Chuck Hagel to McCain: Surge This

(Hagel). Bitter old fool (McCain).

And McCain's manner of addressing him is entirely out of line.

It is sort of amusing watching two Republicans who both voted us into the Iraq War in service to their leader GWMD Bush pretend they are on opposite sides on Iraq.

. . . to that point where some were misled by his lies. There isn't anything productive at all, outside of some political bludgeon, in shoving whatever opposition these folks (Hagel, Kerry) offer now (or offered after Bush invaded) behind that one criticism. It's a curious strategy that seeks to mute that opposition by pointing to that vote. To me, it only serves to distract and detract from whatever opposition is offered.

As much as I understand and appreciate the initial opposition to that resolution, I don't think it would have restrained Bush at all from deploying troops to Iraq. He only sought it as an afterthought and anyone who believes he was going to be bound by it need only look at how he completely ignored Congress' intent that he return to the UN security council; withdrew inspectors; and invaded.

Bush knew well that a frequently used loophole in the War Powers Act would allow him to deploy as many troops to Iraq as he wanted; only needing to inform Congress and seek their funding a number of days later. At that point, everyone can see well that Congress would have been loath to pull funding and hamper the troops in the field. That's the rub of Congress' refusal to hold the President to a more restrictive reading of the Act. That resolution was no more approving of the invasion than the money that was later appropriated. That's where the occupation was ultimately approved and perpetuated. The IWR was no more consequential than a political document, imo.

So, focusing on those votes serves little more than a political narrative. More important (especially today, right now) is the post-Iraq philosophy that these principals are indicating they will use to guide them in office. To the extent that they are dwelling on that vote, it's clear that it's used as a lesson-learned, rather than some sort of affirmation. You can certainly form your doubts on their future conduct, but it's a mistake, I think, to let that obscure whatever correct and appropriate policy and position these principles offer today.

McCain, as is the case with most small people with such a childish mentality, is incapable of carrying 2 opinions at the same time.... he is ignorant of the concept nuance. And in this case even if he did understand nuance, his single entire intent was payback for his bitterness,his failure, for Hagel voting for Obama, for Hagel getting the job.. and everything else that has gone wrong in his life.

Hagel, as the adult in the room, understands McCain's little bully boy attitude and also, I believe, saw the writing on the wall concerning Iraq. I would guess of those who voted FOR the war-- some really thought it was right (OMG) and some voted yes for,, who knows how many reasons?? Hagel's reasons? I can not say.

What a classless asshole.

SENILE , HATEFUL , RAGING DIAPPOINTED OLD MAN !

I'm looking forward to Hagel's confirmation,

I have no doubts that there is some underlying racism in that old fart's thinking.

He seems to be doing just fine. He's well spoken, confident and authentic.

Bitter is as bitter does.

was bullying Hagel and that it was purely personal. McCain's long-time buddy went against him regarding the surge, so McCain, more than anything, had a grudge and wanted to prove just how RIGHT he was. Like, neener-neener, I was right and YOU were wrong! Now I want to see you admit it in front of everyone because you hurt my feewings! McCain is a senile old fool.

They did the same with Kerry and Clinton.

McCain is trying to bait him into a catch-22. if Hagel had answered no, then they would have pounced on him for making the wrong decision. If he had answered yes, then they would have pounced on him for thinking he made the right decision when they think it's the wrong one and they have made up evidence "proving" otherwise.

Or maybe McCain is too senile to understand answers more complicated than "Yes," "No," or "French Toast, Please"

What a nasty piece of work McCain is!

And good on Chuck Hagel for standing up to him and for his statements that the Iraq war was a mistake.

I'd rather have a Dem as SecDef, but after this, I won't be too upset if Hagel ends up running the Pentagon.

Yep. New day same story.

Obama has appointed Republicans, banksters, Bush leftovers, and even his rival for the Presidency.
The only group that Obama does not care about offending - is his own base.
But McCain does not seem to have ever been asked.
Maybe he thinks he should be getting that job?

