Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar
The Bubble and Beyond

The Bubble and Beyond

By Michael Hudson

more items

 
Report

Robert Scheer: Chuck Hagel for President!

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

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.

By Robert Scheer

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.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
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.

  • Watch the “Meet the Press” exchange between Hagel and Lieberman

  • Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
    “The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


    Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



    Get truth delivered to
    your inbox every week.

    Previous item: Marie Cocco: Resolving to End the War

    Next item: Jabari Asim: Bone-Deep Similarities



    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.

    By mia, March 26, 2007 at 11:55 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    mi friend joe has a great post on Sen. Hagel

    joeleonardi.wordpress.com/ 2007/03/18/president-chuck-hagel/

    Report this

    By PASQUALIE, March 25, 2007 at 4:35 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    when you people reconize the war is against islam, no it was not Iraq that attacked us, it was not Afganastan, it was not the Sudenese who attacked the Uss Cole , it was not the Saudies who attacked the Hotel in Rhiad, it was not the Palenstinens who danced up and down as the Twin Towers fell in America,so when you people falsely ask why did bush attack Iraq, “they did not attack America you are using a unfair advantage because Bush can not come out and say to America, ” Islam is the Problem” because we would have a clash between East and West, and chaos You just watch when the ACTIVE DUTY MUSLIMS follow our troops back to America and call upon all their INACTIVE TROOPS OF MUSLIMS already living here, what you WILL see is ISRAEL expanded, you will see busses blown up, school buses, schools , Malls , Government Buildings,Christian Churches, Iraq will look like party compared to when our troops are called home!. War in Iraq???? where is it? you have Muslims hiding as civilians they kill americans then go run and put their wifes Burka on, or go hide in a Mosque where we are duped in to not following them , there is no war, we are fighting a ????, where we have both hands tied behind our backs, and can not shoot someone who just shot a GI, if he is standing too close to a woman, or so called civilian.the put IADS along streets and wait for us to go buy, thats what the Mountian men used to do, put Beaver traps in the water and wait untilthe beaver came buy then caught them , it wasn’t a war against Beaver and its no war now!

    Report this

    By Rodney Melton, March 8, 2007 at 10:15 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Truthdig is an good representation,
    Cause the truth is everything is alright. I dig that.
    We don’t need no more chickens like the Bush Admins. If he’d back off of Iraq in the early stage, he may’ve looked like a “Stalwart” You know what I mean?
    Then other Countries would’ve never converged. (Like China and Iran) And he ain’t even trying to get in their business,a chicken that he is. Otherwise, it would’ve never been exposed.
    But anyway, back to the truthdig, we like to see the Republicans get their credit back for being a money making business who helps people in the free market enterprise, and not abusing their authorities with Wars, and contradictions, know what I’m saying?
    We can make the Republican Party look good again. I became a Democrat because of the Bush Admins. and will remain, until he is out of Office. And that is the real Truthdig.
    And I don’t want to see none of his friends in either. (like McCain, etc.) Thats the main reason why I want to see you run, to give the people something to compete with, instead of this one way ticket to Hell! You know what I mean. Cause, quiet as kept, the rest of them Republicans are just as much as in cohoots with Bush as McCain is, that are running for President. Some of them are just acting like they are playing him off, when they are really not.  Which is an automatic win for the Democrats.

    Well anyway, sharpshooter, we’re going to do the do like we use to. And you would make a good President. If not, we’ll I’ll just remain a Democrat. But hopefully, we can convey the right message to our people, about money, independence and security, without all of this Administartive nonsense. Thats the Truthdig.

    Report this

    By nellie, February 24, 2007 at 6:58 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Wasn’t there a story somewhere about Chuck Hagel purchasing all the voting machines in Nebraska and then winning both elections? Oh yeah—here it is! If you want to win an election, just control the voting machines.

    I’m not convinced that any Republican, at this point in our history, is honest enough to take us off this wrong path we’re on.

    Report this

    By Joe Boyle, February 8, 2007 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Vietnam “Democrat-launched”? Seems to me it was Eisenhower & Co. who divided ‘Nam at the 17th parallel, setting the stage for the delights to follow. Nor did the Republicans oppose the troop buildups to follow. The LEFT was the great opponent of the war, when they realized what it really was, a war of national liberation.
    The Democrats, if they’re in power, will get the blame for the Iraq debacle when it collapses on their watch. Chuck Hagel has already knuckled under in his latest Senate vote…

    Report this

    By BD, January 30, 2007 at 9:47 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    It is a shame for all the Democrats and Republicans who voted for the war when considering the fact that Sen. Lincoln Chafee was the only Republican Senator who voted against it. That takes real courage, integrity, intellect, and leadership. For those who voted for the war before against it, it is too late and too little for my vote, CH included even though I am from Nebraska.

    Report this

    By Christopher, January 27, 2007 at 7:21 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Is Robert Scheer drinking the koolaid now?

    Hagel for president? WTF?

    Hagel has ties to the electronic voting scandal and just this past week, joined the most radical, rightwingers in the senate GOP to eliminate the minimum wage.

    Get a grip, Scheer.

    Report this

    By Jim, January 26, 2007 at 12:05 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hagel isn’t a conservative though…..So your article’s premise is flawed from the ‘get-go’.

    Report this

    By Marcus, January 24, 2007 at 11:52 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hagel might be good on Iraq,  “considering alternatives”  (like the crooked and treacherous Hilary Clinton who will be having more Americans dying on behalf of evil criminal israel) but don’t forget he is a right wing republican

    Report this

    By Jolly Roger, January 22, 2007 at 7:40 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I’m with Scheer on this one.

    Given the “choice” of Hagel or a Hillary (or a Kerry for that matter,) I’d throw in with Hagel. Iraq really is THE most important issue facing us-it threatens to end the United States we’ve known and replace it with an Argentine-style bankrupt nation.

    Report this

    By Albert C. Mezzetti, January 22, 2007 at 7:23 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I am an 81 year old all my adult life voting democrat who served my country in W.W.  II as a wounded Marine Corps machine gunner,  recalled for the Korean War and trained young men going to Nam.

    I will not vote for anyone democrat or republican who is a war monger,  Hagel looks good to me so far.

    BRING OUR KIDS HOME -  NOW !!!

    Albert

    Report this

    By Brad Mayer, January 22, 2007 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Can knee-jerk Democratic Party leftists think their way out of a paper bag, and not see that a candidate like Hagel has the potential to split the Republican vote?  Do you not remember Ross Perot in 1992?

    Oh, but that would be strategy and tactics, and not the pure ideological snake oil “dead-ender” Left Democrats like to peddle.  Look at who their most popular pick for President has been: Al Gore, a guy we know ahead of time ain’t going to run!  But that means Gore is safely free of strategy and tactics, the perfect snake oil “virtual candidate” for a virtual - as in unreal - politics.

