course? And clearly, CLEARLY, he must have an answer because he feels so free to criticize and accuse.

Apparently far-left liberal nut-jobs aren't the only ones who advocate cutting and running.

F*ck Hagel and his ilk. I would not so much as wave to alert them to a bullet speeding at their heads.

Kinda hard to fix such a big mistake dont ya think...mite take a few terms...and it still mite not be fixed

[dude1394]

If he said he'd only serve two terms good for him. With respect to dirty trick, that's stupid and it deserves to be on the huffington post.

Here was his statement

Maher: Isn’t a dirty trick on the American people when you send a military man out there to basically do a political sell-job?”

Hagel: It’s not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s the Bush’s policy. The military is — certainly very clear in the Constitution — is subservient to the elected public officials of this country.. but to put our military in a position that this administration has put them in is just wrong, and it’s dangerous.”

What exactly is he talking about? So should Petraeus NOT report back to congress as was expected when he was OVERWHELMINGLY approved. Hagel is being an idiot here. It's the US GOVERNMENTS policy, proposed by Petraeus and OVERWHELMINGLY approved by the Democrats.

There is a reason that the congress is below double digits in approval rating on iraq, because you all are a bunch of nitwits.

The founding fathers again show us why congress isn't to be trusted with foreign policy.

[Janett_Reno]

This was an interview with Wolf Blitzer from CNN. He also gets down and dirty on the neocons with an interview with Bill Mahr. We are going to see just how true some are with the neocons because this is the tip of the iceberg.

They are willing to throw away Chuck Hagel, they are will to throw away John Warner, they have threw away Newt, they have already thrown away Pat Buchanan, Larry Craig for other reasons and soon they will throw away David Vitter because of other reasons. They haven't thrown away Rivhard Lugar but have seperated from him untill he will kiss butt or if he keeps on, then they will throw him away. It is reported today this administration want's to start drilling for oil in a red state, CO. The Republican politicians are upset and the Republican voters in the state are furious.

Fred Thompson has took a pop shot with most all children are being left behind in the no child left behind. He will continue to pull away from Chains and W and let's see what some say and do, and if they are willing to throw Fred Thompson away, as he seperates himself from the neocons.

Then it is life long time Greenspan, throw him away because he speaks the truth. If you want to know what is going to happen in the financial world, i advise you you read Greenspans new book and also all his interviews lately. No matter who our next president is, the neocons have ruined this country and even Greenspan is upset with Repulican congresss and Republican senate, saying they sold the country out for politics. It was told, to pass all these bills the neocons ran thru would badly hurt our country but at the time, it would strengthen the gop party. I want go into what Greenspan says this country is going to be facing soon but it won't be pretty and not because of Rudy, Fred, Hillary or Obama, but the destruction the neocons have done. This Republican said we was sold out for oil.

Warner, Hagel, Lugar, Greenspan, Newt is the beginning of a dam about to burst. The neocons soon will be a minority and the Republicans will take back their party and kick the cons to the curb and also the Democrats will be just fine. Both parties are to blame also, for not standing up to the bullies and neocons sooner. I respect Chuck Hagel for taking a stand and saying, you won't bully me anymore and i will speak my mind and be honest.

[Janett_Reno]

Greenspan book: GOP 'swapped principle for power'

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/...ook/index.html

Here is the interview(video).

Senator Chuck Hagel Interviewed by Bill Maher(9 minutes)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FBmtWwaUOGU

[Jack.Kerr]

Originally Posted by dude1394

If he said he'd only serve two terms good for him. With respect to dirty trick, that's stupid and it deserves to be on the huffington post.

Here was his statement



What exactly is he talking about? So should Petraeus NOT report back to congress as was expected when he was OVERWHELMINGLY approved. Hagel is being an idiot here. It's the US GOVERNMENTS policy, proposed by Petraeus and OVERWHELMINGLY approved by the Democrats.

There is a reason that the congress is below double digits in approval rating on iraq, because you all are a bunch of nitwits.

The founding fathers again show us why congress isn't to be trusted with foreign policy.

