Chuck Hagel on TDS: We need an Iraq policy "worthy of the sacrifices"
By SilentPatriot Monday Mar 31, 2008 3:00pm
Although I disagree with Chuck Hagel on pretty much everything else, he's one of the few Republicans who actually gets it when it comes to Iraq. There is nothing more dishonorable to our troops than forcing them to referee someone else's civil war.
Download | play 
Download | play
"What each of us in elected office, I think, have as our most important responsibility is a policy worthy of the sacrifices of these young men and women."
Although Hagel declined to endorse anyone for President, he made pretty clear that he has a huge problem with McCain's position on Iraq. Is it possible he would endorse the Democratic nominee?
Login or Register to post comments.
This is the first time in a week that I have even been able to load the C&L website. Even then I still get many connection errors and I cannot download any of the videos posted on this page.
I have this problem in both Firefox and IE so that isn't it. I think you guys need more better hamsters or something. As much as I like C&L it's really frustrating that there are days where it is offline or inaccessible to me and I have repeated problems downloading your videos.
I don't have this problem anywhere else. Is someone fucking with you?
HUH? What is THAT supposed to mean? In case the Dems and the Repukes, and all these blabbering political retards fail to grasp it........there was NO F'ING CIVIL WAR in Iraq until the US invaded. What, you just going to walk away now and say "hey, it's not worth us losing our important American lives over"????? I think not. You and your "ELECTED" political ass wipes broke it, you fix it!!!! Don't go putting your tails between your legs and running on the flimsy excuse that "OH MY 4000 AMERICANS" died....oh the travesty of justice. Try being an Iraqi. The American people OWE them some kind of solution. I am sick and tired of listening to these whiny ass Dems saying they are gonna "bring our boys home".........why is that? So they don't get killed? What about the 1 million or more Iraqis? What about the damn mess of infrastructure?
You know what will happen if the troops get pulled out? NOTHING. Iraq will be a friggin mess until someone else walks in and once again cleans up the US crap that is everywhere. I like most Americans but sometimes you people do the stupidest things, and then cry like babies and go all protectionist on everyone else's asses for the mistakes you make.
Don't get ahead of yourself here. While Hagel is a Republican, and one of the few I respect, he's waited a little too long to get off the Bandwagon when it mattered.
As for endorsing the Democratic nominee, he'll have to wait to see who's left standing after the scorched-earth tactics I'm seeing go on.
Amen!
"Chuck Hagel on TDS: We need an Iraq policy “worthy of the sacrifices”"
=====
Well, the administration will just have to make up another one.
Nothing short of one's own life being lethally threatened on one's home soil makes the lives of each of America's military personnel "worth the sacrifice". Iraq is not America's "home soil".
Oh yeah and....
FUCK IRAQ. WE OWE IT NOTHING.
Way to go Chuck!
r @ 6:
Are you kidding?! Your country declared a preemptive war on Iraq and occupied that country. You sure as shit do owe the Iraqi people something.
when these sub-humans talk, all i hear is charlie brown's teacher.....
wonk wonk wonk...
right on! @ 8:
what is fair compensation?
noen @ 1:
Last night this site caused a fatal error on my machine. I like it here but I'm really beginning to get a little concerned about things.
Yeah right ...
'...we didn't do our job'
Consequences?
Responsibilities?
'Naw, I'll just sit here in my silk suit smoozing on TV ...
and go buy my lastest book (....suckers !!!)...'
Hagel has long been a re-piglic worth listening to. If only because you understand when he's talking that he isn't spouting absolute crap for the sake of spouting absolute crap. This is a man who isn't for the party for the sake of being for the party. God knows the there are few enough of them. I'll bet he pays a price for speaking out too.
And the man knows how to dress. I could almost dig him.
*
Anyway why didn't we think about this stuff before we INVADED IRAQ?
Rather then the Neocons saying piece of cake! Slam Dunk!
And everyone going, oh uhh, yeah! FLOWERS AND CANDY!!!! I AGREE!
We broke Iraq. We definitely owe it something. Unfortunately Bushco broke it very naively and didn't realize it wouldn't go back together again. The sad truth is we really can't fix the breakage. The people of Iraq have to find a way to do it -- by killing each other, making peace, splitting into different countries, exterminating the Sunnis, letting extremists take over, etc. They don't want us to be part of the new solution. All we should do is keep its borders secure and ask them to take control over their own destiny, urging nonviolent methods. But if they're gonna kill each other, they're gonna kill each other. I wonder why US forces haven't whacked that leader of the Mahdi army. He seems to be able to turn on and turn off the violence at will.
Of Course the Neocons policy is BOMB the hell out of the problem and hope it goes away.
Right sure it will. Bombing for Democracy uh huh right.
Hagel is a probably wont endorse a dem but he certainly wont endorse wacky mac. McCain dishonors his service with this warmonger position. No job is worth this compromise old man.
Maybe we owe the Iraqis their country back. Maybe we owe them the decency of stopping killing them and blowing up their homes. Maybe we owe them a chance to have a future without fearing they will be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Maybe we owe them some respect.
