Chuck Hagel demonstrates his mastery of the art of Republican rhetoric

[ProSense]

Transcript: Sen. Chuck Hagel on 'FOX News Sunday'
Sunday, August 20, 2006

Senator, welcome to "FOX News Sunday."Snip...

WALLACE: But basically, you think the president had overstepped his bounds.

Snip...

WALLACE: But, Senator, your party jumped on this decision. I want you to take a look at something that was issued by the Republican National Committee the day of the decision. Here's the title: Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda to Weaken National Security. And a Republican spokeswoman says that this shows the fundamental choice between Republicans and Democrats.

HAGEL: Excuse me. Well, Chris, I can't speak for the party. I don't speak for the party. I don't defend the party. They do a very adequate job of that themselves.

Snip...

We have on the one side the Democrats running around saying well, the Republicans are warmongers, they want to take your rights away from you, you can't trust them. The Republicans, evidenced by that headline you threw up, are saying about the Democrats they're cut and run, you can't trust them.

Snip...

WALLACE: All right. Let's turn to one of those wars, Iraq. In an interview you gave to the Omaha World Herald a couple of weeks ago, you said — and let's put it up on the screen — "Conditions in Iraq are an absolute replay of Vietnam." You said, "U.S. soldiers are easy targets in a country that has fallen into absolute anarchy."

Snip...

WALLACE: Do you think it's going to happen?

HAGEL: Snip...

The answer, in my opinion, is not to just keep feeding more American troops into it. The Iraqi people have already made some decisions here. We, in fact, are in probably a low grade, maybe a very defined, civil war.

Snip...

WALLACE: But you have said that you think that we should begin pulling troops out within six months.

HAGEL: I do.

Snip...

WALLACE: Snip...

You've been very critical, as we've just heard, of U.S. policy in Iraq. And you have problems with NSA wiretaps and parts of the Patriot Act. When it comes to national security, are you closer to John Kerry than you are to George W. Bush?

HAGEL: Chris, I'm going to go back to the comment I made earlier. When it comes to war, Americans dying in a war, national security, it should never be held captive to a political agenda. I think that's wrong. I've said it's wrong.

Snip...

WALLACE: Would you agree that Ned Lamont's positions on all these issues we've discussed today are closer to yours than Joe Lieberman's are?

HAGEL: No. That's — Ned Lamont's position on issues...

WALLACE: On Iraq, on...

HAGEL: ... all the issues...

WALLACE: ... on the Patriot Act, on NSA warrantless wiretaps?

HAGEL: Those are some issues. But when you're...

WALLACE: Pretty big issues.

HAGEL: But we also have a lot of other issues like pro-life, like tax policy, like spending policy. See, that's my point, too, Chris. Being a United States Senator is more than just talking about Iraq.

And no, I'm not very close to Lamont on the whole scope of issues. He's a liberal Democrat.

more...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,209499,00.html

In an interview from Israel yesterday, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) said the political will of the United States is being stretched to the limit. He promised to offer a time frame for troop withdrawals when he returns next week from his 14th trip to Iraq.

Snip...

Add Shays and Fitzpatrick to other GOPers who have broken ranks in one form or another on Iraq, like Chuck Hagel, Gil Gutknecht and Walter Jones.

http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/2006/08/post_298.html

Yet Hagel voted against withdrawal, and has yet to voice support for Kerry-Feingold.

The Republicans simply deal in rhetoric.

[TheFarseer]

1. It was too bad when Chuck wouldn't say

that his position was closer to John Kerry's than president bush's, when it clearly is. How can you say we all need to get along and get together to come up with a political decision on Iraq, and THEN not even try to work with the people that you agree with. How is that not partisan? How is that de-politicizing the issue? I don't get him. Sometimes I think he is just positioning for 2008.

[wisteria]

2. Hagel is playing a bit of politics with the Iraq issue. Who is he kidding?

Him and the other Repubs don't want to credit Kerry, who in fact has not played politics with this issue. Kerry's opinions and amendment on Iraq were not politically motivated. They want to somehow claim this new found position as somehow different (more Republican) and less Kerry like when in fact, it is very close to Kerry's position.

[ProSense]

3. When you compare Hagel, McCain and Snowe,

Hagel isn't even a moderate Republican (McCain is also phony):

Chuck Hagel

Conservative
(Back to top)

Fall 2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 90 percent in Fall 2004.

2006 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 86 percent in 2006.

2005 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 50 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Personal Liberties on personal liberties 75 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 83 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Issues on economic issues 90 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 96 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Hagel supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 100 percent in 2004.

John McCain

Conservative
(Back to top)

Fall 2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 90 percent in Fall 2004.

2006 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 100 percent in 2006.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 50 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Personal Liberties on personal liberties 84 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 82 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Issues on economic issues 80 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator McCain supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 80 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 100 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator McCain supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 83 percent in 2004.

Olympia Snowe

Conservative
(Back to top)

Fall 2004 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Conservative Index - The John Birch Society 60 percent in Fall 2004.

2006 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Americans for Prosperity 29 percent in 2006.

2005 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 25 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Personal Liberties on personal liberties 70 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus 60 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Republican Liberty Caucus - Economic Issues on economic issues 50 percent in 2005.

2005 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the American Conservative Union 32 percent in 2005.

2004 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Eagle Forum 60 percent in 2004.

2004 Senator Snowe supported the interests of the Christian Coalition 50 percent in 2004.

[ProSense]

8. Hagel supports the Christian Coalition agenda 100% n/t

[blm]

4. Hagel wants to get the Independent vote from McCain - he may do that, but

he does get twisted up often enough that a solid Dem debater can take advantage.

[Donna Zen]

5. Hagel

I saw Hagel in March. He was on stage with Clark, Pete Peterson, and Bob Herbert. Hagel didn't try to defend the war. He also said that he knew that Saddam was not a threat to the US. His vote was to strengthen "his" president's hand at the UN and he had expected diplomacy.

Hagel and Lugar are probably the only republican internationalists. He has also recently won the Fawell's stamp of approval which makes sense because Hagel is very conservative.

And yet, when I saw him, he was speaking as a Vietnam Vet. I think he is serious about his desire to remove the politics from the war in Iraq. At that same time, and at the risk of sounding contradictory, he would support a republican resolution for a time table but not Kerry's.

[ProSense]

6. That's the problem! He falsely claims he isn't politicizing the war.

Worse, he still isn't doing anything about it. Thousands of people are dying each month and all he has to offer is rhetoric.

[Donna Zen]

7. Good Point: Hagel doesn't walk the walk

Although Hagel is far greater thorn in bush's side than many Democrats. He has been consistently out-spoken whenever he gets the mic.

I still think, after seeing him on that panel, that he doesn't agree with the war. In fact, he not only didn't try to defend it, he was actually sad. The subject was "lessons learned" from Vietnam, and the panel agreed that we learned nothing.

Personally, I think that Hagel would be a very difficult candidate to beat in 08.