Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Once Again Sen. Hagel Is Way Ahead of the Senate Democrats!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:10 PM
Original message
Once Again Sen. Hagel Is Way Ahead of the Senate Democrats!
Edited on Mon Jul-31-06 03:11 PM by leftchick
He called Iraq another Vietnam two years before any Democrats had the nerve to. Now he is calling for an immediate Cease Fire in Lebanon. Thank you Chuck for saying what all of our Democratic reps should be saying. Sheesh! I have to thank a repuke....

US stance delights neo-cons, dismays moderates

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14122541/

A growing number of moderate Republicans and former Bush administration officials are alarmed by what they call Condoleezza Rice's "uneven-handed diplomacy" in the Middle East. Critics include Richard Haass, head of policy and planning at the State Department during the first Bush term and Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state.

However, after months of disillusionment, America's neo-conservatives have fallen in love again with the Bush administration because of its support for Israel's bombardment of Lebanon.

<snip>

"The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to be isolated," said Chuck Hagel, a Republican senator, in a speech at the weekend. "The war against Hizbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield."

In spite of the American public's scepticism, Mr Bush is largely insulated from a political backlash by the muted stance of the opposition Democrats, who are nervous of being painted as weak on national security in the build-up to mid-term elections in November. Last week Hillary Clinton, a potential presidential candidate, scolded Nouri al-Maliki, the visiting Iraqi prime minister, for having criticised Israel.

"His refusal to denounce Hizbollah and his condemnation of Israel send exactly the wrong message about the importance of fighting terrorism and bringing stability and peace to the Middle East," said Mrs Clinton. " recognise the right of Israel to defend itself from terrorist aggression."



... fuck you hillary :puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
gordianot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. A Nixon goes to China moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNewtown Donating Member (703 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Hagel has always been reasonable on Israel/Palestine nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNewtown Donating Member (703 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Read the powerful statement
All those who favor peace in the ME should write to Hagel to express his support. We know those who oppose peace will bombard him with letters, e-mails against his position.

http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=219463&Month=7&Year=2006


Hagel Floor Statement on the Current Situation in the Middle East

July 31st, 2006 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) delivered the following statement on the Senate floor today regarding the current situation in the Middle East:

“Mr. President, The Middle East is a region in crisis. After three weeks of escalating and continuing violence, the potential for wider regional conflict becomes more real each day. The hatred in the Middle East is being driven deeper and deeper into the fabric of the region...which will make any lasting and sustained peace effort very difficult to achieve. How do we realistically believe that a continuation of the systematic destruction of an American friend, the country and people of Lebanon, is going to enhance America’s image and give us the trust and credibility to lead a lasting and sustained peace effort in the Middle East? The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now. President Bush must call for an immediate cease fire. This madness must stop.

The Middle East today is more combustible and complex than it has ever been. Uncertain popular support for regime legitimacy continues to weaken governments of the Middle East. Economic stagnation, persistent unemployment, deepening despair and wider unrest enhance the ability of terrorists to recruit and succeed. An Iran with nuclear weapons raises the specter of broader proliferation and a fundamental strategic realignment in the region, creating more regional instability.

America’s approach to the Middle East must be consistent and sustained, and must understand the history, interests and perspectives of our regional friends and allies.

The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But, it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice. Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is as much in Israel’s interest as any other country in the world.

Unending war will continually drain Israel of its human capital, resources, and energy as it fights for its survival. The United States and Israel must understand that it is not in their long-term interests to allow themselves to become isolated in the Middle East and the world. Neither can allow themselves to drift into an “us against the world” global optic or zero-sum game. That would marginalize America’s global leadership, trust and influence...further isolate Israel...and prove to be disastrous for both countries as well as the region.

It is in Israel’s interest, as much as ours, that the United States be seen by all states in the Middle East as fair. This is the currency of trust.

The world has rightly condemned the despicable actions of Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists who attacked Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Israel has the undeniable right to defend itself against aggression. This is the right of all states.

Hezbollah is a threat to Israel, to Lebanon and to all who strive for lasting peace in the Middle East.

However, military action alone will not destroy Hezbollah or Hamas. Extended military action is tearing Lebanon apart, killing innocent civilians, destroying its economy and infrastructure, creating a humanitarian disaster, further weakening Lebanon’s fragile democratic government, strengthening popular Muslim and Arab support for Hezbollah, and deepening hatred of Israel across the Middle East. The pursuit of tactical military victories at the expense of the core strategic objective of Arab-Israeli peace is a hollow victory. The war against Hezbollah and Hamas will not be won on the battlefield.

To achieve a strategic shift in the conditions for Middle East peace, the United States must use the global condemnation of terrorist acts as the basis for substantive change. For a lasting and popularly supported resolution, only a strong Lebanese government and a strong Lebanese army, backed by the international community, can rid Lebanon of these corrosive militias and terrorist organizations.