What a CROCK OF SHIT.
"There is nothing more dishonorable to our troops than forcing them to referee someone else’s civil war."
I think the illegal war we waged against Iraq, a country which posed no threat to US - I think that is a little more DISHONERABLE than just about anything.
It is possible we could 'do good' in Iraq even as refferee - But WHAT WE DID DO was about as dishonerable a thing as could have been done.
So I guess I disagree.
Biggus Diggus @ 15:
Maybe Bush will make Sadr Iraq's New Commander in Chief. The if you can't beat em join em concept. And Bush Bots will say, well why didn't he do that sooner!
funny... i dont spend a lot of time on other country's sites bitching about someone elses government..... but thats just me.
chuck hagel, while a republican, is the only one i respect. he has been against the war for a long time now. i guess you miss things like that when you arent actually part of a country... but hagel has been outspokenly against the war for at least 2 years, if not longer. he is more the "goldwater" style, conservative.... libertarianish, pro business kind of republican. no over the top fake christian moralizing. no war hawking. he has gone against the "gop" several times. if he werent a republican, i might have considered him if he were running. maybe ill go to a "bitch about the canadian govt" site and give them my "foreigner" two cents about their internal machinations...and foreign policies......... (what a boring thought)...
"refereeing" someone elses civil war? Well when you say it like that it sounds dishonorable. I don't consider it so. Since WW2 thats almost all the work that the Canadian Peace Keepers have done, keeping others from fighting. I'm proud of their work "refereeing" hot spots around the world.
For the past 20 years I've been advocating a foreign policy using the natural violence of our young. We entice them with alcohol and drugs, to a nightclub where they get high and stoned, listen to slamming music until they do what's natural and start fighting. Then we lay bets on the result of the fighting.
I call it Apocolypse A'Go-Go.
right on! @ 8:
we owe them the courtesy to do what they want. overwhelmingly, they want us out. overwhelmingly, they wanna shoot each other.
so you're damn right we never should have invaded in the first place, you're damn right we should have LET Saddam keep all the angst in check with one singular, common fear, and r@6 is damn right, we are not obligated to oversee a civil war thats been impending since ... what 1910? wasn't that when Britain buggered up the whole region in the first place and forced bigots who hate each other to treat each other as "comrades"?
they wanna shoot each other. for centuries now, they've wanted to shoot each other. I say? let 'em shoot each other.
pissed off patricia @ 18:
Hell, an apology would be a start.
pissed off patricia @ 18:
There is NO WAY the Good Ol Oil Boys are going to leave Iraq. We'll be there 100 years or until total DOMINANCE is achieved.
I mean they don't even care about Americans!
USA Today - 42 minutes ago
Top executives of the five biggest American oil companies say they know consumers are feeling the pain of high gasoline prices. But at a congressional hearing, they deflected any blame, and they argued that their profits $123 billion last year were in line with other industries.
Loonie @ 24:
Probably too late for an apology but respecting their wishes might be a start. Maybe one of the best gifts we could give them is to get the hell off their streets and out of their lives. If our own country had been invaded five years ago, I know the first thing I would want is to have my life back as my own as an American.
"We broke Iraq. We definitely owe it something. Unfortunately Bushco broke it very naively and didn’t realize it wouldn’t go back together again."
It almost sounds like an accident to say we broke it...
We ROBBED Iraq. We were the 'muscle' for some one a little brighter than Bush.
It was always built on lies and hidden intentions - But no mistake it was planned.
Barrett D @ 21:
Like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxLPIYDkQAw
Hagel's a good man.
noen @ 1:
Do you get your DSL from Verizon? AT&T or ComCast? :)
I have trouble streaming AirAmerica, but no problem whatsoever streaming it through their AZ affiliate station! I think it may be getting hung up in Room 612 in SanFransisco
LA Confidential @ 25
They also moaned that without their 38 Billion tax break they would have no incentive to bring us oil? Really? So what would you sell instead? Saltwater? The biggest group of leeches in the world. Including bush/cheney.
Hagel has been speaking out for a long time. In that clip he said, speaking of congress, "We failed the American people." How many other Senators have you heard say that, especially Republicans?
Loonie @ 24:
It might be a start but how would you feel if the U.S. was bombed into ruins, occupied, trashed, looted, then they said "oh were really sorry we're leaving now good luck and uh have a good life."
McCain is going to win in November by a landslide ala 1984. Don't believe me? Here's why...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBMY2PJdLAo
“What each of us in elected office, I think, have as our most important responsibility is to finally come up with a policy worthy of the sacrifices of these young men and women, who we sent to war on a pack of lies. A sacrifice worthy of this unwarranted war of aggression, this horrific example of brutality and the bully mentality so prevalent amongst us Americans. It is not easy to be Goliath against Iraq's David, but the sacrifice of our brave men and women as they have spent extended tours and stop-loss days and nights in the desert with so little reward needs to be rectified. Perhaps we can have the USO throw the long promised Chocolates and Flowers at our liberating hordes, perhaps we can open new and better Abu Ghraibs for them to enjoy themselves in at the expense of a people who did not attack us and posed no threat. Perhaps we can extend the midnight raids into all of the cities and suburbs of Iraq, for the pleasure of our conquering heroes. Something, anything, to make their extreme sacrifice worth the time and effort. Just so long as we do not pay them any more than they already make, as that money has been assigned to the Lawless Blackwater Mercenaries. In god we trust.”