Hagel isn't so much interested in living up to some ridiculous "campaign promise" as he is looking for a pay increase. Sit back and watch as he gets a hefty dollar book deal to trash the Bush administration after he leaves the Senate, gets high dollar speaking engagements in front of lunatic Democratic anti-war hucksters, and lobbies former colleagues (for high-dollar fees) in what will amost certainly be a Democratic majority. He's just establishing his Bush-bashing bonafides now looking for a payoff later.

Anybody wanna bet that doesn't happen?

[Jack.Kerr]

Ahh, here we go.....angling for a position in a Democratic administration.

Hagel's plan to exit Senate begs the question: What's next?

By ANNA JO BRATTON

Associated Press Writer

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel left plenty of questions unanswered when he announced last week he won't run for re-election in 2008.

He addressed the pressing topics. Would he seek the Republican presidential nomination? No. Would he seek a third term as one of Nebraska's senators? No.

But Hagel hedged when pressed about what his future might hold, except to say he hoped "to have another opportunity to serve my country in some new capacity down the road."

Would he be open to a vice presidential nomination?

He wouldn't speculate.

What about a Cabinet post?

No real response.

Former Republican Sen. John McCollister, who gave Hagel his first Senate job as an aide, said Hagel "is an ideal candidate to become secretary of state in either a Democratic or Republican administration.

And he doesn't think this marks the end of Hagel's presidential possibilities.

"It may not be too late," McCollister said. "I think if he's secretary of state for eight years, he'll be a natural candidate for president in 2016."

But Hagel's harsh criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq strategy makes him an unlikely candidate for a Cabinet post if a Republican wins in 2008, said Whit Ayres, an Alexandria, Va.-based Republican pollster who is unaligned in the presidential race.

"He's burned so many bridges, I can't imagine him being secretary of state," Ayres said.

Hagel's multilateral world view might encourage a Democrat to consider him for a Cabinet job, said Ross Baker, a congressional scholar at Rutgers University who served as a senior adviser to Hagel and was on the Senate staff of former presidential candidate Walter Mondale.

"I think in many ways, he would be an ideal candidate for secretary of state in a Democratic administration because he's very much an internationalist," Baker said. "I think he sees the world more as a Democrat than a Republican."

As for a vice presidential candidacy, "he might be a good ticket balancer for Rudy Giuliani," Baker said. Hagel's Midwest credentials might help Giuliani with those who perceive him as a New Yorker out of touch with the rest of the country.

Hagel's Senate counterpart, Democrat Ben Nelson, said it's probably not the last the nation will hear of Chuck Hagel.

"He was considered a possible candidate for president," Nelson said. "I would think that would cause some people to believe he has a political future."

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns wouldn't speculate on whether Hagel would make a good secretary of state. Many Republicans hope Johanns will run for Hagel's seat.

"He's a bright guy, and he's well regarded around the country," the former Nebraska governor said of Hagel. "We don't share views on many issues that are similar, but his views are thought provoking."

News from the senator himself on his future will have to wait -- he said finishing his Senate term is his top priority -- and that the future will take care of itself.

Hagel recently finished writing a book titled "America: The Next Chapter," which is scheduled to be published early next year by Ecco, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers.

"It will be a book about where America goes from here," Hagel said. "It will not be an autobiography, it will not be a policy manual."

The book includes a chapter on Iraq and one on the Middle East, Hagel said. He said he also touches on education and trade, and covers "most of the big issues of the world."

As for the next chapter in Hagel's life, it remains to be seen.

"The letdown is not gentle," Baker said. "You've been on 'Face the Nation' every other Sunday ... and then your major Sunday appearance is St. John's Episcopal Church. It can be disconcerting."

[Dr.Zoidberg]

September 11, 2007
OPINION
The Politics of Petraeus
By John C. Hulsman

ABOUT DR. JOHN C. HULSMAN


Eva Knoll

Dr. John C. Hulsman is the Von Oppenheim Scholar in Residence at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin (DGAP). He is president and co-founder of John C. Hulsman Enterprises, an international relations consulting firm. Formerly a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, Hulsman is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a Contributing Editor to National Interest, one of the world’s foremost Foreign Policy journals.