President Bush and Secretary Rice must become and remain deeply engaged in the Middle East. Only U.S. leadership can build a consensus of purpose among our regional and international partners. To lead and sustain U.S. engagement, the President should appoint a statesman of global stature, experience and ability to serve as his personal envoy to the region who would report directly to President, and be empowered with the authority to speak and act for the President. Former Secretaries of State Baker and Powell fit this profile.

The President must publicly decry the slaughter and work toward an immediate cease fire. The UN Security Council should urgently adopt a new binding resolution that provides a comprehensive political, security and economic framework for Lebanon, Israel and region – a framework that begins with the immediate cessation of violence. I strongly support the deployment of a robust international force along the Israel-Lebanon border to facilitate a steady deployment of a strengthened Lebanese Army into southern Lebanon to eventually assume responsibility for security and the rule of law.

America must listen carefully to its friends and partners in the region. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others – countries that understand the Middle East far better than we do – must commit to help resolve today’s crisis and be active partners in helping realize the already agreed-upon two-state solution.

The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this root cause will allow Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorists to continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support – a dynamic that continues to undermine America’s standing in the region, and the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others – whose support is critical for any Middle East resolution.

The United States should engage our Middle East and international partners to revive the Beirut Declaration, or some version of it, proposed by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and adopted unanimously by the Arab League in March 2002. In this historic initiative, the Arab world recognized Israel’s right to exist and sought to establish a path toward a two-state solution and broader Arab-Israeli peace. Even though Israel could not accept it as written, it represented a very significant “starting point” document initiated by Arab countries. Today, we need a new Beirut Declaration-type initiative. We squandered the last one.

The concept and intent of the 2002 Beirut Declaration is as relevant today as it was in 2002. An Arab-initiated Beirut-type declaration would re-invest regional Arab states with a stake in achieving progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace. This type of initiative would offer a positive alternative vision for Arab populations to the ideology and goals of Islamic militants. The United States must explore this approach as part of its diplomatic engagement in the Middle East.

Lasting peace in the Middle East, and stability and security for Israel will come only from a regionally-oriented political settlement.

Former American Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross once observed that in the Middle East a process is necessary because process absorbs events...without a process, events become crises. He was right. Look at where we are today in the Middle East with no process. Crisis diplomacy is no substitute for sustained, day-to-day engagement.

America’s approach to Syria and Iran is inextricably tied to Middle East peace. Whether or not they were directly involved in the latest Hezbollah and Hamas aggression in Israel, both countries exert influence in the region in ways that undermine stability and security. As we work with our friends and allies to deny Syria and Iran any opportunity to further corrode the situation in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, both Damascus and Tehran must hear from America directly.

As John McLaughlin, the former Deputy Director of Central Intelligence recently wrote in the Washington Post,

“Even superpowers have to talk to bad guys. The absence of a diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one with Syria -- two countries that bear enormous responsibility for the current crisis -- leave the United States with fewer options and levers than might otherwise have been the case. Distasteful as it might have been to have or to maintain open and normal relations with such states, the absence of such relations ensures that we will have more blind spots than we can afford and that we will have to deal through surrogates on issues of vital importance to the United States.

Ultimately, the United States will need to engage Iran and Syria with an agenda open to all areas of agreement and disagreement. For this dialogue to have any meaning or possible lasting relevance, it should encompass the full agenda of issues.

There is very little good news coming out of Iraq today. Increasingly vicious sectarian violence continues to propel Iraq toward civil war. The U.S. announcement last week to send additional U.S. troops and military police back into Baghdad reverses last month’s decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad...and represents a dramatic set back for the U.S and the Iraqi Government. The Iraqi Government has limited ability to enforce the rule of law in Iraq, especially in Baghdad. Green Zone politics appear to have little bearing or relation to the realities of the rest of Iraq.

The Iraqis will continue to face difficult choices over the future of their country. The day-to-day responsibilities of governing and security will soon have to be assumed by Iraqis. This is not about setting a timeline. This is about understanding the implications of the forces of reality. This reality is being determined by Iraqis – not Americans. America is bogged down in Iraq and this is limiting our diplomatic and military options. The longer America remains in Iraq in its current capacity, the deeper the damage to our force structure – particularly the U.S. Army. And it will continue to place more limitations on an already dangerously over-extended force structure that will further limit our options and public support.

The Middle East crisis represents a moment of great danger, but it is also an opportunity. Crisis focuses the minds of leaders and the attention of nations. The Middle East need not be a region forever captive to the fire of war and historical hatred. It can avoid this fate if the United States pursues sustained and engaged leadership worthy of our history, purpose, and power. America cannot fix every problem in the world – nor should it try. But we must get the big issues and important relationships right and concentrate on those. We know that without engaged and active American leadership the world is more dangerous. The United States must focus all of its leadership and resources on ending this madness in the Middle East— now!”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. "the madness must stop"
thank you for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNewtown Donating Member (703 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. you're welcome
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. I just cringe every time something like this happens.
And I second your thoughts on Hillary. Me-too Dems will not get my voice. Will someone on the left in DC please grow a spine and speak with integrity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. if nothing else
this Lebanon atrocity has exposed all of the Israel apologist democrats in their full glory. I wonder how much hil and schumer are getting from AIPAC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Indeed n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackNewtown Donating Member (703 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Ask and you shall receive
When Schumer ran in 2004 he ranked among the top 15 reciepents of AIPAC money, despite being in a "safe" race:

