PDA

View Full Version : Chuck Hagel Quits, Admorable Man, Honest View



Sid_Vicious
09-08-2007, 11:49 AM
http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10126829

Early this year, his frustration erupted after Bush announced plans for a troop buildup to try to curb violence in Iraq. Hagel labeled it "the worst foreign policy blunder since Vietnam - if it's carried out."

That and other criticism triggered a backlash from some conservatives, who viewed him as disloyal to the Republican president and potentially jeopardizing troops abroad.

Hagel didn't relish the attacks. He explained how Vietnam had a big impact on his view of this war. He recalled Congress' silence during much of Vietnam, as well as the 58,000 Americans who died. He said he didn't want that history to repeat itself.

"I'll be damned if I'm going to stand there and accept the status quo and let it all happen again," he said.
Chuck Hagel never just stood there.

Gayle in MD
09-08-2007, 02:40 PM
You're right, Martin, he was a good man, one of the few in that party, but I can understand why he wants out. I recall his passionate remarks about our people being blown up, with the same bombs, on the same streets, day after day. It is good to know that there are atleast some Republicans, who have a conscience about this illegal, immoral Bush's War, deemed the worst foreign policy decisions in history by many many experts. Hagle, was an admirable man. I'm sorry our country has lost so many others like him, who have resigned due to this administration and the present Republican Party. there are many Generals, CIA, and DOJ resignations, also, and our West Point Graduates, are not making careers in the Military at the high rates of the past, before Bush, numbers. America has paid a very heavy price in blood and treasure, due to the overall deciet, ignorance and corruption of the right wing radicals and neocons.

Gayle in Md.

Bobbyrx
09-09-2007, 05:42 PM
Is this the same Chuck Hagel who's voting record was given an A by the NRA , an 8% by the AFL-CIO, and a 0% by NARAL ?
He pretty much voted along party lines on every other category but since he criticizes Bush and the war, he's great. He also :
Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record
Rated 100% by (gasp) the Christian Coalition
Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
90% conservative voting record; 95% support of Pres. Bush. (Dec 2006)
Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (Jan 2006)
Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
Strongly Favors:
Privatizing Social Security and school vouchers

So someone can be an admirable man with an honest view if he votes with Bush 95% of the time???
Sounds like Joe Lieberman in reverse

Gayle in MD
09-10-2007, 06:58 AM
This post is a lot like Bush, using Vietnam, to justify staying in Iraq!

Thanks for the sad history of the Party line votes which chipped away at our Constitution, our international agreements, and our rights. An excellent example of why we should get rid of most Republicans.

At least Hagle, and Gordon Smith, had the courage to finally speak the truth about their party's failed policies.

I wonder, had Bush and Cheney told the truth to the country, and said during the 2000 campaign, "Our intention is to get into the White House, occupy Iraq for regime change, and launch a war in the Middle East", would the righties would have voted for them anyway.

Gayle in MD.

SKennedy
09-10-2007, 08:10 AM
No one employed vietnam as justification for Iraq. Seems we were just responding to your posts about our involvement in civil wars and your indication we had no business "participating" in them. My memory may be faulty, but I don't think I ever indicated Vietnam was the reason we should be in Iraq. You're really not too good at telling us what we think, even though you do try real hard.

Bobbyrx
09-10-2007, 08:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> This post is a lot like Bush, using Vietnam, to justify staying in Iraq! <font color="red">Uhhh, no, it's not anything like or about that at all. It's about people on the left who embrace someone and call them honorable and honest and courageous, when if there was no war going on, you would be calling this same guy the scum of the earth because of his voting record and good riddance that he was retiring </font color>

Thanks for the sad history of the Party line votes which chipped away at our Constitution <font color="red"> (nada) </font color> , our international agreements <font color="red">(nada) </font color> , and our rights <font color="red">(nada) </font color> . An excellent example of why we should get rid of most Republicans. <font color="red">Why??? Don't we need more "good, admirable, honest and passionate" politicians??? your words.... </font color>