~ Chuck Hagel unplugged
"Although Hagel declined to endorse anyone for President, he made pretty clear that he has a huge problem with McCain’s position on Iraq. Is it possible he would endorse the Democratic nominee?"
Would you then call him a Mill Zeller?
and yes there was a civil war in iraq..... saddam hussein just was the one who was in power for a while... but those crazy bastards have been fighting for centuries... EVEN DICK CHENEY SAID IN AN INTERVIEW IN '92 "the reason we didnt go to baghdad was because there would be a continuation of the civil war they have been having for centuries!!!!" so someone doesnt have their facts totally straight on that little thing.
and about OWING THE IRAQI'S ..............
the only time the iraqi's have banded together is when we ABANDONED anbar province. we didnt kick al-qaeda out of anbar... we LEFT... we turned fallujah into a pile of rubble... stirred up local hatred so that they joined al-qaeda against us..... as would any population being occupied... and it was after we LEFT ANBAR PROVINCE... that the locals realized, "hey wait a minute... these out of country bastards are still blowing us up"... and it was the SUNI WAR LORDS AND SHIEKS who banded together and took back their land. THEY KICKED AL-QAEDA OUT...
if we leave they will repeat that across the whole country. our being there is an obstacle to them taking control.
"There is nothing more dishonorable to our troops than forcing them to referee someone else’s civil war."
How very Imperial White Man's Burden of you. America isn't refereeing it, it is taking the side of separatists to Balkanise Iraq.
"I think, have as our most important responsibility is a policy worthy of the sacrifices of these young men and women.”
A little late for that now, torture, destroying the water supplies, electricity, watching the looting that went on...Lieing about Tillman's death, shooting up wedding parties, blowing up women and kids...
Maybe a Peace Core kind of action..?
If we put our treasure and our young (150,000 or so) in thier service for 5 or 10 years and spent an amount similar to what we spent destroying them...
AND LET THEM KEEP THIER OWN OIL!!
But the best policy would be a boat ride HOME.
r @ 6:
Are you wacked? we attacked them, killed their children, tortured their men, destroyed their infrastructure, roads, sewer departments, oil wells, electric companies....... We throw hissy fits if our electricity is out for 2-3 hours and the Iraqis get 2-3 a day, if they are lucky.
Then we say they have to stand up! F- me, we kicked their feet out from under them and say stand up... I'd rebel if someone if that here.
We need to take out the soldiers and bring in building crews. Instead of a Works Corp here maybe start one up there. I'd volunteer to go over and help rebuild. Something tells me that if the Iraqi people saw us come in and actually start rebuilding, to their specs and designs, that they would join us and even help to protect the people doing the building. It'll even be cheaper than the billions a week we are spending now to destroy buildings, lives and their economy.
How many friends have you, personally, made by waving a gun in their face?
noen @ 1:
Same thing happens to me with Firefox. Safari (the Mac browser) works somewhat better but eventually it gets hung up too. Only happens on C&L.
L.A. Confidential @ 32:
Have you seen the size of China's armed forces ..?
It's great to see Repubs saying they were wrong, but the real Iraq agenda is purely financial. Bush and his cronies are first and foremost corporate frontmen. This is why the occupation will never end.
Unstated reason for being in Iraq: Be first in line when the oil starts flowing again
Stated reason for being in Iraq: Whatever is convenient at the present time
"but those crazy bastards have been fighting for centuries..."
They hate our freedon too.
So I guess that should just about settle any intelectual/Moral/Political issues we may have had!!
Thanks for the insight.
Rusty America Shackleford @ 39:
The weekends are the worst.
Bunch of ingrates, they already got the P.G.O.F:
"... recognizing that the Iraqi government has to take responsibility for its own future, that we have given them the precious gift of freedom, and it is up to them to decide whether or not they will use it."
--- Sen. Hillary Clinton
Shorter Hagel:
See, since we already de-fanged Iraq, we need those troops stuck there to be available to de-fang Iran and make the Middle East safe for Israerrrrr American interests.
Hagel voted in lockstep with the Republicans in filibustering the Dems attempts to support the troops properly. He lost my respect then.
RickB @ 37:
No it isn't; if we had done that there still would have been a lot of people dead and displaced, like in the India/Pakistan partition, but the fighting would be over by now. It would have been the smart thing to do in retrospect, but then it would be easily predictable that hundreds of thousands of people would be killed in the aftermath, whereas Bush & co. didn't have to screw it up the way they did.
As for Hagel - it's refreshing to see a Republican I can actually respect. I understand that there are people who have different views from me, but what I can't stand is the endless bullshit and detachment from reality that comes from practically every Republican politician and at least half of the people who vote for them.
earl @ 40:
Yes good luck trying to transport them to United States shores though.