Pro-Israel:
Money to Congress

Election cycle: 2004

List: Summary Top 20 Members All Senators All Members of the House All Senate Candidates All House Candidates Sort by Amount Sort by Name Sort by State

Candidate
Amount

Bush, George W (R)
$262,766


Daschle, Tom (D-SD)
$245,075

Specter, Arlen (R-PA)
$235,200

Lieberman, Joe (D-CT)
$231,050


Wyden, Ron (D-OR)
$162,950

Boxer, Barbara (D-CA)
$142,110

Murray, Patty (D-WA)
$130,745

Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD)
$127,125

Lantos, Tom (D-CA)
$124,600


Deutsch, Peter (D-FL)
$119,400

Feingold, Russell D (D-WI)
$113,703


Brownback, Sam (R-KS)
$98,600

Berkley, Shelley (D-NV)
$98,044

Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
$97,150

Schumer, Charles E (D-NY)
$96,000


http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.asp?Ind=Q...


Hillary ranks first this year. She is at "only" 83 grand right now but she should be well into the 200's before it is all said and done. Perhaps she can break progressive icon George Bush's record from 2004...

Pro-Israel:
Money to Congress

Election cycle: 2006

List: Top 10

Candidate
Amount

Clinton, Hillary Rodham (D-NY)
$83,818


Kyl, Jon (R-AZ)
$79,750

Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI)
$77,406

Kirk, Mark (R-IL)
$72,164

Conrad, Kent (D-ND)
$68,600

Lieberman, Joe (D-CT)
$67,000


Nelson, Ben (D-NE)
$65,500

Santorum, Rick (R-PA)
$62,000


Talent, James M (R-MO)
$61,010

Nelson, Bill (D-FL)
$60,861

Menendez, Robert (D-NJ)
$47,611
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. thank you
that sure clears up a lot. Money talks, dead people apparently do not. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's not hard to get out ahead of them unfortunately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tierra_y_Libertad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
4.  Our "leaders" raise their hands only to test the political wind.
A pathetic and disgusting display of the "not as bad" party's lack of ethics and backbone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rep the dems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
9. Whether or not Iraq is another Vietnam
it would be a mistake for democrats to say just that. They need to stress that the Iraq War is not going well and something needs to change. By saying it's another Vietnam, we will likely lower our chances with winning over moderate conservatives and run the risk of looking like fools if the situation suddenly gets better (I know it's unlikely but still).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. uh, the democrats still supporting the Iraq war look like fools
it is way past time worrying about "mistakes" and politics when lives are at stake. That is what happened in the Vietnam war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rep the dems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I'm not saying they should support the war.
But just saying "it's another Vietnam" won't accomplish jack shit. They need to make it clear that they're willing to do something to fix the problem and not bother with pointless comparissons it to a war that ended 30 years ago. According to most polls, this is the only category where people still trust the pugs over dems. If we give them a reason to trust us instead, our chances in November will be much better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insane_cratic_gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
15. But did you read the rest of his record?
He only started to back paddle on the war in 2004... self preservation I would guess

Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan.
To establish a special committee of the Senate to investigate the awarding and carrying out of contracts to conduct activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to fight the war on terrorism. Voting YES would: create Senate special committee to investigate war contracts, taking into consideration: bidding, methods of contracting, subcontracting, oversight procedures, allegations of wasteful practices, accountability and lessons learned in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Reference: Committee to Investigate War Contracts; Bill S Amdt 2476 to S 1042 ; vote number 2005-316 on Nov 10, 2005


Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq.
H.J.Res. 114; Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. The administration would be required to report to Congress that diplomatic options have been exhausted before, or within 48 hours after military action has started. Every 60 days the president would also be required to submit a progress report to Congress.
Reference: Bill H.J.RES.114 ; vote number 2002-237 on Oct 11, 2002

I'm pretty sure that's the same vote Hillary Cast (I'm not a fan of Hillary at all!)

I'm just saying Hagel's shit stinks just as bad as any other republican he just does a better job of remembering to flush and not get called on it

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm


Here is the thing with Hagel, he does all of this rebel shit, talks a good game but he doesn't do anything to remove the problem or stop the corruption. When push comes to shove Hagel knows who is his master is, otherwise he'd be going for impeachment.
He's like Specter, talks a good game but its just that talk he never follows through
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. I am well aware he is a sneaky snake
I do like what I heard today and only wish I had heard it from a Democrat was the point I was trying to make.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-31-06 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
17. Wow Hagel has gotten 2 things right out of 10,000
Keep in mind this guy is working hard against Nelson in NE because, according to Hagel, Nelson votes too much like Ted Kennedy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC