Showing posts with label Hagel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hagel. Show all posts

Monday, April 30, 2007

Hagel's Stand

By Robert D. Novak

Monday, April 30, 2007; A15

Sen. Chuck Hagel returned from his fifth visit to Iraq to become one of two Republicans to join Senate Democrats in voting Thursday to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was not an easy vote for a conservative GOP regular and faithful supporter of President George W. Bush's other policies. A few days earlier, Hagel sat down with me and painted a bleak picture of the war and U.S. policy.

Over a dozen years, I have had many such conversations with Hagel, but not for quotation. This time, I asked him to go on the record about his assessment of what the "surge" has accomplished. In language more blunt than his prepared speeches and articles, he described Iraq as "coming undone," with its regime "weaker by the day." He deplored the Bush administration's failure to craft a coherent Middle East policy, blaming the influence of deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams.

Hagel faces a political paradox as he ponders a career decision -- whether to run for president, to seek reelection next year or to get out of elective politics. His harsh assessment resonates with many Republicans who believe Bush's war policy has led the party to disaster. Yet that message faces rejection from GOP primary voters, and he is under attack from the right at home in Nebraska (with Jon Bruning, the state's 38-year-old Republican attorney general, threatening to run against him).

After his latest visit to Iraq, with stops in Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi, Hagel told me: "This thing is really coming undone quickly, and [Prime Minister] Maliki's government is weaker by the day. The police are corrupt, top to bottom. The oil problem is a huge problem. They still can't get anything through the parliament -- no hydrocarbon law, no de-Baathification law, no provincial elections," which are needed to bring Sunnis into the governing process.

The regional problem, as described by Hagel, is a U.S. policy breakdown with the failure to engage Iran and Syria. "I do know that there are a number of Israelis who would like to engage Syria," said Hagel. "They have said that Elliott Abrams keeps pushing them back." He quoted foreign ministers, ambassadors and former U.S. officials as saying that they believe Abrams "is making policy in the Middle East."

Hagel certainly is no peace-now zealot. "We're not going to precipitously pull out," he told me. "We have [national] interests in Iraq." While he asserted that "we can't get out by the end of the year," he called for "pulling some of our guys out -- not all of them, but you've got to get them out of [Baghdad] at least, get them out of the middle of civil war." If not, Hagel said, "then the prospects of the Republican Party are very dim next year."

What about claims by proponents of the Iraqi intervention that failure to stop the terrorists in Iraq will open the door to them in the American homeland?

"That's nonsense," Hagel replied. "I've never believed that. That's the same kind of rhetoric and thinking that neocons used to get us into this mess and everything that [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and the vice president all said. Nothing turned out the way they said it would."

It is "nonsense," Hagel said, because "Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today." Hagel, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, cited "national intelligence" attributing "maybe 10 percent" of the insurgency and violence to al-Qaeda. Indeed, he described Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds as opposed to al-Qaeda: "They don't like the terrorists. What's happened in Anbar province is the tribes are finally starting to connect with us because al-Qaeda started killing some of their leadership and threatening their people. So the tribes now are at war with al-Qaeda."

"So," said Hagel, "when I hear people say, 'Well, if we leave them to that, it will be chaos' -- what do you think is going on now? Scaring the American people into this blind alley is so dangerous."

These judgments come from someone credited with rebuilding Nebraska's Republican Party and who has earned a lifetime conservative voting rating of 85.2 percent from the American Conservative Union. Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democrats' personal assault on President Bush but are deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq.

2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Hagel: Some See Impeachment As Option

By HOPE YEN

The Associated Press
Sunday, March 25, 2007; 2:04 PM

WASHINGTON -- With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed _ if a president really believes that, then there are _ what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 _ or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.

"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.

"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.

"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

Hagel spoke on ABC's "This Week," Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Nelson was on CNN's "Late Edition."

Hagel: Some See Impeachment As Option

By HOPE YEN

The Associated Press
Sunday, March 25, 2007; 2:04 PM

WASHINGTON -- With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said Sunday.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed _ if a president really believes that, then there are _ what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 _ or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

On Sunday, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who doesn't believe he's accountable to anyone. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends on how this goes," Hagel told the magazine.

In his weekly address Saturday, Bush accused Democrats of partisanship in the House vote and said it would cut the number of troops below a level that U.S. military commanders say they need. Vice President Dick Cheney also accused Democrats of undermining U.S. troops in Iraq and of sending a message to terrorists that America will retreat in the face danger.

"We have clearly a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort," Hagel said. "It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as to our involvement."

"This is not a monarchy," he added, referring to the possibility that some lawmakers may seek impeachment. "There are ways to deal with it. And I would hope the president understands that."

Lott said setting withdrawal dates is a futile and potentially dangerous exercise because Bush has made clear he will veto any such legislation.

"There are members in the Senate in both parties that are not comfortable with how things have gone in Iraq," Lott said. "But they understand that artificial timetables, even as goals, are a problem. ...We will try to take out the arbitrary dates."

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the Senate bill seeks to heed the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group by setting a goal of withdrawing some troops while leaving others behind to train the Iraqi army for border patrol and other missions.

"That, combined with a very aggressive, diplomatic effort in the region is what we're going to need to have," he said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she believed that setting a timetable was appropriate but declined to predict whether it would garner enough Senate votes to pass.

"People of this country have spoken overwhelmingly. It's been constant now," Feinstein said. "They want us out. It is time for the Senate to weigh in. I hope we will have the votes."

Hagel spoke on ABC's "This Week," Feinstein and Lott appeared on "Fox News Sunday," and Nelson was on CNN's "Late Edition."

Monday, March 12, 2007

Hagel delays presidentail run decision to later in the year

n/t

GOP's Hagel To Announce On Anti-War Candidacy Today

Hagel to Announce Plans

10 a.m. news conference scheduled

U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel will raise the veil on his political plans Monday. Rumored for months as a potential GOP presidential candidate, Nebraska's senior senator has scheduled a 10 a.m. news conference to announce his intentions.

Pat McPherson, the Republican chairman for the second congressional district says, "Everybody is abuzz about what he might say, and nobody seems to have the slightest idea what he'll say."

There has been speculation in political circles for more than a year that the outspoken critic of the war in Iraq might seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008.

Hagel, 60, has said for weeks that he would make an announcement about his future "soon" but hasn't indicated whether that announcement would reveal his presidential aspirations, if any, or whether he would seek re-election to the Senate in 2008.

Some say Hagel's scheduled appearance Wednesday with nine declared presidential candidates at the International Association of Fire Fighters' annual meeting could be a hint at the senator's intentions. Each participant in the bipartisan forum will have 30 minutes to discuss why he or she should be the next president.

"We were clear about exactly what it was and he said he wants to participate," association spokesman Jeff Zack said. "So you can read into that however you want."

The Senator's Background
Born in North Platte, Chuck Hagel attended high school in Columbus and college in Omaha.

The first time he left the state was 1968 at the age of 21.

In 1996 he said, "My life has been about serving my country, starting in Vietnam."

The Senator won two Purple Hearts in Vietnam where he served in the infantry next to his brother Tom.

Chuck Hagel spent most of his adult years in the Washington, D.C. area in business and government. He served eight-years as an aide to Nebraska Congressman John Y. McCollister.

When he decided to enter politics for the first time as a candidate, it wasn't for city council or mayor or the state legislature but the U.S. Senate. It was 1996 and Nebraska hadn't elected a Republican to the position in 24 years.

Hagel won the seat by 15 percentage points even though he was going against the governor of Nebraska at the time -- Ben Nelson.