Gayle in MD. <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
09-11-2007, 07:27 AM
I was referring to your President, who made an entire speech at the V.F.W Convention, comparing Vietnam, with Iraq, to justify continuing the present, by using the same faulty reasoning and false statements that Republicans have used for years, that we could have won, Vietnam, but for Democratic politics. In fact, for years, all top level Generals, and agency heads, knew that the war in Vietnam, could not be won, yet both Johnson and Nixon, escalated it, sending more to die, for nothing, for political reasons. Democrats, ended a losing battle, and have been demonized by the right for decades, just as they are being accused of cut and run, now, as the administration accuses them of cut and run, to cover up it's own political maneuverings, while our troops die at Bush's ego alter daily.

nAz
09-11-2007, 07:42 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Democrats, ended a losing battle, and have been demonized by the right for decades, just as they are being accused of cut and run, now, as the administration accuses them of cut and run, to cover up it's own political maneuverings, which our troops, while our troops die at Bush's ego alter daily. <hr /></blockquote>

nuff said

SKennedy
09-11-2007, 09:13 AM
I never said anything about Democrats....I said politics, and I meant both sides. There was plenty of blame to go around.

Gayle in MD
09-11-2007, 09:25 AM
I'm blaming two presidents, Johnson and Nixon, a Democrat and a Republican, for the Vietnam fiasco. Have you ever listened to the tapes from each administration? Surely not, or you would have known that it was a civil war, just as we have presently in Iraq, additionally, it cannot be won. Hence, many historians were outraged over Bush's latest attempt at re-writing history, and wrote articles about his irrelevant statements.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
09-11-2007, 01:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> I'm blaming two presidents, Johnson and Nixon, a Democrat and a Republican, for the Vietnam fiasco. Have you ever listened to the tapes from each administration? Surely not, or you would have known that it was a civil war, just as we have presently in Iraq, additionally, it cannot be won. Hence, many historians were outraged over Bush's latest attempt at re-writing history, and wrote articles about his irrelevant statements.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Then we had obviouly better surrender tomorrow rather than waste more time. </font color>

Gayle in MD
09-11-2007, 01:53 PM
Surrender? How does one surrender in another country's civil war?

This is a shining example of why diplomacy should be exhausted before people reach for the bombs. Do you think the Syrians are going to decide to just stop sending radicals into Iraq? Do you think all the surrounding countries are going to jump up to assist George Bush? Line up behind America, in place of their Sunni, Shiia, Arab, Persian ethnic and religious buddies?

When I heard him say "We're kicking ass in Iraq", that had to be the most idiotic statement ever made by a President, in my lifetime.

He's a real oaf. I would't want him working on my car, let alone running my country!

Deeman3
09-11-2007, 02:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Surrender? How does one surrender in another country's civil war?

<font color="blue"> Well, you take a bunch of white flags and attach it to all American vehicles, aircraft, armored vehicles and say, "So long, guys, good luck. We'll buy your oil through France as soon as they convert to an Islamic State. Have a nice day! You guys work it out in a peaceful manner in line with your peaceful religous views. We'll send Sean Penn over for a visit." </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
09-11-2007, 02:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote gayle the oaf:</font><hr> Surrender? How does one surrender in another country's civil war?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dee:</font><hr> Well, you take a bunch of white flags and attach it to all American vehicles, aircraft, armored vehicles and say, "So long, guys, good luck. We'll buy your oil through France as soon as they convert to an Islamic State. Have a nice day! You guys work it out in a peaceful manner in line with your peaceful religous views. We'll send Sean Penn over for a visit." <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Why would you even bother stating the obvious for her. It is this type of common sense that eludes her and provokes her into such rants that go on and on and find their ways in to each every post of hers.