    Then there is Kucinich, another “virtual candidate” in 2004 who promply folded at the convention. It remains to be seen, and it is a big if, but IF Kucinich ditches the New Agers and actually runs a serious antiwar factional campaign within the Democratic Party, then I would encourage all the die-hard, dead-ender Green haters to dive in there behind Kucinich and kick up a real divisive storm winthin the Democrats, the more fractious and anti-Hillary the better! 

    Just Do It!

    Report this

    By kathy sullivan, January 22, 2007 at 11:07 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Bob, what’s up with Hagel, are you going soft on us now when we need you the most.  Why don’t you support Kucinich who has been on our side since the beginning??  This is very bad for our country, everyone is confused and divided and you who usually shows such equalibrium. . .I just don’t know. . .

    Report this

    By Truthdigger, January 22, 2007 at 2:14 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    If Hagel could get nominated, it would be a pleasure to vote for someone rather than against someone else.

    But the insiders would never allow that.

    Mr. Sheer writes: “...the Republican Party has been in the thrall of neocon adventurers…”

    Why does everyone forget that Clintons non-UN approved Kosovo attack was a PNAC/NEOCON adventure?

    It’s right on the PNAC website:
    http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

    It’s becoming pretty clear that the 2 major parties, having sold out their souls (and their bases) are bent on conquering the world.

    The Hagels and the Pauls are like flies on the windshield.

    Report this

    By Charles Newlin, January 21, 2007 at 11:49 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Thank you, Robert Scheer, for pointing out the essential bankruptcy of the Democratic Party.  A right-wing Republican from Nebraska has the guts to oppose this criminal war, and the prominent Democrats do not?  They don’t deserve to win at pinochle, let alone elections.

    Now if you can just point out to us some real alternatives….

    Report this

    By Steve Hammons, January 21, 2007 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Chuck Hagel is the kind of person many people who vote Democrat could support, as well as centrists and independents.

    Many Americans seem to be tired of the “left” and “right” labels that often don’t seem to mean much. Many people want a “center.”

    Although Joe Lieberman gives independent candidates a bad name, the idea of moderate, centrist candidates who transcend the two-party polarities may be a worthwhile concept.

    The article below takes a look at some of these factors:

    Independent centrist candidates might strike chord with voters

    Steve Hammons
    American Chronicle
    July 31, 2006

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=11985

    Report this

    By Ben Stone, January 21, 2007 at 8:16 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Evan as you speak, you are a fool.

    The whole Iraq expansion is a complete canard.

    See my comment to EJ Dionne.

    Get real!

    Ben

    Report this

    By Jesse Lewis, January 21, 2007 at 5:03 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Robert Scheer, according to Wikipedia was born in 1936, which would have made him 18 in 1954, and Between 1964 and 1969, he was, variously, the Vietnam correspondent, managing editor and editor in chief of Ramparts Magazine.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Scheer

    Report this

    By Wayne Orr, January 20, 2007 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I was impressd with Robert Scheer’s passionate remarks concerning CH yesterday on “Left, Right and Center,” but not convinced.

    For further analysis of CH, please see Chuck Lippstreu’s comments at Huffington Post:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chuck-lippstreu/chuck-hagel-5-good-5-_b_39086.html

    Report this

    By vajara, January 20, 2007 at 10:44 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I’m also from Nebraska and know how republican it is, so please don’t get carried away by Hagel. On this issue, he is to be commended, however, on the other important policies facing our country, he fits well with the far right.

    Let’s face the facts, the “R’s” are not to be trusted and will always do what is wrong for America and continue to build the military-industrial complex or machine.

    Report this

    By Steve Hammons, January 19, 2007 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Chuck Hagel, being a Vietnam combat vet, knows about the costs of this war, not like the chicken hawks to started it and want to keep it going.

    The Iraq War situation and the state of Washington, DC, is similar to those times during impeachment efforts against Richard Nixon toward the end of the Vietnam War.

    These connections are explored in the following article, posted on truthout.org and AmericanChronicle.com:

    Going in Circles: Vietnam, Iraq, Calls for Impeachment
     
    By Steve Hammons
    t r u t h o u t Guest Contributor
    truthout.org
    Tuesday 16 January 2007

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011607D.shtml

    -  -  -

    Going in circles: Vietnam, Iraq, calls for impeachment

    Steve Hammons
    American Chronicle
    January 12, 2007

    http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=19080

    Report this

    By jeff gershoff, January 19, 2007 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Well, well.  I’m amazed at the reaction Scheer’s column has brought forth.  All of you same readers who laude his columns week after week after week.  Might it not be that he did not mean literally that he would want Hagel as president.  I mean, why don’t you ask yourself if it is really plausible that he would want that?  Perhaps he was just saying that Clinton, and most of the rest of the field out there just make him sick because of their nauseatingly vacuous stance on the war primarily but really on many things.  Perhaps Bob was saying “look, here’s someone who is staunchly in the other camp, and even they would be preferable to the shit that we seem to be bringing forth.”  Even I was surprised at his column and alluded to that in my earlier comment, but I am impressed at the energy that many of you have brought forth.  However, there has been only one person so far, Ernest, who has really offered something that perhaps we should all start looking at:
    “Careful scrutiny reveals that there is a progressive candidate in the running who is head and shoulders above the others on all of the above-listed issues; a candidate who has consistently opposed the war in Iraq; who, unlike Chuck Hegel, did not provide the Bush regime with a retroactive immunity for violations of the War Crimes Act as Congress eliminated the centuries old right of habeas corpus, and who, unlike any of the individuals mentioned by Mr. Scheer, has not merely paid lip service to opposing the war but has proposed an immediate cut off of all funds.  His name is Dennis Kucinich”.

    Report this

    By John Lowell, January 19, 2007 at 7:58 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Bob Sheer proves himself the principled guy I’d suspected he was all along. Unlike the purely anti-Bush, DNC drivel coming from such currently popular and self-promoting blogs as Unclaimed Territory, Sheer has the distance, the maturity and the self-respect to be read regularly. Sheer’s piece is more a positive statement about Sheer than Hagel.

    John Lowell

    Report this

    By Kath Cantarella, January 19, 2007 at 3:01 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Please, please, it’s not just the war. So many things need fixing and desperately. Global warming, globalisation, the stealing of the resources of poorer nations (i’m well aware of my own country’s shortfalls there, especially in East Timor), the privatisation of water, the regulation of media ownership, amongst other things.
    I’m not sure why i have posted comments here, it is out of character for me, and i feel like a bit of a twit. I do what i can in my own country with what power i have, and my comments here are a waste of my time. Before i go, i just want to remind anyone who might read this what a privilege as well as a burden it is to be able to participate in the most powerful democracy in the world now that we (the world) are facing our greatest challenges, all disasters of our own making. No one can expect the US to be perfect, goodness always includes mistakes and imperfections. It might not be fair but it’s a fact that you guys need to do the heaviest lifting right now. I’m relegated to being one of those hopeful spectators, and it is hard to know that if the US elects another Bush in 2008 another four years will be lost, and there’s nothing i can do about it. The hour is getting late, and i’m just smart enough to be afraid.