At the time he said, "It's an advantage for someone like me who has come out of nowhere. You can still sell retail politics in a state like this. You can go one-on-one. You can shake hands and people can look you in the eye and say, I like this guy or I don't. I trust him or I don't trust him."



Hagel will hold the Monday news conference at the University of Nebraska at Omaha Alumni Center. Channel 6 news will carry the announcement live and you can watch live streaming coverage here on WOWT.COM.


Tuesday, March 6, 2007

"Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment.": Senator Chuck Hagel

"Before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

Chuck Hagel's historic moment, and what it means for a declining presidency.

Chuck Hagel's historic moment, and what it means for a declining presidency.

The rapier is more silver than the moon. The horse, red eyed and fierce in the California night, is rearing up, and its rider points his sword toward the sky, and its tip seems to touch the lunar surface, dimpling it further between the craters.

On the wall near his desk in the Russell Senate Office Building, Chuck Hagel has hung a painting of Zorro done by his brother Mike. "Isn't that a great effect?" asks Hagel. He is informed that his visitor not only dressed up as Zorro for every Halloween from third grade all the way to his freshman year in college but also credits Johnston McCulley's hero for his ongoing career as an aging épée hack. Hagel's laugh lasts just long enough to be heartfelt, and not so long as to be calculated.

"I always thought he was the best of them," Hagel says.

If Hagel were better fitted for metaphor, Zorro would be an awfully good one, certainly better than that overrated royalist stooge Robin Hood. With his Michael Curtiz pastels and his Merry Men, the former Earl of Locksley fought to restore to the throne Richard I, the bloodthirsty slaughterer of Saracens, who'd left England to corruption and destitution while he went haring off to the Middle East on some damned Crusade. A renegade aristocrat himself, Zorro fought only to free the peons from a tyrannical governor. Zorro wore black. Zorro always rode alone.

But there are no places in Hagel for metaphor. His face is too meaty for poetics, its tectonics shaped by old football injuries and one horrible day in the Mekong Delta when the flesh of it bubbled and burned. His sentences are too often arrhythmic, breaking in the middle, when what he's saying takes an unexpected turn that seems to startle him most of all.

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

The conversation beaches itself for a moment on that word -- impeachment -- spoken by a conservative Republican from a safe Senate seat in a reddish state. It's barely even whispered among the serious set in Washington, and it rings like a gong in the middle of the sentence, even though it flowed quite naturally out of the conversation he was having about how everybody had abandoned their responsibility to the country, and now there was a war going bad because of it.

"Congress abdicated its oversight responsibility," he says. "The press abdicated its responsibility, and the American people abdicated their responsibilities. Terror was on the minds of everyone, and nobody questioned anything, quite frankly."

He is developing, almost on the fly and without perceptible calculation, a vocabulary and a syntax through which to express the catastrophe of what followed after. Rough, and the furthest thing from glib, he's developing a voice that seems to be coming from somewhere else, distant and immediate all at once.

Listen to him calling out his fellow senators in committee.

"If you wanted a safe job," Hagel said memorably, "go sell shoes."

No pricey Beltway word whore could come up with "Go sell shoes." Not enough poetry. No Churchillian carillon ringing through the image. But the language is changing as the country's calling, because the war's gone bad.

Country's calling now. War's gone bad and nobody's listening, and the country's calling the way it always does, like the moan of a train whistle, soft and distant at first, but with increasing power behind it, the way the trains come through all the small places where Chuck Hagel grew up in Nebraska. All the little towns, where everyone knew if your father was drunk and smashed up the car or lost his job, where every family kept secrets that every other family knew anyway but were too polite or kind to mention. Rushville and York and Ainsworth.

And Columbus, too -- the City of Power and Progress -- founded in 1856 by men of grim visage and considerable chin whiskers, where Bill Cody first worked out the rough parts of his Wild West show before taking it down the line to the bright lights of Omaha. The old man, a veteran of the Pacific war who never quite made it all the way home, died in the little house on Woodland Avenue in Columbus on Christmas Eve 1962. Five years later, his sons went off to war. A train whistle blows in Columbus and it could be calling from four blocks away or 150 years ago. Country's calling from places just like that, louder and louder, demanding in a new, plainer language an end to incompetence and vainglory, creating one of those moments that find the man through which the moment finds its voice.

Go sell shoes.

Slowly, then, too slow, too late, maybe, but with inexorable purpose, the country begins to move.

His face has darkened and his eyes seem to have turned to stone. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has come before the Foreign Relations Committee of a radically different Senate to try and explain, among other things, how sending twenty-one thousand additional United States troops into a meat grinder of a ground war is somehow not an escalation of the conflict. She keeps calling it an "augmentation." She crawfishes on the subject of what will happen if the new strategy somehow sends American troops across the Iranian border. Chuck Hagel is having none of this.

"Some of us," Hagel says, "remember 1970, Madam Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said, We didn't cross the border into Cambodia. In fact, we did. I happen to know something about that.

"I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign-policy blunder in this country since Vietnam -- if it's carried out.

"I will resist it."

Rice sits there like an ice sculpture. The committee room erupts in applause.

I will resist it.

Hagel speaks only for himself, but he clearly feels the force at his back. The country was divided, but not the way it was divided over Vietnam. That war split families. It got brothers storming away from each other at the dinner table and beating each other bloody on the front lawn. This war is different. It is massively unpopular in the country the way Vietnam never was; in the latest Gallup poll, 74 percent of the people surveyed disapproved of Bush's conduct of the war, and its only fervent supporters seem to be a cadre of Washington think-tankers, a couple of senators, and the president of the United States, and they seem to be the only ones who matter.

"You don't have the draft," Hagel says, "so you don't have that many people touched. This is a more sophisticated political divisiveness. It divides people from their government. 'They don't care what we think, so they're not accountable to us.' That's the kind of thing that's going to widen and deepen." A rock-ribbed Reagan conservative, he's become the voice of uncompromising dissent on this war. "If all these new troops get in there and the casualties start mounting, you're going to see that 74 number go to 80 and higher," he continues. "You can't do anything about the president. He's gone. But you can do something about your congressman. That's why all these Republicans are so nervous."

The Congress of the United States -- the 110th of that name -- is walking on eggshells this morning. It was elected the previous November in large part out of revulsion against a war in Iraq that was built on fraud and that thereafter was prosecuted by an executive branch that seemed to combine the giddy certitude of a sociopath with the geopolitical acumen of the Marx Brothers. A whopping 18 percent of the country believed it to be a good idea to send more American troops there -- and just the night before, the president of the United States had announced that he would do exactly that and that, if need be, he might just have to send some troops into Iran and Syria in order to make his new plan work.

The president had announced this even with the country so revolted by the whole business that it had decided in what was obviously abject desperation that the Democrats might even be a better bet, and it handed over to them both houses of the Congress. At first, there was a lot of talk about "civility" and "bipartisanship." The senators even got together before the opening of the new Congress -- no staff, no press -- in the old Senate chamber in the Capitol building to talk about getting along with one another. It was a rather ill-omened place to talk about bipartisan amity, the chamber in which a South Carolina congressman named Preston Brooks once caned abolitionist senator Charles Sumner into insensibility. Some issues are irreconcilable. The voters want Congress to function, but they also clearly want somebody's head on a stick.

Which is the reason why the Congress of the United States is walking on eggshells this morning. They're going to have to do something, and Rice is sitting there, the implacable face of an administration that believes its powers in this regard are limitless. Many of these people spent the previous six years enabling those powers, or folding in the face of them. The committee's new chairman is Joe Biden, who inveighs at Rice as though armoring himself in his own ambition, a blowhard who's choked at critical moments almost his entire career. He throws the Constitution at Rice, and she all but hands him a lollipop in return. Hagel sits to Biden's left, glowering and impatient.

