A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
December 03, 2006Senators Hagel and Lieberman Discuss IraqThis morning, Republican Chuck Hagel and [Independent] Democrat Joseph Lieberman were on Face the Nation to share some of their views on Iraq. In what may be the clearest example of the fact that opinions on Iraq transcend party lines, we have the Republican advocating withdrawal and urging that we involve Iran and Syria, and we have the Democrat opposing withdrawal and urging against involving Iran and Syria. Both politely disagree with one another, even as they seemingly advocate the positions of the other party. Partial transcript below: HAGEL: Well--ah--yes, after almost four years of being in Iraq, and you can define the current . . . state of play as civil war, chaos, crisis, anarchy, serious--you take your pick. We can dance on the pinhead of technicality and definition, but that fact is we have a very deep problem in Iraq. The fact is we continue to nibble around the edges. Ah, the fact is, it is going to require a political settlement . . . WITHIN Iraq by the Iraqi people as well as including its neighbors--Iran, Syria, and all the other neighbors. Now, we can continue to send memos and kid ourselves, but that's--that's a fact of life. Ah, and the casualties that we have taken, and the problem that we have. It doesn't get better, Bob. It gets worse. Every day it gets worse. The president has, it seems to me, one opportunity left here, and he can use the Baker-Hamilton--ah--memorandum that will be presented to him next week. It's not a plan, not a policy. It'll be a set of recommendations. And do something with that now. He is going to HAVE to change strategy. Timelines, of course, ARE involved here. Ahh, and that's what I'm talking about partly when I say "nibbling around the edges." People go, "Oh, we don't want timelines." Well, OF COURSE you have to have timelines. One of the principle failures we have had in Iraq is a result of not only not having enough troops--overpowering force structure, as Colin Powell once said--but no exit strategy. Timelines are part of all that. Ah, Maliki says "June of next year we'll be prepared to take over." It's not in our ability nor within our purview to say, "Well, we're not sure that's--that's true or not." It's up to the Iraqis. The future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis--not by the Americans . . . SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) Well . . . HAGEL: (interrupting) There will be no military solution to this. SCHIEFFER: Even Mr. Maliki--I mean--Mr. Hadley--excuse me--said this morning that that seems like an ambitious--ah--goal for--for Mr. Maliki to say, "We're ready to take over in June." Do--do you think that is doable? HAGEL: I don't know if it is doable, but--but it's almost irrelevant, Bob. THAT'S my point here. What--what IS relevant is a political settlement within Iraq by the Iraqi people . . . the forces there in Iraq that will HAVE to include Iran. I mean, let's look at another fact that this administration seems to be surprised by. The entire senior structure of the Iraqi so-called unity government on the Shia side is very close to the Iranians. Why? Because they were all exiled in Iran during Saddam Hussein's time. Of course they're part of--of that structure. Of course they're close to Iran. That necessarily isn't all bad because a settlement is going to require include Iran. I think Iran has more influence in Iraq today than any country. Ah, I think that's just a--a fact. Now we have got . . . SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) So we have to talk . . . HAGEL: (interrupting) We have to have a reality check here. And memos being leaked and all of that--that's interesting Shakespearian drama, but bottom line is, if for no other reason, we need a policy worthy of the young men and women serving Iraq today. And we don't have one. SCHIEFFER: Alright, well, let me--ah--Is--is Iraq winnable in the sense we think of winning, Senator Lieberman? LIEBERMAN: Yeah, I believe it is. And I think, Bob, part of our problem is that there's too much talk here in this country about the--ah--the inability to succeed in Iraq and too little talk about the consequences of failure, which I believe would be disastrous to us. I mean, this--there's--this is a War on Terrorism we're involved in. Iraq is a battlefield in it. It's a--it's a conflict between freedom and totalitarianism--between moderation and extremism. And Chuck and I have a disagreement here. I ah--look--on the question of Iran, I believe that America is a mighty enough nation that we should never fear to talk to anyone. But--but anyone who believes that Iran and Syria really want to help us to succeed in Iraq--ah--I think is just missing the reality. Asking Iran and Syria to help us succeed in Iraq is like your local fire department asking a couple of arsonists to help put out the fire. These people are FLAMING the fire. They are the extremists. They are supporting terrorists in Iraq, in Lebanon and, of course, in the Palestinian areas. SCHIEFFER: Senator Hagel is shaking his head. HAGEL: No, that’s not the point. Of course the Iranians and Syrians are not going to come to our assistance. Of course not. But they are going to respond in their own self-interest. All nations respond in their own self-interests. Tallyrand once said that nations don’t have friends. They have interests. He was right. Ahh, it’s not in the interest of Iran or Syria or Jordan or any of Middle East country to have a failed state--ah--that would be a complete mess for the Middle East. Why did the Iranians help us in Afghanistan? Why did they cooperate with us in Afghanistan on intelligence matters and other issues? Because they didn't want a failed state next to them, which comes with all the problems. They didn't want--ah--her--heroin moving in--into their borders. What we're not getting here is we're noting getting a full and comprehensive wide-lens appreciation of interest. And the other fact is--there will be no peace in the Middle East--which we haven't talked about--specifically the core problem--and that's Isr--the Israeili-Palestinian . . . SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) Let me just quickly ask Senator Lieberman. Are you talking about--when you talk about it is winnable--putting more troops in there, Senator? LIEBERMAN: I--I think that in the Baker-Hamilton report--even in the Rumsfeld report, what everybody agrees on