She had the audacity to call W the oaf after she posted these questions.

eg8r

Deeman3
09-11-2007, 02:58 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote> Why would you even bother stating the obvious for her. It is this type of common sense that eludes her and provokes her into such rants that go on and on and find their ways in to each every post of hers.

<font color="blue"> I'd rather fight her over here than fight her over there. </font color>

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
09-11-2007, 03:05 PM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r

SKennedy
09-11-2007, 03:21 PM
Sean Penn! He's the man. He can fix everything. I did actually like him in "I am Sam" but I think I really liked that movie for another reason, which had nothing to do with him.
If Sean Penn fails, maybe we can send in Clint as Dirty Harry. I wonder if Gayle enjoyed the Dirty Harry movies?

Gayle in MD
09-12-2007, 09:43 AM
Taking my comments to the extreme, does not address one simple fact, often overlooked by the neocon mentality. After over four years of bombs, refugees, the dead and the maimed, the only solution, lies in effective diplomatic efforts in order to achieve a political solution, which is obviously the ONLY solution.

My point, is simply that diplomatic efforts should be exhausted, both with the enemy, and among the surrounding nations, involved in any conflict, and with allies, before wars are launched.

While such efforts were certainly cut short, in this fiasco, and some not even attempted, it should be obvious to all, by now, that here we are in the jaws of two wars, and only diplomatic efforts can bring about the cooperation required from surrounding nations, and questionable allies, in order to create any reasonable prospect for peace in the region. This is what happens when our foreign policy is going off half cocked, without first implementing those necessary diplomatic efforts in advance, and without realizing that pure intelligence, at it's best, is often wrong, and that hearsay, disregard for more educated opinions, and pre-conceived agendas, do not create an atmosphere for attaining the best possible version of the truth.

Regardless of ones previous thoughts on the WMD issue, there were many in the intelligence arena, who were saying there were none. There were many others, advising there was no immediate threat, from Saddam, and no connection to al Qaeda. Ultimately, the rush to war, crippled the entire campaign in Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Although such reasonable notions as exhausting diplomatic efforts, and war as a last resort, were painted as trying to talk and reason with terrorists, or holding their hands while giving them therapy, and such, the right often didn't seem to grasp that pre-war diplomacy is, and should be, far reaching and thorough particularly if our plan included the occupation of another country.

The gross incompetence of this administration, including dropping the ball on getting al Qaeda, and bin Laden, in Afghanistan, our real and present danger at the time, and justifiably settling our score for the attack on our country, was obviously a huge mistake, and an example of how egoism is man's worst enemy. Jumping into yet another war, at the same time, was pure insanity, particularly in the middle of a region in which so many other enemies were obviously going to play a role.

Now, after such horror, and loss, it appears that only diplomatic efforts can begin to bring us to the least disasterous consequences for having gone off half cocked in the first place. Although, having a complete jerk calling the shots, in a very unprofessional, threatening, arrogant manner, Cowboy Diplomacy, if you will, also was not exactly up to our historical standards, either, and certainly did not endear us to the rest of the world.

One can only hope that future administrations will be more thoughtful, before jumping for the bombs, and realize the mankind is capable of much more intellectual power, and should make every effort to exhaust that power, before launching war, which always creates many, many losers, and unfortunate, unforseen consequences in the fog of war.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
09-12-2007, 10:11 AM
Gayle,

I really pray you are right. I would love for us to be able to broker a peace in the area. I do not think we had, nor have much bargaining power outside military action, however, feebly it has been managed.

One important point I have trouble giving you credit for because of all the wrath I hear is the one about Bush gave them exactly what they wanted and played into Bin Laden's hands." This is true and it may have been, as I said, a hand played badly, but I'm not sure other options would have worked and I'm almost totally sure you will never negoiate from a position of weakness nor with only ecconomic sanctions. These nuts don't care. They can not be made to care as zealots, in any faith, do not have the same values, objectives or timetable as we may.