I suspect digg.com is causing the crashes here.
burnt @ 23:
You ought to read more about Iraq's history. They haven't been wanting to shoot each other for centuries. The civil war didn't start until after we invaded, and it's not limited to Sunni against Shia. The fighting is more about the political future of Iraq: Sunni factions fighting each other, Shia factions fighting each other over whether Iraq should have a separated or unified government. Most of the various factions are also fighting the US presence--at least on that, most of them can agree. They want us out NOW.
A lot of people keep saying that Iraqis need us to help maintain the peace. Without a US presence, Iraq will dissolve into chaos goes the common refrain. But on what do you base that? Before and during Saddam Hussein, Iraqis intermarried and few paid attention to whether someone was Sunni or Shia.
Iraq is in chaos now because the Bush administration has played a large role in creating that chaos: for example, disbanding the Iraqi army, installing a Shia government, de-Baathification, arming the various factions, etc. It is the US presence that's largely responsible for much of the killing.
pissed off patricia @ 31:
Short form: Fuck Chuck. He voted for Mr. Decider's excellent adventure. He's a ReThug. He and the vast majority of Senators, on both sides of the aisle, happily send the poorest, most ignorant Americans off to The MeatGrinder to get maimed, killed and driven insane so sockpuppet Cheney and Co.'s 'handlers' make Trillions off of elevated oil prices.
Comparing him to 'other Senators....' is pointless. They are all enablers of the most Fascist, Corporatist American government we have ever seen. One filled to bursting with war criminals, profiteers, religious nutjobs and sexual perverts. All the while Ol' Chuck has been doing what Republicans do best; line his pockets with blood money.
In Japan the best 'Fucked' Chuck could hope for would be seppuku. I volunteer to be his kaishakunin.
I'd happily assist any other Senator to take the honorable way out. There's no more than a handful who don't fall into the category of '....better off dead'.
L.A. Confidential @ 47:
They seem to be getting luck from some unlikely sources:
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2007/10/u.html
He called our Iraq adventure "a blunder"...
The way the executive has walked all over our constitution to wage this illegal war on our National Soverenty as well as the mass killings in Iraq...
I guess he can't call a crime a crime.
It was a little 'miss-step' perhaps - Opps.
He falls short of a dismisive 'our bad' but not by much!
BobD @ 38:
Pretty much agree with everything you say, except staying in Iraq to help rebuild. Even though we owe that to them. They don't want us there. And I've heard Iraqis say that the best thing we can do is get the hell out asap and send war reparations. The Iraqis rebuilt after Gulf War I, and they can do it again without Halliburton, thank you very much.
>>>"they wanna shoot each other. for centuries now, they’ve wanted to shoot each other. I say? let ‘em shoot each other."
Oh for gods sake, they've never had a civil war, ever.
Read about England's influence.
Google some dude named 'The Shah' (he was into torture too ...)
"War teaches American geography" ...a little history might help.
"Is it possible he would endorse the Democratic nominee?"
Nope. But he'll dance around it real good.
We need an Iraq policy “worthy of the sacrifices”
What utter, contemptible bullshit.
Gee, it almost makes one forget who the bad guys are...
Lets see who started all this shit and for what reason??
Oh yeah! It is some million year old tribal thing - Phhhhheeeeeeew! For a second I thought WE WERE RESPONSIBLE!
ConcernedCanuck @ 2:
Your are right, We do own the Iraqi people. Unfortunately we voted for an incompetent president with his criminal administration not once but twice, and now we have the immense travesty and tragedy that is Iraq. So now what? Send more troops, spend more money,send men on white horse's to save the day? The Iraqi people don't want us to decide their destiny any longer we've cause enough of them to get killed. We've FUCK UP ENOUGH! We need to get the fuck out and let them decide what type of country they want. They will probably allied with Iran, so be it. So yes CC I look at the American man and women that have loss their lives and the Iraqi men, women and children that have been killed and the people who's lives have been so horrible scarred from this horrific Sin of a War and I cry for my Nation because we loss our way over OIL.
L.A. Confidential @ 11:
Hmmm, interesting. Maybe YOU need to use a better firewall. A website can't cause a "fatal error" Now a hacker can follow you around the net because you are publicly blasting your IP.
BTW, this site is not loading anything to my 2 computers and I checked. I find when people keep pointing out stuff like this they are trying to scare people away from the site.
Nice try.
QuakerDave @ 56:
So like this whole NeoConJob to be shopping around for policies worthy AFTER the sacrifices have been made!
Seems a little backwards to me!!
There is nothing more dishonorable to our troops than forcing them to referee someone else’s civil war.
For better or for worse, we've made ourselves the international referee!
Truman and Korea.
Johnson and 'Nam.
Clinton and the Balkans.
The DEMS are FAR MORE guilty of this SAME class of behavior.
"Your are right, We do own the Iraqi people. Unfortunately we voted for an incompetent president with his criminal administration not once but twice..."
He wasn't elected. Please get your basic facts straight.
