Senator Hagel has made it clear that he has not and is not calling for the impeachment of the President (see "This Week"), so why can't people mention "impeachment" and "President" without mentioning Hagel? As I mentioned, take a look at how he described it on "This Week"and try to argue with it.
The hope for 2008 is that the people will matter as much as the parties, if not more, as they should. At this point, the only person who can fulfill that hope is Chuck Hagel.
Showing posts with label Response to President Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Response to President Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Some Recent Articles
Here are a couple recent articles that would be good to check out:
1) No False Choices: Chuck Hagel's Foreign Policy Road Map
This one's a great article to read - so make sure you get through the whole thing.
2) Hagel visits North Platte
1) No False Choices: Chuck Hagel's Foreign Policy Road Map
This one's a great article to read - so make sure you get through the whole thing.
2) Hagel visits North Platte
3) War Critic Speaks from Heart of Bush CountryWhile U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel is still undecided on whether he wants to
run for president in 2008, he remains outspoken in his opposition to the current
administration’s policy on military involvement in Iraq.
“I’ve probably been more consistent and clear and predictable on the Iraq
war than any member of Congress in the last four years,” Hagel said during a
visit to North Platte on Friday.
KEARNEY, Neb. — Jeff Strong, a recently retired National Guardsman and
"rock-ribbed Republican," churned with conflicting emotions as he sat in an
auditorium at the University of Nebraska at Kearney, waiting for Sen. Chuck
Hagel.
Strong personifies the dilemma for many residents in this state, where
President Bush captured two-thirds of the vote in 2004. Strong is uncomfortable
with the role Hagel, the state's Republican senior senator, has taken in
criticizing Bush's war plans. "I just don't understand how his anti-war rhetoric
is helping to stabilize Iraq," said Strong, a postal worker.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq
The following is a press release from Senator Hagel's office:
Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq
February 1st, 2007 - Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding his support for the revised Warner Resolution: “After extensive hearings, negotiations, and debate, the Senate has taken an important step toward sending a clear bipartisan message against adding 21,500 new U.S. troops to Iraq. I have appreciated working with Senators Warner and Levin to meld our two different Congressional Resolutions into one bipartisan resolution. We approached Senator Warner several times to try and resolve the differences. Last night, we came together to produce this resolution. We have agreed to a responsible and constructive resolution that reflects America’s interests in Iraq and the Middle East. “Next week’s debate will be important to the American people and put the Senate on record as to America’s future course in Iraq. War is the most important and serious issue Congress and the American people will ever deal with.”
February 1st, 2007 - Hagel Cosponsors Bipartisan Resolution Putting Senate on Record Opposing Additional U.S. Troops to Iraq WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding his support for the revised Warner Resolution: “After extensive hearings, negotiations, and debate, the Senate has taken an important step toward sending a clear bipartisan message against adding 21,500 new U.S. troops to Iraq. I have appreciated working with Senators Warner and Levin to meld our two different Congressional Resolutions into one bipartisan resolution. We approached Senator Warner several times to try and resolve the differences. Last night, we came together to produce this resolution. We have agreed to a responsible and constructive resolution that reflects America’s interests in Iraq and the Middle East. “Next week’s debate will be important to the American people and put the Senate on record as to America’s future course in Iraq. War is the most important and serious issue Congress and the American people will ever deal with.”
Friday, January 26, 2007
Detroit Free Press Highlights Hagel's Recent Comments on Iraq
Senate panel strikes first blow to block Bush's Iraq plan
January 24, 2007
By JOHN YAUKEY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Democrats began what they promised would be a prolonged push to stop President George W. Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq today granting initial approval of a resolution condemning the move and potentially opening the door to debate on funding cuts for the war.
“This not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq,” said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, which adopted the resolution. "This is our first, most immediate and most practical way to affect the president."
The 12-9 committee vote, which fell mainly along party lines, came a day after Bush asked Americans in his State of the Union speech to give his Iraq plan time to work.
The nonbinding resolution said Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq mainly to quell the sectarian violence ripping apart Baghdad is ”not in the national interest.“
It was coauthored by Biden, fellow Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, and Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel.