    Report this

    By Michelle, January 19, 2007 at 12:38 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I will not vote for ANYONE who voted for the war in the first place.
    Doesn’t matter what they say now, particularly the rhetoric that they were lied to and are now angry because they believed the reasons presented for going to war, WMD’s, Mushroom clouds, etc,etc..

    I am a humble common citizen, well-read but without a college education and even *I* could see those reasons for what their were ~excuses,i.e. lies~!

    I refuse to vote for president anyone so gullible that they believed The Resident of the White House and his election theives.

    We need someone of wisdom, intelligence, common sense, and truth who is able to see a lie for what it is and courage to call it what it is, at the time it’s spoken.

    At least it would be refreshing.

    Report this

    By John Doraemi, January 19, 2007 at 12:16 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Apalling.

    Steal your place in the senate, get the “progressive” endorsement!

    Alzheimers may be coming early this year.

    “If You Want To Win An Election, Just Control The Voting Machines” by Thom Hartmann
    href=“http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm


    Crimes of the State
    http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

    Report this

    By Ed, January 18, 2007 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Any sane thoughtful,fair mind,at least I think I possess some,...OLIVIA SNOW FOR PRESIDENT

    Report this

    By ion c. laskaris, January 18, 2007 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I notice my vigorous criticism of your editor’s Scheer idiocy claiming the Vietnam war was “..... that Democrat-launched war” has not been allowed into the running discussion, although my addendum was! Is this technical error, oversight or deliberate censorship.

    I went on at some length to say it was John Foster Dulles, our Secretary of State in 1954, who sabotaged the Geneva Peace Agreement that settled this war with the French agreeing to a military withdrawal and the 4 nations signatory to that agreement approving elections in 1956.
    It was widely assumed then that Ho Chi Minh and his supporters would win that election.

    Maybe Scheer wasn’t born yet, but I was 22 and many progressives knew Dulles’ arrogant and contemptuous action was likely to lead only to a renewal of warfare in Vietnam. And it did.

    The same Republican reactionaries who drafted a vain,lazy and ignorant puppet,Eisenhower for President and Crook Nixon for VIP in the 1952 election backed Dulles in declaring the Vietnam national independence leader, Ho Chi Minh a Communist, and setting up his own puppet, Diem and a fictional “South Vietnam” to wage war with
    these “Communists” in Southeast Asia.

    As a result over one million civilian lives were lost in Vietnam over the next 20 years, and we lost some 58,000 Americans, and 500,000 wounded.
    This is why I personally have never voted for any Fascist/Republican scum in my life at any level,
    and never will. Perhaps Scheer never did his homework here. But this claim is simply one more Republican lie, whether he knows it or not.
    And I hereby call on him to repudiate it now.

    As for Truthdig’s readers, any of whom were not even born 52 years ago, to get a real truthdig far below the endless stream of Republican politico lies I have heard over 60 years, go read Stanley Karnow’s “Vietnam”, an honest classic, and Frances Fitzgerald’s “Fire in the Lake” for starters before you swallow more Republican propaganda. “Sometimes the truth hurts!”

    Ion C. Laskaris,Burlington,Vermont +  iclrevusa.com

    Report this

    By Kathy Jadud, January 18, 2007 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    ARE YOU KIDDING? Wasn’t CH the one who got elected on his own corrupt voting machines?

    Report this

    By Ernest Canning, January 18, 2007 at 6:28 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I expect this kind of piece coming from the corporate media—not from the likes of Robert Scheer.  While progressives should regard opposition to the war in Iraq as a minimum qualification, a great deal more is needed.  Obama, Clinton, Hegel, and McCain all share a common allegiance to corporate America, imperialism and the military-industrial complex. 

    One would hope that before declaring support for “any” presidential candidate, knowledgeable progressives would examine where that candidate stands on such issues as media and campaign finance reform; restoration of the New Deal safety net; repeal of the Bush tax cuts; universal, single payor health care; restoration of civil liberties through a repeal of the USA/PATRIOT Act and the Detainee Treatment Act; an end to the neoliberal privatization schemes; future Supreme Court appointments.

    It is time to stop focusing on shallow and meaningless personality issues; to stop permitting the corporate media to tell us which candidates are “viable”—and therefore deserving of our attention. It is time to stop this nonsense of supporting either one-issue candidates or candidates packaged for approval by their corporate handlers. 

    Careful scrutiny reveals that there is a progressive candidate in the running who is head and shoulders above the others on all of the above-listed issues; a candidate who has consistently opposed the war in Iraq; who, unlike Chuck Hegel, did not provide the Bush regime with a retroactive immunity for violations of the War Crimes Act as Congress eliminated the centuries old right of habeas corpus, and who, unlike any of the individuals mentioned by Mr. Scheer, has not merely paid lip service to opposing the war but has proposed an immediate cut off of all funds.  His name is Dennis Kucinich.

    Report this

    By demon, January 18, 2007 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    “The speech given last night [Jan. 10] by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

    Huh? Wouldn’t the decision to subvert international law and invade Iraq qualify for this?

    And Bob why no mention of Hagel’s support for the war up until this point? Or is that not worth mentioning?

    Report this

    By Jesse Lewis, January 18, 2007 at 2:46 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Now that I am a member of the American Independant party and their recent endorsement of Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas and someone I believe is the right man has my support, no more of these CFR pre picked candidates. Ron Paul, a Republican, voted against the war, he is pro second ammendment, believes in our Constitutional rights, limited government in our lives. He is a long shot, I have heard interviews with him, he is sincere. He is not popular with some of the bigger guns in congress and he is against the NAFTA Super Highway and the proposed North American Union! As a former Democrat I am spending my vote on Ron Paul! People, he is worth your time to check him out!
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr062906.htm

    Report this

    By janinsanfran, January 18, 2007 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hagel does seem one of the best of the lot. The question I ask myself about all these candidates is—when (not if) the U.S. gets hit with the next terrorist attack, will this candidate have enough guts not to have to incinerate someone to sate the demand we’ll make for revenge? I asked this on my blog here.


    One of the more interesting suggestions I got from a commenter was Wesley Clark—for some of the same reasons Scheer trusts Hagel.

    Report this

    By Big Al, January 18, 2007 at 12:32 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    There is a good chance that Republicans might produce a candidate who out-antiwars the Democrats in 2008.

    How come? Because it’s no secret that the Israel lobby and the pro-Israel neocons pushed for the Iraq war and are pushing for more wars with Iran and Syria.

    Bush is an anomaly, in a way, because traditionally the Democrats are more attached to Israel than the Republicans. Bush and Rove wanted to bring the right-wing Jewish demographic, with their media power and their Likud-aligned lobby, solidly into the GOP column - while pleasing the Christian Zionists in the GOP base as well.

    The post-Bush Republicans can say they’re going back to their roots: after all, the last US President to say NO to Israel and make it stick was the Republican Eisenhower in 1956.

    In 2008, Hagel could run on the slogan, “It’s going to take a REAL Republican to stop the Israel-first agenda.”

    This has some scary overtones, of course. I hope that the Democrats will be able to field a truly antiwar, liberal candidate in 2008. Otherwise, the GOP may cleverly escape the Bush legacy and rule for another generation.