Hagel is just another former boots on the ground infantryman. If you really want to know how a war is going always ask the grunts not the generals.
ConservativeCritic @ 61:
'Nam? That 'refereeing' job sure tool a lot of napalm.
Is it possible he would endorse the Democratic nominee?
No. Short answers.
Hagel was on one of the talking heads shows on Sunday and made some comments about how the next president needs to have a "bipartisan" cabinet. Hint, hint. At least we know he thinks the Dems will win in the fall.
"There is nothing more dishonorable to our troops than forcing them to referee someone else’s civil war."
So that is worse than WHAT WE DID???
How's that??
Nothing could be more dishonorable than what America did. Nothing.
sulphurdunn @ 63:
OK, well talk to stupid people for all our information from now on - Cool!
The Populist @ 63:
Actually web site can cause a computer to 'crash' - Happens to my poor mother all the time on her new Mac.
Chitown @ 58:
If you're referring to al-Sadr, Moqtada al-Sadr is an Iraqi nationalist.
The cleric al-Sistani, who was born, educated and maintains offices in Iran, probably has closer ties to Iran than al-Sadr.
Also, consider the history between Iraq and Iran...such as the first Gulf War. However, if Iraq and Iran do become closer, it will be because we invaded Iraq and installed a Shia puppet government, getting rid of most of the Sunni.
Biggus Diggus @ 15:
ConcernedCanuck @ 2:
Concerned Canuck: Damn straight, said it better than I could. Considering the mess we created, any attempt to leave right now would simply create a massive slaughter to make Rwanda and Darfur seem like a Sunday stroll in the park. Saddam ruled with the aid of the Sunnis killing large numbers of Shias. Unfortunately, that leaves a lot of accounts to be settled. Leaving right now would give the Mahdi Army a chance to do what it wants to do all along, revenge their fellow Shias' deaths under Saddam.
Biggus Diggus: Probably because in Iraq, the whackers would simply defect due to Al-Sadr's gaining probable cred by standing up to an occupier....
Leslie @ 53:
Agree with you in that we take out the soldiers, and Halliburton, and suggest we also remove Torture Inc, and Caci. But if we want to improve our image, and regain the face of America I think we need to do more than give them blood money. I think we need to show the good our country can do. Help rebuild, after all the terrorists hate us, our fiasco in Iraq has helped their enlistment cause. If we walk away and throw money in our wake we just add fuel to the fire. If we try to clean up, and help to restore their country then we may be able to turn the people of Iraq back to having faith in us.
If we leave, throwing money and the "evil doers" pick up the money and rebuild Iraq then the Iraqis will look favorably on them and not us. And we will be in the same boat we are in today. I hate bullies. and when bullies leave the tormented ones are happy that they are gone. We want the Iraqis to miss us for our good, not for our absence. It's time to get rid of our bully force, (Bushcos rules and orders not the soldiers that follow them) and replace them with our military building force. Then maybe we can send in Ty Pennington. Give him and the HomeMakeOver team $200billion, and a week and lets see what they can do in Iraq!
r @ 6:
What this imbecile meant to say was: We owe Iraq so much for fucking up so horribly.
ConservativeCritic @ 65:
Not technically true....
Republicans occupied the Philippines after promising them independence, sparking a long bloody revolt. Republicans launched numerous interventions in Latin America to keep the Colossus of the North's revenues flowing in. Republicans damn near started a war with the Imperial Germans over Samoa. Republicans also sparked more interventions in Latin America and Africa, killing Salvador Allende, and African leaders thought to be too friendly to the Soviets. Republicans launched Indian war after Indian war, slaughtering the natives of this continent.
Admittedly, FDR and Wilson got involved in big wars, but they didn't quite start them.
This argument smacks of "But Johnny did it, too!"
BobD @ 76:
Unfortunately, I think it's too late to try to undo the damage by staying, even with "good intentions." We've bombed Iraq to hell. We can't undo it.
Leslie @ 74:
You mean the Iraq-Iran war. The Gulf War saw little or no action under Ali Khameini. Khomeini fought against Iraqi aggression.
fuck chuck!
he's so full of shit.
boo fucking hoo.
his votes speak to his own hypocrisy.
I think they're setting him up to run with mcShamelessWhore.
Otherwise there is absolutely no credibility to the repug ticket.
ConservativeCritic @ 65:
none of this would have happened if the republican oil-seeking warmongers had not invaded Iraq.
L.A. Confidential @ 51:
if i were the chinese and if i had submarines that held nuke silos on them i would sail them to americas shores under the wallmart loaded ships from red china , i would cram the holds full of chinese troops and blow the crap out of every major city , sieze all major seaports with thoes troops then you got a problem! because the chinese are building landing ship tanks type ships like we used in ww2 and thier building lots of them too! and if they hurry they can do it while our troops are in iraq and afganistan, boy wouldnt that make a great made for tv series?
L.A. Confidential @ 11:
Whew. I thought is was only me. I've been experiencing the problems, too.