The full Senate is expected to take up the measure as soon as next week, setting up a forum for what promises to be hours of impassioned debate on the war if today was an indication of how deeply concerned lawmakers are about events in Iraq.
”We’d better be damn sure we know what we’re doing — all of us — before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder,” said Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran. “I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.”
The resolution also sets up a framework for lawmakers to confront Bush on larger questions about the future of the war and his authority to wage it against growing pessimism among the public and Congress. Some of the leading Democrats on the committee made it clear they want to go beyond stopping the troop surge and start withdrawing U.S. troops.
“My intention from the outset was to send the first of many messages to the president,” Biden said.
Some Democrats on the panel called for tougher measures including caps on troops levels and funding cuts for the war, which lawmakers used to get American forces out of Vietnam.
“I fear this is slow walking,” said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who wants funding cuts. “This is not the time for legislative nuancing.”
Biden said a nonbinding resolution was the fastest way to get the debate over Bush’s war policy moving, and other measures can be added later. He said his committee would soon begin hearings on some of those tougher measures, which could force Bush’s hand, although he stopped short of endorsing any sort of funding cuts.
“We have a number of constitutionally legitimate alternatives,” he said.
Some Republicans, while uneasy with the resolution’s language, were also deeply bothered by the course of the war and what they saw as the president’s refusal to listen to Congress.
“They have got to understand how concerned we are about this,” said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.
Some Republicans back a resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that opposed the troop increase but with language less confrontational with the White House.
Senate takes only swipe it can on Iraq
January 25, 2007
So much for the time President George W. Bush requested in his State of the Union address. A day later, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution, cosponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, telling him not to send more troops to Iraq.
A public rebuke of a commander in chief's war strategy is rare and risky. But it's hard to argue with the sentiment, best articulated by cosponsor and Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
"This is a ping-pong game with American lives," said Hagel, the lone Republican joining Democrats in the 12-9 vote. "These young men and women that we put in Anbar Province, in Iraq, in Baghdad, are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."
The resolution is one of two, supported by at least eight Republicans, objecting to the troop increase. They reflect the will of the people expressed at the ballot box.
Presidents, of course, have to make the best strategic decisions they can, irrespective of the polls, but public sentiment, reinforced by Congress, has impact. "No president of the United States can sustain a foreign policy or a war policy without the sustained support of the American people," Hagel said.
The resolution will not cut off funding for the troops -- that would be foolhardy. Nor is it a cut-and-run strategy, rather a call for phased withdrawal and a political solution. Perhaps there should have been a better way to reach the president, but so far he has been unswayed by voters, senators' calls and letters and visits, and the Iraq Study Group.
"We can't be silent on an issue like this," Levin, D-Detroit, told the Free Press. "Troops want us to be expressing the truth. We owe them that -- we owe our troops everything. We owe them equipment; we owe them support for their families. We also owe them the best accounting of what we think the facts are."
The fact is people fear sending their soldiers into what increasingly looks like a no-win proposition. The question is not whether Bush gets more time, but whether there's still time to change his mind.
January 24, 2007
By JOHN YAUKEY
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Democrats began what they promised would be a prolonged push to stop President George W. Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq today granting initial approval of a resolution condemning the move and potentially opening the door to debate on funding cuts for the war.
“This not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq,” said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, which adopted the resolution. "This is our first, most immediate and most practical way to affect the president."
The 12-9 committee vote, which fell mainly along party lines, came a day after Bush asked Americans in his State of the Union speech to give his Iraq plan time to work.
The nonbinding resolution said Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq mainly to quell the sectarian violence ripping apart Baghdad is ”not in the national interest.“
It was coauthored by Biden, fellow Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, and Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel.
The full Senate is expected to take up the measure as soon as next week, setting up a forum for what promises to be hours of impassioned debate on the war if today was an indication of how deeply concerned lawmakers are about events in Iraq.
”We’d better be damn sure we know what we’re doing — all of us — before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder,” said Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran. “I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.”
The resolution also sets up a framework for lawmakers to confront Bush on larger questions about the future of the war and his authority to wage it against growing pessimism among the public and Congress. Some of the leading Democrats on the committee made it clear they want to go beyond stopping the troop surge and start withdrawing U.S. troops.
“My intention from the outset was to send the first of many messages to the president,” Biden said.
