Hagel: Bush admin wanted more than Iraq

[Spence]

In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region: HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.Source (http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326&pageNum=3)

[RedskinsDave]

Hagel is trying too hard. He looks more like a douche bag than someone trying to clear the air.

[Spence]

Hagel is trying too hard. He looks more like a douche bag than someone trying to clear the air.Why?

[Ibleedburgundy]

IMO he looks like a guy who actually thinks for himself and his constituency rather than following orders from party leaders alla George Allen.

[RedskinsDave]

Why?

Because he was quiet about all this for 5 years and now that the tide has turned he opens his mouth and is taking it to new levels.

[Spence]

Because he was quiet about all this for 5 years and now that the tide has turned he opens his mouth and is taking it to new levels.Chuck Hagel quiet? He's been the foremost GOP critic of Iraq War policy for a couple of years now. His criticisms of the Bush admin and the Iraq War are nothing new; it is part and parcel of what he's been saying for some time.

Now, if you just prefer he remain quiet and submissive like most Congressional Republicans -- and that is your beef with him -- that's fine. But to say that Hagel has been quiet for five years is simply false. It's not a debatable point, it's simply false.

[RedskinsDave]

Chuck Hagel quiet? He's been the foremost GOP critic of Iraq War policy for a couple of years now. His criticisms of the Bush admin and the Iraq War are nothing new; it is part and parcel of what he's been saying for some time.

Now, if you just prefer he remain quiet and submissive like most Congressional Republicans -- and that is your beef with him -- that's fine. But to say that Hagel has been quiet for five years is simply false. It's not a debatable point, it's simply false.

I never said I wanted anyone to remain quiet about anything. Hagel didn't remotely make the noise he is making now at any time before the most recent elections. He made comments here and there since 1995 but nothing like what he is doing now. That's why I think he's being an opportunist and a douche.

[RedskinsDave]

IMO he looks like a guy who actually thinks for himself and his constituency rather than following orders from party leaders alla George Allen.

Funny, that sounds a whole lot like Webb, who is following the liberal lead.

[Axegrinder]

I think that you couldn't hear Hagel because of all the white noise that was coming from most on the right side of the aisle.

[Spence]

The point of this thread, whatever you think of Chuck Hagel [and I like him a lot] is that the Bush admin wanted a free hand to attack any country in the Middle East, not just Iraq. That should have been the first tip that this wasn't about WMD at all, it was about creating a new order in the Middle East along the lines desired by the neocons in and outside the Bush admin.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Funny, that sounds a whole lot like Webb, who is following the liberal lead.

Seems to me it's the other way around and the liberals are following Webb's lead. Webb's two biggest issues are Iraq and economic fairness. He opposed the Iraq war since 2002, unlike many of the liberals, but obviously they have followed suit. On his economic issues he seems to be making points that nobody else is making. So far he seems to be his own man.

[RedskinsDave]

The point of this thread, whatever you think of Chuck Hagel [and I like him a lot] is that the Bush admin wanted a free hand to attack any country in the Middle East, not just Iraq. That should have been the first tip that this wasn't about WMD at all, it was about creating a new order in the Middle East along the lines desired by the neocons in and outside the Bush admin.

I like Hagel. I think he'd make a good president. I just also think he has taken the microphone and is enjoying it too much. If this happened in 2002 and he has been an opponent of the war since 2005, why is this just coming out now and why didn't anyone else talk about it?

[dukeuch]

I like Hagel. I think he'd make a good president. I just also think he has taken the microphone and is enjoying it too much. If this happened in 2002 and he has been an opponent of the war since 2005, why is this just coming out now and why didn't anyone else talk about it?

What do you think of Spence's point regarding the content of Hagel's comments rather than the timing? Is your issue that Hagel waiting so long indicates that he is less than truthful?

[Spence]

Here's Senator Hagel's fiery speech this morning during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting on the resolution against the president's troop increase in Iraq. From the transcript:We are not about -- this resolution, those who I'm associated with, I don't think anybody in the Senate -- if there is one senator in the United States Senate that is all about defeating America, making America's position more dangerous, eroding our standing in the world, I don't know of that person.