Elected in an upset in 1996 over popular Democratic governor Ben Nelson, Hagel was as reliable a Republican as there was in the Senate. He voted for all the tax cuts. He proposed his own plan to monkey around with Social Security. He voted 100 percent of the time with the National Right to Life Committee, and 93 percent of the time with the United States Chamber of Commerce, and 5 percent of the time with the League of Conservation Voters. He wanted to protect the womb-babies and drill for oil in Alaska.

(Even Hagel's upset win over Governor Nelson in 1996 was tinged with what have become de rigueur charges of Republican jiggery-pokery. Prior to the campaign, he had been the chairman of the company that manufactured the machines that counted most of the votes. Nelson subsequently got elected to the other Senate seat from Nebraska anyway. The best anyone can say about their relationship is that their staffs get along well.)

He even voted for the resolution authorizing George Bush to use force in Iraq in 2002, but he did so in a speech shot through with dark ambivalence. He warned against believing in cakewalks. "Imposing democracy through force," he warned, "is a roll of the dice." Then Hagel voted aye.

"I was watching it," says his brother Tom, a law professor at the University of Dayton who's tied to Chuck by blood in every sense of the word. "And it was an excellent speech on all the reasons not to go to war. I thought, Here's a guy who's thought this through, who's clearly agonized over it, and he's set down on paper all the reasons for his ultimate act, which is to vote against it. But then he couldn't pull the trigger."

"There were two reasons I did it," Chuck Hagel explains. "I believed what the administration said, that war would be a last resort, and the second thing is, at a critical time like this, the president needs a strong hand, and to some extent, you've got to trust him, until he lies or screws up or something. Is there a gamble in that? Sure. But there was a gamble in sending Hagel to the Senate." Tom believes that Chuck "has a history of being too loyal for too long to people who don't deserve it." Chuck disagrees. It is not the first time.

However, the way George W. Bush operates always has made Chuck Hagel concerned. He saw close up how the Bush campaign savaged his friend John McCain in the South Carolina primary. In 2000, he said he favored a statewide recount of the disputed presidential ballot in Florida, which was the last thing the Bush people wanted. Then the planes hit the towers and the country got scared and a whole lot of things happened that made Hagel even more concerned. "It was what Churchill called a 'jarring gong,' " Hagel says. "The country got knocked off balance for a long time."

He spoke out against the excesses of the Patriot Act and the cavalier disregard of constitutional guarantees it embodied, becoming one of only four Republican senators to vote against its renewal in 2005. He fumed against what he saw as a country ill served by an indolent press, an impotent Congress, and its own shell-shocked acquiescence.

The Republicans had found an issue they thought they could ride to power for the next fifty years. The Democrats apparently thought so, too, curling up into a ball, whimpering their opposition. Out in the country, the American People -- that fragile flower of an entity that everyone claimed to be working so hard to protect -- seemed to function largely as set decoration. Out of this, inevitably, came the Iraq war.

However, as the evidence piled up that the original casus belli was a complicated farrago of lies, bureaucratic grandiosity, wonkish wet dreams, and wishful thinking, and the bodies piled up -- infantry, most of them, as he and his brother had been -- Hagel engaged in dissent. He called for the American troops to be redeployed, removed from the middle of a running sore of a civil war in which the only thing all sides seemed capable of agreeing upon was that it was a good thing to kill Americans, a burgeoning Belfast with sand. He also found himself an audience. The louder he spoke, the bigger the audience became.

Then the president gave his speech, and Rice came to the Hill to defend it, and Chuck Hagel said what he'd been building up to say for two years and what the country -- the fragile American People -- had been telling pollsters and shouting into the wind for somewhat longer.

I will resist it.

Here's another thing about that committee. A whole clutch of them are now -- or have considered -- running for president in 2008. Biden's in, and so are Barak Obama and Christopher Dodd. Feingold thought about it and, after contemplating how well a twice-divorced Jewish person from Wisconsin would play south of Kenosha, abandoned the idea. And then there's Chuck Hagel, who isn't even sure at this moment whether he'll run for reelection to the Senate but who, in his own dogged, deliberately anticharismatic way, has found a cause with an audience.

The Republican field is wide and eccentric. There is Newt Gingrich, once again running for emperor of his own private universe, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who seems to be bucking to be the national archbishop. Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts has good looks and a thin résumé, and he's stuck in the mud because he had to promise to treat gay people like human beings to get elected in Massachusetts, which isn't playing well in Jesusland. Rudy Giuliani has been taking his sweet time.

And there's John McCain, Hagel's great friend, who attached himself hip and thigh to the new policy in Iraq and who, even prior to that, had appeared to be on the verge of becoming a very ridiculous man. But it was after he signed on to the surge that, according to one poll, his support among his core independent voters in New Hampshire tanked from 54 to 27 percent.

And then there's Chuck Hagel, who's not sure of his future but who's positioned at this moment in history to be a presidential candidate of strange historical resonance: a Reaganite version of Eugene McCarthy, who, forty years ago, determined that he would run against a president of his own party in order to stop the misbegotten war in which Tom and Chuck Hagel were at that moment fighting.

"I don't think it's the same thing, because McCarthy was strictly an antiwar candidate," Hagel muses, turning the comparison over and over in his mind. "That wouldn't be what I would be."

Oh, but it's already pushed him there, because the war is going to be the only issue for the next two years, both the hammer and the anvil that pounds out the next president, the one who is going to have to deal with all the wreckage. It is going to redefine American politics for at least the next decade, and that one sentence -- I will resist it -- has marked Hagel as something he might never otherwise have become: the vehicle through which the country found a voice for its anger and discontent. A true maverick.

I will resist it.

The voice of a country, moving.

The Real McCain.

The senator's father, Charles Dean Hagel, went off to war, a tail gunner in the Pacific theater. Not long ago, some of Chuck Hagel's cousins discovered a cache of his father's wartime letters. They describe hilarious leaves in Australia and a girlfriend his family never knew he had. They also talk a lot about how much he was looking forward to having a drink or three when he got home. In a very real sense, Charlie Hagel never made it home.

"If you look at the symptoms my father had," says Tom Hagel, "I don't think there's any question that he had what we came to call post-traumatic-stress syndrome. So many of them came home, and booze was what they had. I mean, there wasn't cocaine around then."

He married Betty Dunn in 1946, and they had four sons, but Charlie Hagel couldn't shake the booze any more than he could shake the malaria he'd picked up on one island or another. He caught polio. He kept having accidents at work. He broke his back once when he piled up his car after a bender.

The family moved seven times in a great loop around Nebraska. On one occasion, they lived in the furnace room of a hotel. Chuck remembers this as a time of opportunity. "Looking back on it now," he says, "it was a tremendous advantage. We all had to make new sets of friends all the time. I hated it at the time, but it was a liberating experience."

It was the way he always was -- a grinder, a smart and diligent oldest son who set his jaw and moved ahead, a solid fullback on the several football teams on which he played. Tom was different. He was mercurial, quicker. He cut class to read the Encyclopaedia Britannica, cover to cover.

You knew instantly how Tom felt about something. You had to pry it out of Chuck. He was the one who had to step between his parents when Charlie's drinking set him after his wife, but it was Tom who felt most deeply what that meant in these little towns where every family had secrets that everybody else in town knew. But they were two sides of the same personality. Put them in a room with two hundred strangers and you'd pick them out as brothers.

No matter where the Hagels lived, in all the small towns, the center of Charlie's life was the American Legion post. "The Legion hall was the center of the universe," Chuck recalls. "They had bake sales, wedding receptions. It would be where your mother and father would get dressed up and go to dance, where they'd have Guy Lombardo's third team in there." It also functioned as the local bar.