Some Democrats on the panel called for tougher measures including caps on troops levels and funding cuts for the war, which lawmakers used to get American forces out of Vietnam.
“I fear this is slow walking,” said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who wants funding cuts. “This is not the time for legislative nuancing.”
Biden said a nonbinding resolution was the fastest way to get the debate over Bush’s war policy moving, and other measures can be added later. He said his committee would soon begin hearings on some of those tougher measures, which could force Bush’s hand, although he stopped short of endorsing any sort of funding cuts.
“We have a number of constitutionally legitimate alternatives,” he said.
Some Republicans, while uneasy with the resolution’s language, were also deeply bothered by the course of the war and what they saw as the president’s refusal to listen to Congress.
“They have got to understand how concerned we are about this,” said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.
Some Republicans back a resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that opposed the troop increase but with language less confrontational with the White House.
Senate takes only swipe it can on Iraq
January 25, 2007
So much for the time President George W. Bush requested in his State of the Union address. A day later, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution, cosponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, telling him not to send more troops to Iraq.
A public rebuke of a commander in chief's war strategy is rare and risky. But it's hard to argue with the sentiment, best articulated by cosponsor and Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
"This is a ping-pong game with American lives," said Hagel, the lone Republican joining Democrats in the 12-9 vote. "These young men and women that we put in Anbar Province, in Iraq, in Baghdad, are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."
The resolution is one of two, supported by at least eight Republicans, objecting to the troop increase. They reflect the will of the people expressed at the ballot box.
Presidents, of course, have to make the best strategic decisions they can, irrespective of the polls, but public sentiment, reinforced by Congress, has impact. "No president of the United States can sustain a foreign policy or a war policy without the sustained support of the American people," Hagel said.
The resolution will not cut off funding for the troops -- that would be foolhardy. Nor is it a cut-and-run strategy, rather a call for phased withdrawal and a political solution. Perhaps there should have been a better way to reach the president, but so far he has been unswayed by voters, senators' calls and letters and visits, and the Iraq Study Group.
"We can't be silent on an issue like this," Levin, D-Detroit, told the Free Press. "Troops want us to be expressing the truth. We owe them that -- we owe our troops everything. We owe them equipment; we owe them support for their families. We also owe them the best accounting of what we think the facts are."
The fact is people fear sending their soldiers into what increasingly looks like a no-win proposition. The question is not whether Bush gets more time, but whether there's still time to change his mind.
Washington Post Discusses Hagel's Criticsm of the War and His Possible Run for President
Check out this article by the Washington Post: Hagel Ponders White House Run As War Criticism Raises His Profile
"He's Got Guts"
PEGGY NOONAN
He's Got Guts
In praise of Chuck Hagel.
Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
We all complain, and with justice, about the falseness of much that is said in Washington, and the cowardice that leaves a great deal unsaid. But I found myself impressed and grateful for the words of Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska, in a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. Because his message was not one Republicans or Democrats would find congenial, it may be accidentally dropped down the memory hole, so I'll quote at some length.
The committee was nearing a vote on what was, essentially, an announcement of no confidence in the administration's leadership in Iraq. Specifically it was a nonbinding resolution opposing the increase in troops the president has requested. This was not significant in a concrete way: The president has the power to send more troops, and they are already arriving. But as symbols go, it packed a punch. You couldn't watch it on television or on the Internet and not see that Mr. Hagel was letting it rip. He did not speak from notes or a text but while looking at his fellow senators. There seemed no time lag between thought and word. He was barreling, he was giving it to you straight, and he'd pick up the pieces later.
This is what he said: Congress has duties; in the case of the war, meeting those duties was not convenient; Congress did not meet them.
And so: "The Congress has stood in the shadow of this issue, Iraq, for four years. As [John] Warner noted . . . we have a constitutional responsibility as well as a moral responsibility to this country, to the young men and women we ask to go fight and die and their families. . . . This is not a defeatist resolution, this is not a cut-and-run resolution, we're not talking about cutting off funds, not supporting the troops. This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam.
"Sure it's tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.
"This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves . . . than what we're asking our young men and women to do? I don't think so."
Later: "I don't question the president's sincerity, his motivations in this. I never have. . . . Part of the problem that we have, I think, is because we didn't--we didn't involve the Congress in this when we should have. And I'm to blame. Every senator who's been here the last four years has to take some responsibility for that.
"But I will not sit here in this Congress of the United States at this important time for our country and in the world and not have something to say about this. . . . I don't ever want to look back and have the regret that I didn't have the courage and I didn't do what I could. . . .
"I would go back to where I began, and pick up on a point that Chairman [Richard] Lugar mentioned: coherence of strategy. I don't know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan. I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even Team B'd this plan. . . . And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators, to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide anymore; none of us.
"That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this . . . we are not worthy of our country."
Whenever the camera shot broadened to show the other senators, I wondered what they were thinking. For a few it might have been, Well done, Chuck. For others, Hey, righteous indignation is my act. And some would have been thinking, That's good, ol' buddy, and no matter how long I have to wait, I'll get you for putting me on the spot, for making us look bad, for getting on your high horse and charging.
Mr. Hagel has shown courage for a long time. He voted for the war resolution in 2002 but soon after began to question how it was being waged. This was before everyone did. He also stood against the war when that was a lonely place to be. Senate Democrats sat back and watched: If the war worked, they'd change the subject; and if it didn't, they'd hang it on President Bush. Republicans did their version of inaction; they supported the president until he was unpopular, and then peeled off. This is almost not to be criticized. It's what politicians do. But it's not what Mr. Hagel did. He had guts.
A note too on John Kerry, who, on the floor of the Senate, also talked about Iraq this week, and said he would not run for president. Clearly he saw the lipstick writing on the wall: This is the year of the woman. He also might have been acting on the sense that this is a time of ongoing and incipient political flux. The major parties seem as played out as they are ruthless, and the arc of political fame is truncated: nobodies become somebodies become has-beens before half the country knows their name. The Democrats have no idea what they stand for, the Republicans only remember what they stood for.
But there was Mr. Kerry, liberated by the death of a dream and for once quite human as he tried to tell it the way he actually saw it. Took the mock right out of me. Good for him, and for Mr. Hagel. I wonder if we are seeing the start of a new seriousness.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Hagel's comments at a Senate Foreign Relations Committe Hearing.
The following is an excerpt from a USA Today online story:
Hagel to colleagues: 'Go sell shoes' if you want an easy job
Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has issued an emotional appeal to his colleagues this morning to challenge President Bush and the administration over plans to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely reports from Capitol Hill.
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on a non-binding resolution that opposes Bush's plan, Hagel said:
• "We owe it to those men and women we continue to send into that grinder."
• "I think all 100 senators should be on the line on this. ... If you want a safe job, go sell shoes."
• "If we don't debate this, we're not worthy of our country."
The panel's chairman, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the measure is "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."
Hagel to colleagues: 'Go sell shoes' if you want an easy job
Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has issued an emotional appeal to his colleagues this morning to challenge President Bush and the administration over plans to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely reports from Capitol Hill.
At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on a non-binding resolution that opposes Bush's plan, Hagel said:
• "We owe it to those men and women we continue to send into that grinder."
• "I think all 100 senators should be on the line on this. ... If you want a safe job, go sell shoes."
• "If we don't debate this, we're not worthy of our country."
The panel's chairman, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the measure is "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."
Hagel's Response to the President's State of the Union Address
January 23rd, 2007 - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released this statement tonight following President Bush’s State of the Union address:
“I appreciate what the President said tonight about dramatically increasing renewable fuel standards, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, addressing the challenge of climate change, reforming our entitlement programs and fixing our broken immigration system. These are all issues of critical importance to Nebraska. I look forward to continuing to work with the President on these issues.”
USA Today: A First Step in Iraq
The following was published in USA Today this morning:
A First Step in Iraq
Today, Congress takes an important step in what we believe is our constitutional responsibility to actively engage and debate the war in Iraq. We agree with the president that our previous strategy in Iraq was failing. Equally, we are convinced that to succeed in Iraq, America's objective and strategy must enjoy the support of the American people and a bipartisan support in Congress.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on a resolution we introduced with our colleagues Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, believe: America should not deepen its military involvement in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war. More troops in Baghdad will increase the likelihood of more American casualties and will not end the sectarian Iraqi massacres that are occurring every day.