And I suspect those claiming offense, were never "his base" to begin with. Like I said, you'd make a great Senator, if rhetoric & hyperbole were all that mattered.

I voted for him. Both elections. I sincerely want a Democrat in the White House, not a Republican.
Which I thought was the premise of this site, really.
Anyway, I guess, come to think of it, I am not his base if blind loyalty is the criteria - I am one of those retarded liberals that his appointee Emanuel sneered at.
So - part of his base would be more correct.
In any event, the point of my post was a possible reason for McCain to be so very bitter, not to declare fealty or base membership or whatever.

folks would love to keep the memes, contained in your post going, but this president has 92% approval from "his base". The other 8% don't even matter at this point, and much like the Tea Party, have become increasingly irrelevant. As far as being "retarded", only you know that, but it's not a term that I would use, even in jest.

and have confused their minority opinion with a majority one. Thanks for keeping things real.

And thanks for saying some of us don't matter. Good to know!

"retarded". It'd be great to know where I "stuck up" for Rahm, although I will, if need be. I think I'm pretty clear where you're coming from. Enjoy your irrelevance.

Rahm called progressives "fucking retarded". Is he the "newbie" to whom you refer? Thought not.

Maybe you should learn what you are talking about before shooting off your mouth.

Mtay? Buh bye.

Sure you're in the right place?

Enjoy your ignorance.

It's true that DU has gone through some realignment, in recent years, but considering I've been around these parts for nine (9) years, and you've been here since JULY , perhaps I should ask if you're "in the right place".

Seriously, is that the best you've got?


And I'm betting myself a salmon dinner that you can't STAND letting anyone else have the last word.

JULY!!!!!

Nevermind, I already know more than enough about you.

Don't waste your time with this one, unless you're into nonstop conserva"dem" politics.

as did the fact that he's a real Democrat, unlike many others.

Thank you.

and I consider myself open-minded to alternative arguments on any issue.

I agree with the conventional wisdom that McCain is full of hate and
contempt for Obama since losing to him in 2008. Resentment seems to
pour out of him, as if he was a big sack of poison (credit to HST)
It's all personal, petty vindictiveness with him. Now he's pouring that
same poison onto Hagel -- because Hagel is now Obama's proxy.

If McCain had been offered an appointment position, it would have been tossed
right back in Obama's face -- just like Judd Gregg did (or was that Gregg Judd???)

In defense of Obama, though: what did John McCain ever DO to
deserve an offer, or any gesture of kindness, from Obama ? He has been
a mean-spirited shithead since day 1 after the election in 2008.
With that nasty personality, where would McCain serve any use ?
Is there any historical precedent of the losing candidate being given an
appointment by the winning presidential candidate ?

I am not saying Obama should have made even a token, not to be taken seriously, offer to McCain. Yes, an offer would most certainly been thrown back contemptuously, and referred to sneeringly. To have McCain in an Obama administration would certainly mean that McCain would spend most of his time undermining. In my opinion. To offer McCain a position would have been nuts.
To me, it seems that McCain is entrenched in such a reeking old boy and entitled Congressional culture that I wondered if he doesn't think an offer is his due - Obama has tapped Republicans, his former rival for the nomination, and Bush people - perhaps a token offer was McCain's expectation. Perhaps McCain is furious that his "career" is not going to ascend any higher at all. Done. Finished. A joke because of Palin - and I get the impression that even the Palin fans thought McCain was just a way to get Palin into the White House. I never got the impression that Palin's base saw her as reporting to McCain, if that makes any sense.

he'd throw it back in contempt, but he still feels
like he's entitled to be "offered" something. HA!!

Obama is equally entitled to give him "the finger"!

Obama whom is supported by Millions. Millions who do trust his choices.

I'm really tired of listening to our so-called leaders reducing complex questions to a simple yes or no. I give kudos to Hegel for drwing the line on that.