Fuck Chuck Hagel! He's another one of these Rethug "straight talkers" who scream about how much we need bipartisanship but, of course, he didn't say a word about this while he and his Rethug buddies were running Congress and driving this country into the ground. I find it quite amusing how no one in the Rethug Party or the MSM ever talk about bipartisanship until it is almost certain that the Democrats are going to win big in the next election. And just because someone has come out against the war, it doesn't make me a fan of them - look at that loony Ron Paul. And if the supposedly honorable Mr. Hagel is so worried about things continuing as they are in Iraq, and John McCain promises to stay the course in Iraq, then why doesn't the honorable Mr. Hagel say that he supports the position of one of the Dem candidates? Yeah, I didn't think so. Go peddle your tripe somewhere else, Mr. Hagel. You are not fooling me, or the majority of people who will vote this November. You are one of the enablers of those clowns in the White House, and you are not going to be forgiven that easily.
Dom @ 85:
your right hagel tows the line when it comes to bush!hes a arlen specter clone!
lot of people on this forum asserting that "we" need to stay there to "fix the mess we started". I'm sorry, I usually love C&L and still consider this to be one of the most informative news sites on the web.
but I find it ironic that so many posters who reply "hear hear!" when a moderator or contributor asserts that Republicans should sign up and put their necks on the line... I find it ironic that those same posters are demanding that our young men and women stay there "to fix the mess we started" are playing a comparable game of political football, without signing up themselves.
how many low-level (private/corporal) soldiers do you people know? how many 2nd and 3rd tour veterans have you gotten drunk with? because you might be surprised to know that a vast percentage of troops look at the vast majority of Iraqis (with the notable exception of the Kurds) with disdain. the perception is that Sunnis and Shias and Shiites and Baathists are in some morbid way grateful that the situation is what it is, so that vendettas can be dispensed.
why do you think so many soldiers, indeed the majority of soldiers, want to vote democrat? is it because they yearn for a universal health care plan to care for the unemployed section 8 mothers? is it because they prefer strict gun control laws? is it because they're "liberals"??
NO! its because THEY WANT TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE! just like the majority of Iraqis WANT US TO GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE!
I say, support the troops, support the emerging democracy in Iraq, and concede to the experts on the ground and in the thick of the situation. I say, withdraw, immediately, and let Iraqis decide whether or not they want to manifest a newer, stronger oil cartel in order to rebuild businesses and schools.... or whether or not they want to shoot each other dead over some ridiculous centuries-old conglomeration of vendettas.
I hope this post isn't looked upon too unfavorably by the sitemonitor. I love this site. but the hypocricy of some of these posts today is utterly insane.
noen @ 1:
this is the first time in a week that I have even been able to load the C&L website. Even then I still get many connection errors and I cannot download of the videos posted on this page.
I have this problem in both Firefox and IE so that isn't it. I think you guys need more better hamsters or something. As much as I like C&L it's really frustrating that there are days where it is offline or inaccessible to me and I have repeated problems downloading your videos.
I don't have this problem anywhere else. Is someone fucking with you?
Noen:
Sometimes, I cannot download the videos for MSMedia Player. so I click Play instead. It pops up in a small video window and downloads. Afterwards, I click download, and it plays full-screen, which you can right-click and save.
Midnight Rambler @ 50:
I would some reading before you stand behind that conclusion.
I disagree with the entire premise of this post. Why should we "honor our troops"? What, for murdering innocent people? For willfully signing up to fight GW's illegal invasion? And don't give me this crap about "well for some it's all they can do" B.S.! That may have been the case before, but now that we all know how crooked this has been, only a fool or a scoundrel would sign up and go kill.
We don't "owe" the troops anything. The should be locked up for committing murder.
I would *do* some reading before you stand behind that conclusion.
anneyhussein @ 5:
Very well said. Perhaps the most cogent comment regarding this post. When Hagel and others use the term "worth the sacrifice", it is close to saying that those American soldiers who did in Iraq should be "honored" for their sacrifice. I mentioned this a few days ago but I believe that it bears repeating. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, one of the main definitions of the word honor is high respect. I think a much more appropriate word to describe the needless deaths of those soldiers would be the word lament, which as the dictionary defines it, means to express sorrow and regret.
As someone else alluded to, veterans like Hagel have difficulty believing that Americans who have died in a combat zone died in vain, when that is most assuredly what they did. Hagel should know better since he, like myself, was in Vietnam, where over 50,000 Americans died for absolutely no justifiable reason whatsoever. Unless Hagel is trying to claim that those who died in Vietnam were unjustified whereas those whose lives are being snuffed out in Iraq have died for some ambiguous noble cause.