If you do, please let me know.

Every one of the 100 senators -- Republican, Democrat, independent -- that I know of has said, "How do we do this in a way that we look after, first, the national interests of America?" That still is rather significant.

I don't question the president's sincerity, his motivations in this. I never have. Nor anyone in his administration.

This president is sincere about what he said last night. He believes this is the right thing to do. I happen to disagree.

So, but we don't, somehow, project to the outside world that there's disagreement in our government, in our country, about the future of Iraq, I think that if that is what our role is going to be -- and yes, Mr. Lugar, we can hold more hearings, oversight. I don't know what that's produced. We are going to have more oversight.

Part of the problem that we have, I think, is because we didn't -- we didn't involve the Congress in this when we should have.

And I'm to blame. Every senator who's been here the last four years has to take some responsibility for that.

But I will not sit here in this Congress of the United States at this important time for our country and in the world and not have something to say about this. And maybe I'll be wrong. And maybe I have no political future. I don't care about that.

But I don't ever want to look back and have the regret that I didn't have the courage and I didn't do what I could to at least project something.

This resolution, by the way, does not tie the hands of the president of the United States. It does not tie the hands of the president of the United States in any way.

So I would go back to where I began, and pick up on a point that Chairman Lugar mentioned: coherence of strategy.

I don't know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy.

In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan.

I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even team B'ed this plan.

And my dear friend Dick Lugar talks about coherence of strategy. There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives.

These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.

And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide anymore; none of us.

That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.

[RedskinsDave]

What do you think of Spence's point regarding the content of Hagel's comments rather than the timing? Is your issue that Hagel waiting so long indicates that he is less than truthful?

I agree with Hagel for the most part. Like I said before, he appears to be playing the part of the opportunist quite well.

[dukeuch]

I agree with Hagel for the most part. Like I said before, he appears to be playing the part of the opportunist quite well.

I must admit that I am surprised you agree. Hagel is saying that by seeking approval to attack anywhere in the Middle East, that the WHite House betrayed any claim that this was about WMD in Iraq before we invaded Iraq. You must be as outraged at their deception as many people who were against this war from the beginning are.

[Axegrinder]

I like Hagel's remarks.
It's time to put politics aside and do right by the nation.Even if that means crossing party lines and exposing their true positions.It seems to me that a lot of the old suits[Warner,McCain,Leiberman,...] have been able to do this and still retain power.

[Spence]

I agree with Hagel for the most part. Like I said before, he appears to be playing the part of the opportunist quite well.Every politician is an opportunist. The most successful politicians are the most successful and ruthless opportunists. What matters to me is that revealing the Bush admin's true intentions in the Middle East is a public service. I wish that public service had been rendered years ago, but at least it has been rendered. After the government this nation has had to endure the last six years, I'll take any decent public service I can get.

[Ibleedburgundy]

Every politician is an opportunist. The most successful politicians are the most successful and ruthless opportunists. What matters to me is that revealing the Bush admin's true intentions in the Middle East is a public service. I wish that public service had been rendered years ago, but at least it has been rendered. After the government this nation has had to endure the last six years, I'll take any decent public service I can get.

Why didn't the Democrats reveal this a long time ago?

[CNYSkinFan]

Why didn't the Democrats reveal this a long time ago?
That is a fair point. I like Biden alot, but if what Hagel is saying is true Biden owed it to the public to bring this information to light. My respect for Biden ironically is lowered now.

[dukeuch]

Anyone care to comment on the allegations Hagel is making, that the original resolution drafted by the White House shows that WMD in Iraq were not really the primary reason for going to war?

If the quesiotn of Hagels' motive for bringing this up now is synonomous to saying "he's lying, I don't believe his assertion to be true", that's an acceptable response. I'm just trying to get everyone's view on the allegation itself, not Hagel's motive.