The surge was not going well until al Sadr decided to unilaterally stand down his forces. Once al Sadr stood down his forces the surge was no longer needed, if it ever was. Only al Sadr can answer the question as to why he decided to stand down his forces. Was it a strategic decision that the best way to get the Americans to leave was to stand down or a tactical decision that his forces were getting ripped up by the surge. Indeed, did Iran call this shot because they so wanted American ground troops out of the region. Since we don't know the answer to these questions we cannot answer yes or no to McCain's question and surely even he knows that. Hagel also had valid points about how the surge detracted from our efforts in Afghanistan and the cost in blood and treasure for the surge were very significant.

. . . how al Sadr was in Iran at the time. I've always attributed that ceasefire to something Iran negotiated; not something along the line of what the Pentagon and intelligence claimed (that Iran was engineering attacks), but that Iran had begun to forge the ties that eventually developed into the security and economic agreements they employ today. I've always seen Iran as a more moderating influence in Iraq for the Malaki regime than we've been told; despite their warring past.

It should also be remembered that it was Sadr and his followers who joined with Shiite leader Sistani and enabled the new regime, headed by Shiite and Sadr ally, Maliki, to assume power.

I think your second point is right on. Hagel's narrative indicates that he understands the counterproductive and limited effect of military force when trying to effect political aims. The hope is that he and the CiC are going to apply that logic and understanding to the present aggression in Afghanistan.

Very astute, DallasNE. I've learned something new.

I remember the flip-flop back and forth over whether or not we could shoot Sadr and his militia people or not. For a while he was an enemy of Iraq then he was a legitimate official then an enemy again then legitimate again.

I remember the first time I saw a group of guys in his militia. I saw these guys all dressed in black with green belts and/or headbands waiving this green flag and I thought it was worth taking a picture of.



Later that evening, when I was back from my patrol, I sat in our daily Company briefing and I was instructed to shoot-to-kill these people if I ever saw them again. Apparently they were some members of the Sadr Militia and were fair-game at the time (spring 2004).

we paid to the insurgents (former Saddam Husein loyalists) to buy them off so we could get out without being slaughtered.

. . . and the effect of a former republican senator lecturing his own party is palpable. It should be enough that he's offering that opposition. It isn't as if republicans are giving him any points for his Iraq resolution vote.

would love to claim credit for a "surge" which should have never been needed in the first place.

he's a sick fool.

makes my blood boil.

I was watching Andrea Mitchell just a little bit ago and she was describing how McCain's extensive expertise in these areas gives other Republicans cover to vote NO.

"Extensive Expertise??!!??" She's insane.

. . . as far as their discredited and derelict foreign policy views go. They have an extensive anti-Obama policy platform that encompasses their every initiative and pronouncement concerning foreign affairs.

Graham is a complete fraud.

or any other "news" shows.. They are 99% ignorant, bought off script-reading entertainers with no talent for entertaining..

If you are looking for news from reliable sources then you need to tune in to Andrea Mitchell.

on a complex topic. I would be tempted to have said "No.... I will not answer your yes or no question in the manner in which you want me to. Next question?"

had you been so aggressive in questioning Mrs Palin, you might be the president now.

A suitable coup-de-grace for an otherwise lackluster campaign.

... just blows my mind. Truly through the looking glass, those fucknutz.

Hagel should have told the crazy coot from AZ as much.

of fashions"

After this, I realized I had no idea whether the surge was a great idea or whether it was too much money and too many lives lost for no gain.

appeared to work, but what really made the difference was a combination of things that could have been accomplished without the surge.

snip

Overall violence in Iraq declined steeply in 2008. But Thiel attributes this to other factors besides the arrival of U.S. combat reinforcements. These factors include the Sunni Awakening against al Qaeda in Anbar province, the completion by 2008 of sectarian ethnic cleansing in the Baghdad area, the erection of security barriers between neighborhoods in Baghdad, a unilateral cease-fire by some Shiite militias, the increased dispersion of joint U.S. and Iraqi combat outposts in Iraq's cities, and perhaps most important, the maturation of Iraq's security forces. These factors could all have occurred without the arrival of additional U.S. forces.