In 1960, they moved to Columbus, where Charlie got a job in sales with the Gerhold Concrete Products company. They moved into a ranch house on Woodland Drive, a small development off Nebraska Route 30 on the eastern side of town. They'd lived there for two years when, on Christmas Eve, Charlie said goodnight and went to bed. The aneurysm hit in the middle of the night. He was thirty-nine years old. They gave him a full military funeral out at St. Bonaventure's cemetery.

"We found him dead in his bed," Chuck recalls, measuring every word. "I'd like to think we reacted like any family would. I recall my mother, right after they removed my father's body, saying, 'You're all going to have to help me.' "

(After Jimmy Hagel, her youngest son, was killed in a car wreck, Betty Hagel spiraled into depression and alcoholism. Redeeming the promise they'd all made to her earlier, Tom Hagel organized the surviving brothers into an intervention and had their mother hospitalized. "When she came home," Tom recalls, "she went through the house and pulled out all the little bottles she'd hidden away and poured them down the sink.")

In 1967, Chuck was at loose ends. Stops at two colleges hadn't taken, largely because a pinched nerve in his neck had ended his football career. He'd sold encyclopedias door-to-door. He'd enrolled in a broadcasting school in Minnesota and even worked briefly at a radio station back in Lincoln. When his draft notice came, there was never a question about his serving, not after all the time he'd spent with his father and the guys down at the Legion hall. They called and you went and then you came back and drank beer and shot the shit about all the good times.

He went through basic training and he showed some aptitude for something called a Redeye gun, a shoulder-fired gizmo that was a precursor to the modern Stinger missile. It was a top-secret weapon system, and the Army wanted to transfer him to Germany for further training. He asked instead for a transfer to Vietnam and the infantry. By this time, Tom had been drafted, too, and the Army originally tried to make him a cook.

"We were about the smartest kids in basic training in El Paso, Texas, because we were probably the only two that had high school degrees and wore shoes before we were out of high school," Chuck recalls. "And we had no criminal record, and that didn't mean anything, either."

They would never serve together. The Army promised that. Forty years later, going through Charlie Hagel's letters, his sons came upon one that stopped them both short.

"If I thought I would ever have a son who would have to go through this," he'd written to his sister, "I would never get married."

Senator Hagel is out of patience.

This morning, he happens to be out of patience with Senator Joseph Lieberman, the putative Democratic senator from Connecticut and one of the president's very few supporters on his latest plans for Iraq. They are on a Sunday chat show together, and Lieberman is droning on and on about the historic moment we all face, and every word he says seems transparent. You can see in them a treacly syrup turning slowly to blood. Finally, Lieberman says he's supporting this war for his grandchildren.

"We all have children and grandchildren," says Hagel. "He doesn't have a market on that."

He's out of patience with the young cheerleaders of this war, the chickenhawks at places like The Weekly Standard who once called him part of an "axis of appeasement." He is out of patience with think-tank cowboys and talk-show Napoleons. "I'm always taken aback by that certain cavalier manner, not connecting at all with that human loss," he says. "I do think of those guys, kicking doors down, walking target practice for snipers.

"Nobody lobbies for the guy on the ground. To too many people in this business, committing men and women to war, and many of them to their deaths, is an abstraction."

This impatience is what caused him to step in, loudly, in 2002, when a Georgia Republican Senate challenger named Saxby Chambliss -- who'd sat out Vietnam with a knee problem -- ran an odious television commercial in which Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were linked to Democratic incumbent Max Cleland, a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran. Hagel called Senator Bill Frist, the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and chewed Frist's ass like it was steak. Take the ad down today, Hagel told him, or I'm going to Georgia and cut a commercial endorsing Max. "I told Max's guys to start writing it," Hagel recalls. The ad came down.

He'd seen this kind of thing before, in South Carolina, in 2000, when the Bush people submarined his friend John McCain. They ran whispering campaigns that a Bangladeshi child the McCains had adopted was the senator's love child with a black woman. Hagel was appalled. "These are people with no courage, on both sides," he says. "Cowards. Nameless and faceless. I called it the filthiest thing I'd ever seen."

Now, though, it is 2007 and McCain wants to be president again. To that end, he has embraced -- literally -- the president on whose behalf his wife and daughter were publicly slandered. He has sought the support of those Christian Right leaders he'd memorably denounced seven years earlier. He has hired the admen who created the Swift Boat spots against John Kerry, which in 2004 he called "dishonest and dishonorable." He has gone back on so much of his vaunted "Straight Talk" that McCain has become a parody of himself. And of course, there is the war. McCain is the new policy's biggest supporter, even bigger than Lieberman is, which is saying something. How much of that, one wonders, was political calculation?

"I don't know if he's even being honest about it," says Tom Hagel. "He would kiss anybody's ass and say anything to whatever group if he figures it'll help him become president. He has given himself up to his ambition, and I wanted to vomit knowing what the Bush people did to him in South Carolina and watching him in 2004."

Is that the price you have to pay to be president now, to be granted the privilege of trying to figure a way out of the blood and death and misadventure? Asked about it, and about what his friend has done in pursuit of that office, Chuck Hagel takes a long time to answer.

"I cannot, and will not, ever speak for other people," he says finally. Tom thinks Chuck has a problem with loyalty to the wrong people. Chuck does not agree. It's not the first time.

To this day, they don't know how it happened. Tom was with the 5th Cavalry Regiment up north, in the area around the DMZ, and Chuck was working the Mekong Delta with the 9th Division. In Vietnam, the units were fluid. It didn't matter what the patch on your arm said. If someone needed bodies, you got sent there. It was another thing the Army didn't tell you when you signed up.

In February 1968, Tom put in for a transfer south in order to be somewhere near his brother. At almost the same time, Chuck got word that he was being sent north, to the highlands, where the 4th Division had taken some major hits. "I laughed to myself," Chuck Hagel says. "It'll be incredible if Tom gets transferred down here and I'm gone."

They put him on a truck to go north, and for reasons about which he is still completely in the dark, Chuck Hagel got pulled off the truck and sent back to his unit. At the time, he was afraid something had happened to Tom. Five days later, he wandered into the orderly room and Tom was standing there with his duffel bag. "Never, ever, have I had any idea to this day why they pulled me off the truck," Chuck says. They were put in the same unit, which was something else the Army said would never happen. Chuck was a steady, earnest trooper, and Tom became something of a character, dropping the words he'd learned from the Great Books into casual conversation and cracking everyone up.

It was grinding, brutal work in the Delta, hard by the Cambodian border and, occasionally, unofficially, across it. There were mines and booby traps, grenades hanging like fruit in the trees. They would see the Swift-boat guys go zipping up the rivers and canals, where the enemy would hang piano wire across the narrowest parts. Jesus, the grunts thought, that's some shit duty right there.

On March 28, while they were walking in column through the jungle, someone ahead of them tripped a mine that had been hung from a tree -- what today's grunts call an IED. Tom was fording a small creek when he was knocked down by a blast carrying pieces of the men who'd been in line ahead of him. He looked around for Chuck and found him, bleeding profusely from a chest wound. Tom got the bleeding stopped before he noticed that he'd been hit in the arm. They both stayed on patrol. Almost a month later, they were riding together in an armored vehicle when someone in a village they'd just passed set off a mine. Chuck's eardrum punctured and the left side of his face burned, the flesh bubbling. Tom was unconscious. Chuck yanked him free of the wreckage and then shielded him with his own body when the machine gunners in the village opened up on them.

How do you go on from that? How do you live as brothers with those moments, surreal and desperate, hanging between you back in the world? "You have to have a life separate from it. Because it was a cloud over us for far too long," Tom says, his voice quavering. Chuck's stays firm and he says, "It's always there, but you move forward."