is that the one think that is working is embedding more American forces within the Iraqi security forces. Yes, in the end, there has to be an Iraqi political settlement, but they can't doing it without security. And they can't achieve security if we begin to withdraw. That's a signal to everybody I've talked to that the sectarian violence will get worse and the government will collapse. . . SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) YOU (to Lieberman) don't want to see withdraw. YOU (to Hagel) do. LIEBERMAN: I want--in fact, I think the best--I think withdrawal is a statement of weakness. And it will send to the Iranians the signal that we are negotiating out of FEAR. That's the last thing that we want to happen. HAGEL: Well . . . SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) I just--We have no more time, Senator (to Hagel), but I hear you saying we have to withdraw. HAGEL: But--of course we--of course we have to withdraw. I mean, the president has said that . . . SCHIEFFER: (interrupting) Thank you very much. [Admin note: Comment section closed due to repeated and excessive comment spam. Please police your threads, and close comments after a week or so to prevent spam propagation.] Comments
And your point? You could have McCain versus Kerry and have a completely different conversation. There will be a de facto partition in Iraq during the increasing violence. Lebanon is a State being "helped" by Syria and Iran. Lieberman seems to me much closer to geopolitical reality than Hagel. Much of our problems in Iraq can be traced back to the planning. Where were these Republican critics like Hagel for the last three years? And how many Democrats really wanted us to be successful? Many Democratic critics often complained that Iran was the real menace. The present situation which does involve Iran isn't conditional on what we think. It will inevitably hang on what we do, or don't do. There was a terrible Republican effort to explain to Americans WHAT WAS AT STAKE in Iraq and the Middle East. There is scant evidence however, that words, diplomatic gestures, or our denial has helped our cause or security one inch. Posted by: Maxtrue at December 3, 2006 09:53 PM Where were these Republican critics like Hagel for the last three years?
Using military force to disarm Saddam Hussein will bring change to Iraq and to the region, but we cannot foresee the nature of that change. What comes after Saddam Hussein? The uncertainties of a post-Saddam, post-conflict Middle East should give us pause, encourage prudence, and force us to recognize the necessity of coalitions in seeing it through. - Senator Hagel in speech at Kansas State University Feb 12, 2003
Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality . . . It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq. I got beat up pretty good by my own party and the White House that I was not a loyal Republican . . . [Today]More and more of my colleagues up here are concerned. -Senator Hagel to US News & World Report, June 2005
The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform. This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies. Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late. Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic—to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices. Today, the Senate engaged in a legitimate debate over exit strategy in Iraq as the Senate considered and voted on two Senate resolutions. This is a significant step toward the Congress exercising its Constitutional responsibilities over matters of war. As we consider the regional context of stability and security in Iraq, there is another issue that we must deal with—a relationship between the United States and Iran. The fact that our two governments cannot—or will not—sit down to exchange views must end. - Senator Hagel in speech to Council on Foreign Relations, Nov 15, 2005
Congress fails in its duty when we do not probe, when we fail, we do not ask tough questions, and we fail when we do not debate the gate issues of our day. There is no issue more important than war. The war in Iraq is the defining issue on which this Congress and the administration will be judged. The American people want to see serious debate about serious issues from serious leaders. They deserve more than a political debate. This debate should transcend cynical attempts to turn public frustration with the war in Iraq into an electoral advantage. It should be taken more seriously than to simply retreat into focus-group tested buzz words and phrases like “cut and run,” catchy political slogans that debase the seriousness of war. War’s not a partisan issue, Mr. President. It should not be held hostage to political agendas. War should not be drug down into the political muck. America deserves better. Our men and women fighting and dying deserve better. - Senator Hagel in speech in speech on Senate Floor, June 2006
Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one with Syria -- two countries that bear enormous responsibility for the current crisis -- leave the United States with fewer options and levers than might otherwise have been the case. Distasteful as it might have been to have or to maintain open and normal relations with such states, the absence of such relations ensures that we will have more blind spots than we can afford and that we will have to deal through surrogates on issues of vital importance to the United States. Ultimately, the United States will need to engage Iran and Syria with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and disagreement. For this dialogue to have any meaning or possible lasting relevance, it should encompass the full agenda of issues. There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today. Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel Iraq toward civil war. The U.S. announcement last week to send additional U.S. troops and military police back into Baghdad reverses last month’s decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad...and represents a dramatic set back for the U.S and the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government has limited ability to enforce the rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green Zone politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the realities of the rest of Iraq. - Chuck Hagel (quoting former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence John McLaughlin) in speech on Senate Floor, July 2006.