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/15/this_week_at_war_what_if_the_surge_didn_t_work

above..but he (I assume it is accurate) said it would be the worst foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war. So, I suppose he should have just said, I was wrong, it wasn't a blunder, but whether is worked or not is debatable (because of the factors you quote) ? What do you think?

decided not to get into a pissing contest with an embittered old man. I think the WH advised him to be as bland as possible and not make it more difficult for Dems to support him. Hagel was right, Mccain was wrong...just like he's been wrong about so many things...In fact, about the only thing he get's right is his stance against torture. Hagel's real opposition is coming from the MIC, who see their influence waning under this administration particularly with Kerry and Hagel in the cabinet

I would strongly recommend you read this article, to get an idea of just how much trouble we are in and how long it's been going on.

http://archive.truthout.org/article/henry-a-wallace-the-danger-american-fascism

"the worst foreign policy blunder" since Vietnam was in reference to the Iraq war in general, not the surge in particular...

but I could be wrong, it happens. Sometimes.

before I speak. Been out-of-the-loop all day. Mistake not to study up on current events before posting comments.

and I certainly wouldn't put it past McGrumpy* to deliberately twist / misstate Hagel's actual quote.

*That guy needs to just hang it up and go away. He's giving us Scots / Irish / Scots-Irish a bad name.

which would indicate liver trouble (ahem).

how he could have justified having supported the Iraq War in the first place. It was based on flawed cooked intelligence, and never met it's primary objective which was a non sequitur (to locate and remove non-existent WMD's) to begin with, while wasting thousands of lives and squandering over a trillion $$. The "surge" was only as valid as the war itself, which had no validity whatsoever.

I understand asking tough questions but damn.....

dress up in full body armor and be be protected by a shitload of soldiers and attack choppers just so you could walk down a Baghdad street to show how much it worked? That surge?

McCarthy: "Are you now or have you ever been a communist?"

Defendant" "Let me explain"

McCarthy: "Yes or No, are you now or have you ever been a communist?"

Defendant: "I want to explain"

McCarthy: "Let the record show that the defendant refused to answer"


McCain: "Yes or no, were you wrong about the surge?"

Hagel: "I will let history decide that matter."

McCain: "Yes or no, were you wrong?"

Hagel: "I would like to explain"

McCain" "Let the record show that he refused to answer"

Do you still believe Sarah Palin was fully qualified to serve as Vice President, and if needed, as President of the United States?

Yes or no, answer the question.

Why should he satisfy people that were dead set on opposing him anyway? I would have told him the truth, it wouldn't have worked without the help of Al Sadr. Do you think it worked in Afghanistan Senator? Even though Hagel was enlisted, he still made command decisions in a War. He even saved lives.

I'm also a veteran. There is a guestion vets always ask when saying who they would trust in War with their life if it depended on it. Between Senators Cruz, McCain and the fella from South Carolins, I would rather Hagel as my partner in a foxhole. I don't trust the other three one bit. I think anybody making this decision should consider that. Would you trust those three hombres?

Because we don't know what motivated al Sadr to stand down his forces. He was in Iran at the time and we can't know how much the decision was his and if it was how much it was based on military pressure or how much he was pressured by Iran, which was desperate to get American combat troops out of the region. In the case of Afghanistan it probably was not worth the cost in lives lost and treasure but it probably has made for a more honorable withdrawal from that country -- an awfully high price to pay for saving a little face.

My contrary opinion here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hay%20rick/28

He gave us the surge and Sarah Palin and we should be grateful. I'm grateful he didn't have the opportunity to give us more...

if the surge was a blunder or not. What exactly did the zillions of dollars and many more lives lost accomplish?

Guess I need to do some reading.

Guess politicians should never make statements like Hagel did. You can not walk back a statement like that, can you?

