Is Congress finally waking up?

[Andrew_Mayer]

The Republican senator from Nebraska finally says the words that we’ve been waiting to hear for years.

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’ed this plan.

And my dear friend Dick Lugar talks about coherence of strategy. There is no strategy. This is a ping-pong game with American lives. 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. We better be as sure as you can be.

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, if we don't debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.

We are not about — this resolution, those who I'm associated with, I don't think anybody in the Senate — if there is one senator in the United States Senate that is all about defeating America, making America's position more dangerous, eroding our standing in the world, I don't know of that person.

If you do, please let me know.

Every one of the 100 senators — Republican, Democrat, independent — that I know of has said, "How do we do this in a way that we look after, first, the national interests of America?" That still is rather significant.

                            ...

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. And maybe I’ll be wrong. And maybe I have no political future. I don’t care about that.

But 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 to at least project something.

                  ...

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. We better be as sure as you can be.

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, if we don’t debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.

I’m hoping against hope that this is just be the beginning.

[Not_One_Of_Us]

That…was beautiful.

[Dejin]

That was really great. I’d recommend watching it, he said a lot that wasn’t in the transcript.

[JeffL]

There was a line he used that isn’t quoted above, and I don’t remember the verbatim quote, but he said that taking a stand may not be the “safe” thing to do in terms of your career, but by gosh you’re a frikkin’ Senator and if you want a safe job go work in a hardware store. Absolutely brilliant.

(of course, the irony of what he said just struck me - now is a really safe and opportune time to be saying these things.)

[Jason_McCullough]

The interesting thing here is that Hagel has always been the worst of the show horses, saying pretty things and then doing nothing about them. He finally voted against the administration on something with the “no surge” resolution.

[JeffL]

The interesting thing here is that Hagel has always been the worst of the show horses, saying pretty things and then doing nothing about them. He finally voted against the administration on something with the “no surge” resolution.

Yeah, as emotively pretty as his comments were, the more I reflect upon how he’s making these when Bush’s poll numbers are down there with Nixon and public opinion so clearly makes this a safe speech, the less impressed I am.

[Nick_Walter]

The interesting thing here is that Hagel has always been the worst of the show horses, saying pretty things and then doing nothing about them.

Two responses.

1. Can you back that statement up in any way or is it just an off-the-cuff impression? While all elected officials have the habit of talking a bigger game than they can deliver to get elected, I’m not aware of Hagel being a big offender in this area.

2. Considering he’s going on record saying stuff that not a lot of senators would risk saying, I’d say he’s already doing a lot more than nothing.

[Nick_Walter]

Yeah, as emotively pretty as his comments were, the more I reflect upon how he’s making these when Bush’s poll numbers are down there with Nixon and public opinion so clearly makes this a safe speech, the less impressed I am.

Hagel is not jumping on a band wagon or taking advantage of Bush’s weakness to posture, he’s been criticizing our involvement in Iraq for years. It still might be posturing, since I believe he is nurturing some white house ambitions of his own, but at least he’s been relatively consistent in his stated position on Iraq.

Just a sample, a quick googling came up with this 2005 story about Hagel criticizing the administration about Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/18/hagel.iraq/

[extarbags]

He finally voted against the administration on something with the “no surge” resolution.

You mean the resolution that says “pretty please, Mr. President, do you think, if it’s not too much trouble, you could maybe not do whatever you want in Iraq? I mean, you don’t have to, and if you want to just do it anyway, that’s fine, it’s just a thought.” Yeah, a bold move.

[Dejin]

Yeah, as emotively pretty as his comments were, the more I reflect upon how he’s making these when Bush’s poll numbers are down there with Nixon and public opinion so clearly makes this a safe speech, the less impressed I am.

If you go back to his Wikipedia page (yeah I know, probably not the most accurate of references for something like this), there are some lovely quotes going back the past several years. So it’s not brand-brand new, he’s been complaining for a while:

National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. And to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party.

To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic.

He’s also made what I would consider some rather blunt statements on Israel, that to me show that he’s more than simply about politics and doing what will play well with the republican party. Here’s part of a floor speech he gave last July:

The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and historic one. But, it need not and cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships. That is an irresponsible and dangerous false choice. Achieving a lasting resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict is as much in Israel’s interest as any other country in the world.
…
The core of all challenges in the Middle East remains the underlying Arab-Israeli conflict. The failure to address this root cause will allow Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorists to continue to sustain popular Muslim and Arab support – a dynamic that continues to undermine America’s standing in the region …
…
The absence of a diplomatic relationship with Iran and the deterioration of the one with Syria – two countries that bear enormous responsibility for the current crisis – leave the United States with fewer options and levers than might otherwise have been the case. Distasteful as it might have been to have or to maintain open and normal relations with such states, the absence of such relations ensures that we will have more blind spots than we can afford and that we will have to deal through surrogates on issues of vital importance to the United States.

[JeffL]

You mean the resolution that says “pretty please, Mr. President, do you think, if it’s not too much trouble, you could maybe not do whatever you want in Iraq? I mean, you don’t have to, and if you want to just do it anyway, that’s fine, it’s just a thought.” Yeah, a bold move.