I'm with Lieberman and maxtrue on this one. It seems that everyone is treating Iraq as an annoyance rather than part of the wot - and it is whether you like it or not. I've stopped reading magazines because of the arrogance of the editors who seem to love rubbing this "failure" in the president's face more than demanding a solution to the problem. Now, everyone's finally tired of seeing Iraq as and wish it would just go away. That's how we acted in 1991 and look where we are now. I'm with Lieberman and maxtrue on this one. It seems that everyone is treating Iraq as an annoyance rather than part of the wot - and it is whether you like it or not. I've stopped reading magazines because of the arrogance of the editors who seem to love rubbing this "failure" in the president's face more than demanding a solution to the problem. Now, everyone's finally tired of seeing Iraq as and wish it would just go away. That's how we acted in 1991 and look where we are now. oops sorry for the double post - danged aol Posted by: Rachel at December 4, 2006 03:19 PMI've noticed this phenomenom also (i.e. Republicans sayng we need to get out and Dems saying wait a minute). I suspect there's a fair amount of politics (i.e. Republicans sunk in mid-terms by Iraq and now free to speak against the war to improve prospects in 08). I also suspect a raising sense of "to hell with 'em if they haven't figured it out and would rather kill each other..." Add in a dash of reversion to the traditional conservative isolationism. PS I suspect some of the Dems like pointing out the "mess that will be left by leaving now". Frankly, IMHO the Democrats are at significant risk here. I think the party needs a more cohesive policy/stance on Iraq. Too much division makes them vulnerable in '08. You think anyone has said to Rep Murtha "OK now can you lay low for just a bit?" Posted by: c3 at December 4, 2006 03:34 PMThanks for catching the humor point, nic. :-) Posted by: Tully at December 4, 2006 03:52 PMNic, Remember, Germany, France, Spain and Italy want no part of fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Democrats accused Bush of ignoring NATO's help right after 9/11. I can see what help NATO meant. And how will the UN prevent Hizb’Allah tearing down the government of Lebanon as Syria murders anti-Syrian Lebanese leaders? Hagel, like Kerry, Edwards, Clinton and other representatives voted for the war. I have quoted their comments and WMD was not the only reason for seeking "regime" change. Perhaps, if these good Senators had stood together to demand a say in the planning and execution of our effort in Iraq, the Republican Congress would not have approved of the present mess. Has Hagel found the missing billions appropriated for Iraq? In any case, it gets down to the present course. Funny, how Rummie has recommended some of the same suggestions I posted last week as he concludes things aren’t going well. Too bad he didn't consider the facts sooner. I would love to hear Hagel’s plan to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes, or to protect the fragile Democracy in Lebanon. How about Nigeria or Somalia? Sudan, North Korea or even Russian devolution? No, let'sstick to Iraq. Usually, before we throw in the towel on such an important affair like Iraq in which many have already died, one would think we would play some hard ball first.