Just as important, our resolution proposes an alternative. The primary objective of America's strategy should be to help Iraqis achieve a political settlement in Iraq, secure support for that settlement from Iraq's neighbors and refocus the mission of our remaining troops on achievable objectives. That is the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Here are the main elements of our plan:
•Redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq's cities with a more limited mission focused on defending Iraq's territorial integrity, counterterrorism, border control, and accelerated training of Iraqi forces;
•Transfer responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence to Iraqi forces under an appropriately expedited timeline;
•Continue to support Iraq's political process while making it clear that Iraqi leaders must make the political compromises necessary to help Iraq move forward;
•Engage Iraq's neighbors and the international community to build a regional framework to help support and sustain a political solution and national reconciliation.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presented the president's plan to the Foreign Relations Committee. The reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.
A strong majority of the American people opposes sending more American troops into Iraq. So does a broad cross section of this country's leaders, military and civilian, as we have heard this month in hearings in Congress. In December, the Baker-Hamilton Commission issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy "to enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly" based on "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region."
Our fundamental objective is to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to support a U.S. policy on Iraq that stands the best chance of succeeding and bringing our men and women in uniform home.
We welcome debate of our resolution and proposed alternatives. The resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., contributes to this debate. As we have made clear publicly and privately, we are prepared to adjust our resolution to help broaden bipartisan support. Ultimately, this debate will give every senator a chance to say where he or she stands.
We believe that the single most effective way for Congress to engage the president in developing a way forward in Iraq is to demonstrate the depth and breadth of bipartisan concern regarding his policy. The power of our resolution rests in its bipartisan foundation.
Iraq is not a partisan issue. It is a challenge that we must meet as Americans. No one in Congress and no one in America wants to see America defeated. We believe our nation is stronger when Congress fulfills its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., is a member of the committee.
A First Step in Iraq
Today, Congress takes an important step in what we believe is our constitutional responsibility to actively engage and debate the war in Iraq. We agree with the president that our previous strategy in Iraq was failing. Equally, we are convinced that to succeed in Iraq, America's objective and strategy must enjoy the support of the American people and a bipartisan support in Congress.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on a resolution we introduced with our colleagues Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, believe: America should not deepen its military involvement in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war. More troops in Baghdad will increase the likelihood of more American casualties and will not end the sectarian Iraqi massacres that are occurring every day.
Just as important, our resolution proposes an alternative. The primary objective of America's strategy should be to help Iraqis achieve a political settlement in Iraq, secure support for that settlement from Iraq's neighbors and refocus the mission of our remaining troops on achievable objectives. That is the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.
Here are the main elements of our plan:
•Redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq's cities with a more limited mission focused on defending Iraq's territorial integrity, counterterrorism, border control, and accelerated training of Iraqi forces;
•Transfer responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence to Iraqi forces under an appropriately expedited timeline;
•Continue to support Iraq's political process while making it clear that Iraqi leaders must make the political compromises necessary to help Iraq move forward;
•Engage Iraq's neighbors and the international community to build a regional framework to help support and sustain a political solution and national reconciliation.
Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presented the president's plan to the Foreign Relations Committee. The reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.
A strong majority of the American people opposes sending more American troops into Iraq. So does a broad cross section of this country's leaders, military and civilian, as we have heard this month in hearings in Congress. In December, the Baker-Hamilton Commission issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy "to enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly" based on "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region."
Our fundamental objective is to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to support a U.S. policy on Iraq that stands the best chance of succeeding and bringing our men and women in uniform home.
We welcome debate of our resolution and proposed alternatives. The resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., contributes to this debate. As we have made clear publicly and privately, we are prepared to adjust our resolution to help broaden bipartisan support. Ultimately, this debate will give every senator a chance to say where he or she stands.
We believe that the single most effective way for Congress to engage the president in developing a way forward in Iraq is to demonstrate the depth and breadth of bipartisan concern regarding his policy. The power of our resolution rests in its bipartisan foundation.
Iraq is not a partisan issue. It is a challenge that we must meet as Americans. No one in Congress and no one in America wants to see America defeated. We believe our nation is stronger when Congress fulfills its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government.
Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., is a member of the committee.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Hagel Statement on President Bush’s Plan to Increase U.S. Troops in Iraq
Senator Chuck Hagel , a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, released the following statement January 11th regarding President Bush’s address to the nation on a new way forward in Iraq:
“I am opposed to the escalation of American involvement in Iraq, including more U.S. troops. This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. It is wrong to place American troops into the middle of Iraq’s civil war. It is not in America’s national interest to increase our troop presence in Iraq. The President’s strategy will cost more American lives; sink us deeper into the bog of Iraq making it more difficult to get out; cost billions of dollars more; further strain an American military that has already reached its breaking point; further diminish America’s standing in the Middle East; and continue to allow the Iraqis to walk away from their responsibilities. The fate of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis—not the Americans. We have already given four years, thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Iraq.
“We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq. The Iraqis are the only ones who can stop the sectarian and inter-sectarian violence that is now consuming their country. Iraqi leaders must understand the stark choice that they face between widening anarchy and violence and a concerted Iraqi effort toward political reconciliation. We cannot want success for Iraq more than they want it for themselves. More American troops, treasure and casualties will not change this reality. It will make it worse. General Abizaid testified to this point in November before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Instead of increasing our troop presence in Iraq, we should be focused on helping the Iraqis find a political solution and creating a policy that allows us to leave Iraq honorably, has the sustained support of the American people and does not further destabilize the Middle East. This will require redefining our mission and our involvement in Iraq. A new American strategy for Iraq should include:
• moving our troops out of the cities to Iraq’s border areas, allowing us to help secure the territorial integrity of Iraq which will be seriously threatened and is critical for the future of Iraq;
• begin turning over internal security of Iraq to the Iraqis;
• engaging all nations in the Middle East to develop a regional internationally sponsored peace process;
• accelerating training of Iraqi troops.
“We are all trying to find a workable strategy and policy to address the disaster in Iraq. This should not be a partisan political issue. Congress will now begin the serious work of examining the President’s plan through oversight hearings and debate. Ultimately, the Congress will have to make tough decisions about the President’s plan. However, it is the Iraqis who must reach a political accommodation and find a political resolution. It may take years, but it is not the responsibility of the U.S.”
“I am opposed to the escalation of American involvement in Iraq, including more U.S. troops. This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. It is wrong to place American troops into the middle of Iraq’s civil war. It is not in America’s national interest to increase our troop presence in Iraq. The President’s strategy will cost more American lives; sink us deeper into the bog of Iraq making it more difficult to get out; cost billions of dollars more; further strain an American military that has already reached its breaking point; further diminish America’s standing in the Middle East; and continue to allow the Iraqis to walk away from their responsibilities. The fate of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis—not the Americans. We have already given four years, thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Iraq.
“We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq. The Iraqis are the only ones who can stop the sectarian and inter-sectarian violence that is now consuming their country. Iraqi leaders must understand the stark choice that they face between widening anarchy and violence and a concerted Iraqi effort toward political reconciliation. We cannot want success for Iraq more than they want it for themselves. More American troops, treasure and casualties will not change this reality. It will make it worse. General Abizaid testified to this point in November before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
“Instead of increasing our troop presence in Iraq, we should be focused on helping the Iraqis find a political solution and creating a policy that allows us to leave Iraq honorably, has the sustained support of the American people and does not further destabilize the Middle East. This will require redefining our mission and our involvement in Iraq. A new American strategy for Iraq should include:
• moving our troops out of the cities to Iraq’s border areas, allowing us to help secure the territorial integrity of Iraq which will be seriously threatened and is critical for the future of Iraq;
• begin turning over internal security of Iraq to the Iraqis;
• engaging all nations in the Middle East to develop a regional internationally sponsored peace process;
• accelerating training of Iraqi troops.
“We are all trying to find a workable strategy and policy to address the disaster in Iraq. This should not be a partisan political issue. Congress will now begin the serious work of examining the President’s plan through oversight hearings and debate. Ultimately, the Congress will have to make tough decisions about the President’s plan. However, it is the Iraqis who must reach a political accommodation and find a political resolution. It may take years, but it is not the responsibility of the U.S.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