The report by the US military's top man in Iraq has a little bit for everyone. Still, Petraeus' highly political case will change very little. It is unlikely he can convince the Democrats to stay the course in Iraq, and support for Bush's Iraq policies will likely continue even amongst wavering Republicans.


AP - President George W. Bush (right) and Gen. David Petraeus: Cherry-picked facts to bolster a shaky case

On Monday night, after a very long day of assessing what the report from General David Petraeus to Congress might say, I had a decision to make. I could watch the keenly awaited Congressional testimony of our senior American commander in Iraq, or take time off to listen to a new Bob Dylan CD I had brought back from America.

With little hesitation I opted for Dylan.

For the Petraeus Report has nothing to do with Middle Eastern realities; it has everything to do with American politics. For this is a report that will be seen as all things to all people -- and it will change very little.

The White House

For the White House, current poll numbers on Iraq make for grim reading. The new Associated Press-Ipsos poll, published this past Sunday, finds that by 59 to 34 percent, those surveyed think the Iraq war will be judged a historical mistake. This large, two-to-one ratio holds across the board; 58 to 36 percent think the surge is a flop. These numbers have barely moved in the past year. It is clear that the majority of Americans have made their minds up about the war, and think it is a catastrophe. Like a failed gambler coming to the end of his stake, the president is frantically looking around for someone to loan him some cash, or in this case public trust, so he can continue his spree. In desperation, the president has turned to General Petraeus.

But this is a political, not a policy strategy. The general has already said, all facts to the contrary, that the surge is working, that the extra 30,000 troops have achieved most of their military goals and can probably leave Iraq by the summer of 2008. For an administration beset by almost constant bad news, this pronouncement amounts to manna from heaven.

It does not matter that the general has cherry-picked factoids to bolster his shaky case (for example, he has moved a large number of Iraqis killed from the sectarian war category to the common crime category, without explanation), or that the general clearly admitted that the prime goal of the surge -- that a military offensive would give all the segments of the Iraqi elite time to make the political compromises necessary for stability -- has met with scant progress. The president's political goal is simple; to use the general's testimony to reassure enough wavering Republicans to 'stay the course,' so he can continue with his last throw of the dice.

The Republicans in Congress

For the Republicans in the Senate face a real problem. With Iraq consistently topping the list of people's concerns heading into the 2008 election, and with the war going so badly, even popular incumbents are getting very nervous. Moderate Republicans such as Susan Collins of Maine and Gordon Smith of Oregon, facing tough re-election campaigns, are going home to a barrage of criticism about their votes to authorize the Iraq war in the first place. With 22 of the 34 Senate seats that are up for election in 2008 now in Republican hands, it was always going to be a difficult year for the party. With Iraq looming over everything, it could well become disastrous.

The president's only hope is that the general's report is positive enough to keep these wavering Republicans on the reservation, with his infusion of good news. Any future cut-off of funding for Iraq would require a good deal of moderate Republican support. For they are the primary audience for the report, its terms underlying a political courting process undertaken by both the Democrats and the White House.

The Democrats

For the Democrats the Petraeus report is a danger. This well-regarded military leader, perhaps the finest serving officer in the American armed forces, has seemed set to contradict their position that the war is unwinnable. They must find a way to honor the man, while at the same time attacking his overly optimistic findings.

For the Democrats, ever since retaking both houses of Congress in November 2006, have a larger political problem. If they vote to end financial support for the war, they risk falling into the 'Vietnam Trap.' Following their cutting off of funding to South Vietnam in the 1970's, for 30 years Democrats have been viewed as weaker on national security issues than Republicans. While this might not be fair it is a political fact that the current Democratic leadership is well aware of. But if they continue to do nothing, they will be supporting the very war that they rose to power declaring they would bring to an end. This will enrage the left of the party, the very group that energized their victory in the mid-term elections of 2006.

