Skip to comments.Senate resolution to criticize Iraq plan [Hagel]
Posted on 01/17/2007 11:12:58 AM PST by Enchante
WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats working with a well-known Republican war critic are developing a resolution declaring that President Bush's troop build up in Iraq "is not in the national interest," said people familiar with the document.
The resolution also would put the Senate on record as saying the U.S. commitment in Iraq "can only be sustained" with popular support among the American public and in Congress, according to officials who are knowledgeable about the draft.
These officials would speak only on grounds of anonymity because the drafting is still under way. Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), a Nebraska Republican and potential 2008 presidential candidate, is helping Democrats with the wording of the anti-war resolution.
"It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating U.S. troop presence in Iraq," it says.
The resolution will be cosponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record) and Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), as well as Hagel. Levin, D-Mich., chairs the Armed Services Committee, and Biden, D-Del., heads the Foreign Relations Committee.
The Senate leadership is expected by Thursday to propose the resolution, with debate planned around the same time that Bush delivers his State of the Union speech next Tuesday.
Hagel's agreement to help Democrats champion the resolution amounts to a setback to the administration and to Bush, who has argued vehemently that some 21,500 additional U.S. troops are needed to help the Iraqi government calm sectarian violence in Baghdad and Anbar province.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Hagel has no clue and never has. He blows with the wind on everything because he looks in the mirror and sees a President.
These RINOs are killing our country. They will do anything to our country and our people, all for their own empowerment.
Put a resolution to stop funding or stfu, take a stand one way or the other
Wrong! Hagel is probably the most pro-limited government member of the Senate. He voted for the Bush tax cuts, against McCain-Feingold, for the second amendment, and was against the Iraq Wilsonian quagmire when it wasn't popular.
Meanwhile, they do everything they can do discourage support by the American people. At what point is this aid and comfort.
"Wrong! Hagel is probably the most pro-limited government member of the Senate. He voted for the Bush tax cuts, against McCain-Feingold, for the second amendment, and was against the Iraq Wilsonian quagmire when it wasn't popular."
Hey everyone, let's all welcome Senator Hagel's Chief-of-Staff to the forum!
Nah.....but I'd work for Ron Paul in a heart-beat.
It is because of RINOs like Hagel that the latest solicitation for the National Republican Senatorial Committee has gone into the trash and all other Republican solicitations for money or otherwise will end up in the same location.
Hagel is a BIG GASBAG!
You're being awful hard on the boy.
I think we ought to give him a level playing field as he launches his '08 Republican exploratory committee. "The truth will set you free."
...and if my only choices were Mrs. Bill Clinton and Chuck Hagel, I'd run to the local Mrs. Bill Clinton campaign office to work for her/it.
When he gets that vote in the Republican primary, we'll know where it came from.
Ah, so he was taking Oil for Food money, too.
Hagel's straw-clutching campaign for President will make Obama's pathetic attempt ALMOST look reasonable.
I'd say it cements his defeat in the Republican primaries. Why vote for him, when you can vote for a real Democrat?
At least you are a consistent liberal. With a name like "willard" I smell a RAT.
Again, Ron Paul is my man. He predicted the mess in Iraq when some folks here were predicting that we were on the verge of a democratic chain reaction in the Middle East, that the Iraq war would "pay for itself," that the insurgency was just a few foreigners taking pot-shots who would soon be quelled, that the MSM would soon have egg on their face on WMD, that the Iraqis were liberty loving (they voted for Shi'ite fundamentalists instead). Remember the famous quagmire alerts? Haven't seen one of those lately.
I'll call this Hagel does a Kegel, the wuss!
"Hagel has no clue and never has."
Hagel is a public backstabber. McCain is too, but does it with an "aw shucks" style. Hagel is pure mean.
I hope the President comes out on the day of such a resolution and argues forcefully that this resolution is not in the national interest.
It is tantamount to screaming at the coach during a game. It does not advance the game, but has a good chance of disrupting the players.
Yeah, right a consistent liberal is for smaller government including the second amendment, for massive tax cuts, and against racial preferences. If that is what you mean by "consistent liberal," I guess I'll have to plead guilty.
Why do RINOs and Dems need a resolution to do what they've been doing since the war began?
They haven't called him Hagel (R-France) for a decade for nothing.
Speaking of predictions, let's remember these, shall we?
-the "Arab Street" would explode
-Iraqi refugees would strain neighboring countries
-we'd lose 10,000 soldiers (in the actual war against Saddam)
-Iraq war would cause terrorist attacks back here
-Israel would be under siege (although this was probably wishful thinking)
-hundreds of oil fields would be set ablaze
Hagel is for limited Republican government. As for Iraq, the administration may have tried to sell it in Wilsonian terms, but the main purpose is to maintain an American presence in the Middle East. Hagel is not helping because he is obsessed with the rhetoric of the Vietnam era.