I know we are lsing this battle but I honestly feel we will just lose it quicker when gladhanding politicians take back over. I know you care about this coutry but feel, from your diatribes, you care more about harming Bush than saving us. This may not be ture, it just comes off that way to me. However, that does not stop me from hoping there is some truth in all your words of diplomacy. Otherwise, all will be lost when we do surrender. It does not have to be Sunni to Shiite, it just has to be leaving the country alone for one more international slaughter, one too many.

Gayle in MD
09-12-2007, 12:07 PM
Gayle,

I really pray you are right. I would love for us to be able to broker a peace in the area. I do not think we had, nor have much bargaining power outside military action, however, feebly it has been managed.

<font color="red">I think we had much more bargaining power after 9/11 and that is was wasted on the wrong policy. Now, our options, as many have stated, are all bad options, and we're trying to figure out how to turn this mess around so some acceptable ending. I'm afraid that Cheney, and Bush, cannot let go of their goals regarding oil, long enough to exercise the best judgement on what policy will actually make us safer here at home. In fact, I don't think bush's actions are the actions of a president who's highest goal is to protect America. Does a President who's intention is to protect America, break our army? Does he leave our borders open, and favor policies which will further anger our enemies? Does he refuse to even talk with other foreign leaders who could pose a threat at some future time? Does he continue on a course which emboldens our enemies? I know you won't agree, but Cheney was doing business with all of our present enemies for ten years in the Middle East. My opinion is that both our president, and vice president, formed their Iraq policy around their own personal financial interests. Sure, they knew that America will have to play on the same playing fields with all other nations for what is left of our oil resources, but given that no one really knows for certain how much oil is available in the world, or how long it will last, with conservation methods included in the fray, their proposed concern for the Iraqi people, and peace in the region, is a function of their desire to be on top of the list of those who will garner the most cash in their pockets after the deals are cut, behind the scenes, in secret, I might add. I think that if what I true is true, it represents a conflict of interest in determining which foreign policy is the one which will actually make America safer, expand our allies, and address the coming shortage for future generations. It is hard for me to imagine that either of these men, who's policies have led to led in our toys, Mexican trucks by the hundreds of thousands on our highways, open borders, crubling infrastructure, and floating Hurrican victims, are humanitarians, or have considered for a moment what could be accomplished within the rhelm of conservation, and other more enviromentally friendly possible options for reducing our dependence on foreign oil.</font color>

One important point I have trouble giving you credit for because of all the wrath I hear is the one about Bush gave them exactly what they wanted and played into Bin Laden's hands." This is true and it may have been, as I said, a hand played badly, but I'm not sure other options would have worked and I'm almost totally sure you will never negoiate from a position of weakness nor with only ecconomic sanctions. <font color="red">Well, you're talking now, actually, about two different situations. If we take one at a time, if bush hadn't taken office determined to occupy Iraq, and get Saddam, he wouldn't have had to cherry pick intelligence. He also wouldn't have had to tell so many lies, to cover up his real hidden agenda. He could have gotten a hell of a lot more cooperation from the whole world, after 9/11, had he just kept his priorities straight. He should have finished the original promise to get bin Laden, and spent a few years cleaning up Afghanistan, and Pakistan, with the help of other countries in the region. We had a lot of bargaining power, after we were attacked in such a horrific way, and other countries, at that time, could see, that if we weren't safe from terrorists, neither were they. It was actually the perfect moment to make a huge impact against terrorists, in general, with plenty of global support.

Secondly, many of our debates here are really skewed because in my mind, Iraq, was, and actually still is, a quite separate issue from terrorism. I believe that the core of the terrorist momentum after 9/11, or in Afghanistan. Now, ok, we're in Iraq, but now they are everywhere, and some say right here. So, how does it figure, then, that regardless of what happens in Iraq, we will be safer here? didn't we just escape an attack, thanks to the police efforts of another country? Iraq, has nothing to do with that.