I trust the president's opinion on this. He's said both.

their graves over the total ass he is and routinely makes of himself, as he frequently surpasses previous classless asininity.

In all this talk of surge success, very little is being mentioned of the immense amount of cash being handed over to many of Iraq’s violent tribes and militias – putting vast amounts of criminals on U.S. payroll to NOT reach for their automatic weapons and plant IEDs. You got it. We’re monetarily bribing down the violence. And we’ll likely continue to do so as we reduce troop numbers.

---

Finally, CNN offered an interview with terrorism expert Peter Bergen on 360 last night in which he said,

I actually think both the Democrats and the Republicans have been overemphasizing the surge. If it was just about the surge, the violence would be back up again because the surge is over. There are some underlying factors that are much more important in Iraq in my view.

One — the fact that Al Qaeda in Iraq, they basically scored a series of own goals by its Taliban-style tactics, producing this wave of revulsion against and amongst the Sunnis. Now we put up a 100,000 Sunni militia on the American payroll, people who used to be shooting at the United States who are now on our payroll.

more -

http://politicalmpressions.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/money-not-surge/

It actually proceeded the surge by several months and only impacted the Sunni areas in Iraq. The surge started off poorly but in September 2007 al Sadr announced a unilateral stand down of his forces and only then did the American casualties drop dramatically and open the door for us to begin bringing the troops home. The importance of the surge was almost completely cosmetic and a minor player in the outcome in Iraq. Most of the 1,200 Americans killed in Iraq during the surge were killed between February 2007, when the surge started, and September 2007 when al Sadr stood down his forces. That should tell you about everything you need to know about the "success" of the surge.

http://icasualties.org/

This site used to break the number out by month as well as year so you will have to take my word that most of the 2007 killed were from February through August 2007 when several of those months had over 100 Americans killed.

Randi Rhodes just talked about that on her radio show this afternoon.

Unfortunately, it's the kind of thing one would expect in a city council. NOT the United States Senate.

This is embarrassing.

Other countries are looking at this and realizing WHY this country is so fucked up.

An 8-hour long trial with 12 unfriendly prosecutors, all badgering him over essentially the same points, over and over. Embarrassing doesn't begin to describe the spectacle. But they didn't really trip him up. McCain wanted a headline that favored the neocon pinnacle of glory (SURGE!), and Hagel wouldn't give it to him, no matter what. The story became McCain's badgering and browbeating.

What's funny is how many pundits jumped to McCain's defense and,....oh wait,....did ANYONE?

Whose the biggest douche. As bad as was McCain, the most ambitious Tea idiot is from Texas or course.
The crazy to watch is no longer Texas' Rick Perry but new Sen. Ted Cruz.. He's ambitious the the attack dog of the future..
.
.Meet Ted Cruz, attack dog
Fact-checkers had a field day with the Tea Party darling's false charges against Hagel, but the far right ate it up
BY JOAN WALSH

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/meet_ted_cruz_attack_dog/

Was far more important than the surge that followed it by several months and may even have been the model al Sadr employed a year later when he stood down his troops.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/awakening_movement/index.html

What happened under the awakening was the Sunni's decided that al Qaeda in Iraq was a bigger threat than were the Americans so they stopped fighting the Americans and took up arms against al Qaeda. Yes, American cash paid for these fighters and as bribes not to kill Americans but that was the event that started to change the tide in Iraq. (And we wonder why corruption is so widespread in Iraq today).

Earlier I posted about the importance of al Sadr standing down his troops but I forgot about the Awakening that was several months earlier and was the true turning point in the Iraq war with a big assist in September 2007 with al Sadr's stand down.

McCain is actually auditioning for an anchor job on FOX, and every interruption and rude statement gets points...

The guy is a feakless thug who has no business being a senator anymore. He is a worthless piece of shit. Maybe we can put him in a cell with Charles Manson and find out how long he lives.

Love the chest crossed arms and the final wipe of the face. John you may be a senile old goat but inside you know that you are wrong!