By the following March, they were both back in Omaha with five Purple Hearts between them. Tom had a hard time. He drank and flew into rages. He was openly furious at the government for lying them into a war. Chuck thought the war was a good idea badly executed. This was enough to send them at each other.

"My mother," says Mike Hagel, their younger brother, "would send them away from the table." Once, at a party at a small house Chuck rented, they had their picture taken in a state of blissfully intoxicated brotherhood only to find themselves a little while later punching themselves senseless on the lawn. They bonded again only when the police came. "We told them nothing was going on," Tom recalls. "But we wrecked that house." The one thing they did agree on was that Mike wasn't going to join the Army.

"I tried to enlist three times," Mike says. "They stopped me all three."

Chuck did what he always did, doggedly putting one foot in front of the other. He worked for a Republican congressman in Washington. He came back with enough connections in Nebraska to make a lot of money getting in on the ground floor of the wireless-communications industry. He married, divorced, and remarried, this time to Lilibet Ziller of Meridian, Mississippi, a congressional aide whom he'd met while working in Washington. He was prairie Catholic. She was Southern Baptist. As a compromise, they and their two teenage children, Allyn and Ziller, go to an Episcopal church. He ran for the Senate as a rookie and won, beating a popular Republican attorney general in the primary and incumbent governor Ben Nelson in the general election.

Tom got a law degree and moved to Dayton in 1982. His politics stayed left. Once, he was romanced by the law school at the University of Mississippi. He was charmed by the antebellum campus in Oxford. Then, at a reception that night, he heard some of his prospective colleagues talking about "nigras." He stayed in Dayton.

The two brothers gradually made a hard-won peace with their war. They became somewhat famous when Myra MacPherson made them the centerpiece of the opening of Long Time Passing, her seminal 1984 study of Vietnam veterans. In 1999, they were invited to be part of the delegation attending the opening of the first American consulate in Ho Chi Minh City. Gradually, though, Chuck moved closer to Tom's view of Vietnam. It was the tapes that did it, the release of recordings of Lyndon Johnson's anguished phone calls to Richard Russell in which he tells Russell that he knows the war cannot be won. The calls were recorded two years before the Hagels went to Vietnam.

"To know that, and to continue to send kids into that meat grinder..." says Chuck Hagel, sitting in an office in a building named after Richard Russell, an office across the hall from the one out of which Lyndon Johnson once ran the Senate. It seems impolite to ask him, as his sentence fades away and he shakes the voices of Johnson and Russell out of his head, whether we are still talking completely about the past.

Today, Tom jokes that we'll all know whether Chuck's running for president if Tom is suddenly packed off to a desert island somewhere for the duration of the campaign. For his part, Chuck points out that Tom, who, he says, once railed against veterans' groups, is a post commander of the Disabled American Veterans. "When he came back," Chuck says, "he wouldn't walk across the street for those guys. 'They're a bunch of no-good, beer-swilling, fat-bellied swine.' Now he's part of the establishment."

They tear up at different times. Tom starts talking about the day Chuck pulled him out of the wrecked vehicle, and he has to turn away for a second and pick up a cup of coffee, and even that doesn't help altogether. It happens to Chuck when he talks about their father, who never came all the way home.

He's sitting in the Senate Caucus Room in the Russell Building. All the lights are off, and the city's gone dark, and the only illumination comes from some small lamps that a photographer is using to take his picture. There are shades moving amid the shadows in this room. It was here where Harry Truman, a mediocre machine hack from Missouri, roasted his own party over war profiteering, and where J. William Fulbright, an urbane Arkansan, roasted his own party over the lies it had used to launch a war, and where Sam Ervin, an unremarkable segregationist, used the Constitution to pry the lid off the excesses of a rogue presidency. It was in this room where, often, the building moments met the unlikely men who gave them their voice.

Chuck Hagel talks about the night his father died. In the dark, you can barely see his fingers move discreetly under his eyes, wiping away the tears. You can see the pain and loss there, beneath the scars and the bone and everything else that's been built on top of it, the essential archaeology of a man and his time. Any war's wounds are vast and gratuitous. None of its damage is ever collateral.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Enough with the nonsense. Senator Hagel's straight talk is what the American public really needs to hear.

Offering a Response to Senator Webb


What America Really Needs to Hear

Shortly after President Bush’s State of the Union address last week Jim Webb, the freshman Senator from Virginia, delivered the Democrats’ televised response to Bush’s annual speech. Many antiwar progressives were pleased to hear a Democrat confront the Bush rhetoric head-on. Media critic Jeff Cohen went even further and argued that Webb’s riposte was not only aimed at the Bush administration, but also at Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

“Whether intended or not,” wrote Cohen, “Webb was offering a way for Democrats to win elections -- a script for any presidential candidate who wants to distinguish him or herself in the primaries, and then defeat the Republicans in Nov. 2008.”

Cohen and I must have been watching different programs. Sen. Webb’s position on the Iraq war was little more than a sugarcoated pill packed full of the usual irony. Webb painted the situation in Iraq as a result of Bush’s poor planning and not the more obvious illegalities and lies that drove our country into battle. As Webb put it, “We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable -- and predicted -- disarray that has followed.”

Never once did we hear Webb utter the bitter truth about the Iraq crisis. Certainly the invasion and subsequent occupation were not “mismanaged” as Webb and many others have put it, rather the civil war now engulfing Iraq is a result of a criminal performance carried out by President Bush that was enabled and encouraged by the leaders of the Democratic Party dating back to President Clinton.

Webb also did not express any significant criticisms of the “war on terror” as he seems to believe in its underlying premise. Consequently he did not mention that he disagrees with the increase of troops in Afghanistan or the recent air strikes of suspected terrorist cells in Somali. And despite his anger at Bush’s reckless mismanagement of Iraq, he didn’t dare bring up that all but forgotten subject: impeachment.

Webb also noted that he was opposed to “a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos” and instead called for a “strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.” In essence Webb doesn’t believe U.S. troops should leave Iraq at once. We may as well call that just more of the same. All talk, no action.

And this is the type of winning formula Jeff Cohen believes the Democratic presidential candidates should use to distinguish themselves from Republicans? Right now the most visible and articulate antiwar senator is Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. If anything, Democratic presidential hopefuls and others should take a cue from Hagel on Iraq, not Webb. In a recent interview in GQ, Hagel went as far as to say that what’s going on in Iraq is “even worse than a civil war, because in addition to the sectarian violence, you've got Shia killing Shia. We have ethnic cleansing of major proportions going on in Baghdad.”

Enough with the nonsense. Senator Hagel’s straight talk is what the American public really needs to hear.

--Joshua Frank

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Hagel Interview: More Anti-War Than Most Dems

THE ANGRY ONE

Republican senator Chuck Hagel sounds off on the sorry state of Congress, the president’s lies, and the vote for war that he now regrets

GQ, January 2007

Chuck Hagel came home from Vietnam in 1968 with shrapnel in his chest, scars on his face, and an unyielding certainty that the freedom of men is theirs alone to win. As an infantryman, he had not bombed from above or commanded from behind; he had stood knee-deep in the muck, face-to-face with the enemy, firing on men and watching them die. It’s a hard memory to leave behind. Even after four decades and a lifetime of change—a fortune earned in the investment-banking business; a decade as a senator from Nebraska; and a position as one of the GOP’s conservative torchbearers with a shot at the White House—Hagel has put everything on the line to oppose the war in Iraq, refusing to send a “surge” of new troops into battle, or to forget the lessons he brought home from the killing fields long ago.