What Will Happen

With his testimony to the House finished, General Petraeus will go before the Senate on Tuesday, stressing tactical military improvements in Anbar province and in portions of Baghdad. He will also continue to admit that, to put it mildly, there has been little to no political progress in the country, that the Iraqi leadership has not taken advantage of the breathing space the surge was designed to provide. There has been no agreement on sharing oil revenues, increasing Sunni participation in a Shia-dominated central government or in disbanding powerful militias. In terms of policy, as the German thinker Clausewitz stressed, military operations should be merely a tool to achieve political goals. By that standard the surge is undoubtedly a failure.

But that is not what this carnival is truly about. The Petraeus report should be seen almost entirely in the context of Washington politics, if what is going on is to make sense. At the end of this, the president will say he is vindicated, declaring that the surge must go on. Democrats will rightly stress the avalanche of problems in Iraq, and remain unconvinced. Wavering Republicans will continue to waver, but not enough will defect to cut the president's funding for the war.

And this tragedy will go on.

Listening to Dylan is looking like a better and better decision.

Link

September 12, 2007
THE WORLD FROM BERLIN
'The Stage for a Withdrawal Has Been Set'

Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker told the US Congress this week that the "surge" could come home -- but the rest of America's troops in Iraq need to stay there indefinitely. German commentators reacted coolly to the news.


AFP - US soldiers return from their combat outpost following a night patrol along the southern edge of Baghdad. Their top military commander was not able to say this week when the majority of them would be coming home.

After 17 hours of testimony over two days from the two men most capable of speaking about the situation in Iraq, the most important message was that US President George W. Bush was sticking to his plan to keep the "surge" temporary and bring back its additional 30,000 troops by next summer (more...).

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, answered questions before committees in the US House of Representatives and the Senate. The hearings were marked not only by the strong emotions stirred up by the war and the Sept. 11 anniversary, but also by the aspirations of the five presidential candidates who sat on the questioning panels.

At times the debate became very heated, and Democratic politicians did not mince their words. "This was the biggest foreign policy mistake ever," commented Senate majority leader Barbara Boxer. Sen. Hillary Clinton told Petraeus he had been made into "a spokesman" for the president, while Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, "I don't see anything that leads to an early and honourable end of this war."

At one point, Petraeus' steel wavered slightly, when he admitted: "I'm as frustrated with the situation as anybody else." But, for the most part, the general and the diplomat kept their cool. They refused to hypothesize and stray from their message: Gains have been made; their permanence is unknowable; more time is needed.

IRAQ: STRATEGIES AND WITHDRAWAL PLANS

The Surge

In January 2007 the US government reacted to the dramatic situation in Iraq with the so-called "surge." Its purpose was to improve the security situation by means of an offensive and an increase in US soldiers. Five additional brigades (roughly 20,000 soldiers) were deployed there in order to support the 132,000 US soldiers already stationed in Iraq and the units of the Iraqi army.

The US hoped in this way to make it possible for the Iraqi government to institute political reforms and to further reconciliation between the warring ethnic and religions groups. Considerable financial support was supposed to lead to job creation and a path back to normality in Iraq.

The surge did, in fact, succeed in making advances against Sunni insurgents and radical Shiites, but the process of political reconciliation appears to have once again come to a halt.

The Bagdad Plan

In order to secure the Iraqi capital, the "Baghdad Plan" was developed in January 2007. It was meant to guarantee the cohesion of the Iraqi government and its security apparatus. Its goal was to bring Baghdad back under Iraqi control.

In addition to pursuing terrorists and extremists, regardless of their religious affiliations or places of origin, priority was given to protecting the population. By means of associated economic and reconstruction aid, it was hoped that jobs would be created and daily life in the Iraqi capital would return to normal.

However, even today, chaos still rages behind the democratic façade and the government does not control the capital.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission

The Baker-Hamilton Commission (or "Iraq Study Group") was convened in May 2006 by the US Congress in order to solicit an independent appraisal of the situation in Iraq and to provide recommendations. The commission was composed of half Democrats and half Republicans and was chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker III and the Democrat Lee H. Hamilton.

