Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 21, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

Love Letters From Both Sides of Incarceration

What We Do Now

Truthdig Bazaar
Mission Italy: On the Front Lines of the Cold War

Mission Italy: On the Front Lines of the Cold War

Richard N. Gardner, Zbigniew Brzezinski

more items

A/V Booth
Email this item Print this item

Hagel Calls Bush’s Use of Petraeus Dishonest

Posted on Sep 16, 2007

Retiring Sen. Chuck Hagel tells Bill Maher why the president’s exploitation of Gen. Petraeus is “not only a dirty trick, but it’s dishonest, it’s hypocritical, it’s dangerous and irresponsible. The fact is, this is not Petraeus’ policy, it’s Bush’s policy.”

Hagel, who says he’s not running because he is “looking for some honest work,” also argues that the Iraq war—and the decision to continue the war—will go down as “the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of our country.”

Watch it:

(via Largest Minority)


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Sharon Ash, September 19, 2007 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

There are so few things remaining to like about the Republican Party, Chuck Hagel, a man of reason and independent thinking, is one of them.  But now, of course, he is calling it quits. I don’t blame him, just wish he would stay and try to help clean up the mess.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, September 18, 2007 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

There are a few Republicans (Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts) who became Republicans because they believed the party shtick about small, decentralized, constitutional government. They understand that the biggest threat to decentralized, constitutional government is foreign wars. They thought, perhaps naively, that the Republican Party leadership also understood this.

Historically, though, the Republican Party has always been the party of big, centralized government, going all the way back to Lincoln. They have also always been the party of “business-government partnership”; that is, the government giving out special advantages to big corporations in exchange for campaign contributions. This is a form of corporatism, aka mercantilism, aka economic fascism.

Historically, the Republican Party has always been fond of “splendid little wars” like the Spanish American greed fest, in which the USA took control of Cuba, the Philippines, and (effectively, through proxies) much of Central America. Empire-building has always been on their agenda.

The Democratic Party, once the party of decentralized government, has followed the Republicans on all these key points. The Democrats are not an alternative; they are just more of the same, with a little different window-dressing.

Report this

By dick, September 18, 2007 at 8:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hagel has it right.

Report this

By cann4ing, September 17, 2007 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

What is extraordinary is that Hegel did not flinch when asked if he would support a democrat if the Republi-crooks nominate a pro-war candidate.  I suspect that Hegel would like to have a cabinet position in a new Democratic position.

Report this

By cyrena, September 17, 2007 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

I’m with Frikken Kids. They should have slapped him with contempt every time he opened his mouth. Or, just slapped him out right.

Meantime, I’m grateful for the interview with Hagel, since I was concentrating more on him than Bill Mahr.

I appreciate his honesty and integrity, which is exceedingly hard to come by in a politician. Besides, I agree with just about everything he said.

Being the pragmatic skeptic that I am, I don’t know for sure that we’re gonna be able to “self-correct” via our elections, but I’m willing to stay on the optimistic side of that, if only because the alternative is pretty dismal.

We ARE out of balance, and we can’t survive much longer in this mode.

Report this

By PACRAT, September 17, 2007 at 12:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Wouldn’t we be disappointed if Petraeus weren’t Bush’s stooge? Probably!

Gen Petraeus knows which side his stars and medals are buttered on. And if he deviated from the script written for him he too would be just another fired general - how many have been replaced in the invasion of Iraq?

No matter how many surrogates the president puts between himself and reality, he is still the “Decider” and the “Commander in Chief.”

The real question is “so what?” Will Congress do anything about the usual spin job from the White House.

Report this

By Peter RV, September 17, 2007 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Petreas resembles more a whore than a soldier.
  He came here whoring for Bush. Another collin Powell

Report this

By Frikken Kids, September 17, 2007 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

They should have just slapped Petraeus with a contempt charge every time he used an Administration talking point. 

A general who would use the President’s talking points instead of honestly answering questions clearly shows contempt for the congress and the senate to whom he was speaking.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, September 16, 2007 at 10:27 pm Link to this comment

In my view, it’s the domino effect.  Bush’s use or (misuse) of Petraeus, is only exeplified by Petraeus’ use or rather misuse of the facts.

I don’t find Gen. Petraeus to be a poor, forlorn, used and abused soul as Sen. Hagel implies.  Gen. Petraeus eats very well, so I hear, I think it was lobster tortellini or something like that.  If you caught the episode in it’s entirety the other Senator mentions this.  So his “stint” in Iraq, isn’t one of the hardened soldier.

Possibly, Mr. Petraeus could see his way clear to speak the truth, IF, in fact, it were….....

It makes one consider what Bill Maher’s real agenda is?  Maher, I’ll agree can be quite entertaining, but his misogynistic “qualities” are quite prevalent.  I would equate him with Dr. Phil, funny…yes. But an ass just the same.  Suck it up, Bill.

Report this

By Kwagmyre, September 16, 2007 at 9:34 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Post #100777:

“Mr. Hagel,

You should say that General “Betrayed Us” had sold himself to the devil !”

Or tell him(The General), Please don’t “portray us” as fools who you think buy into your bullshit!

Report this

By ccsingle, September 16, 2007 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

How can anyone possibly have misginings about our glorious president?

Why, why, gasoline will be down to less than $5.00 a gallon by the end of the year!  We’ll soon be getting rid of that wasteful Social Security nonsense before much longer.  Truck drivers will be making as much as 10 or fifteen pesoes a day for almost no work at all. 

How much better can it get?

Report this

By BlueEagle, September 16, 2007 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

Looks like Sen. Chuck Hagel will be voting for Ron Paul.

Report this

By vet240, September 16, 2007 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

The few people left like Senator Hagel, who aren’t owned by the military/industrial complex give me hope that this Democracy might yet be saved.

Someone needs to remind those now in office that the signers of the Constitution were only loosely affiliated by like ideas. Party allegiencs wasn’t the concern then, the well-being and survivability of a Democratic nation was their main theme.

Report this

By QuyTran, September 16, 2007 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Mr. Hagel,

You should say that General “Betrayed Us” had sold himself to the devil !

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook