How long til Rove sicks the attack dogs on Hagel

The Coffee Shop
1

The Bushies did it to McCain and Kerry – that is, to any critic who has greater military service than their own – so it stands to reason that Senator Hagel is next … or at least once they’re done with Sheehan.

Hagel says Iraq war looking more like Vietnam

WASHINGTON (AP) — A leading Republican senator said Sunday the war in Iraq is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reaffirmed his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

“Stay the course is not a policy,” said Hagel, a possible White House contender in 2008. “By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq … we’re not winning.”

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., another possible candidate for the GOP nomination for president in 2008, said the formation of a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

Political leaders in Baghdad were working to complete the draft of the new constitution in time for the Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval.

“The terrorists don’t have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt,” said Allen, who appeared with Hagel on ABC’s This Week.

Hagel said more U.S. troops is not the solution.

“We’re past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam,” Hagel said. “The longer we stay, the more problems we’re going to have.”

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese that the U.S. fought, the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

“What I think the White House does not yet understand — and some of my colleagues — the dam has broke on this policy,” Hagel said. “The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together.”

2

Unless youv’e served there, you haven’t a clue.

3

Can you clue us in, then?

4

I guess by your own definition neither Bush nor Cheney has a clue, right? And judging by how well this war is going, I’d have to agree with you.

5

I think the word he’s looking for is touche!

6

Hagel has made his bones as one of the few moderate Republicans left, so this is not surprising. However, I think a lot of Republicans are reevaluating their commitment to this war because of Bush’s basement-level approval levels, which given midterm elections, is a bit worrisome.

But at least Hagel has been consistent in his public concern. We’ll see if there’s payback if in Hagel’s next election Rove gets another Repub to run against him in some bruising primary campaign.

7

maybe this is for another thread, but do you think the Republican candidate in '08 will be a GWB, “stay the course” type? I’m guessing all Republicans primary candidates will back away from that rhetoric (with the exception of Cheney if he runs)

8

Unless youv’e served there, you haven’t a clue.

definitely the dumbest statement I’ve seen in the Lav Room to date
.

9

but do you think the Republican candidate in '08 will be a GWB, “stay the course” type?

Don’t know. What’s Hilary’s position on it?

10

I think it depends obviously on how Iraq goes. It doesn’t seem likely that it well go well (although I think the rhetorical trick here will be “wait and see” by the Republicans, even if it takes 50 years, they will wait to declare victory), and it seems that some form of civil war is likely.

With Bush’s 36% approval rating almost exclusively based on Iraq, I think the next candidate will have to tack very carefully between declaring an indefinite future there, and suggesting we get out because the policy has failed and was ill-conceived in the first place. My fear is that the next candidate will declare an unearned victory, pull out, and then when things fall apart, declare that any failure is now the Iraqis fault, and that the US had done its righteous duty and is gone. It would seem like a ridiculous stance today, but I wouldn’t be all that surprised.

I think the likely Republican candidate will be somebody at least cosmetically moderate, who will declare that Iraq was a necessary adventure (saying otherwise would make basically repudiate the entire Republican party) but that while mistakes were made, the motives were pure. He will likely skirt the whole issue of administrative competence and the fact that almost every negative prediction has come true largely because of ideological-driven blindness and/or bureaucratic/political considerations which prevented them from being forthright about potential problems.

I think that Frist, Santorum, Ashcroft, and some of the other wacky right candidates must be absolutely tone-deaf to think they have a chance. But they will certainly make things interesting to watch. It’s probably, at this point, come down to McCain, Jeb Bush (yikes), Pataki (no chance really), or somebody who’s staked out a moderate position. The trick will be to see who can both appear moderate to the general populace but still appeal to the influential and campaign donating/volunteer mobilizing far right segments.

11

Right now the talk gives the line up for the Dems as a Clinton/Warner ticket.

Believe it or not an insiders poll gives Sen. Allen the leader on the Republican ticket. While I’d love to see McCain he’s just too old and will be ripped by the machine of politics.

12

but do you think the Republican candidate in '08 will be a GWB, “stay the course” type?

Don’t know. What’s Hilary’s position on it?
Where have you been man?

13

for the Dems, I think all the primary candidates (including H) and the eventual nominee will pretty clearly state that they will get us out of Iraq as soon as they get into office.

I’m just wondering if the Repub candidate will undercut that stance by saying he/she will do the same, or if there will be a Repub candidate that states that “we must stay in until we win”.

Now that I told you what H will do, what do you think Frist will do?

14

Where have you been man?

Back in Jersey. Saw the families, caught a Phillies game, played grommet at LBI, was shocked by the corruption of Eastern politics, etc etc. Miss me?

15

Miss me?

But of course…

16

I think all the primary candidates (including H) and the eventual nominee will pretty clearly state that they will get us out of Iraq as soon as they get into office.

I’m not at all sure of that. To be honest, I think we’re going to be faced with exactly the same situation we had last election- no real difference between the candidates on Iraq. I seriously doubt that Hilary will promise to get us out soon after taking office, and I doubt even more strongly that she’d actually do it.

what do you think Frist will do?

Don’t care, really. I don’t think he’s ever had any chance of being nominated.

17

get McCain/Powell on a ticket, and that might be a sweep. I wonder if the Swifties would dare come out against them?

I also wonder if Jeb would use Rove as his advisor? If not, he’ll be doing some interesting dancing to put down his brother’s war, w/o putting down his brother.

break out the popcorn…

18

Rove is damaged good. I don’t see him being used for 08.

The republicans were up against the ropes in 04 and could have easily lost the election had the dems put up 1/2 a candidate. There is no way the repubs can win again in 08’ on the same agenda. A more moderate republican is needed and as mentioned mcCain/powell would be a very heavy ticket. I only wish it would happen.

20

I seem to recall McCain giving Bush a very strong, but completely disingenuous, endorsement during the last election. So much for him being a straight shooter. He knows how to be a yes man when he needs to be.

Separately, the funny thing is that, even being a liberal who opposes the Iraq war (mainly because all the premises for the war turned out to be b.s.), I would hate to see our next president simply cut and run. We’re there, we’ve created the mess, and we can’t simply leave it because it’s the popular thing to do. It would be a strategically destructive decision – talk about proving that we’re a paper tiger. And it would be unethical, not that I think that the average American gives a damn about the ethical impact of our policies.

Powell told Bush early on about the Pottery Barn rule – you break it, you own it – and now that we’ve broken Iraq, we have to own the mess for a while. It won’t be fun, but, if there’s a silver lining, it’s that the public will perhaps scrutinize the president a bit more when he tells us we need to go to war. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

21

Can you explain to me why so few liberals think as you do? Your logic is hard to argue with, yet most liberals do.