The findings were presented on December 6, 2006. The final report called for the Iraqi army and security forces to be in a position by 2008 to guarantee security in the country. Moreover, the commission recommended strengthening the number of troops over the short term and sharply reducing them in 2008. Only American staging posts and Special Forces should thereafter remain in Iraq.

Problems should be solved using diplomatic rather than military means. The group also called for the US to engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria. President Bush especially rejected this last recommendation as well as the suggestion to dramatically reduce troop strength.

The British Withdrawal

In July 2007 the new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown began to intentionally distance himself from the Iraqi policies of his predecessor Tony Blair. He started with a partial withdrawal of 1,600 soldiers.

The latest phase of the British withdrawal began on the night of Sept. 1, 2007. Approximately 550 British soldiers vacated the last base in Basra in a former palace of Saddam Hussein.

From an original total of 11,000 British soldiers who were stationed in Iraq in 2003, 5,000 are supposed to remain at the end of 2007. In October 2007, Brown is expected to announce his opinion on a plan for a possible complete withdrawal.

Petraeus recommended a gradual withdrawal of the 30,000 troops added with the surge Bush announced in January, which would begin now and end in July. As to the fate of the 130,000 soldiers who will remain in Iraq, he was not in a position to confirm any plan of action.

Democrats are using the testimony as a way to try to convince a few more Republicans to join their ranks, thereby securing the number of votes needed to cut off funding for the war and force the president to decide upon deadlines for bringing the rest of the troops home. "We're going to try with our debate next week to pick up three more Republicans," said Nevada Senator Harry Reid.

Commentators writing in the Wednesday editions of the main German-language papers were typically skeptical of US policy and the future for Iraq.

The conservative Die Welt discusses the situation in Iraq as it relates to other western military engagements in Afghanistan, Lebanon and Kosovo. In a piece called "No Patience for Victory," it writes:

"The conclusion is a bitter one: The West is no longer in a position to wage war in an organized fashion, in other words to go into battle and bring about lasting changes in the conditions on the ground. It lacks the stamina and the desire needed to carry out pre-war plans to the end in the face of resistance. It is terrified by the evil of an asymmetrical war with large numbers of deaths on its own side."

"The opponents know about these weaknesses, and the allies do, too. While the former merrily go on with their bombing in an attempt to accelerate the withdrawal, the latter remain inconstant. Why should Iraqis or Afghanis remain reliably on the side of the American or the Europeans, when they know that they will be disappearing soon? To wage a war successfully, you don't only need fighting power and civil reconstruction. You also need patience, a virtue long gone."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"All in all, the military situation has relaxed somewhat, but the extent of violence in Iraq remains terrifying. Without a further build-up of the Iraqi army and without an agreement between the religious-political factions caught up in a civil war, nothing is going to change."

"In fact, things look even bleaker. The various 'reconciliation talks' between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are dominated by partisan jockeying for position and no progress has been made on the real issues. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is criticized for his close ties to Tehran, has proven to be incompetent or even worse. ... In parts of the country, especially in the south, there is fighting among various Shiite factions. Millions of Iraqis have fled abroad, while hundreds of thousands are caught up in ethic and religious cleansing, driven from their hometowns or the lands Saddam Hussein settled them on and seeking refuge somewhere. The economic results, especially those from oil production, have hardly improved. Billions of dollars in contracts that the American government has pumped into the country have run into the sand or -- to be more precise -- landed in the wrong pockets."

"Whether the representatives and senators in Washington are realistically evaluating these facts at all is another question altogether. In the discussion about Iraq in Washington ... the only real question is when the withdrawal will begin and how quickly it will be carried out."

"A withdrawal, if it is not going to look like post-defeat flight, will in any case last longer than a year. At the end of the day, it's about how soon a timetable can be publicly announced or whether Washington keeps the Iraqis in the dark about that. There are arguments for and against both approaches. On this issue there are only two things which are certain: Iraq's future will not be rosy, and the standing of America as a world power is severely damaged after this deployment."