    Report this

    By Serginho, January 18, 2007 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I disagree with those who say Hagel is merely positioning himself for a run for President.  He’ll never make it through the Republican primaries after making statements like the ones Sheer discusses.  If I were Chuck Hagel, I’d be worried aout getting reelected to the Senate, which requires him to face the voters in redder-than-red Nebraska

    Plus,the decision to surge wasn’t the “worst foreign policy decision in the history of the country”.  That dubious distinction belongs to the Duh-cider’s decision to invade Iraq in the first place.

    Report this

    By ezeflyer, January 18, 2007 at 11:11 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Nostalgia about bringing back old conservatives helped to give the neocons all four branches of government.  They fell into lockstep, won all four branches of government and though they lost the last election, are busily beserking because they feel “chaos is opportunity” (as long as they control the opportunity market).

    Hagel changed his mind finally in the face of a bloody, expensive, counterproductive boondogle.  Also Nebraska has few military contractors or Likudniks to back him. And judging by your cheerleading, it was a good career move.  He doesn’t have to worry about his religious right backers much any more because they’re starting to come around against war.  It’s just politics. 

    Gravel has the best and more lasting solution—direct democracy that has given the Swiss no wars in over 150 years, no boom and bust economy, few immigration and unemployment problems, a great healthcare system, no fascist War on Drugs, a healthy environment and the highest per capita income in the world.  I think you should start looking more closely at our dark horese candidates before making such a leap of faith as to support former? neocons.

    Report this

    By napu, January 18, 2007 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I disagree!
    He is only politically positioning himself for the run.  He isn’t genuine in his recent statements.  His past actions on policies, Iraq, Bush administration shows his loyalty and idealogy lies with skewed republican philosophy that favors the elites.  Robert Sheer shouldn’t make such a short-sighted statements.  Remember John McCain who people thought as moderate and independant republican but he is showing extreme views on every turn these days.  John McCain tries to buy religious right and far right voters.  Whereas, Chuck Hagel is trying to get overall popular vote by his recent comments and actions.  Like today’s typical corporate lackey politicians they say and do what will get them the elected positions they want.  Then they do what extremists, lobbists, and corporations want rather than citizens they represent.

    Are you sure you want to try another hand at a republican who may well be another bought and paid for stooge?

    Report this

    By old dem, January 18, 2007 at 6:34 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hagel was CEO and Chairman of American Information Systems (now ES&S) from Nov. 1993 through March 1995.  He still has substantial financial interests in the company.  ES&S machines were used in the FL-13 and (I believe) NC-8.  Hagel is OK if you like democracy-subverting, corporate shills.

    Among Obama’s biggest financial boosters are corporate law and lobbying firms.  He voted for the Class Action Fairness Act, a law that makes it much more difficult to file class action suits.  He voted against capping credit card interest at 30%.  Obama wants a national medical records database, containing everyone’s medical history.  Obama wants us to believe that this database would be secure and that no insurance company or prospective employer would have access.  Of course, Obama’s support wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that his wife is employed by the University of Chicago Hospitals and that she received an almost $200,000 raise two months after he took office.

    Although he represents a state that has been economically devasted by trade agreements, Obama’s policy director once was a senior aide to Rubin.  I have not heard much vocal support from Obama on legislation that would rein in some of the more destructive effects of the national-security-threatening, middle-and-working-class-destroying, insane trade agreements.

    Report this

    By Gary Bourg, January 18, 2007 at 12:42 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I completely agree with mite.

    It’s interesting how polls taken today talk about how Bush is handling the war not about his administration lying us into an illegal conflict for outrageous profits.
    I also find it interesting that everytime Bush wants military conflicts or to take away human rights or the civil rights of Americans he invokes 911 in his speeches always. Is this trump card a little too convenient?

    I will only vote for a candidate who addresses these points;
    To repeat mite’s list…
    1. Federal Reserve Bank
    2. Internal Revenue Service
    3. 16th and 17th Amendment Never Ratified By States
    4. Re-Open 911 Independent Investigation
    5. Repeal Patriot Act
    6. Repeal Military Commissions Act 2006
    7. No David Ray Hate Crimes Bill HR 254
    8. Repeal Dept. of Homeland Security (Nazi-SS)
    9. Repeal Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003
    10. Repeal Bankers New Bankruptcy Acts
    11. Impeach Cheney and Bush Jr.
    12. Open Investigation of Bush Sr. for Treason reference Iran Contra, and Saddam Hussain of the 1980’s and 1990’s. It all leads to both wars.
    13. Return the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA back to the people and enact the Supreme Law ‘U.S. Constitution, repeal ‘Uniform Commercial Code’
    14. Stop jobs from going over seas-period.
    15. Stop ‘North American Union’
    16. Stop The Loans from the Banks to finance the WARS.

    Report this

    By John, January 18, 2007 at 12:27 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    The politico-pundit-aristocracy seems to think Howard Dean is “unelectable”. Wasn’t he particularly clear on the Iraq issue? Back when it cost him?

    Report this

    By Matt Platte, January 17, 2007 at 11:57 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I’ve lived in Nebraska most of my 50+ years.  It’s hard to imagine the Huskers *not* choosing Hagel over the competition.

    More fascinating to me is the characterization of Ike, our neighbor to the South, as some kind of peacenik because he didn’t quite get around to sending troops to French Indo-China.

    Eisenhower did manage to set our CIA on its seemingly never-ending rampage of government-toppling, democracy-busting meddling, beginning in Iran.  We’re still reaping the rewards of that first dirty trick, played against the elected government of Iran in the 1950s.

    Yeah, I think it was Nixon that kept our boys out of Northern Ireland.

    Report this

    By Jon B, January 17, 2007 at 9:30 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hilary is a confused. She is talking about national security interest in Iraq and there isn’t any feasible. Below is a quote from MSNBC
    “Clinton sees vital interests in Iraq
    “We do have vital national security interests in Iraq,” declared Clinton. “Al Anbar province is the staging ground for attacks by the Sunni insurgency and al Qaida in Iraq. Both are directed at us. We have vital national security interests with respect to what Iran is doing in crossing the border. We have a commitment to the future and the safety of the Kurdish people. There’s a lot that we still have as part of our ongoing obligations that are in Americans interests, as well as the interest of the people of Iraq.”

    Meantime, here is the real national interest. It is the cost of war, plus human lives and the worldwide condemnation of this mindless war based on false pretexts.
    http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

    Report this

    By ion c. laskaris, January 17, 2007 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    As a quick addendum to my prior entry, has Scheer any idea how often Chuck Hagel has groveled submissively over the last 6 years to our illegal president,selected by 5 Fascist/Republican scumbags on the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s too late for apologies now, unless one adopts Scheer hypocrisies. The only good Republican for the rest of this century is a dead one - politically,
    since their Nazi gestapos have all the guns and bullets. Not to mention the power to gun us all
    down who oppose their home-made “Axis of Evil!”

