| Who is the most outspoken and through-provoking Senate critic of the Bush administration’s misguided foreign policies?
Hint: The boldest opposition voice is not that of a Democrat. Over the course of the past week, Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a maverick conservative Republican from Nebraska, has scored the administration for its misguided approaches in language far wiser and bolder than the empty stream of rhetoric that continues to pass the lips of his Democratic colleagues. Here’s Hagel on Iraq: “[The occupation’s] an absolute replay of Vietnam.” The Vietnam veteran deplored the fact that U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq had become “easy targets” in a country that he told the Omaha World Herald had descended into “absolute anarchy.” Hagel condemned the decision of the Bush administration and its rubberstamping Pentagon to suspend military rotations and add new troops in Iraq — increasing the size of the occupation force from 130,000 to 135,000. “That isn’t going to do any good. It’s going to have a worse effect,” argues Hagel. “They’re destroying the United States Army.” . More significantly, here’s Hagel on the failure of the United States to use its influence with Israel to end the killing of innocent Lebanese men, women and children and the destruction of that country’s civilian infrastructure: “How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend — the country and people of Lebanon — is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East? The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now,” Hagel said on the Senate floor. Delivering the message that should be coming from the opposition party, the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee declared: “President Bush must call for an immediate cease fire. This madness must stop.” Most significantly of all, here’s Hagel making the connection between the occupation of Iraq and the broader Middle East crisis: “America is bogged down in Iraq, and this is limiting our diplomatic and military options.” Because the Bush administration deals in unreasonable “absolutes” when it approaches disputes in the region, the senator said, the United States in no longer seen as the “wellspring of consensus” that might be able to develop multi-national support for peace initiatives. Finally, here’s Hagel on what the U.S. should be doing in the Middle East: “We know that without engaged and active American leadership, the world is more dangerous,” explains the senator, who has been talked about as a possible 2008 presidential contender. So, he says, the U.S. must engage. Instead of Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s hands-off approach, Hagel argues, U.S. diplomats should be working with Arab governments, including governments that leaders in Washington may not like. Rejecting Bush’s ranting about Syria and Iran, Hagel says the U.S. should be in direct negotiations with those countries. The senator characterized the administration’s decision to pull the U.S. ambassador out of Damascus as “mindless.” Paraphrasing the advice of a retired senior U.S. intelligence officer, Hagel said, “Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. We ought to be able to communicate in a way that signals our strength and self-confidence.” To those who would suggest that the U.S. must choose between supporting Israel and engaging with its Arab neighbors, even those neighbors that Washington may consider to be “bad guys,” Hagel offered one of the sanest statements heard on the floor of the Senate in the whole debate over the Middle East crisis: “Our relationship with Israel is special and historic,” the Nebraskan said. “But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.” Hagel is far from a perfect player. He doesn’t have all the answers. He’s not even proposing bold responses to the current crisis, and not all that he suggests is wise or responsible. The senator’s simply a throwback to the old bipartisan consensus that said diplomacy and common sense ought to guide U.S. foreign policy, as opposed to messianic ranting and kneejerk reaction. Bush and his neoconservative colleagues are so out of touch with global realities and traditional American values with regard to diplomacy that they don’t even understand where Hagel is coming from. Unfortunately, the Democrats are so lacking in spine and vision that, while they may recognize that Hagel is right about the failures and false choices that are the byproducts of this president’s policies, they lack the guts to borrow enough pages from Republican senator’s playbook to make themselves an effective opposition party. |
||
|
COMMENTS |
|
View your ignore list. |
|
Or…let’s go cynical…
Hagel playing a “I was right all along” card for 2008? Maybe, McCain still fully onboard for Iraq, as are most of the GOP front-runners. And there’s plenty of time for Hagel to build a grass-roots organization in Iowa and New Hampshire and run as the “Republican Howard Dean”. 2007 and Iraq goes fully to Hell, and late-comers to “Iraq is Vietnam redux” try to scramble away from Bush for 2008….there’s Chuck sitting pretty. Plus, he buys a lot of bipartisan (i.e. liberal fans, like Mr Nichols) support, especially if he’s running against a “pro-war” Democrat like Hillary or Biden. Not everybody of course, Hagel still has critics who link him to a “Diebold-like machines” conspiracy theory, in his election in 1996. Posted by MASK 08/02/2006 @ 4:58pm | ignore this person |
|
Chuck Hagel is right, defenders of George Bushs disaster in Iraq are cynical and wrong. The Bush family is invested in the arms trade to the tune of 100s of millions of dollars, and also in the oil business – war is big bucks to the Bush family.