What a Parliment of Metrosexuals. They don't have the stones to actually try and do something, so they make their pathetic little resolutions with no relevance and no ramifications and then pound their chests acting as though they had actually done something.
Meanwhile, real make reals decisions with real outcomes waving the nagging little gnats away with the brush of a hand.
I was going down memory lane on the most popular predictions at FR. Yeah, you can find extreme predictions on on both sides that were wrong....though folks like Ron Paul were more careful. Interstingly, some of your "wrong" predictions were not so wrong after all. Iraqi refugees have indeed strained neighboring countries. The Christian population is rapidly declining, for example. Certainly nobody in their right mind is now actually moving to Iraq. The Arab Street hasn't exploded but Arabs (contra the Wilsonian predictions) have shown time and again that they have nothing but contempt for democracy in their votes.....so that's pretty much the same thing.
Supposedly, at the top of the hour, Hildabeaset is supposed to give a presser with HER plans for Iraq.
That NEW and IMPROVED plan..of "capping" the number of troops that can be in or sent to Iraq!!!
Add that to this stupid resolution...and al-queda and Sadr have the necessary impetus to just lay low...because they will be SURE that Americans will quit.
Also...any Iraqi that has helped our troops will probably be killed...so they will probably kill our troops first.
This is NOT the way to run a war....that you want to win.
I'm not so sure neighboring countries have been "strained", they merely ignore the refugees much like they ignore their own people.
As for the street exploding, we all know what that meant.
It meant that the Arabs would turn against us and that has happened whenver they have had a chance to vote.
1. This is treason, plain and simple.
2. While I detest Hagel for helping the Democrats, there isn't a single post on the entire thread, that puts the blame where it belongs, on the Democrats, who are the ones who are doing this in the first place, because they are in power.
Who other then democrats give a crap? Suck it up Hagel!
LOL either that or his mama has dropped by.
No, it meant large crowds breaking things, fighting and lighting cars on fire...like the streets of France.
Real honorable guy.
So he was against the war after he voted for it in 2002? Like the rest of his leftist co-conspirators? What a guy!
Chuck Hagel has absolutely zero chance of winning more than one or two primaries under any circumstances. He has finished himself among the base by following the McCain triangulation model to make himself popular with the the Tim Russert's of the world while throwing the Prersident and the rest of the GOP under the bus.
Secondly, not only is he a RINO, he is wrong about Iraq. The worst thing we can do for many reasons is not finish the job
I would not piss on Chuck Hagel if he were on fire. In fact I will spend my money in a way specifically designed to injure any prospects that Hagel might think he has.
I can't stand the f#@king traitor!
***...who throws the term "the Bush crime family" around...***
On another thread, I told a Paul supporter that he ought to remind Paul of Reagan's 11th Commandment - since Paul claims to be GOP - to which the guy replied that he had never heard Paul say anything personally offensive about President Bush. I didn't bother responding. What a lost cause.
Were Hagel to switch parties, the only one that would make sense for him to join is the Libertarian Party. His grades on all the scorecards of Congress indicate he is one of the most principled conservatives in Congress.
But, thanks to the War in Iraq, the American right is splintering into the national-conservatives and the libertarian-conservatives. All around the world, when the right splits, the left wins.
Libertarians are not conservatives, and conservatives are not libertarians, although there is an overlap, and although Ronald Reagan said inside every true conservative is the heart of a libertarian (he was speaking more of himself than of conservatives in general). Neverthelesss, usually, we can work together.
During the last several years, we have not had any progress on things that matter to either faction. No progress on spending, on entitlement reform, etc. As a consequence, there has been no "good feelings" that has enabled either faction to accept compromise positions on anything.
I put the blame for all of this on mission creep that's been going on in Iraq. Congress in authorizing the use of force in Iraq cited things of immediate concern to the American people.
But, upon the discovery that there were no WMDs, the mission "shifted" to one of enabling Iraq to form a new government. As they stood up, we were supposed to stand down.
Well, they have ratified their new constitution, elected their new government, and have now had three years to field an army and a police force. But, we're not standing down because, well, now we have a new mission. Now, our mission is an Iraq capable of governing itself, defending itself, and so forth.
Why is Iraq's future OUR responsibility?
And, when did Congress ever authorize the use of force for this mission?
I don't think Congress ever did.
Ron Paul, during the mid 1970s to the early 1980s, was first elected in a Democrat district in a special election. Then lost in the general. He then came back and won in the next general. He then increased his majorities to the point that he eventually ran unopposed.
During the 1990s to the today, he has done approximately the same thing in a new district that originally leaned Democrat, except that the Democrats thought they could mount a challenge to him last year and actually ran a candidate who got his head handed to him.
With regard to Chuck Hagel, he runs up enormous victories in Nebraska.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.