Posted on 01/25/2007 9:14:42 PM PST by quidnunc
We all complain, and with justice, about the falseness of much that is said in Washington, and the cowardice that leaves a great deal unsaid. But I found myself impressed and grateful for the words of Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska, in a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. Because his message was not one Republicans or Democrats would find congenial, it may be accidentally dropped down the memory hole, so I'll quote at some length.
The committee was nearing a vote on what was, essentially, an announcement of no confidence in the administration's leadership in Iraq. Specifically it was a nonbinding resolution opposing the increase in troops the president has requested. This was not significant in a concrete way: The president has the power to send more troops, and they are already arriving. But as symbols go, it packed a punch. You couldn't watch it on television or on the Internet and not see that Mr. Hagel was letting it rip. He did not speak from notes or a text but while looking at his fellow senators. There seemed no time lag between thought and word. He was barreling, he was giving it to you straight, and he'd pick up the pieces later.
This is what he said: Congress has duties; in the case of the war, meeting those duties was not convenient; Congress did not meet them.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Plus the fact that people tend to reinvent the past to make it more useful for the present. Revisionism is not limited to historians bucking for tenure.
I never could stand Peggy Noonan's supercillious, pedantic style, but in the last few years everything she writes is about her own emotions and how things make her feel. You know that she teaches or used to teach public speaking at Columbia, so she is probably trying to fit into her liberal surroundings , and save face with her peers after being turned down. She really isn't a deep thinker.
Hagel is no coward, but he makes the mistake of thinking that his own military experience is still relevant. I have a friend, a former top kick who was in Korean and in Vietnam, twice. His attitude is: I don't know how they do things today. Even Hagel has had new information, he has not been--really been with the infantry in Iraq.
Bloomberg reports 81-0. So, where was Sen. Profile-in-courage, Chuckles Hagel.
Cost benefit analysis: Cost - it encourages the enemy to kill Americans. Benefits - none for America that I can see. Therefore, it shouldn't be done.
If he wants to sound like some hippie protestor, fine...go be a hippie protestor. He can't claim to be speaking for the troops, for the lessons learned from Vietnam, and do what he's doing or say what he's saying.
Politicians know full well the affect words have on people; that's what they do for a living. He's making it more likely that more soldiers will die...and he's running for President.
If he wanted to be fulfilling his responsibilities, he would shut up. That would show concern for the troops.
He, like you, hasn't addressed the bigger picture. If this is in fact the first skirmishes in a world war with Islamofascism, his posturing will cost the lives of millions of Americans and many thousands of soldiers.
Responsible, my arse.
And I can use that very phrase without changing a thing to apply to invasion of nations that don't represent a current and direct threat to our borders.
Therefore, it shouldn't be done.
Wow, you mean interventionist foreign policy is over then? That was easy....
That doesn't minimize their contribution; wrong is just wrong.
I trust Dick Cheney's views much more than I trust Carry's...and more than I trust Hagel's.
So? Shouldn't have been in Vietnam in the first place. Wilsonian nonsense of spreading or stopping the spread of a certain political ideology should not be our concern
Politicians know full well the affect words have on people; that's what they do for a living. He's making it more likely that more soldiers will die...and he's running for President.
So then, exactly when will it be acceptable in Republican world to speak out against something that's not working? You could drop 500,000 troops into Iraq tomorrow morning and you'd still have the same problem, except on a larger scale.
If he wanted to be fulfilling his responsibilities, he would shut up. That would show concern for the troops.
Ah, I see. Fulfilling responsibilities is now defined as going along for the ride...as long as it's the 'right' administration. Correct?
He, like you, hasn't addressed the bigger picture. If this is in fact the first skirmishes in a world war with Islamofascism
News flash for you. This isn't the 'first' skirmish by far. And if you think somehow these United States or any other western nation isn't going to somehow impress upon these peoples the wisdom of western civilization and democracy, you're fooling yourself and don't have a good grasp on history either
Not questioning Hagel's patriotism, but the fact is that America owes a heck of a lot more to Benedict Arnold's service (for his victory at Saratoga) than it does to Chuck Hagel's service, ribbons or not.
If you had any grasp of history or any serious world view, that post would embarrass you. It was recognized as early as the early '50s that a nuclear war was unthinkable; that what we now call the Cold War would be fought by proxy in small countries; not the US, USSR, or China.
Defense of Korea was the right call, as was the defense of Vietnam. Only the short-sighted can say it was not in defense of the US. Thankfully, the administrations during the '50s, '60s and '70s acknowledged that. Thank God for Ronald Reagan. The left was wrong about Vietnam, and wrong about the Cold War. If you agree with them, that includes you.
BTW...if the left really believed that, they wouldn't constantly have to re-write history and lie about it, would they?
So then, exactly when will it be acceptable in Republican world to speak out against something that's not working? You could drop 500,000 troops into Iraq tomorrow morning and you'd still have the same problem, except on a larger scale.