Those soldiers died in Iraq because they were part of an occupying force in Iraq. Would Hagel think that if another country were occupying the United States, that those foreign soldiers' lives had been worth the sacrifice? It is simply bizarre that Hagel will not admit that these soldiers have been used for cannon fodder in order to control the flow of oil in the Middle East and that more soldiers' lives will be needlessly lost as long as the United States continue to stupidly remain in the Middle East. Sadly, it is quite doubtful if this policy will change even if the Democrats take control of the White House in 2008, considering that Barack Obama, the alleged anti-war candidate, wishes to keep a strike force of "some troops" in the region. What this alleged agent of hope and change is not saying is that some troops will probably mean 40,000 to 60,000 more American troops in the region, which is surely not the best way of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Nor will it mean less troops returning to this country in coffins and maimed and crippled. Keeping American troops in the region does not strike me as best way of preventing American soldiers from being sacrificed for no justifiable reason. "Into the valley of death" ride the American soldiers, with neither major party willing to totally and completely withdraw those troops from those slaughterhouses in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Shannon @ 49:
Completely WRONG. Hagel did not vote for defunding. Except this he has voted consistently against the war for quite some time now. Also against torture, Gitmo, etc. But hey, he's a republican so he must be scum and worthy of unsubstantiated insults.
Yes of course. Why should amerikans suffer? They have nothing to do with the mess in Iraq...
let the eyerackis sort out their own mess....
this unpopular war took its toll on the middle class amerikan...
sob sob...
Well for all those saying we OWE Iraq, tell me what you are doing to repay the American Indians....I think its fair to say we fucked them over, killed their babies, took their shit, and generally did it WITHOUT being invited....so are how are all you repaying the Indians? Huh Left and left #77? Oh, and going to Mohegan Sun doesn't count.
Midnight Rambler @ 50:
That didn't work very well when England partitioned Lebanon (then a part of the Ottoman Empire) between Druze and Maronite Christians. Slaughter ensued. The Ottomans brought back peace. Anyone considering partition as a solution is a damn fool.
r @ 95:
What "we" owe Iraq, the American Indians, and all of those that were murdered in between is to rid the world of the murderers. In every case that would be the people who call themselves the United States Government. Eliminate the "government" and replace it with nothing.
Ed @ 97:
What comes after the elimination? Do you really think we'd play nice if there's no central authority ruling things? That happened in the USA, Rome, China, and the USSR/Russia a few times. Google "Military Anarchy," "Cultural Revolution," "October Revolution," "Time of Troubles," "Articles of Confederation," and "Confederate States of America."
Elimination of government + human nature = hell in a handbasket.
One of the most poignant sources of criticism on how we have handled Iraq comes from the suicide note of an Army Colonel who cited, of all things, the decision-making and policies backed by the greed and corruption of a David Petraeus:"...traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military.."
Bottom line: whether its through the tragedies of formerly deployed troops upon their return stateside, the depletion of our economic infrastructure by the careless and fraudulent spending of our tax money on the war, or the descent of our international reputation from the surfacing stories of contractor corrosion, the consequences of the administration's mishandling of the war will follow us home. We need to take action while our country still has some integrity to defend. Sign Progressive Future's petition to enforce accountability for the events that take place in Iraq in our name.
If Hagel's rhetoric came anywhere near his voting record I might respect him. However since no Senator votes with Bush more than he does fuck him. He is a two faced sack of shit and should probably be ignored.
General_Rennenkampf @ 80:
Yes, thanks for the correction.
General_Rennenkampf @ 98:
Nice theory. The murderers love the people like you who keep coming up with excuses for them.
Ed @ 102:
So....tell me....
how exactly are we to avoid general mass mayhem and slaughter by turning loose large numbers of nuts with guns without the (minimal) supervision the government does give.
And...you didn't answer my question. What comes after? Humans playing nice at last when 150,000 years of history showed no evidence of it?
That guy has a conscience.
Kyle @ 100:
I'll go with that!
saw hagel on morning joe this morning.
he was asked specifically if it was possible that he could endorse barack obama. he said yes, but that it was not something he expects to do.
Hey, Thats my Senator your talking about !!!
Yes he is Republican and votes most the lockstep time.
Two issues that stand out that he broke with republican lockstep with were, Social Security (private accounts and Iraq.
Two big issues. He is not going to run for re election as Senator. We had a Gov Johanns (Repub) that got tapped by Bush for Agriculture. Johanns wants to CUT AND RUN from the Bush Adm early so he can return and run for Hagels seat. This is Big Red Nebraska. I transfered with my job here some time ago.
So Hagel has had some promising moments for me, considering whee I'm at. All Congressmen are Repubs.
Senator Hagel has always been very responsive with emails of my questions. Not much gobblety goop (rhetoric) in his responses.
He recieved much anger over the Alito nomination as well as Telecom immunity, which he is for.
I can only say that I am grateful I have Sen Hagel instead of Sen Inhofe.............!
General_Rennenkampf @ 103:
Dont ask anti-war kiddies to think. They werent trained for it and it will only get messy. Mostly what they offer is inarticulate rage and contradictory messages like, "leave now" and "we owe them something"... I can't even make any sense of what most of them are going on about. Extremely angry people aren't known for thinking clearly.
General_Rennenkampf @ 103:
Where have you been? The "government" is nuts with guns turned loose to cause general mass mayhem and slaughter.
No evidence of people playing nice? Have you or any one close to you ever given to a charity? Was it due to "a central authority" or human nature? I think I already know the answer.
It appears that you're either a person who would want to cause mass mayhem and you're projecting or you believe a lot of lies.