Posted by: Maxtrue at December 4, 2006 08:52 PM
Rachel; Why can't we unify over this whether it was a mistake or not? If it was a mistake, we fix it the best we can, learn from it and move on.Ah, my child...the first step to finding a solution is to assign blame and shout it from the hills! Posted by: c3 at December 5, 2006 09:01 AM Nic, Did the good Senator propose anything before 3/1/03 besides a coalition that would never have formed? Spare me, Maxtrue. After posting a rather benign post you asked me: And your point? . . . Where were these Republican critics like Hagel for the last three years? as if to imply that Hagel has been silent on the war for the last three years. So what did I do? I went back and looked through several of Hagel's speeches from the last three and a half years and provided excerpts of them for you. If you don't agree with his views or don't think they're comprehensive enough for you, fine. But I went out of my way to answer your question, and not liking the answer (or perhaps not liking that fact that Hagel actually has been speaking out regarding the war for the last three years), you're now changing the question. I think it's pretty clear what Hagel's views were before 3/1/03. He voted FOR the war, but like many other Senators, he urged the necessity of coalitions and talking to our allies. Personally, this is little different than John Kerry's position, which I criticized. Coalitions are obviously good to have in a war, but it doesn't excuse a vote for an unnecessary war. I didn't support Kerry for President in 2004, and I'm unlikely to support Hagel for President in 2008. But at least they're trying to undo the damage they helped cause. The entire point, Maxtrue, of me providing you with a 6+ minute transcript (most of which I transcribed myself, given that I was unable to find a full transcript anywhere on the internet), was to point out that support/opposition to the war transcends party lines. Lieberman (a Democrat) is one of the most outspoken supporters of the war, while Hagel (a Republican) is one of the most outspoken critics of the war. Meanwhile, the most adamant opponent of the war (and war in general) just happens to be Republican Ron Paul of Texas, who made a calm but passionate plea before the House of Representatives that his Republican and Democratic colleagues not rush to war. The politicizing of this war on this blog and in the media is growing tiring. Every time this blog tries to paint opposition to the war as coming from "leftists", "nutroots", or "bush-haters", I'm going to bring up Republicans Senator Hagel, Congressmen Walter Jones, and Congressman Ron Paul, and you all can try to paint them as partisan liberal Democrats to your hearts' content. And frankly, Maxtrue--we didn't even finish the job in Afghanistan before invading Iraq, and now, though we're still in Iraq, you're already talking about the NEXT war. How many wars do we have to become embroiled in until you're satisfied? The American people oppose the ongoing war in Iraq, and there's not way they're going to be suckered into a war with Iran. Posted by: nicrivera at December 5, 2006 09:20 AMWhy can't we unify over this whether it was a mistake or not? If it was a mistake, we fix it the best we can, learn from it and move on. Rachel, how is continuing a war that the majority of the American public believes is a mistake learning from it? The people who got us into this war obviously haven't learned from there mistakes. Isn't it time that we at least consider other points of view? Ah, my child...the first step to finding a solution is to assign blame and shout it from the hills! c3, The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. The way to break this cycle is to hold our government responsible for repeatedly getting us into unnecessary wars. Posted by: nicrivera at December 5, 2006 09:31 AMNic; The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over againGosh, did you just make that one up! The way to break this cycle is to hold our government responsible for repeatedly getting us into unnecessary wars.Fair enough. Now lets see, last few wars: Iraq 2, Afghanistan, Gulf War 1, Viet Nam, Korea, WWII. So I'm assuming "unnecessary" is a post-hoc analysis kind of thing. Posted by: c3 at December 5, 2006 02:26 PM what other points of view are you offering nicrivera? all I hear is complaining and self-righteousness. For all of the problems, Afghanis seem to be happier (or the news is hiding problems). and Dems better realize that it's their time in the spotlight and not everyone blames just Bush for Iraq. I'm a liberal. I never voted for W. But I remember who voted to give W. war powers (esp Dems). And I want Iraq to be a stable country, able to run itself irregardless of what we expect from it. Instead I see childish criticism from people who care more about their egos than people. Posted by: Rachel at December 5, 2006 02:52 PM Nic, You have fired back, but said nothing, really. I read the Hagel comments (and originally at the time they were issued) and I find far less specificity than in other comments issued by Rand, the CIA Iraq reports, Foreign Affairs and the Counsel of Foreign Relations as well as the best selling authors such as Ricks. Big deal. Hagel didn’t make it matter. Iraq seems to have been mistaken in