Sitting in his office on a recent afternoon, Hagel leaned back in his armchair to explain, in a voice reminiscent of sandpaper on rough oak, how he was deceived by the president, and won’t let it happen again.

click here for more >

Friday, January 26, 2007

Hagel Ponders White House Run As War Criticism Raises His Profile

By Shailagh Murray

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; A01

His Republican colleagues regard him warily. The White House barely speaks to him. He is reviled by his party's conservative base.

Looks as though Sen. Chuck Hagel is on a roll.

Both parties have their Iraq war contrarians. For the Democrats, it is Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose steadfast support for President Bush nearly cost him his seat last year and forced him to run as an independent. The Republican version is Hagel, a career maverick from Nebraska and the only GOP senator to call for an end to the war.

Hagel's sharp criticism of the war has placed him squarely in the mainstream of public opinion on Iraq and revived long-dormant speculation about his presidential ambitions. Hagel has been eclipsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading contender for his party's presidential nomination who has vigorously endorsed the president's war policies.

But with McCain appearing increasingly isolated on the issue as public opinion has turned overwhelmingly against the war, Hagel is acting like a politician who believes his stock is climbing. In other words, he is considering a White House run.

Hagel said in a wide-ranging interview this week that he is discussing his options with his family and other confidants and will make a decision in the next six weeks.

He said one possibility is forming a presidential exploratory committee and -- despite his outcast position within his party -- seeking the Republican nomination. Or he may seek a third Senate term. Then again, he might take a more creative path.

Hagel joked during the interview about teaming up with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a moderate Republican, and also floated the possibility of joining a bipartisan unity ticket with a Democrat -- with his name first, of course.

Hagel clearly admires Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and calls him "a star," but he doubts the two could ever team up given the vast difference in their parties' principles. "I don't know if it gets to that point, but there is a shift going on out there, and there's nothing like a war that does that," Hagel said.

His GOP critics fume that Hagel and his Democratic allies who sponsor resolutions opposing a troop buildup are undermining Bush at a critical moment. "I really don't understand Senator Hagel," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). "But playing around with resolutions when we all know we've got to stay and get the job done -- that doesn't make any sense. Most Republicans want us to win over there."

Hagel attracted the support of only 1 percent of registered Republicans in recent polls, compared with 25 to 30 percent for McCain. And his standing among conservative party faithful who will determine the outcome of the Republican presidential nomination remains strikingly low because of the intensity of his attacks on Bush. But Hagel has gained a particular following within the antiwar community. An Internet "draft Hagel" movement has formed, and even die-hard liberals admit they find him appealing.

"Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote," said an Internet article last week by Robert Scheer, co-author of the book "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq."

Like McCain, his close friend and potential 2008 GOP rival, Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, but his assessment of the Iraq conflict is radically different. McCain has asserted that despite serious mistakes by the Bush administration, victory remains possible. Hagel believes that U.S. troops are being thrown into a civil war that cannot be won and calls the conflict "the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam."

Earlier in their careers, McCain, 70, and Hagel, 60, were viewed as rising Republican stars, two plain-spoken outsiders with gritty military résumés. After losing to Bush in the 2000 GOP nomination battle, McCain greatly enhanced his stature inside the party by embracing Bush's Iraq policy. Meanwhile, Hagel, an early and persistent critic of the invasion, grew more estranged.

"He's held his view for a long time and I've held mine for a long time, so it's not as if we suddenly find ourselves on the opposite side of the issue," McCain said of Hagel. "I respect his views. I maintain my strong affection and respect for him."

Hagel warned against military action long before the Iraq invasion, but despite his trepidations, he supported a Senate resolution authorizing the war. He has since renounced his vote and has been trying to atone for it ever since. When Bush announced a plan earlier this month to deploy additional troops, Hagel co-sponsored, with two prominent Democrats, a new Senate resolution opposing the plan. Though nonbinding, the measure has triggered the first significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over Iraq since the war began.

Hagel vainly implored his Republican colleagues to join him in supporting the resolution, which was approved 12 to 9 during a session of the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. "If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes," he said. "This is a tough business."

One of Hagel's sparring partners is Lieberman, who has infuriated Democrats with his outspoken war advocacy. Two weeks ago, the Nebraska senator was introduced to the Internet video site YouTube when his son, an eighth-grader, showed him a clip from "Meet the Press" that was drawing heavy traffic. It was a showdown between Hagel and Lieberman over Iraq.

If critics of Bush's troop increase have their way, Lieberman asserted, the consequences "for my children and grandchildren, I fear, will be disastrous."

"That's ridiculous," Hagel shot back, "and I am offended that any responsible member of Congress or anyone else would even suggest such a thing. Senator Lieberman talks about his children and grandchildren. We all have children and grandchildren; he doesn't have a market on that."

Hagel is a loner in the Senate, a serious and somewhat distant colleague who eschews consultants and other trappings of political ambition -- although he is a regular on political talk shows. He travels the country extensively and particularly enjoys talking to students. Last month, he spoke at Nebraska Wesleyan University and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and he is to receive an honorary degree from the College of William and Mary next month. Ambassadors and foreign officials visit his office regularly.

He often speaks of the current period as a "transformational time" that could bring a political earthquake, as early as the 2008 election. He sees parallels to 1960 and 1980, which resulted in the pivotal presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

"Politics and politicians must become relevant to the times . . . or they become irrelevant," Hagel said. "And when you become irrelevant, something is going to fill that void."

Hagel Ponders White House Run As War Criticism Raises His Profile

By Shailagh Murray

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; A01

His Republican colleagues regard him warily. The White House barely speaks to him. He is reviled by his party's conservative base.

Looks as though Sen. Chuck Hagel is on a roll.

Both parties have their Iraq war contrarians. For the Democrats, it is Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose steadfast support for President Bush nearly cost him his seat last year and forced him to run as an independent. The Republican version is Hagel, a career maverick from Nebraska and the only GOP senator to call for an end to the war.

Hagel's sharp criticism of the war has placed him squarely in the mainstream of public opinion on Iraq and revived long-dormant speculation about his presidential ambitions. Hagel has been eclipsed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading contender for his party's presidential nomination who has vigorously endorsed the president's war policies.

But with McCain appearing increasingly isolated on the issue as public opinion has turned overwhelmingly against the war, Hagel is acting like a politician who believes his stock is climbing. In other words, he is considering a White House run.

Hagel said in a wide-ranging interview this week that he is discussing his options with his family and other confidants and will make a decision in the next six weeks.

He said one possibility is forming a presidential exploratory committee and -- despite his outcast position within his party -- seeking the Republican nomination. Or he may seek a third Senate term. Then again, he might take a more creative path.

Hagel joked during the interview about teaming up with New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, a moderate Republican, and also floated the possibility of joining a bipartisan unity ticket with a Democrat -- with his name first, of course.

Hagel clearly admires Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and calls him "a star," but he doubts the two could ever team up given the vast difference in their parties' principles. "I don't know if it gets to that point, but there is a shift going on out there, and there's nothing like a war that does that," Hagel said.

His GOP critics fume that Hagel and his Democratic allies who sponsor resolutions opposing a troop buildup are undermining Bush at a critical moment. "I really don't understand Senator Hagel," said Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah.). "But playing around with resolutions when we all know we've got to stay and get the job done -- that doesn't make any sense. Most Republicans want us to win over there."

Hagel attracted the support of only 1 percent of registered Republicans in recent polls, compared with 25 to 30 percent for McCain. And his standing among conservative party faithful who will determine the outcome of the Republican presidential nomination remains strikingly low because of the intensity of his attacks on Bush. But Hagel has gained a particular following within the antiwar community. An Internet "draft Hagel" movement has formed, and even die-hard liberals admit they find him appealing.

"Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn't the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote," said an Internet article last week by Robert Scheer, co-author of the book "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq."

Like McCain, his close friend and potential 2008 GOP rival, Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, but his assessment of the Iraq conflict is radically different. McCain has asserted that despite serious mistakes by the Bush administration, victory remains possible. Hagel believes that U.S. troops are being thrown into a civil war that cannot be won and calls the conflict "the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam."

Earlier in their careers, McCain, 70, and Hagel, 60, were viewed as rising Republican stars, two plain-spoken outsiders with gritty military résumés. After losing to Bush in the 2000 GOP nomination battle, McCain greatly enhanced his stature inside the party by embracing Bush's Iraq policy. Meanwhile, Hagel, an early and persistent critic of the invasion, grew more estranged.

"He's held his view for a long time and I've held mine for a long time, so it's not as if we suddenly find ourselves on the opposite side of the issue," McCain said of Hagel. "I respect his views. I maintain my strong affection and respect for him."

Hagel warned against military action long before the Iraq invasion, but despite his trepidations, he supported a Senate resolution authorizing the war. He has since renounced his vote and has been trying to atone for it ever since. When Bush announced a plan earlier this month to deploy additional troops, Hagel co-sponsored, with two prominent Democrats, a new Senate resolution opposing the plan. Though nonbinding, the measure has triggered the first significant confrontation between the White House and Congress over Iraq since the war began.

Hagel vainly implored his Republican colleagues to join him in supporting the resolution, which was approved 12 to 9 during a session of the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. "If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes," he said. "This is a tough business."

One of Hagel's sparring partners is Lieberman, who has infuriated Democrats with his outspoken war advocacy. Two weeks ago, the Nebraska senator was introduced to the Internet video site YouTube when his son, an eighth-grader, showed him a clip from "Meet the Press" that was drawing heavy traffic. It was a showdown between Hagel and Lieberman over Iraq.

If critics of Bush's troop increase have their way, Lieberman asserted, the consequences "for my children and grandchildren, I fear, will be disastrous."

"That's ridiculous," Hagel shot back, "and I am offended that any responsible member of Congress or anyone else would even suggest such a thing. Senator Lieberman talks about his children and grandchildren. We all have children and grandchildren; he doesn't have a market on that."

Hagel is a loner in the Senate, a serious and somewhat distant colleague who eschews consultants and other trappings of political ambition -- although he is a regular on political talk shows. He travels the country extensively and particularly enjoys talking to students. Last month, he spoke at Nebraska Wesleyan University and the University of Nebraska at Lincoln, and he is to receive an honorary degree from the College of William and Mary next month. Ambassadors and foreign officials visit his office regularly.

He often speaks of the current period as a "transformational time" that could bring a political earthquake, as early as the 2008 election. He sees parallels to 1960 and 1980, which resulted in the pivotal presidencies of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

"Politics and politicians must become relevant to the times . . . or they become irrelevant," Hagel said. "And when you become irrelevant, something is going to fill that void."

Monday, January 22, 2007

Chuck Hagel for President!

Robert Scheer

Posted on Jan 16, 2007
Chuck Hagel
AP Photo / Gerald Herbert

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., speaks at a press conference regarding his proposed plan to save Social Security on Capitol Hill in Washington Monday, March 7, 2005.

Chuck Hagel for president! If it ever narrows down to a choice between him and some Democratic hack who hasn’t the guts to fundamentally challenge the president on Iraq, then the conservative Republican from Nebraska will have my vote. Yes, the war is that important, and the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic candidate, still can’t or won’t take a clear stand on the occupation is insulting to the vast majority of voters who have.

Sen. Hagel is a decorated Vietnam War vet who learned the crucial lessons of that Democrat-launched debacle of post-colonial imperialism. Even more important, he has the courage to challenge a president from his own party who so clearly didn’t.

“The speech given last night [Jan. 10] by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam,” Hagel said. “We are projecting ourselves further and deeper into a situation that we cannot win militarily.

“To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong. It’s, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It’s tactically, strategically, militarily wrong,” he added.

If Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another Democratic darling, has uttered words of such clarifying dissent on the president’s disastrous course, then I haven’t heard them. Instead, too many leading Democratic politicians continue to act as if they fear that if they are forthright in opposing the war, they will appear weak, whether on national security or the protection of Israel, and so ignore the clear, strong voice of the American people that just revived their party’s fortunes.

Ever since President Ronald Reagan painted foreign policy as a simplistic war of good versus evil, the Republican Party has been in the thrall of neocon adventurers. Yet, the national emergence of Hagel reminds us that, two decades earlier, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower, a war hero and a Republican, who was the only president to clearly challenge the simplistic and jingoistic militarism that most Democrats embraced during the Cold War. It was Eisenhower, in fact, who refused to send troops to Vietnam, and his Democratic successors who opened the gates of war.

True conservatives, going back to George Washington, have always been wary of the “foreign entanglements” that our first general and president warned against in his farewell address. And it is in that spirit, recognizing the limits to U.S. military power, that Hagel spoke this past Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Independent Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, late of an oft-opportunistic Democratic Party that saw fit to nominate him as recently as 2000 for the vice presidency, had just finished accusing those who don’t support President Bush’s escalation of the war of being “all about failing.” In his defense of the indefensible, Lieberman baldly repeated many of Bush’s lies that launched this war four years ago.

“The American people ... have been attacked on 9/11 by the same enemy that we’re fighting in Iraq today, supported by a rising Islamist radical super-powered government in Iran,” said the fear-monger. “Allowing Iraq to collapse would be a disaster for the Iraqis, for the Middle East, for us, that would embolden the Iranians and al-Qaida, who are our enemies. And they would follow us back here.”

Never mind the ridiculous image of “super-powered” Iran invading the United States, or the fact that foreign jihadists—arriving after the overthrow of anti-fundamentalist strongman Saddam Hussein— make up only a tiny fraction of the combatants in Iraq. The question is how the apparently intelligent Lieberman doesn’t understand that the main task of our troops for most of their stay in Iraq has been, de facto, to expand the power of Shiite theocrats trained for decades in Iran. Tehran couldn’t have baited a better trap.

In any case, Hagel refused to bite on Lieberman’s apocalyptic vision, which somehow manages to skip the hard truth that Iraq has collapsed because of our involvement, not despite it.

“[T]he fact is, the Iraqi people will determine the fate of Iraq,” Hagel responded, in what amounts to a radical opinion in paternalistic, arrogant Washington. “The people of the Middle East will determine their fate. We continue to interject ourselves in a situation that we never have understood, we’ve never comprehended [and] we now have to devise a way to find some political consensus with our allies [and] the regional powers, including Iran and Syria.

“To say that we are going to feed more young men and women into that grinder, put them in the middle of a tribal, sectarian civil war, is not going to fix the problem,” he added.

Words of wisdom that set the standard for anyone running for president.

By Robert Scheer

Sunday, December 3, 2006

Bush in triple trouble

Triple trouble

By Shmuel Rosner

WASHINGTON - The incriminating memorandum was published in The New York Times on Wednesday morning. U.S. President George W. Bush's national security advisor, Stephen Hadley - so the report went - said he doubts whether Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki can control the sectarian violence in his country. A few hours later, Bush was scheduled to meet with Al-Maliki in Jordan. The Iraqi prime minister was insulted, and canceled the planned dinner with Bush and Jordan's King Abdullah.

The leak of the classified memo to The New York Times is liable to be seen as an exercise meant to embarrass the Bush administration, but it can also be depicted as a move engineered by the White House to pressure Al-Maliki with the message: If you don't improve your performance, the American president will be forced to consider other alternatives. Hadley says steps will need to be taken to strengthen the prime minister - steps that would be worth taking only if the Iraqi leader proves that he is up to the task of running the country.