    It is true the Democrats are all hacks; Obama a vacuous airhead like Kerry before him, Hillary a cunning and manipulative twit, tired,old reactionary Joe Biden no intelligent voter’s kind of Democrat, and a glib southern hustler, Edwards, who scolded the long-dead populist tradition without the faintest idea what it fought for. So the only good national Democrat from here on, in our parasitic American empire is also a dead one! Just write in Ralph Nader’s name again and refuse to vote for high-office vermin.
    You will at least feel cleaner!
    Ion C. Laskaris,Burlington,Vt. + iclrevusa.com

    Report this

    By darby1936, January 17, 2007 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I would vote for Hagel on the one issue. The Dems will have to commit political suicide to lose the House or Senate. The money we would save on ending the war could be used on progressive issues. Hillary is so timid and calculating on the issue. Edwards is a good man but the favorites seem to be Hillary and Obama right now.

    Report this

    By Don Warden, January 17, 2007 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I despise Lieberman but the people of Connecticut (democrats) knew what he was and they still re-elected him. One has to be leery of thinking they know what democrats want. Personally, I think the whole darn bunch of the current crop of politicians in Washington should be booted. There are not more than a handful who have any backbone and most would sell their mother to get re-elected. Until the American public has the sense to make elected office in Washington a revolving door, I suspect it will never get any better no matter whom we elect.

    Report this

    By Regina Carpenter, January 17, 2007 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Something tells me that Mr. Lieberman is an insider with the Bush admin. I think that he is one of Bush’s foot soldiers who pretends to be a Democrat/Independent while working quietly to advance the Bush policies. He is devious, and he is devoted to the Israel lobby. Instead of switching to the Republican party, he thinks that he can do more by appearing as separate. Just watch him for a while, you’ll see what I mean.

    Report this

    By e, January 17, 2007 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hagel is great on this one issue—too bad his record is so neo-con.

    If democrats are left with choice of Clinton or Obama, then Ron Paul, a true conservative, would be the way to go.

    Report this

    By jeff gershoff, January 17, 2007 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Just two points I’d like to make regarding the reactive (and understandable) position put forth in this article.  One:
    “the hard truth that Iraq has collapsed because of our involvement, not despite it”.  This is not being said nearly enough.  The Bushian retort that we must just look to the future and the stakes are so enormous, is just so much horse crap.  It is Bushes fault that we are in the pickle we are in today…not Bin Laden, not Al Qaida, not Hussein, not anyone else.
    And Two, even more important: We have got to stop thinking that military intervention is going to get us anywhere but deeper in the quicksand in the Middle East.  These are not the Balkans, this is not Africa.  We stand at loggerheads with Islamic sensibilities vis a vis morals, ethics, justice, way of governance.  To think that we are going to win them over to be some glorious, youthful democracies sitting at the alter of our experience in democratic governance is beyond stupid, it is ignorant.  If we don’t muster the political and social initiative to find acceptable common ground to form the border between these two massively contradicting cultures then I do believe the prophets, and feel that the final conflagation will emanate from Palestine and envelope the whole world.  If that happens then I trumpet what Yeats said, “let all things pass away.”

    Report this

    By Trigger finger, January 17, 2007 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Nonononononononononononononononononononononononono!

    No No No No. Please check his voting history!
    No No No No. Please check his voting history!
    No No No No. Please check his voting history!

    He Is owned by Corporate America.  We don’t need more of this.  We have to find a leader who will stand and speak for the people and we better do it by 2008. Can anybody point out anyone in the US Senate, the US House, or Corporate America who is not corrupt? Any religious leaders? Any state leaders? There must be someone with moral values?  I don’t see anyone in the current crop that is not just out for a personal power play.  After 200 plus years, how in God’s name could we end up here?
    Amish leaders? People with values! We need to come up to your moral values. Please, step forward and fix this corrupted broken democracy for our helpless children.

    Report this

    By slewis, January 17, 2007 at 4:11 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Bush, speaking on 60 minutes, and then days later in a short interview on PBS remarked
    that if Democrats were to come up with another
    option on Iraq, he might listen to it. Strange
    that voices from his own party - Hagel - front
    and center offer other options. Krugman in the NY Times offers the same reminder - “you should shut the thing down.” The Iraq study group was panned, public sentiment denied and still Bush, McCain and Lieberman prop the surge mentality all the way. Let Hagel have his day in the sun - and let some of that light shine on the White House. If Hagel or whoever, is a viable sound candidate a year from now, then good for them. I saw Hagel vs. Lieberman on Meet the Press and I nearly fainted. We need 10-15 more Republican senators speaking out, NOW…hopefully they in tandem with Hagel, can make a difference.

    Report this

    By keith, January 17, 2007 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    i have enjoyed a new hobby the last few years. please try it.  i count the amount of times ploiticians use the word “clearly” . i know this sounds very dumb. but just try it.  why do people cnstantly use this unnessacary word?  why cant people say for ie.  the american people want the war to end.  not…“clearly , the american people want the war to end.  or…they even go as far as to say clearly..its unclear.  the more someone uses the word clearly the less chance they have for my vote and scheer is one of the worse offenders.  admittedly this sounds petty and stupid, but its not.  other overused words.  “look” and “at the end of the day”  very sincerely, keith in vancouver, wa.

    Report this

    By Lord Byron, January 17, 2007 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I’me extremely disappointed that Robert Sheer would write such a piece supporting Hagel for President. Yes, Hagel has spoken out against the war but did he speak out against it three years ago???

    Its so easy to lambast Bush now but not when he really needed to be! Sheer, you’ve given Kucinich publicity on your Web site and gave me the impression that you would vote for him. Kucinich has been critical of George W. Bush for much longer than Hagel. And to vote for Hagel on one issue alone??? No. I can’t do it and you haven’t persuaded me to do so either. I vote for Kucinich.

    Report this

    By A PAIR OF SILLY CALIFORNIAN DRAMA QUEENS, January 17, 2007 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    The fact that he is upfront, doesn’t tow the party line, and doesn’t yet seem to have great fountains of PR money pouring into his campaign from some impossibly rich shadowy power-brokers, these things have certainly pricked my interest in him.

    Report this

    By eddie, January 17, 2007 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    You would vote for Hagel for President based on ONE ISSUE? I know that the war in Iraq is the number one issue we face, but this stinking war is going to end sooner than most people may think regardless of who is elected President in ‘08. We can not afford to throw away the rest of the progressive agenda just because Hagel is right on this ONE ISSUE.

    Report this

    By Dr Richard Blackmoor, January 17, 2007 at 3:15 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Or instead of jerking ones knees when Hagel put forth this public sound bite that was intended to provoke this reaction,a look at the voting record of Hagel,which is strict neoCon and pro bush should make any intelligent voter find another canidate.
        Dennis Kucinich who voted against the war in the first place and who is for American Freedon instead of a police state and who has always done what is best for the people instead of what is good for big business…I could go on ...Kucinich is WAY better then Hagel in every policy unless you are a supporter of Oligarchy.
            I cannot belive this garbage.  Only a very superficial voter or a schill for the republicons could think one little speech makes a good presidential candidate.