Austria's Der Standard writes:

"One feels like one has gone back in time to before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. After the US government's recent PR campaign, the world is once again divided into believers and disbelievers when it comes to the US's Iraq policy. But simply showing skepticism or a taste for the facts -- far less actual disbelief -- is enough to be labeled a 'defeatist,' if not worse, by the believers."

"Since Petraeus, who is indeed an impressive man, stated (that troop levels will be reduced in 2008) at the same time as asserting that US military strategy in Iraq was bearing fruit, his recommendations were regarded by some observers as reason for optimism. The real message got lost -- namely that the US forces in Iraq cannot be significantly reduced at the moment."

The Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung writes:

"Gen. Petraeus ... gave Congress a new definition of the American mission in Iraq, one that is sober and modest: The US is not trying to determine the future shape of Iraq, he said. It is only trying to ensure that the Iraqi sects compete for power in a less violent manner."

"That is not really the description of an imperialist line of attack, or of the idealistic conviction that Iraq has to become a functioning democracy before the Americans can leave the field with honor. ... The stage for a withdrawal has been set."

"The interest groups in the Iraqi government have so far not been able to agree on the key points in policy. There is no sign of a basic political consensus. And they are not going to unite that quickly, even under the threat of an American withdrawal, if they don't agree that the preservation of Iraq as a state is the best solution. But in the end, there is the question of the alternative. Does one have to look into the abyss before compromises seem attractive?"

-- Josh Ward, 2:30 p.m. CET

Link

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by jack.kerr

You can call me what you want in private messages. I assure you I can give as good as I can get. But it seems inconsiderate to people who aren't interested (i.e. just about everyone else) for you to post them in the public threads.

I understand what you're about though--you've been exposed and embarrassed, and now you're trying to show everybody what a tough-guy you are by waving your dick around in every thread. Suit yourself. I don't intend to engage you further--you're not interesting enough to bother with. You're just a bigoted poser, trying to work some of your aggression out on a message board. I assure you, you're showing who the true and bigger prick is. Cheers and tally-ho to you.

'sup jack....

actually, i'm just having a bit of fun with you....inasmuch as you've now sent two private replies to me I think it's pretty evident that it's getting to you a bit.

as for the notion that I've somehow been exposed and embarrassed as a bigot, I think you're just imagining things....

should we add "delusional" to moronic, thin-skinned prick?

cheers

[FishForLunch]

Did Hagel vote in favor of going to Iraq? I am sure he did or is he like Hillary they were naive enough to be fooled my the "Dumbest President" in US history.


----
Here is Chuck Hagel (CH) snake like replies to questions about voting for Iraq resolution.

SH: Do you regret your war vote? And do you think the administration believed that intelligence or did they work to rig it?

CH: Well, if you’re referring to the resolution, the Iraq War Resolution of 2002, that was not a resolution to go to war, that was resolution that would empower the President of the United States to take military action if it was the last course of action he could take, the last resort, after exhausting all the diplomatic efforts. So, I think we need to be clear around that. It wasn’t a resolution to go to war or not go to war.

Second, your question, about do I regret it? Yes. If I could vote again, I would vote against it. The fact is that the war in Iraq was a war of choice. Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat to the United States or anyone else. The fact is containment was working. The fact is he didn’t control 60% of his country. We had overflights in the north and the south. Those where F-16s that would fly our to Saudi Arabia. The fact is he was slowly strangling in the 40% of his country. That was a needless commitment of American blood and treasure. And if that vote was held again today, I’d vote against it.

SH: Do you think that they rigged the intelligence?

[…]

SH: Everything you said about Iraq a moment ago was known at the time. How do you explain—In your speak you said, “The risk of inaction is too high” and so on. You voted for and seemed to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Was there a propaganda effort? Were you fooled by it? If so why?

CH: What you just said is not true? You just said that everything that we know today, we knew at the time.

SH: We certainly knew that Saddam Hussein did not control his entire region. We knew we had overflights and all that.

CH: I’m not going to debate you, but what you said is not true. That fact is, the entire intelligence community of this government, all 16 agencies, told the President as well as the intelligence agencies from other countries to all our allies, did believe and did say that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.