I did support the Iraq war; still do. I believe we're fighting a kindler, gentler occupation, if you will; waging "lawfare" instead of "warfare." I recognize that this isn't working; I also recognize that Hagel is part of the reason. I find it ironic that Hagel has been a major hindrance to the robust occupation I would have supported. He says he now wants to end an occupation he helped make unwinnable, and wants to be lionized for it. His positions are indistinguishable from Pelosi or Durban. He should ask himself why...
I support more troops only if it's accompanied by modified ROEs. If you won't let the troops win, they have no business being there. Note, I'm not calling for them to be withdrawn...
It's possible to criticize the way a war is being conducted without bringing the troops into harm's way; it's possible to do so without having your judgment or patriotism questioned. Problem is, it's tough...and calls for a sense of nuance. It's almost impossible if you're a Democrat, because they have no credibility when it comes to defense...Hagel's credibility comes from the fact he was a decorated veteran. So was Jon Carry...it doesn't mean what it used to.
Ah, I see. Fulfilling responsibilities is now defined as going along for the ride...as long as it's the 'right' administration. Correct?
I supported every military action Bubba took, except for Kosovo. If anything, I criticized him for what W describes as "sending a million dollar missile to blow up some tents."
News flash for you. This isn't the 'first' skirmish by far. And if you think somehow these United States or any other western nation isn't going to somehow impress upon these peoples the wisdom of western civilization and democracy, you're fooling yourself and don't have a good grasp on history either...
As far as this being the first skirmish...this is the first time there's been a real response. From 1979 on, it's been one-sided. The Islamists are undoubtedly pleased with the result.
As far as Islam being "impressed," what I'm impressed with is Ahmanutjob in Iraq. He says he intends to bring about the end of Israel. Nations have ignored plain speech like this, to their peril...they seem to be doing so now. That's the lesson that stands out from history. Another lesson that stands out...has been quoted by Bin Laden. He says that you don't have to defeat the Americans militarily; you defeat them in the newspapers at home. He learned that lesson because of the Vietnam War.
Here's your last lesson from today...the record of wars shows not that we enter them too early, but wait much too long. That means a higher cost in therms of lives and money. That's because there are too many who want to wait until there is no other option. Any serious person can see that's the absolute worst time to do anything. Hagel is making it more likely that the lesson Bin Laden drew will be reinforced.
Ah yes, the short view. I was speaking of the break in US history (late 19th/early 20th century) to the foreign policy led by men like Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt (those dastardly Spanish and Cubans eh?), etc. I do forget sometimes I'm speaking with 'conservatives' whose view of history is limited to post 1940s. Sorry. I'll limit my responses to monosyllabic responses then shall I?
Defense of Korea was the right call, as was the defense of Vietnam. Only the short-sighted can say it was not in defense of the US. Thankfully, the administrations during the '50s, '60s and '70s acknowledged that.
No, the administrations of the 50s, 60s, and 70s were continuing interventionist policies that were fresh in their mind. Missteps less than 50 years before led them to believe they should continue to misstep to 'spread freedom'. BTW, Vietnam turned out rather well through an exercise in free trade beginning in the early to mid 80s didn't it? Not one shot fired and probably one of the highest GDPs of SE Asia. Imagine that.
I did support the Iraq war; still do. I believe we're fighting a kindler, gentler occupation, if you will; waging "lawfare" instead of "warfare." I recognize that this isn't working; I also recognize that Hagel is part of the reason. I find it ironic that Hagel has been a major hindrance to the robust occupation I would have supported.
Yes because occupation in the Middle East always works doesn't it? I suggest you ask the French and the British about that. Oops sorry, some of that happened before the 20th century...oh well it's in the history books isn't it? It wouldn't alleviate the situation if you had twice the amount of people there. Speaking of which, you seem gung-ho on the project, you'll be signing up for a few tours over there will you?
It's possible to criticize the way a war is being conducted without bringing the troops into harm's way; it's possible to do so without having your judgment or patriotism questioned.
Yes becausing questioning the executive branch is equatable to having questionable patriotism. I would refer you to Washington's warning on that in his Farewell Address ('absolute power of an individual') but that's before 1898 so I don't know if you've read it.
Here's your last lesson from today...the record of wars shows not that we enter them too early, but wait much too long. That means a higher cost in therms of lives and money. That's because there are too many who want to wait until there is no other option.
Yes because pre-emptive war is the way to go eh? Actually it's not but that's another conservative principle Republicans have no use for either....
But thanks for the offer on the history lesson. Unfortunately nothing I haven't heard countless times before from those with a superficial understanding of the matter (not saying you have a superficial understanding it's just all I have to go by from your post..)
A-effing-MEN.
I agree, Bush is a blue-blood who conned a lot of people to get elected.
What a moron! Somebody tell her her life is over and frankly, we're all glad!
Pal, you have got to stop sniffing that glue. The only thing straight about this broad is the stick up her.....!
That was an excellent argument to make - before the war. In fact, it was made and dismissed by the vast majority of the American people.
Glad I'm not the only one!
What Hagel is really saying is "Look at me. I'm so smart." Hagel got exactly what he was looking for--the MSM attention. I don't even know the name of one other Republican on the same committee. Hagel got ALL the publicity.
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.