    Report this

    By witkacy, January 17, 2007 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Clinton’s specialty now seems to be paraphrase of Bush Administration talking-points - She spoke today of tne need “to condition American aid to the Iraqis on their meeting political benchmarks” (hard love for the Green Zone quislings - *so* relevant for the rest of the people of Iraq, huh?)...She also talked of Bush’s failure “to put leverage on this government”: yet again, mirroring the senile paternalism of this criminal administration…

    Has anyone noticed how well this new-ish tack re Iraq - “now, all you people are gonna have stand on your own two feet” - jibes with the old Moynihan-ian “benign neglect” of the urban poor (the precursor of the DLC’s later welfare “reform”)? The wretchedness of Iraq is being re-cast, by retrenched Republicans & by calculating corporate-friendly Dems like Clinton & Obama alike, into the “moral turpitude” of a people who were in reality smashed by serial wars & U.N. sanctions & kleptocracy…God, it feels as if Clinton & Obama can hardly get MORE conservative than they already are…

    Report this

    By Jon B, January 17, 2007 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Forget the partisan nonsense. It’s national interest at stake. Flush down all warmongering and double talking candidates.

    I go for Hagel or Kucinich.

    Report this

    By Oneforchange, January 17, 2007 at 2:32 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Senator Obama for president and Ron Paul vice-president. Ron Paul is running! But he isn’t recieving any press. It seems his realistic, perceptive approaches to issues, such as media steering by the CFR and the Tri-lateral, demonstrated in the current diversion from the Iran crisis, is threatening to their interests.

    The corporatocracy has not sanctioned any coverage of, for example, the recent predator drone that was shot down over Iran. But the flying asassin was mocked on the latest Simpsons cartoon.

    FOX’s “24”, and serveral other shows, show torture on every episode. In the premier of “24”, Keifer Sutherland has a jagged dagger stabbed into his rectum. “Lost”, ABC’s top drama, depicts similar dehuminanization.   

    Obama believes America is not a torturous country. Paul has the background and knowledge of the truth, and would really help guide him.

    Report this

    By Robert A. Brown, January 17, 2007 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Once again, as it was in 2004, Dennis Kucinich is noticeably absent from a piece written about Democrats not being vocal enough, or having enough spine, or being tenacious enough on Iraq.  Well, Bob, it’s writers like you that keep Dennis Kucinich from being heard, noticed, or even mentoned in “Mainstream Media”. It’s “mainstream writers” like you that are talking to the left while huddling safely in the middle. THE MIDDLE BE DAMNED! This country was born of a leftist revolution and if one doesn’t soon come….?
    Dennis Kucinich, Bob!!!

    Report this

    By james j, January 17, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I thought Richard Nixon had a secret plan to get america out of vietnam.

    Report this

    By Rob Lewis, January 17, 2007 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Amen to Charlie L. Based on his voting machine escapade, not to mention his almost-perfect Bush support record, Hagel is a snake in the grass.

    Report this

    By Gary K, January 17, 2007 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Mr. Scheer,

    As a progressive Democrat I fully agree with your contention that the number one critical issue facing our country is our extrication from that disaster that Dumbya Bush got us into in Iraq.

    That fiasco is creating a serious financial and social crisis in our country which may take at least a generation to correct in order to get us back on track again. The harm done to our international reputation may take even longer to repair.

    You hit it right on regarding some of the weak-spined political hacks among the Democrats such as Hillary Clinton, whom I do not intend to vote for under ANY conditions.

    Report this

    By Charlie L, January 17, 2007 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    So, is that how it works?  You STEAL a United States Senate seat by electronic vote count fraud, and then, by taking the positions that your constituents EXPECT of you, that somehow makes you qualified to be a PRESIDENT?

    Folks, this guy is a right-wing REPUBLICAN and he is CORRUPT.  HE STOLE HIS SENATE SEAT.  Don’t you folks get that?  He STOLE it?  He rean the company that made the voting equipment, he sold it to the state, then he ran for office and won in a “suprise upset.”  HE STOLE A SENATE SEAT.

    There’s only one place you should go after doing that—JAIL.  Not the oval office.  Sorry.

    Corrupt is corrupt.  Corrupt Republican may be redundant, but it’s no less corrupt.

    He will be thrown out on his ass by 70% to 30% in the first election they have that doesn’t use HIS equipment.

    Report this

    By Richard, January 17, 2007 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Come on, Bob.  Putting an adult in charge of the country wouldn’t set well with the middleschool mentality of its citizens.  And heck, Ron Paul would be a better bet than Hagel.  At least his take on foreign policy would lead him to pull in ALL of the troops we have stationed in 131 different nations.

    Face it, it doesn’t really matter who runs the gov’t.  As long as my fellow citizens view America as the “deciders” about all that is going on on this small planet, the whole place is on tenuous ground.

    If you consider the large number of Americans out of our population of 300,000,000 who make their living butting into the concerns of other nations, well-beyond the atlantic, pacific, Rio Grande, and 49th parallel, you can see where the trouble lies.  While I don’t advocate isolationism, I do advocate getting our on house in order first.

    The lives of American soldiers, sailors, and airmen are not worth “Iraqi Democracy,”  or democracy anywhere but in the United States.

    Report this

    By rbrooks, January 17, 2007 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Come on, Mr. Scheer, a Republican with cojones, how about that, I grant you - but check out his voting record - he’s still a Republican.
    Here’s an idea: Jim Webb for president - courage, intelligence, integrity - what a novelty, a Democrat with guts, brains, and class? Can we try to get our minds around that image? is it just too way out there to even contemplate? do we HAVE to hark back to an Eisenhower as the model of all that’s good? Give me a break - short of Britney Spears or Genghis Khan, anybody looks good compared to the appalling, simpering, twisted adolescent we got stuck with in 2000 -
    let’s salute Senator Hagel’s courage, and the possibility of intelligent life in the GOP - but let’s at least examine the fighting chance that we can do BETTER than the Republicans.

    Report this

    By Vajara, January 17, 2007 at 11:46 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I like what Senator Hagel says also, but I would never want to see another Republican President or Congress in control of the government. Haven’t we learned what happens when the religious right and the"R’s” take control? God help us if this ever occurs again. Come on Mr. Shearer, you know better than support a Republican, even if they support this issue of war mongering. They just can’t be trusted on most of the other social, health and education issues.

    Report this

    By NETTIE, January 17, 2007 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Oh, Good Goddess Almighty…..think people, think.  And Bob, yes, I am surprised at you.  Believe me, few folks are more anti-war than I am, I feel like I’ve been living there since 3/03.  However, Hagel has been voted in thanks, apparently, to yet MORE shenanigans with the voting machines and his investment, in, I believe Seminole?  Check out blackboxvoting.org…they have the skinny.  I hate to say it, but I would not believe he is a “clean” Republican.  Who of them are these days?  There’s always a crappy agenda that WILL not be “FOR THE PEOPLE,” if they are elected to the White House again.  The money has already been voted in, thanks so much Congress, so witholding funds is a no go.  Let’s hope a resolution opposing this escalation goes through.