Secondly, according to what I read, the sanctions HAD worked in Iraq, and Saddam was intimidated, already, and enough to pretend that he had the WMD's, and also, he did provide a function of being a barrier to terrorism, and to Iran. Now, look where we are. We have a Shiia in charge in Iraq, who has already threatened a possible alliance with that nut in Iran, and we have the Saudis financing the Sunni insurgents. How can George Bush try to convince Iraqis that we are not occupiers, when he's building Embassies all over the place? Holding up part of the negotiations in Parliament, with his oil deals? gooing around the world bragging that he'ws kicking ass in Iraq. I swear, It is not hate that I feel about this nut, Bush, it is fear of what he will screw up next! Of course, I am repulsed by his lies, which are, IMO an insult to all Americans. </font color> These nuts don't care. They can not be made to care as zealots, in any faith, do not have the same values, objectives or timetable as we may. <font color="red">AGain, I agree. I have never suggested that we do anything but KILL terrorists. Terrorists, are not who we went to war with in Iraq. There were no terrorists there, until we went there, and regardless of what happens in Iraq, it will have absolutely no effect on getting all the terrorists in the world. The only way to change their sick notions is to negotiate with the moderate leaders of the Islamist religion, who do not subscribe to the same brutal philosophies. We could have achieved a great deal, instead of making every worse, had we opened televised dialong, with Islamist leaders from around the world, at the United Nations. The only people who can rescue these disillusioned young radical Islamists, are their own religious leaders, and had we invested in that effort, providing hope, and jobs, and engaging with them from that perspective, we would, IMO, be worlds better off right now, than we are. Diplomacy, while we made tracks to kill our attackers, adn wipe out their training facilities, was the correct policy, and one of high intention, which could not have been criticized by the rest of the world. We missed a huge opportunity, due to poor leadership. We cannot kill all of them. We cannot win by offending their religious beliefs, and stealing their oil. In fact, that is what originally led to the birth of radical Islamists, and their sick ideology, according to my reading. </font color>

I know we are lsing this battle but I honestly feel we will just lose it quicker when gladhanding politicians take back over. <font color="red">Well, you know, I am thankful for the gladhanding politicians, because absolute power, does not produce good results for anyone, and without them, there would be no checks and balances at all, and if you don't think that Bush and Cheney would take grand advantage of absolute power, well, my friend, I beleive we have already witness some of those results, as we now live in a world where if we were to get a phone call from a friend in another country, they could monitor everything we said, bought read, and even declare us a threat, and lock us up, with no oportunity to even know why, or get legal counsel, indefinately. Now if you trust George Bush, and dick Cheney, THAT much, let me just say, I know you're not stupid, hence, I know you couldn't possobly be happy about those circumstances. Let's not foget how Saddam was painted in the middle of a Mushroom Cloud, launched from Aluminumn tubes, fit only for ground combat. </font color> I know you care about this coutry but feel, from your diatribes, you care more about harming Bush than saving us. <font color="red">I can't stand George Bush, that is quite true. You already know all the reasons why. Would I cry if he died of some horrible disease, hell no. Do I sit around hoping he will, hell no. I subscribe to the Buddhist philosophies, I love myself, much to much to carry hate around in my heart. I've seen people like that, many times, and I assure you, someone who loves life and people as much as I do, is not made of that cloth. I would love to see him impeached for his crimes, but my attention, is on our troops. I am very angry about the way he has treated them, very angry. I am angry that he put us into this mess, very angry about that. I am angry about the way both the press, and the Republican majority, failed to keep him honest, and prevent him from such great abuse of power, and so should all Americans be angry over those things. He capitlaized on our grief, and patriotism, for a hidden agenda. I do not see him as a honorable man, or worthy of ever serving as the President of our great nation, and in fact, I believe that he is actually a threat to our safety, due to his incompetence.</font color> This may not be ture, it just comes off that way to me. However, that does not stop me from hoping there is some truth in all your words of diplomacy. Otherwise, all will be lost when we do surrender. It does not have to be Sunni to Shiite, it just has to be leaving the country alone for one more international slaughter, one too many.