Try thinking a little bit.
Ed @ 109:
God damn it you numbnuts! Answer the damn question! What the hell comes after smashing the State?
I have raised numerous past instances of anarchy in human history. Let's explain them for you, shall we?
Crisis of the Third Century in the Roman Empire: No central government. Barbarians roamed all over killing many people. No centralized authority damn near destroyed the empire, which only survived due to a man recovering it. Behavior in that scenario: bad.
Cultural Revolution: Mao turns his bullies loose, encouraging a brief period of anarchy. Result: Massacres of the intelligensia, and such crazy shit that Mao himself lost his job due to it spiralling into mass mayhem.
February Revolution: Russian Empire falls apart. Result: Slaughter unchecked.
October Revolution: Bolsheviki take over. More of same until 1922, when the USSR is formed.
Time of Troubles: No Russian Czar on the throne. Result: mass slaughter of Russians, both by other Russians and by other states.
Articles of Confederation: No central government in the U.S. Result: near-wars between various U.S. states and an almost-total collapse of the post-Revolutionary government.
Confederate States of America: After the war lasted a year or two, Richmond's government vanished. Result: Starvation, disease, unemployment, gangs running around killing people.
Post-1911-China: Warlords take over. Result: Obviously massive destruction and the emergence of Jiang Jieshi.
Post-476 Western Europe: Complete and utter ruin and the rise of the Catholic Church to take over what was left.
I've provided examples of what happens when central authority is removed. You have yet to provide a clear example of why what's happened oh, so many times before won't this time. Oh, wait, I forgot, this is America, due to our almighty liberal state we are immune to that.
/sarcasm.
And yes, for most of Western History, charities were governed by a central authority called a "Church." The history of stateless humanity is hell, excluding the African tribes around the center of Africa, and that was hardly anarchy, there was still a good degree of centralization.
Put up or shut up with what comes after state abolition, or I judge you a troll.
Annie @ 72:
Joining the armed forces might make you a fool. It doesn't mean you're stupid.
sulphurdunn @ 111:
This part of the thread is getting borderline offensive. Joining the armed forces doesn't make one a fool, and it certainly doesn't make one stupid. The military academies are still Ivy League difficult to join, and even for the enlisted men and women, how dare you criticize the (mostly lower to lower-middle class) young people who feel that the serving their country is the only way to get to college, the only way to get substantive health care or get a long term pension. The troops have terrible leadership, especially civillian, but they are not stupid or foolish for their decisions.
JohnCos @ 112:
So if someone finds that the only way out of poverty is to sell crack and murder people, that's OK? No, it's not. Joining the military is for idiots who find pleasure in murdering innocent people.
They aren't fighting for MY freedom and I DON'T support the troops. They should stand right alongside Bush et al on trial for murder.
General_Rennenkampf @ 110:
In every case that you mentioned there was a "government". It might not be what you consider to be "centralized", but there was a "government". Didn't you notice how many times that you used the word "state"?
When any "government" goes it is rarely pretty but there is a price to be paid for the stupidity of having a "government" in the first place. A small price compared to the price of the destruction of having a long term "government".
Chuck Hagel- Obama's Sec. Defense
christ this argument sure digressed, didn't it.
what opened as a discussion about how to best address the Iraqi peoples' needs and best honor the young people who volunteered to protect and serve our nation, devolved into a "fuck the troops" and "humanity doesn't really need government if you squint your eyes just right" conversations.
bravo, guys. ugh. this is why I fear we're going to lose the 2008 elections. stfu, extreme left wingers, so we can put this nation back on track, ok? quit trying to assert your asinine opinions as representative of the Democratic party, ok? stop giving Bill O'Reilly's lurkers more fodder, ok?
jesus, think before you post. Ed, I'm looking at you specifically. just because you're enlightened doesn't mean the mass of society is enlightened, nor does it mean they even WANT to be enlightened. this little problem is specifically why humanity, as a general rule, needs general rules. we need government, like little kids need a babysitter. even the smart, good kids who pretty much stay out of trouble.
Hagel is still whitewashing the Administration's war. Decode him, and he's mouthing the same platitudes about how withdrawal would make all those deaths meaningless. He's still in the good-blood-after-bad column, and still covering for the biggest waste of money in history.
Neither conservative nor compassionate, Hagel is just another neocon.
Ed @ 114:
Dammit, answer the fucking question! What. happens. after. the. State. is abolished? If you have no answer then you're a fluff anarchist!
burnt @ 116:
The people here, even Ed, are not extreme left-wingers. As far as I am aware there are no Stalinists, Maoists, or Leninists on this blog. There's a bunch of people who think they might fall into some of those categories, but none of the real deals.
General_Rennenkampf @ 118:
Relax. A free market will provide for each individual's needs.
This thread's about to end and I don't have time for a long explanation that you'll probably want to get into. This guy's pretty good if you really want to get into it further: www.freedomainradio.com
Ed @ 120:
So, you're not an anarchist, you're the type of right-libertarian who believes in Baconism. Got it.
Thanks.
Login or Register to post comments.