    Report this

    By KatieL, January 17, 2007 at 10:55 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I’m with Hagel and Obama.  We need to get ourselves away from these twissted politics and focus on things we can all agree on- like the Millennium Development Goals.  One of these goals, eradicating world hunger, would cost us only $19 billion annually until 2015.  The Borgen Project wants you to make this clear to your representatives now!

    Report this

    By Bill Blackolive, January 17, 2007 at 10:23 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Of Democrats/Republicans the most informed is
    Ron Paul, who is not running.  We need firstly somebody to address 9/11, besides the empire of military bases over the Earth.  Maybe Rev. Sharpton can get bolder, but at this point nobody running is.  We need a Cynthia McKinney.

    Report this

    By John D. Welch, January 17, 2007 at 9:55 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I don’t know what else Hagel has to say but Denis Kucinich is just as oppossed to the war and he expresses lots of other ideas I agree with.

    Report this

    By efarnum, January 17, 2007 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I almost couldn’t believe I was listening to a republican. I wish everyone else would listen to him! Chuck Hagel appeared on Charlie Rose last week and gave an extremely articulate, fact studded repsonse to Bush’s offensive and shallow presentation re: Iraq. For example, Hagel picked up on Bush’s throw away lines about Iran and Syria and compared this aggression (commenced quite a while ago) and the justification for it to our invasion of Cambodia in 1970. That he mentioned the importance of an equitable resolution to the Palestinian Israeli conflict at the beginning of his response to the despicable J.L. shows that he gets it, the regional context of our foreign policy blunders.He is not afraid to tell the truth about Iraq and what needs to be done. His lack of rhetoric and platitudes is refreshing. Go Chuck.

    Report this

    By Cynthia Tucker, January 17, 2007 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I absolutely relate to the sentiments expressed in this article. I, too, have determined to support the candidate who expresses and acts on issues in ways that are in alignment with my own, regardless of party affiliation.

    Report this

    By Nanite, January 17, 2007 at 9:28 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    no way ... Hagel is rated 100% by the Christian Coalition for his voting record ... they love him for a reason ...

    Report this

    By bibi, January 17, 2007 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Kucinich is the only one who speaks the truth!!!
    Why does the public reward the opposite…are we that lost as a nation? Are we that ignorant?

    Report this

    By Bobby, January 17, 2007 at 9:17 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    It’s unnecessary for Democrats and Republicans to speak out about how the war is wrong. Polls show Americans, as well as people from all around the world, are well aware of the gravity of the mistake.
    What is needed now is a direction to make the region as stable as possible.
    The sad truth: there is no clear and sensible way to fix such an enormous blunder.
    This war belongs to Bush and the neocons. When Bush leaves office the next president, whether Republican or Democrat, will seek a smarter course of action under the guidance and blessing of the world community which Bush so successfully alienated.

    Report this

    By E. P. Unum, January 17, 2007 at 9:14 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Thanks, but if I had to vote for a Republican, I’d put my money on Ron Paul.

    Report this

    By Mark Berger, January 17, 2007 at 8:54 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    A Hagel/Feingold ticket would crush all challengers. They’ve got the courage of their convictions and they both have to answer to their constituants.

    Report this

    By HeadlessHessian, January 17, 2007 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Single issue voters are the worst of our voting public!  Based on just one issue they will vote for one or the other…Good God!  Are you mad!  What is Hagle’s stance on the many other issues.  What about education, environment, social security, outsourcing (a real problem of good job elimination), homeland security, presidential powers, and the list goes on. 
    I agree with Hagels statement, its about time..and I think November made a few folks think twice about taking the electorate for granted.  But one issue does not a candidate make.  Worst of all he is a republican…have’nt we had enough righ wing, religious, business minded, anti-environemnt people in charge??? 
    Should we not start taking care of our country, FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Social security… our debt, our poor, our uneducated masses (see the clip about the Aussie reporter and dumb Americans…embarrasing!), our environment, freedom from oil dependance…on and on and on.


    Headless

    Report this

    By Kevtao, January 17, 2007 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Forget 2008, Hagel and Murtha on the Democrat side need to take some troops to 1600 and take over the government TODAY. The lunatic shrub and his minions need to be removed from power immediately and these two men are the only ones who seem to have a spine to do it.

    Report this

    By Big Al, January 17, 2007 at 8:19 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Bravo to the indispensible Mr. Scheer!

    I am and always have been a Democrat and a liberal.

    But I totally agree with Mr. Scheer on this.

    Why elect a Democrat who favors doing all the right things about health care and Social Security, but is unwilling to stand up against the suicidally evil neocon war agenda?

    After our nation is bankrupt and in ruins, it won’t matter which 2008 candidate offered the better national health care plan.

    Report this

    By mite, January 17, 2007 at 8:15 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Freedom to fascism watch:

    What representative,senator, or bureaucrat addresses the following items and wants to be president.

    1. Federal Reserve Bank
    2. Internal Revenue Service
    3. 16th and 17th Amendment Never Ratified By   States
    4. Re-Open 911 Independent Investigation
    5. Repeal Patriot Act
    6. Repeal Military Commissions Act 2006
    7. No David Ray Hate Crimes Bill HR 254
    8. Repeal Dept. of Homeland Security (Nazi-SS)
    9. Repeal Domestic Security Enhancement Act 2003
    10. Repeal Bankers New Bankruptcy Acts
    11. Impeach Cheney and Bush Jr.
    12. Open Investigation of Bush Sr. for Treason reference Iran Contra, and Saddam Hussain of the 1980’s and 1990’s. It all leads to both wars.
    13. Return the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA back to the people and enact the Supreme Law ‘U.S. Constitution, repeal ‘Uniform Commercial Code’
    14. Stop jobs from going over seas-period.
    15. Stop ‘North American Union’
    16. Stop The Loans from the Banks to finance the WARS.

    http://www.spp.gov

    http://www.gemworld.com    http://www.apfn.org

    http://www.furnitureforthepeople.com

    http://www.newswithviews.com  http://www.devvy.com

    The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a corporation, this country lost its sovereignty in 1933.

    Report this

    By John Hanks, January 17, 2007 at 8:03 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    The pentagon is the largest socialist enterprise in the World.  You can’t depend upon any one man to put an end to it.  The military industrial complex was involved in domestic political assassination, Operation Northwoods, and 911.

    Report this

    By Charlie L, January 17, 2007 at 8:01 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hmm.  Steal your Senate seat with electronic voting equipment you produced and sold to the state (under suspicious circumstances when polls indicated you were a loser) and have the “moral high ground.”

    That’s a new one.

    My, we have SUCH short memories.

    Report this

    By Alejandro, January 17, 2007 at 8:00 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Being an independent voter and looking at the choices from all parties I agree with Ron about Senator Hagel. I really like Sen. Obama and what he has to say, but at this point, I’m not convinced he will be able to withstand the pressure to conform to the Dems. marching orders, of smoke and mirrors. After all both parties feed at the same trough. Senator Hagel on the other-hand, has shown his metal time and again by going against the party-line of unabashed support for this criminal administration. Just ask the coward and Israeli lobbyist tail-gunner Joe.