plan. Gates laid out a middle position, which will follow a course more prudent than the position Hagel is taking. Hell,.Hagel could have switched sides or incurred the Party wrath that Lieberman did. Hagel and others did little to stop the Republican bandwagon. His ideas are and were generalizations and/or wishful thinking. His criticism, as I have said, is late in coming (his harshest judgments) and unprescriptive (going back to the start of his remarks). Where was Hagel when we disbanded the Iraq army? Where was he when we excluded most Sunnis from government? Standing at Biden’s side? Where was he supporting a Constitutional article to give Iraqi households a piece of the oil wealth? Where was he when the Justice Department reassessed torture rules, or our phase four plan? He wasn’t even front page on the Port issue or the 9/11 investigation. Hagel's shouting could have tipped it for Kerry who also advocated many of Hagel's positions. Iraq transcends party? Nope, not yet. I commented that your Lieberman v Hagel battle is not indicative at all of your claim. Republicans still are much less likely to cut and run and Democrats are, despite the politics of crossovers. I mentioned the other questions Hagel should answer. Why? Perhaps his response on those matters will flush out the contradictions. Iraq was fundamentally about the international community failing to enforce international law. Where was the UN in Afghanistan? WE should be there and THIS is why Iraq was folly? There is radiation from London leading all the way back to the Kremlin. Darfur is genocide. North Korea is building more bombs, Syria and Iran are attempting to eject us from their region and destabilize Iraq and Lebanon. The Saudis are simply going to increase support of AL Qaeda affiliates. Won’t that be grand? You might read the bandwidths of links I post and clue yourself in. Instead of lamenting the WARS WE are starting, look at the effort the West has made to end conflict peacefully or even fake a big stick to help confront an obvious threat(s). So much for the necessity of a coalition. Your claim we did not talk to our allies is bogus. Again, is it our job to finish Afghanistan? Is it our responsibility to provide whatever Iraqis need to be happy, despite their own obsessive religious and social problems? And how is being focused on the likely threat of Iran with WMD, made unimportant by civil war in Iraq and rising poppy harvests in Afghanistan? Do you advocate some linear form of self-defense when dealing with multiple threats using asymmetrical and terrorist tactics? We fought Italy, Germany and Japan while realizing the threat of growing Russian forces. We even managed to keep the Red tanks out of Iran, Turkey and Greece. Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan are all heading for necessary international intervention. No one cares much now. Still a tree falling in the forest does makes a sound. Nic, its not about partisan politics. It is separating sound assessment of our adversaries from ideological and bias thinking. Either party can do that if they chose to put down their partisanship. National security should be beyond ideology. There is a war going on in the world and it is not only the one we are fighting in Iraq. There is a larger motion afoot that sees the next decade as one of a final breakout our foes against liberal thought, American leadership and the continued existence of Israel and moderate Islamic regimes.. This trend is being enabled by Russia and to a degree, China, with help from numerous players such as Chavez and Belarus. Iraq is not a vacuum. The fact that many here see this is not a sign we are warmongers or Republicans. Bush did not unmake America in six years. You think FDR would simply retreat? You think Truman would appease Iran, or that JFK wouldn't have embargoed North Korea? I guess these men were pro war Republicans, or neo cons. I suppose Americans WOULD have to be suckered into war. Since you find our adversaries unworthy of military responses, it would take a good lie to get us going. The trends we see today were well underway before Bush took office and will continue to intensify long after he has departed. Where was Hagel when we had a chance to eliminate Sadr? I'm with those not seeing any value in dealings with Iran on occupation. They'd probably just love the opportunity of occupying Iraq, and probably do what they did in Lebanon. Ask them how democratic their democracy was. Ask the Lebanese how they feel about Hezbollah, because there's no doubt we'd see the same sort of group forming and becoming powerful, or maybe SCIRI repurposing that way. Fortunately, Gates is no realist, unlike Baker. I doubt the Iraq committee will come out with blanket kudos to outsourcing occupation to Iran. That was a great first post nicrivera. Hagel has had a handle on this situation from the start, but noone in the administration has listened to him. Posted by: Charlie at December 9, 2006 11:13 PM |
Archives
February 2008
January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Three Quotes
The Choice, Based on Iraq Policy Even More Of A Surprise Castro Bows Out Kosovo Declares Independence Will Obama Take McCain's Funding Dare? Global Poverty Act Preservation Friday Band Taking on Obama Electoral Results Came Out As Expected?!?
|
