PDA

View Full Version : Republican critics of GW and the war in Iraq



Freedom-Fries
09-13-2007, 02:42 PM
Anti-war Republican and presidential hopeful Hagel to retire


Leading Republican senator and Iraq war critic Chuck Hagel, who was considered a potential contender in the race for the presidency, announced plans to retire from politics Monday."I will not seek a third term in the United States Senate, nor do I intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008," the Nebraska senator told the Omaha Press Club.
"Public service has always been a big part of my life, and I hope to have another opportunity to serve my country in some new capacity down the road."
Hagel's departure means the minority Republican party will have to fight for another seat in the 2008 election.
While the Republican party is currently strong in Nebraska, Hagel warned that it could be a vigorous fight because the Democrats have won nine of the past 11 races for his seat.
"My colleagues in Washington talked to me about not retiring so we could hold this seat, but in the end I need to do what I think is right."
Hagel said he chose not to run for the presidency because it would take him away from his senate responsibilities at a critical time, "especially with regards to Iraq."
"I intend to be very engaged in this war debate over the next 16 months," he added.
Hagel, a decorated combat veteran who has branded President George W. Bush's Iraq troop surge strategy as the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam, said he was proud of his record in the Senate but that 12 years was enough.
"I have always believed that democracies work best when there is a constant cycle of new energy and ideas, and fresh leadership," he said as his wife and children stood next to him.
"I will leave the Senate with the same enthusiasm, sense of purpose and love of my country that I started with," he said, adding that he looks forward to the remaining 16 months of his term.
"I leave maybe a little wiser, surely a little more experienced and with a very respectable amount of humility."
Hagel, 60, was the president of a Nebraska investment banking firm prior to his election to the senate in 1996.
An infantry veteran wounded in Vietnam, Hagel was nominated by president Ronald Reagan in 1981 to serve as Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration.
He spent several years in the 1970's working as a newscaster and talk show host with local radio stations.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell praised Hagel as a solid conservative and patriot who served his constituents and his country well.
"Chuck Hagel is one of the few genuine foreign policy experts in the Senate and an independent, serious voice on many of the most challenging issues we face," McConnell said. "He will be missed."
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvilcCCsR3MwCBy3wQT1Fzyde98w

Hagel's been an outspoken critic of the Iraq war

Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana has urged the president to change course in Iraq "very soon.

Schwarzenegger said voters could make their views about the war known by how they vote in next year’s presidential election.

Sen. John Warner asked whether the strategy in Iraq was "making America safer." Petraeus tried to sidestep the question and then said he didn't know.

Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) has said "we're about to break the Army and Marine Corps."

Senator George Voinovich has already said "I am skeptical that a surge of troops will bring an end to the escalation of violence and the insurgency."

"We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress," says Pete Domenici
of New Mexico

2Sheds_Jackson
09-13-2007, 03:24 PM
Hagel, a decorated combat veteran who has branded President George W. Bush's Iraq troop surge strategy as the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam


Foolish statements like that only serve to undermine any credibility his argument may have. Not handing over the Panama Canal? Not the Iran hostage crisis? Not Lockerbie? Not North Korea developing a nuclear weapon? Or Pakistan with a nuke? Or Iran working on it's nuke? Not the 9/11 attacks? Not the oil for food scandal? Not outsourcing the administration of the GW1 war cease fire to the UN, leading to the Iraq war itself? No, the surge. Why? Because the surge was being discussed, and so it alone, above everything else over the past 35 years, was the worstest thing ever. Honest.

Maybe he should have stuck with radio - he has the same modus operandi that Limbaugh uses. He'll come out of the gate with a bold (yet usually silly) statement, then when pinned down on it, will start hedging on it. Like he'll say - "we need get every US soldier out of Iraq within 6 months!". Then he'll be asked "will it really make the Mideast more stable if we abandon Iraq?" and he'll answer "I'm not saying that we should abandon Iraq". But isn't that exactly what he first said? Doesn't matter - the ink is already drying on the newspaper articles featuring that bold first quote.

My thoughts on the subject are as follows - talk is cheap - it's votes that count. How are congressional republicans (and democrats for that matter) voting regarding the war? If they really oppose the President, they should be voting contrary to his wishes.

pistol
09-13-2007, 04:48 PM
Not the 9/11 attacks?


So you are blaming the 9/11 attacks on American foreign policy. Its always America's fault huh?

2Sheds_Jackson
09-13-2007, 07:30 PM
So you are blaming the 9/11 attacks on American foreign policy. Its always America's fault huh?

Well that's an interesting insight - either you're reading comprehension skills have led you to believe that I suggested that it was America's foreign policy to attack itself on 9/11, or you're completely unfamiliar with the concept of having an "enemy". Which is it?

Shellshock1918
09-13-2007, 07:34 PM
So you are blaming the 9/11 attacks on American foreign policy. Its always America's fault huh?

Your response is a cop-out and a result of not thinking.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834249/posts

it tends to piss off Muslims when we build bases on their holy lands.

ElHombre
09-13-2007, 10:06 PM
Time to fact check...


Foolish statements like that only serve to undermine any credibility his argument may have. Not handing over the Panama Canal?

An event that let countries south of the Rio Grande know that we don't just think of them as unofficial American colonies. God Forbid that we treat other countries and their citizens with respect. Can anyone imagine the consequences? They might respect us in return. We might even be liked... :shudder:


Not the Iran hostage crisis?

We didn't invade and occupy Iran over it, so I'm not sure what you mean.