    Report this

    By WCG, January 17, 2007 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Let’s not go overboard here. I’m from Nebraska, and I’m pleased that Sen. Hagel has had the guts - or is it just the brains? - to take a stand against the war. But in other respects, he’s been one of Bush’s top supporters. (In fact, I believe he voted for Bush’s position more than any other Senator in 2006.) So if you care about the environment, about civil rights, about the separation of church and state or the separation of powers in our system of government, about… anything else but the war in Iraq, I’d be hesitant about supporting Hagel for president. The Iraq war is important, but it is far from the ONLY thing that’s important. And in the long run - the long run, mind you - these other issues might be far more critical to our country and to the world.

    Report this

    By Mark Anderson, January 17, 2007 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I wonder why everyone keeps using the “war” word, supporting Bush"s “remember.we’re at war”.  Scheer calls it a war and an occupation.  How about dropping the “war’ word.

    Report this

    By ferguson cadwallader, January 17, 2007 at 6:55 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    not so fast all of you on the left ... don’t jump ship ... bill richardson will most likely throw his hat into the ring ... he lives and breathes diplomacy.

    Report this

    By Kellina, January 17, 2007 at 6:48 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Wake up, Bob, Hagel is a CFR member and, as such, is generally in favor of an imperialist strategy in the Middle East. The CFR would love nothing better than a Hagel vs. Obama or Clinton election—because all are CFR members (like Bush v. Kerry in ‘04).

    Repubs vs. Dems makes no difference. It’s CRF members vs. non-CFR members.

    What happened to Kucinich?

    Report this

    By rabblerowzer, January 17, 2007 at 6:43 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Congress must do their duty

    How can congress ignore the danger of allowing a madman two more years to possibly start World War 3, and destroy America?

    Impeaching Bush/Cheney, and dismantling this corrupt and insane regime is the single most important responsibility they have. Even ending the war is a secondary consideration, and how can they not realize that? I won’t even try to conceal my contempt for leaders too fearful of political repercussions to exercise their power and fulfill their obligation to stop this madman from destroying our country.

    The truth is, we have no leaders with the courage to speak out and rally the people for impeachment. We the people are the leaders, and we must demand that our elected representatives do their duty.

    Report this

    By Michael Haider, January 17, 2007 at 5:55 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Don’t forget John Edwards.  He’s hit ground running the hardest so far against the war.

    Report this

    By Greg Bacon, January 17, 2007 at 5:08 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Hagel has taken a courageous, common sense stand against the illegal and immoral war of aggresson against Iraq.

    But he wouldn’t have a chance in crawford of running for president.
    He’s made several statements that the Israeli lobby doesn’t like.
    This is the same lobby that has one of its top political arms—American-Israeli Political Action Committee or as it’s known, AIPAC—give each candidate running for either the House or Senate, the chance to write a “position paper” on keeping Isreal as the dominant military force in the Middle East.
    Play along and the money will flow into your election campaign coffers.
    Try and be someone who has the audacity to actually represent America instead of Israel and you can kiss your political career goodbye.
    As far as Clinton and Obama, they’re both too busy trying to balance themselves on top of the fence they’re sitting astride, only holding on with one hand, as the other one is busy checking which way the wind is blowing.

    greg bacon
    ava, MO

    Report this

    By Jaded Prole, January 17, 2007 at 4:29 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I’d vote for him before I’d vote for Hillary Clinton and I’m totally ambivilant about Obama who supported his friend Leiberman in the last election.

    Report this

    By brian j. mack, January 17, 2007 at 4:16 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    great story- i just sent an email to senator
    hagel thanking him for his views on iraq.
    appreciate your informative releases=
    there is no doubt in my mind that if we had a
    draft in this country, the american people would
    not tolerate this administrations disasterous
    obscene policies.

    Report this

    By Dublin Joe, January 17, 2007 at 2:17 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I imagine Bob writing a similar article about Richard Nixon in the summer of 1968 when HHH was soft on the Vietnam War. While I commend Sen. Hagel and believe he has more honor in his little finger than Nixon ever possessed, he will still be from a party that is ruthless, greedy and intolerant. And, like a progressive in the Democratic party, he would have to sell his soul in order to win his party’s nomination.

    Report this

    By Suzanne Benning, January 17, 2007 at 2:12 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    Thanks for putting into words what my heart has been telling me!  While waiting for a Democrat to raise the banner high and lead us out of this mess, Senator Hagel (a Republican, but one of my favorites!) has become my hero.  The War IS that important, and I would vote for him too in the circumstances you described.
    (Unless you decide to run!  I don’t think I have ever disagreed with you in the 15-20 years I’ve read you.  Thanks!!)

    Report this

    By Ron Ranft, January 17, 2007 at 12:03 am Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I don’t know that I would go that far, but I clearly agree with what Hagel is saying. The best the Democrats have so far come up with is a “non-binding” statement that demands the President not send any more troops. Well, if there was someone who would take the bet I’d bet everything I own on Bush’s not paying any attention and doing it anyway. He is, after all, the Decider!

    As Ralph Nader pointed out 6 years ago there is hardly any difference between the 2 parties. The Democrats became the Majority running on the anti-Iraq War issue and yet here they are passing fluff bills like the minimum wage and patting themselves on the back. First of all, $7.25 an hour is about $3 an hour short of where it should be. Secondly, the States are taking care of that issue already. Take care of things that the States can’t, like the throwing of money down the rat hole that Bush created in Iraq. And passing a bill giving the gov’t the power to negoiate drug prices without any teeth is more fluff. If it does pass Bush has said he will veto it. Do the Democrats have the will and the votes to over ride it?

    So what do they do? Impeach? Heaven knows there is enough evidence and cause. But the goal of these people, on both sides of the isle is to get re-elected and that means currying corporate funding, not doing the little guys work. So I don’t expect much to change. I really, really hope I’m wrong but it is another bet I’d place with out much fear of loosing my money.

    Report this

    By Deena Moreno & Marlene Share, January 16, 2007 at 11:20 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    This is so well stated.  Hagel would sure have my vote, as would most of the UNC students I know.

    Aside - I remember voting for Johnson because I was afraid of Goldwater’s escalating the Vietnam War.  Wrong again!

    Report this

    By Anthony Martin Dambrosi, January 16, 2007 at 10:33 pm Link to this comment
    (Unregistered commenter)

    I saw a clip of Obama at an outdoor fundraiser in 2002.  He said he is not against all war but against dumb war. Even Hagel who I like as a fellow combat veteran and who raised serious questions before we went in never said it as succinctly as that. Dumb morally; dumb tactically; dumb operationally and dumb stragegically. It was not ever the right thing to do but it has been and continues to be the dumb thing.

    Report this
     
    Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
    Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
     
    Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
    Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
     
    Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
     
     
     

    A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
    © 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

    Like Truthdig on Facebook