Look everyone, an endangered species. A Republican! No, not the ones who are currently in the party. One who actually believes in fiscal responsibility and smaller government, and doesn't just say they do.
Sen. Chuck Hagel had plenty to say on Face The Nation this past Sunday including, "The party that I first voted for on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta in 1968 is not the party I see today, Bob. Fiscal responsibility, engagement with others, pro-trade, personal responsibility, less government--that's not who we are today. Parties should be the framework of philosophies and beliefs."
You can watch the video here.
Here's part of the transcript:
SCHIEFFER: The [Washington Post today] reports that when President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki back on November 30th that Maliki gave him the following information. It was his plan. He said that he wanted no more US troops in Iraq, he wanted US troops in Baghdad to withdraw to the outskirts of the city and let the Iraqis take over in Baghdad, and he wanted other US troops to shift to the borders with Iran and Syria so they could concentrate on tracking down al-Qaeda. The president, we are told, said that he didn't think that would work, that it would cause Baghdad to just collapse into chaos. But frankly, that sounds like the recommendations that the Baker-Hamilton Commission reported back after studying this problem for about a year. What is your reaction to that?
Senator CHUCK HAGEL (Republican, Nebraska; Foreign Relations Committee): I think you're brief analysis is correct. It does include what the prime minister framed up for the president, if that story is correct. Very much the foundation of the 79 recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, which I supported, which I have said publicly and privately that I thought the administration should seize upon that, build upon that. Because first, it represents a diplomatic framework for dealing with, not just with the immediate problems in Iraq, but the future. In fact, the Iraqis were already doing this, reaching out the Iranians, reaching out to the Syrians. They've been to Damascus and Tehran. That is going forward. And I'm very happy, very pleased, because I think, in the end, some of us believe, I suspect Baker-Hamilton believe, that there is going to be--have to be a diplomatic resolution. That's going to include a diplomatic accommodation, but also a political accommodation within Iraq that's going to require some shifts. And what Maliki was talking about I think makes sense. In fact, the resolution that Senators Biden and Levin and Snow and I have put forward details, in some ways, and references, in general ways, exactly what you just talked about, exactly what supposedly Maliki told the president and is incorporated in the Baker-Hamilton report.
SCHIEFFER: So you think the president made a mistake here in not accepting some of these recommendations?
Sen. HAGEL: I've said that he has made a mistake. I think, for whatever reason, the advice he got was not very solid, because I have believed from the beginning, Bob, that the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people. We can help. For example, the territorial integrity of Iraq. That is something that we could do, to start helping seal off those western borders. That's what Maliki's talked about. We had a panel of four former retired four star generals before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, various ideas and positions. But one of those generals said that this was a fool's errand to continue to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war. I think Maliki was moving in the right direction. I hope he continues to move in the right direction. The future of Iraq is not going to be determined by American military. And, by the way, Generals Casey and Abizaid said this in open hearing in November. So I too found that front page story in The Washington Post both puzzling and also encouraging.
****************
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, senator. Vice President Cheney says this sort of thing [Congressional resolutions] undercuts the troops. What's your response?
Sen. HAGEL: Well, let me tell you this. I served in Vietnam in 1968. Others did, too--Jim Webb, John McCain, John Kerry, other members in the House. In 1968, when I was there with my brother, worst year, deaths, I would have welcomed the Congress of the United States to pay a little attention as to what was going on. I would have welcomed that. That is complete nonsense to say we're undercutting the support of the troops. What are we about?
We're Article I of the Constitution. We're a co-equal branch of government. Are we not to participate? Are we not to say anything? Are we not to register our sense of where we're going in this country on foreign policy?
****************
SCHIEFFER: The president says if we pull out, it would be chaos there. What do you think would happen if the president took your suggestions and we began to draw down troops?
Sen. HAGEL: ...We have right now anarchy in Iraq. We have disaster in Iraq. It's not getting better; it's getting worse. So to say somehow that, if we eventually leave there, it's going to be anarchy, no one wants a defeat. No one wants to put America or the Middle East in a worse situation. I've not heard of anybody doing that or wanting to do that. What we're trying to do is come up with a relevant, realistic approach bringing the partners in, letting Maliki do what he suggested to the president he'd do, and find a way out of the militarily committed peace of this. That's what Baker-Hamilton said. That's what I believe.
