Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Speaking of HUBRIS, This is the Reason WHY Republicans HATE Chuck Hagel [View all]
#!Senator Hagel warns us with a lesson from the Vietnam War: our government lied to us then and could lie us into a war with Iran and Syria now.
Transcript:
SENATOR HAGEL:
but I would even begin with this evaluation; that we owe the military and their families a policy, a policy worthy of their sacrifices, and I dont believe, Dr. Rice, we have that policy today.
I think what the president said last night and I listened carefully and read through it again this morning is all about a broadened American involvement, escalation in Iraq and the Middle East. I do not agree with that escalation, and I would further note that when you say, as you have here this morning, that we need to address and help the Iraqis and pay attention to the fact that Iraqis are being killed, Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control Iraqi on Iraqi. Worse, it is inter-sectarian violence Shia killing Shia.
To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong.
Its, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. Its tactically, strategically, militarily wrong. We will not win a war of attrition in the Middle East.
And I further note that you talk about skepticism and pessimism of the American people and some in Congress. That is not some kind of a subjective analysis, that is because, Madame Secretary, weve been there almost four years, and theres a reason for that skepticism and pessimism, and that is based on the facts on the ground, the reality of the dynamics.
And so I have been one, as you know, who have believed that the appropriate focus is not to escalate, but to try to find a broader incorporation of a framework. And it will have to be, certainly, regional, as many of us have been saying for a long time. That should not be new to anyone. But it has to be more than regional, it is going to have to be internally sponsored, and thats going to include Iran and Syria.
When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue, on the specific question will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night you cannot sit here today not because youre dishonest or you dont understand, but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we wont engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.
Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didnt cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.
So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, its very, very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if its carried out. I will resist it.
I think what the president said last night and I listened carefully and read through it again this morning is all about a broadened American involvement, escalation in Iraq and the Middle East. I do not agree with that escalation, and I would further note that when you say, as you have here this morning, that we need to address and help the Iraqis and pay attention to the fact that Iraqis are being killed, Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control Iraqi on Iraqi. Worse, it is inter-sectarian violence Shia killing Shia.
To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong.
Its, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. Its tactically, strategically, militarily wrong. We will not win a war of attrition in the Middle East.
And I further note that you talk about skepticism and pessimism of the American people and some in Congress. That is not some kind of a subjective analysis, that is because, Madame Secretary, weve been there almost four years, and theres a reason for that skepticism and pessimism, and that is based on the facts on the ground, the reality of the dynamics.
And so I have been one, as you know, who have believed that the appropriate focus is not to escalate, but to try to find a broader incorporation of a framework. And it will have to be, certainly, regional, as many of us have been saying for a long time. That should not be new to anyone. But it has to be more than regional, it is going to have to be internally sponsored, and thats going to include Iran and Syria.
When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue, on the specific question will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night you cannot sit here today not because youre dishonest or you dont understand, but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we wont engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.
Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didnt cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.
So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, its very, very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if its carried out. I will resist it.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
36 replies, 4397 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (44)
ReplyReply to this post
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Speaking of HUBRIS, This is the Reason WHY Republicans HATE Chuck Hagel [View all]
Segami
Feb 2013
OP
Of course, Hagel's actual vote of Yes on the invasion of Iraq mitigates his late date qualms
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#1
You say that as if I claimed otherwise. I did not mentionn others. I do not want either to be
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#6
They are not the same on LGBT rights, not the same on choice, not the same on anything else.
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#15
No wonder grouchy McCain is pissed! Hagel was spot on speaking from experience and history!
Dustlawyer
Feb 2013
#4
Hagle voted to confirm her anyway. So what was the value of the threatrics?
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#21
Possibly because he believes that the President should have his choice of cabinet, barring
TwilightGardener
Feb 2013
#23
Well if that is the case his going to the press to attack President Clinton's nominee Mr Hormel
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#28
That had more to do with the Catholic/gay pride-related controversy surrounding Hormel, IIRC--
TwilightGardener
Feb 2013
#29
Yes--Bush made an absolute fool of her near the end of his second term, in regard to
TwilightGardener
Feb 2013
#26
That article claims he opposed the war at the start, but he supported it and voted for it...
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#17
But how does that make him 'one of the few'? He voted with the majority, he voted Yes.
Bluenorthwest
Feb 2013
#25