<font color="red">All I can say is this. How many terrorists could we have killed by now if the whole world was helping us to kill them? How many people in Iraq, would still be alive? How manu more American families might still have their loved ones? How many more inspections could we have completed in Iraq had Bush not rushed this war? How much more intelligence would have met the light of day, had bush not gone off half cocked. They were shrewd, I'll give them that, but there was a reason why they rushed, and a reason why they cherry picked, and I think we both know, by now, that had we stayed in Afghanistan, wiped out alQaeda, killed or captured bin Laden, and had the whole world helping us to address terrorism, in general, as a global threat to us all, and applauding us as we went, we would be much better off right now. I still believe all diplomatic efforts must be exhausted in advance of sending our troops into battle, and I still believe, that when one is doing the right thing, for the right reasons, there is no cause to hide it, or lie about it. I have no respect for this administration, nor for those who have protected them from the appropriate scrutiny which our laws require, and which, until now, atleast, they have managed to skip completely free of answering for having broken tham, or for even fully acknowledging their unforgivable actions. This is a great tragedy for all of us, and for Democracy as a safe gaurd from Imperialism and fascism, and we have lost a great deal of respect in the world, because we have not used our democracy to it's intended power. We will all regret this, some day.

Gayle in Md,</font color>

eg8r
09-12-2007, 04:26 PM
[ QUOTE ]
My point, is simply that diplomatic efforts should be exhausted, both with the enemy, and among the surrounding nations, involved in any conflict, and with allies, before wars are launched.
<hr /></blockquote> How does a country know when the efforts have been exhausted? Is there one definition? Or does it depend on which Democrat you are speaking to at that point?

[ QUOTE ]
One can only hope that future administrations will be more thoughtful, before jumping for the bombs, and realize the mankind is capable of much more intellectual power, and should make every effort to exhaust that power, before launching war, which always creates many, many losers, and unfortunate, unforseen consequences in the fog of war. <hr /></blockquote> There is always room for improvement. I just hope it is not a Democrat in charge when we face this situation the next time.

eg8r

Qtec
09-12-2007, 09:00 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I just hope it is not a Democrat in charge when we face this situation the next time.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

If you had a Dem in charge you wouldn't be IN this situation. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

Gayle in MD
09-13-2007, 07:23 AM
Exactly! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
09-13-2007, 07:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If you had a Dem in charge you wouldn't be IN this situation. <hr /></blockquote> It was a Dems fault we are in the situation for not getting rid of OBL when he had the chance.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
09-13-2007, 08:51 AM
Maybe we'd be back in Bosnia or Somalia....

Qtec
09-13-2007, 09:17 AM
What does OBL have to do with the situation in Iraq?
It took just 17 days to take over the country and six years later....................? Are you seriously blaming Clinton for ALL the mistakes thsat have been made by THIS Govt?

Q

Gayle in MD
09-13-2007, 09:31 AM
Bush has failed three times to get bin Laden. All three times, he failed to answer the call from those who had him in their sights. He was too busy, working on his future oil portfolio with the Iraqis.

Clinton wiped out Saddam's weapons with during Desert Fox, what was left of them, after the Golf War, and the pre 9/11 inspections. When one reads all the available written material, regarding WMD's, there is no way in hell that Bush really believed that Saddam, had WMD's. 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch. Iraq, was his decision. Staying, while our troops are dying in an unwinnable war, is also his decision. bin Laden, is happy. Iran is happy, Saudi Arabia is happy, Syria is happy. They are all financing terrorists and radicals to kill our people. Can you believe that some people are as stupid today, as they were when Bush launched this war? Suspension of critical thinking, same requirement for religious fanaticism.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
09-13-2007, 09:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What does OBL have to do with the situation in Iraq? <hr /></blockquote> Only you would be dumb enough to ask. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r