Not Lockerbie?

The US didn't choose to have one of its planes bombed.


Not North Korea developing a nuclear weapon?

A situation being diplomatically taken care of by the Bush admin agreeing to what the Clinton admin originally agreed to diplomatically.


Or Pakistan with a nuke?

Or India? :lol:


Or Iran working on it's nuke?

An outgrowth of invading Iraq. Its provided the Iranians with a public excuse and the time to develop it. One of those things that were predicted before the invasion. It's kind of late to start whining about it now...


Not the 9/11 attacks?

I didn't realize the Us was the cause of that one. Please enlighten us as to how...


Not the oil for food scandal?

Was that the US's fault, too? I thought you said it was the French.


Not outsourcing the administration of the GW1 war cease fire to the UN, leading to the Iraq war itself?

So it's the UN's fault that the US decided to invade? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the UN has no authority over the US armed forces.

All this blather that's incorrect just undermines the one actual good point you made, 2_Sheds...


My thoughts on the subject are as follows - talk is cheap - it's votes that count. How are congressional republicans (and democrats for that matter) voting regarding the war? If they really oppose the President, they should be voting contrary to his wishes.

Freedom-Fries
09-14-2007, 06:56 AM
Republican & Democrat critics can say what they want, nothing will change when the President has the final say. They need more than a two-thirds majority, thats a 67% of votes if they want to put in a serious challenge. Well moving away from this political bickering, at least some troops should be back in the United States to see their family by Christmas.

Freedom-Fries
09-15-2007, 08:25 AM
Bush's latest political target is not the Democratic Party anymore because he's more concerned about leading the GOP for another year, and his messages are targeting the increasing number of critics in his own Republican Party.

Shadowstorm
09-15-2007, 08:30 AM
Republican & Democrat critics can say what they want, nothing will change when the President has the final say. They need more than a two-thirds majority, thats a 67% of votes if they want to put in a serious challenge. Well moving away from this political bickering, at least some troops should be back in the United States to see their family by Christmas.
Yeah I know.

Freedom-Fries
09-17-2007, 07:32 AM
Greenspan sounds really frustrated

Hollis
09-17-2007, 10:24 AM
It is nearing election time............. What politicans say to get elected or re-elected is often very different that what they do, once elected.

Mastermind
09-17-2007, 10:57 AM
From ShellShock above ..."it tends to piss off Muslims when we build bases on their holy lands."

Good Grief! What were they PO'ed about before the GW1? What had we done before 9/11 except ignore them? Where did we have a base in their "holy Land"? ..besides, according to most Jihadists, the entire Earth is their "Holy Land". They are usually pissed at EVERYTHING anyway, even at other Muslims....it's as if they murder, slaughter, behead, maim, eye gouge, amputate, execute because it is now their lifestyle.

In my book, if you don't want enemy bases in your "Holy Land", don't go out of your way to pis off an enemy who was leaving you pretty much alone beforehand.

Shellshock1918
09-17-2007, 11:09 AM
From ShellShock above ..."it tends to piss off Muslims when we build bases on their holy lands."

Good Grief! What were they PO'ed about before the GW1? What had we done before 9/11 except ignore them? Where did we have a base in their "holy Land"? ..besides, according to most Jihadists, the entire Earth is their "Holy Land". They are usually pissed at EVERYTHING anyway, even at other Muslims....it's as if they murder, slaughter, behead, maim, eye gouge, amputate, execute because it is now their lifestyle.

In my book, if you don't want enemy bases in your "Holy Land", don't go out of your way to pis off an enemy who was leaving you pretty much alone beforehand.

Ok, obviously you've never done any research on the subject.

In 1953, the US via the CIA staged a coup in Iran to install the Shah.

We bombed Iraq, a Muslim country for 10 years after the gulf war.

We imposed sanctions on Iraq, a Muslim country, that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

We built bases on Muslim holy land, in Saudi Arabia, well before 9/11.

The US has 730 permanent military installations around the world in 130 countries. You don't think someone might get a little pissed off at that?

I do know one thing, you strap on a gun and go strutting around another man's country you better be ready for the consequences. People are touchy about that sorta thing.
Imagine what we would say if China or Russia was doing that to us. We would be outrage and we might just pick up our gun and start shooting.

They don't hate us because we are rich and free, thats a reason you give to 6 year olds.

Mastermind
09-17-2007, 11:58 AM
Well, this is not a debate I have time to engage....but, the bases in audi were abandoned immediately when the Ausds told us to leave...the bases were there at the invitation of the Sauds because they were so threatened by their brother Muslim Sadam.

As for the Shah...and the CIA and all that, I suppose the times were ripe for such an event as the Radical Islamists scared the crap out of the Persian in the street...no one wanted that. The CIA helped and it was good polity because of the looming uncertainties over the USSR in the region at the time.

Generally, you have begun "pushing the cart with the horse"...taking a point of grievance "infidels in the holy land" and assumed that is the end all be all of cause for both sides...as if we just decided to juxtapose ourselves on these poor devouts to Islam for no good reason or without invitation. That's a very shallow position to take...it's far more complicated than that. Besides, there can be very little argument the Jihadists are not at all concerned over that...although that may be a cause celebre...they don't begin to mention these things until they go fishing for a plethora of excuses to sustain and inflame their constituencies. Apparently, you have seized on this as a little club to hammer the coalition and others, many Muslims included, who may actually not want Radical versions of Islam to be controlling thier every moment of life.