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 08/02/2006 @ 5:27pm | ignore this person |
|
“Our relationship with Israel is special and historic,” the Nebraskan said. “But it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice.”
If our Arab and Muslim relationships are backing Hezbollah, who started this, then…let Israel push them back to where they will no longer threaten them. Its pretty hard to engage an adversary in a dialogue when that adversary’s main tenant is the destruction of Israel. If Hezbollah wont even recognize Israel’s right to exist, then where do you suggest is the starting point for negotiations? Lebanon either directly or indirectly allowed Hezbollah to set up shop in southern Lebanon. For reasons of not wanting to spark an internal conflict or some other calamity, fine, but now Lebanon has to live with that decision. Lebanon knew what Hezbollah was all about, it wasnt a secret. Now they are suffering for that choice. When David Duke won that state seat in LA….the other members walked out and refused to seat him. Perhaps the Lebanese should have made a similiar gesture. All due respect to SEN HAGEL, but in war or conflicts such as these, one has to pick a side. It is hard, it takes will do make a choice, but it often comes down to who is right and who is in the wrong. If those Muslim relationships are strong and based on a rejection of extremism, then it is NOT a false choice, it is a sane and rational one. If not then, at the very least you demonstrate with utmost resolve that those who use terrorism as a means to end are unacceptable and those who support them be it tacitly or openly are subject to the same treatment. Why is this such an untenable view by the enlightened class, like John Nichols? Is it because it is holding nations responsible for their choices? or Is it the sole opposition to conflict and violence? Is that the fundamentel prinicple that steers western international diplomacy? The avoidance of conflict for fear of innocnet lives lost. It seems as though this path always seems to put band-aid solutions to problems. It doesnt appear as if giving concessions to Hamas/Hezbollah has made them more willing to accept Israel, as they have given back Gaza and withdrew southern lebanon. It seems the more that Israel gives in, the more emboldened to commit violence they become. Posted by CPT 08/02/2006 @ 6:03pm | ignore this person |
|
Based on his Vietnam service and his stand against some of this administration’s excesses, Hagel is one of the few GOP pols I can stomach. Unfortunately, I just can’t overcome the stench of the voting machine fiasco.
Posted by SPAD 08/02/2006 @ 6:11pm | ignore this person |
|
It seems the more that Israel gives in, the more emboldened to commit violence they become.
Posted by CPT 08/02/2006 @ 6:03p ———————– CPT: That is a FACT of history that all but left understand, but only because they CHOOSE to ignore it! Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/02/2006 @ 6:38pm | ignore this person |
|
Chuck Hagel is right, defenders of George Bushs disaster in Iraq are cynical and wrong. The Bush family is invested in the arms trade to the tune of 100s of millions of dollars, and also in the oil business – war is big bucks to the Bush family.
Posted by LIBERALPRIDE 08/02/2006 @ 5:27pm Hagel is of course wrong. He is not a conservative, has never been a conservative. He has consistently run as a moderate. This is just his latest attempt to establish any viability in the ’08 election as someone different. It won’t work as he won’t get past the first couple of primaries. Secondly his position on Israel is inane and is simply best ignored. BTW, I have to ask liberalpride; where is your evidence of the supposed 100’s of millions that the Bush family is supposed to be making in the arms trade? Just to help you out, Bush Sr. left the Carlyle Group over about 5-6 years ago. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/02/2006 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person |
|
Hagel is a cheap slut sellout. I don’t believe for one minute that he is sincere. His camp has plotted a stratergy that implies he really disagrees with W.
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/02/2006 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person |
|
nothing wrong with non neocon republicans. where i come from thats about as close as one gets to a democrat these days.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 08/02/2006 @ 7:09pm | ignore this person |
|
Yea, but Hagel has no integrity and he knows the angle he’s taking is his only chance, maybe, to get to the big show.
Posted by USAPRIDE 08/02/2006 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person |
After reading the article please share your thoughts in the comment section below.