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 ...
???? How is Chuck standing up for what he believes? He's stating what he believes, but he's not standing up for it. This is a non-binding resolution. It's just a lot of hot air which accomplishes nothing. The White House should've challenged Chuck and the boys and told them to try and make it a binding resolution. Fish or cut bait.
If the surge works then Hagel will claim credit for "putting the President's feet to the fire". If it fails, he'll say "I told you so." The position is win/win for him. He risks nothing.
Standing up for what he believes? Don't think so.
Every last word, chuck.
The Armed Forces Committee endorsed General Petraeus 25-0. Then, backstabber Hagel undercuts the General's plan!
During WWII, A certain German Corporal though he knew more than his Generals. Now we have a German Sergeant that thinks he knows more than the commanding General!
Who do you support? General Petraeus or Senator Betraytus?
Do you think Pelosi and Reid are going to do better protecting you and yours from another devastating attack like what happened on 9/11 but worse? Do you think we can just circle the wagons and the terrorists are not going to come here again? We were not in Afghanistan or Iraq when 9/11 happened, so if you think they will not come here again, you are dead wrong.
She jumped the shark the day President Bush was inaugurated a second term.
If nothing else, this war as really separated the wheat from the tares.
Hagel has always been a gutless poltician. This war didn't change his mind overnight.
Where are the old bulls who can speak on the Senate floor and have it reverberate across the country? Where are the Henry Clays and the John Calhouns? If the President's policies are right for the country there should be at least one Senator who can defend him in terms that the people can understand and rally around. We have a bunch of clerks and lawyers.
Despite the clear evidence showing Saddams connections to terrorism they would rather help the Democrats show an investment of failure in Iraq by going into the Senate Select intelligence hearings with preconceived notions of why we didn't belong in Iraq.
Someone needs to hold this A-holes feet to the fire if he wants to help the Democrats showcase their disdain for our President and our troops mission.
She's pointing out that having them vote and put their records on the line is past due.
You have to forget her admiration for Hagel...who's considered a turncoat in here. But alas...this thread shouldn't be about Hagel.
It's about Noonan's giving to us straight.
I think it's a fabulous assessment by Noonan.
Thanks of replying. Hard to find a your intellect among the usual suspects.
These people have debated the war since it started (poorly no doubt) ....but I think its silly to now debate military tactics (surge..no surge)What the hell do they know?
One of the lesson of Vietnam was we should let the military run the war
policians should not micro manage
Pity. She used to have some piercing insights.
Spark debate.
Look, I support the President 110%. But, the Administration's prosecution of the war evolved into seeing our soldiers becoming policemen while trying to avoid being victims. After 4 years...that's unacceptable.
Or should be.
I don't know...that's why I'm here.
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.