Now, that’s where the courage part comes across as a bit disingenuous to me. To talk about the responsibility of the Senate, the courage they should have to do what needs to be done, polls be damned, how the can’t simply sit back when the lives of soldiers are at stake, etc. - then pass a resolution that simply says “we really don’t like this” rather than go after funding, etc. to try to actually stop it, just doesn’t rise as high on the guts scale as I originally “felt” from the speech.

[MikeSofaer]

To talk about the responsibility of the Senate … then pass a resolution that simply says “we really don’t like this” rather than go after funding, etc. to try to actually stop it …

This may simply be brinksmanship. Passing a binding statute that’s hostile to the President would be humiliating for him. Passing a resolution like this is less humiliating, but it sends a message to Bush that if he goes ahead anyway he faces what will essentially be a true vote of no confidence in his judgement as CinC. He might back down rather than face that.

[extarbags]

This may simply be brinksmanship. Passing a binding statute that’s hostile to the President would be humiliating for him. Passing a resolution like this is less humiliating, but it sends a message to Bush that if he goes ahead anyway he faces what will essentially be a true vote of no confidence in his judgement as CinC. He might back down rather than face that.

That’s not what it is. It’s congressmen politicking rather than legislating; they want to come out against the war, but they’re afraid of being tarred with “voted to cut funding for our troops at the height of the war in Iraq.”

[Jason_McCullough]

You mean the resolution that says “pretty please, Mr. President, do you think, if it’s not too much trouble, you could maybe not do whatever you want in Iraq? I mean, you don’t have to, and if you want to just do it anyway, that’s fine, it’s just a thought.” Yeah, a bold move.

Oh, he’s obviously still showboating, but this is a new high in responsibility for him! Maybe in a decade he’ll pass a law.

Nick, I can’t find articles about Hagel’s history of uselessness, but I’d say it’s be something both the left and the right agree on, hilariously.

[Nick_Walter]

Oh, he’s obviously still showboating, but this is a new high in responsibility for him! Maybe in a decade he’ll pass a law.

So he’s a showboater for speaking out against Iraq but taking no legislative action against it. So that makes all the senators who don’t speak out about it and don’t take legislative action against it what . . .

(Hint: That’s pretty much all the rest of them)

Nick, I can’t find articles about Hagel’s history of uselessness, but I’d say it’s be something both the left and the right agree on, hilariously.

Well, 100% of people I just polled, both left and right, completely agree that assertions like that don’t carry much water.

[Jason_McCullough]

Oh, for chrissakes, do I have to cite everything? Just picked it up as a consensus opinion in stuff I’ve read over the years.

General talky nature: Congressional Quarterly calls him a showboat, and they’re conventional wisdom central.

History of voting very conservatively, regardless of what he says: Lifetime ACU rating of 86. Olympia Snowe, known super-moderate, is 50, and McCain (another dissenter who actually rarely votes against the conservatives) is 83. He’s kind of like the mirror-Lieberman (17 rating) - talks like he agrees with the other guys, votes with his own side. Like Lieberman, he enrages the hell out of ideological party members, but the leadership doesn’t screw with him much because he’s a reliable vote.

[Nick_Walter]

Oh, for chrissakes, do I have to cite everything?

When you make bold statements and don’t bother to back them up, yes.

General talky nature: Congressional Quarterly calls him a showboat, and they’re conventional wisdom central.

I note they didn’t back the statement up either.

Politics is one area where I’m very wary of people picking up labels like “showboater” or “flip flopper” or similar. Labels like that are often a sign somebody is trying to subtly (or unsubtly) smear someone else, so I tend to want to see statements like that backed up.

History of voting very conservatively, regardless of what he says: Lifetime ACU rating of 86. Olympia Snowe, known super-moderate, is 50, and McCain (another dissenter who actually rarely votes against the conservatives) is 83.

Voting conservatively makes him a showboat? You do realize that you are talking about a senator from Nebraska right? Believe me, he’s representing his constituents.

[Jason_McCullough]

Of course he’s doing a pretty good job of representing the views of his constituents. However, to listen to him talk like he has over the years, just like McCain, you really wouldn’t expect that 86% ACU rating. Call them “false moderates”, maybe, unlike Snow. It’s kind of a fake bipartisan effect - talks like he’s above it all but actually just votes with his party. Also fits Hagel, just like McCain - except McCain introduces or co-sponsors lots of bills.

A showboat talks constantly and doesn’t pass anything. Fits Hagel, who I believe has little in the way of major legislation to his name. The definitive example is Joseph Biden, by the way - yakking on the tube all the time, doesn’t pass shit.

[shift6]

Oh, for chrissakes, do I have to cite everything? Just picked it up as a consensus opinion in stuff I’ve read over the years.

It’s not a bad idea for someone with as prolific as a posting record as yours. How many times lately have people asked for cites and, having gone back, you discovered that your memory is sometimes faulty just like everyone else’s, or that you added a little extra oomph to what someone actually said just like other people do?

[Jason_McCullough]

Dunno, thought it was pretty well known, not controversial.