Snippets of Hagel’s interview with GQ.
Let me guess the spin: he’s running for president against the president?
[quote=“GQ & Chuck Hagel”]Republican senator Chuck Hagel sounds off on the sorry state of Congress, the president’s lies, and the vote for war that he now regrets.
Why do you oppose the "surge"?
For almost four years, this administration has been saying, "Just give us another six months. Give us more time. The Iraqis need more help. We need more troops. We need more money." I am not willing to sacrifice more young men and women for a policy that isn't working.
[b]What do you think the real effect of the "surge" would be?
More American lives lost. Billions of dollars going into this hole. It will erode our standing in the Middle East and the world. It will destroy our force structure. It will divide this country in a bitter way not seen since Vietnam. And what do we get in return? [/b]The administration likes to point to these benchmarks-the Iraqis wrote a constitution, they had an election, they elected a unity government. The administration takes great pride in saying, "It's now a sovereign nation. They're in charge of their own affairs." It's completely untrue, but they say it anyway.
What would it take to secure Baghdad?
It's not ours to secure. We have never understood that! We have framed this in a way that never made sense: "Win or lose in Iraq." Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us. The Iraqis will determine how this turns out. We can help them with our blood and our treasure and our standing, but in the end they have to deal with the sectarian problems. That is what's consuming that country. [b]It's not Al Qaeda. It's not the terrorists. That's not the main problem over there. It's a civil war![/b]
[…]
If we can't win and the public wants out, isn't it the responsibility of Congress to check the power of the president?
Sure.
But it seems Congress has been ineffective at that.
Well, we have. [b]We've abdicated our responsibilities. That has to do with the fact that the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. When that happens, you get no probing, no questioning, no oversight. If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq and after two years he was having the same problems, do you think the Republican Congress would have put up with that? I don't think so.[/b]
Do you wish you'd voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion?
Have you read that resolution?
I have.
[b]It's not quite the way it's been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That's not quite what the resolution said.
It said, "to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq."
In the event that all other options failed. So it's not as simple as "I voted for the war." That wasn't the resolution.[/b]
[…]
[b]And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored.
Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that's what we were presented with. And I'm not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, "I don't believe them." But I was told by the president-we all were-that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort.[/b]
You were told that personally?
I remember specifically bringing it up with the president. I said, "This has to be like your father did it in 1991. We had every Middle East nation except one with us in 1991. The United Nations was with us."
Did he give you that assurance, that he would do the same thing as his father?
Yep. [...]
Do you think they knew that was false?
Oh, I eventually was sure they knew. Even before we actually invaded, I had a pretty clear sense of it-that this administration was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq.
Even if it meant deceiving Congress?
That's right.
[…]
Do you and Colin Powell still talk?
We're very good friends.
Do you think it's hard for him to keep silent these days?
I think it is very hard for him. I think he is greatly tormented by all of this.
[…]
[b]Does being a veteran also make you sensitive to the administration’s approach to interrogation and the use of secret military prisons?
It does, because that's not who America is. We have always, certainly since World War II, had the moral high ground in the world. But these secret prisons and the treatment at Guantánamo destroy all of that. We ought to shut down Guantánamo. There shouldn't be any secret prisons. Why do we need those? What are we afraid of?[/b] Here we are, the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Why can't we let the Red Cross into our prisons? Why do we deny they exist? Why do we keep them locked up? What are we afraid of? Why aren't we dealing with Iran and Syria?
[…]
How about flag burning?
I voted for a constitutional amendment to ban it.
Isn't it a form of expression, if some schmuck wants to make a statement?
[b]I think you can defend your position both ways on that, but I am against it.
[color=blue]You don't hear very many politicians say that both sides of an issue are reasonable these days.[/color][/b]
We are living through one of the most transformative periods in history. [color=blue][b]If we are going to make it, we need a far greater appreciation and respect for others[/b][/color], or we're going to blow up mankind. [b]Look at what zealotry can do.[/b] Religious zealotry has been responsible for killing more people than any other thing. Look at the Middle East today. It's all about religion. We need to move past those divisions and learn to be tolerant and respectful. If we go out there full of intolerance and hatred, we'll never make it. [/quote]
fred, I’m sure you’ve got Chuck on speed dial, but just in case you’ve lost your phone and misplaced your address book, here is Chuck Hagel’s email contact information. Set him straight, will you? But tone it down a bit, “greater appreciation and respect for others”, ya know.