Here, similarities can be drawn between the three fronts with which Bush is contending in his visits around the world this week - those same fronts which King Abdullah said this week, in an interview on a U.S. television station, are approaching civil war: Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. The U.S. president is trying to strengthen Al-Maliki, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. But how will the battered and bruised Bush summon the resources to help them?

The three leaders are similar, but there are also substantial differences between them. The Bush administration sees Al-Maliki as being insufficiently resolute to act in accordance with the interests that will calm his country. The White House is concerned that he is sometimes motivated by impulses that do not correspond with the objective. "He impressed me as a leader who wanted to be strong, but was having difficulty figuring out how to do so," Hadley wrote to Bush in the leaked memo.

The American position is different regarding Siniora: The Bush administration doesn't have a shadow of a doubt regarding his motives and intentions, but they understand full well that the weakness of his government doesn't allow him to do more. In other words, Siniora is the right person in the right place.

As for Abbas, the Americans are not worried about the purity of his intentions, but they think he too has difficulty understanding how to carry them out. And unlike with Siniora, they are not convinced that he will ever reach this understanding, even when he is handed the means and the resources. Perhaps, as a Bush administration official put it a few months ago, he has the will, but not the personality.

Yesterday in Jericho, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was supposed to give Abbas renewed support, but also to warn him that in light of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Sde Boker speech, it would be better if this time the Palestinians were to abandon the tradition of not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity. [This article was written before Rice met with Abbas.]

Carter's legacy

The previous record was set in 1976, when seven Democratic senators competed for the right to represent their party in the presidential elections following the Nixon-Ford era. It is an impressive record, which is now in serious danger of being broken. This time, ahead of the 2008 presidential elections, nine senators are likely to run in the Democratic primaries. And who knows? Maybe they will manage to escape the sad fate of their predecessors, the senator of 1976: None of whom won. That honor went to Jimmy Carter, the relatively unknown governor of Georgia, who bypassed them all and sprinted to the White House, where he served a single term, and not a particularly successful one. His presidential legacy for future generations will be this: Even a retired president has the ability to be of some benefit and to cause not inconsiderable damage.

Carter's new and much talked-about book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," compares Israel's actions vis-a-vis the land of Palestine to those of South Africa in the days of apartheid. A quick and superficial scan of the book turns up no new or inflammatory disclosures, but it does contain some particularly harsh criticism. Carter, who has gone on an intensive tour to promote the book, has certainly noticed that the people interviewing him were less interested in Palestine this week and more interested in Iraq, as was Bush these past few days. When the arm of the powerful country is under threat of amputation, it doesn't think about the comprehensive treatment of an abscess elsewhere on the body, even if it has posed trouble for many years and will continue to do so after the stump heals. And indeed, this is one of the basic criticisms in Carter's book: There is not enough vigorous debate in the United States regarding the Palestinian problem. And this week, once again, it was not easy to find people interested in paying attention to this problem.

Carter attacked Bush on the Iraq issue, too: This war, he predicted, will be remembered as "one of the greatest blunders that American presidents have ever made." Although Carter didn't say so, he presumably meant that the Iraq war is far worse than his own failure to stop the Khomeini revolution in Iran and to rescue the American hostages in Tehran.

Then came the required comparisons to Vietnam, but nonetheless Carter managed, for a moment, to surprise. The public seems to have decided some time ago that a civil war is under way in Iraq, but the Bush administration has persistently denied it. However, the former president actually sided with Bush, saying, "I think civil war is a more serious circumstance than exists in Iraq." And Carter, who has been appointed by himself and others as peace envoy to every conflict and conflagration around the world, has seen a civil war or two in his life.

Hagel's shortcut

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska is one of those nine Senate wonders who look into a mirror and think that the image of the next president is peering out at them. Hagel jumped to the top twice this week, with the generous assistance of The Washington Post editorial page. The first time, he published a sober and profound op-ed piece about the war, and the second time, he starred in a column by David Ignatius, headlined "Hagel's Moment?"

If Bush is trying to assign greater responsibility to Al-Maliki, Hagel takes a shortcut and assigns the responsibility to all Iraqis. It's not America that will win or lose in the war, he said, since it's the Iraqis' future that's on the line. "Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost," the senator wrote. And the time to send military reinforcements, he added, is long past.

Hagel's op-ed aroused great interest. He wrote that the renewal of diplomatic ties between Iraq and Syria has generated much hope, since it proves that only "regional powers will fill regional vacuums." Hagel thinks it will take time and that blood will certainly be spilled - in part due to the United States' inability to generate a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - but that ultimately, the Middle East will reorganize on its own. Hagel does not accept former secretary of defense Colin Powell's "you break it, you buy it" concept - i.e., that since the United States broke Iraq, it has to rebuild it. Hagel is prepared to leave Iraq, and let the Iraqis "break their heads" over it.

On Monday, three experts discussed the future of U.S.-Syria relations at the United States Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan institution established by Congress to help prevent and resolve violent international conflicts. They too spoke, briefly, about the importance of Hagel's op-ed. But the discussion focused on James Baker, the secretary of state under George Bush, Sr., who was called on to save the administration of Bush, Jr. from the mire of Iraq and who will submit his recommendations next Wednesday.

Rumor, and leaked information, has it that Baker plans to recommend a dialogue with Syria. But this week the administration signaled that it is not interested in such a recommendation. Well, not the entire administration. Hadley told reporters that Ehud Olmert's refusal to respond to Syrian President Bashar Assad's public calls for negotiations over the Golan Heights is reasonable. On the other hand, Bush's candidate for secretary of defense, Robert Gates, supports a dialogue with Syria. In written testimony he submitted to the Senate this week, ahead of the confirmation hearing he faces, Gates said he does not necessarily support a bilateral framework for the dialogue with Syria, suggesting it could take place within the framework of a "regional conference" - one of the options that Baker is expected to recommend.

Baker's conferences

Regional conferences - in the spirit of the Madrid conference he convened at the beginning of the 1990s and whose success is debatable - are Baker's favored formula for solving problems in the Middle East.

Baker has a routine shtick for meeting guests from Israel. He always mentions his memories of his difficult encounters with former Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, ending with what is meant to be a kind of happy surprise: Of all the Israeli leaders, Baker liked meeting with Shamir best, because he know that he was as good as his word.

The more time elapses since the establishment of the committee Baker heads, the greater the suspicion that this smart and experienced politician does not have much in the way of new suggestions - only the same old formulas that sometimes succeeded and sometimes failed, and that aren't necessarily suitable right now. "Political realism is dead," an Israeli observer who shall remain unnamed said two weeks ago. There are quite a few Americans who agree with him: It's impossible to fit the solutions of the 20th century to the problems of the 21st.

Robert Satloff, head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said at the conference on Syria that domino theories don't work well in the Middle East. He noted that angry predictions that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could spread to neighboring states or that the entire region could erupt in violence have never panned out. Comments made by Hadley this week reflect a similar attitude: Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is important and worthy of the effort, but it is not remotely related to the violent situation in Iraq or to other, no less severe, problems in the Middle East.

Satloff said Syria doesn't have anything to offer the United States at the moment. It won't help solve the problems in Iraq, and there is only a slim chance that it will agree to cut ties with Iran or Hezbollah. The other two members of the panel - Robert Malley, who was a member of the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, and Scott Lasensky from the United States Institute of Peace - agreed with Satloff. Malley said it wasn't clear to him what America is trying to do in Syria, and predicted a glum and volatile future for Lebanon. For that reason, he suggested precisely what the Bush administration is trying to avoid: taking Syria into account in efforts to stabilize Lebanon.