***************
Not bad for a real Republican. This government could do a lot of things if more politicians were like Hagel, putting aside their partisan labels and trying to figure out what works best for the country instead of what works best for them or their party.
Here's part of the transcript:
SCHIEFFER: The [Washington Post today] reports that when President Bush met with Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki back on November 30th that Maliki gave him the following information. It was his plan. He said that he wanted no more US troops in Iraq, he wanted US troops in Baghdad to withdraw to the outskirts of the city and let the Iraqis take over in Baghdad, and he wanted other US troops to shift to the borders with Iran and Syria so they could concentrate on tracking down al-Qaeda. The president, we are told, said that he didn't think that would work, that it would cause Baghdad to just collapse into chaos. But frankly, that sounds like the recommendations that the Baker-Hamilton Commission reported back after studying this problem for about a year. What is your reaction to that?
Senator CHUCK HAGEL (Republican, Nebraska; Foreign Relations Committee): I think you're brief analysis is correct. It does include what the prime minister framed up for the president, if that story is correct. Very much the foundation of the 79 recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton report, which I supported, which I have said publicly and privately that I thought the administration should seize upon that, build upon that. Because first, it represents a diplomatic framework for dealing with, not just with the immediate problems in Iraq, but the future. In fact, the Iraqis were already doing this, reaching out the Iranians, reaching out to the Syrians. They've been to Damascus and Tehran. That is going forward. And I'm very happy, very pleased, because I think, in the end, some of us believe, I suspect Baker-Hamilton believe, that there is going to be--have to be a diplomatic resolution. That's going to include a diplomatic accommodation, but also a political accommodation within Iraq that's going to require some shifts. And what Maliki was talking about I think makes sense. In fact, the resolution that Senators Biden and Levin and Snow and I have put forward details, in some ways, and references, in general ways, exactly what you just talked about, exactly what supposedly Maliki told the president and is incorporated in the Baker-Hamilton report.
SCHIEFFER: So you think the president made a mistake here in not accepting some of these recommendations?
Sen. HAGEL: I've said that he has made a mistake. I think, for whatever reason, the advice he got was not very solid, because I have believed from the beginning, Bob, that the future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people. We can help. For example, the territorial integrity of Iraq. That is something that we could do, to start helping seal off those western borders. That's what Maliki's talked about. We had a panel of four former retired four star generals before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this week, various ideas and positions. But one of those generals said that this was a fool's errand to continue to put American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war. I think Maliki was moving in the right direction. I hope he continues to move in the right direction. The future of Iraq is not going to be determined by American military. And, by the way, Generals Casey and Abizaid said this in open hearing in November. So I too found that front page story in The Washington Post both puzzling and also encouraging.
****************
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this, senator. Vice President Cheney says this sort of thing [Congressional resolutions] undercuts the troops. What's your response?
Sen. HAGEL: Well, let me tell you this. I served in Vietnam in 1968. Others did, too--Jim Webb, John McCain, John Kerry, other members in the House. In 1968, when I was there with my brother, worst year, deaths, I would have welcomed the Congress of the United States to pay a little attention as to what was going on. I would have welcomed that. That is complete nonsense to say we're undercutting the support of the troops. What are we about?
We're Article I of the Constitution. We're a co-equal branch of government. Are we not to participate? Are we not to say anything? Are we not to register our sense of where we're going in this country on foreign policy?
****************
SCHIEFFER: The president says if we pull out, it would be chaos there. What do you think would happen if the president took your suggestions and we began to draw down troops?
Sen. HAGEL: ...We have right now anarchy in Iraq. We have disaster in Iraq. It's not getting better; it's getting worse. So to say somehow that, if we eventually leave there, it's going to be anarchy, no one wants a defeat. No one wants to put America or the Middle East in a worse situation. I've not heard of anybody doing that or wanting to do that. What we're trying to do is come up with a relevant, realistic approach bringing the partners in, letting Maliki do what he suggested to the president he'd do, and find a way out of the militarily committed peace of this. That's what Baker-Hamilton said. That's what I believe.
***************
Not bad for a real Republican. This government could do a lot of things if more politicians were like Hagel, putting aside their partisan labels and trying to figure out what works best for the country instead of what works best for them or their party.
ShareThis
No comments:
Post a Comment