Hagel calls Guillianni and Clinton irresponsible and cowboys for Iran comments

Nov. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were ``recklessly irresponsible'' and acting like ``cowboys'' for rejecting calls for direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program, charged Senator Chuck Hagel, a top Republican lawmaker.

Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who supports talks, was critical of Giuliani, the top Republican contender, and Clinton, a New York senator and leader of the Democratic field, for lambasting presidential rival Barack Obama, who proposed such discussions.

When world leaders ``hear leading presidential candidates talk like cowboys with the lowest common denominator being `I can be tougher than you, I'll go to war before you or we aren't going to talk to anybody,' that's recklessly irresponsible,'' Hagel said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air today.

Hagel, 61, also criticized Vice President Dick Cheney, who he said in recent speeches on Iran has sounded similar to his provocative comments against Iraq in 2002. ``Some in this administration are serious about that possibility'' of military action in Iran, Hagel said.

``We're over here sounding war calls,'' Hagel said. ``That's a very dangerous thing because it leads you into a cul-de-sac of war if you're not careful.''

Sitting down and talking to Iranian officials wouldn't be a sign of weakness, Hagel said. ``Great nations engage. What are we afraid of?'' he said. ``You shouldn't lead with the military option.''

Obama's Suggestion

Clinton, 60, in July called Obama, 46, ``irresponsible'' and ``frankly naïve'' in supporting talks. Giuliani, in a Nov. 2 interview, called Obama, an Illinois senator, ``naïve'' for suggesting that Iran could be persuaded to stop its nuclear program through negotiations.

Giuliani, 63, who's running on his record as New York mayor following the Sept. 11 attacks, has said that if he became president, he would never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

The United Nations and the U.S. want Iran to halt uranium enrichment that the West suspects is aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Iran, which has the world's second-largest oil and natural gas reserves, denies its effort has a military goal and says it wants the technology to generate electricity.

Hagel, a Nebraska lawmaker, also urged the administration to continue talking with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who suspended the country's constitution Nov. 3.

The Pakistani government will hold elections, and the U.S. should resist calls to cut off aid to the Asian nation, Hagel said. ``What we must continue to do is work quietly with Musharraf,'' he said.

Hagel, who decided not to run for re-election next year and has ruled out a presidential bid, said he wouldn't endorse anyone in the Republican primary.

Yet he said he may back a candidate from either political party or an independent in the general election.

``I will see what the options are,'' he said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a0h8abc0d1tM&refer=home

http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_id=40&Month=11&Year=2007

It's good to hear that his party loyalties are loosening up.

I'm certainly with him on his ideas about how to move ahead in the Middle East.

He seems to have nothing in common with the Bushista tendency.

Left me wondering what he was up to. I guess he doesn't want a job next year in either Hillary's or Rudy's administration--not after chiding them for their Iran rhetoric. It sounded a little like a shot across the bow, frankly. Interesting also that he refuses to endorse anyone in the R primaries. Interesting even more that Bloomberg TV has him on. Hmm.

Would be nice if Biden or Jim Webb could talk him into becoming the most conservative Democrat ever.

That's kinda what gets me with those "decent type" type statements.

None of them are "decent". They're all a bunch of bastards. Sometimes I thing the only real difference is that some of them are OUR bastards.

Op-ed in yesterday's NYT "A Post-Iraq G.I. Bill " http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/opinion/09webb.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

By the way, "the most conservative Democrat ever" :rofl: I don't know... found it very funny...

I forgot about that

I hope this does not mean that he will quit politics altogether. He also said that this is a very unpredictable business. So, who knows...

tax cuts for the rich, giving corporations everything they want and so forth.

he votes with party 95% of the time.

When a die hard Republican says one sensible thing (or a couple), all of a sudden he looks like a hero.
Voting the party line (when it's the Republican party) 95% of the time is NOT a good thing.

in voting with the GOPers--he beats Ben Nelson for voting against his party, in fact. He moderated himself quite a bit: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/party-voters/

Republican, but it's interesting when a very conservative (and intelligent) Republican speaks against a once-popular Republican president's war initiative.

It's blasphemous in GOP ranks to speak against "the war president" George Bush, even though I suspect that privately, Republican higher-ups are grimacing over Dubya's horrific performance on all fronts, and have been for some time.

Hagel also provides an interesting contrast between himself -- a man who can actually TALK in a COHERENT manner -- and the current pResident, who is not exactly noted for his silver tongue.

So far Hagel's independent position on Iraq has not drawn support to him as a potential candidate. It's odd that Ron Paul is winning oodles of support and Hagel is not. IMO Hagel makes the more compelling maverick conservative, though both men are appallingly conservative on all other issues.

It's been clear that Hagel's statements, especially since announcing his retirement, have been totally inconsistent with supporting whoever ends up on the warmongering GOP ticket in 2008.

GOP Senator Hagel: "The Republican Party Has Won Two Elections On...Fear And Terrorism...It's Going To Try Again" were NOT the words of a "My party right or wrong" Republican.

(Somehow it seems doubtful one will ever see Hagel wearing a "Guiliani for President" shirt.)




But Hagel's now crossed the Rubicon . . . . . specifically stating he may back a Democrat (or perhaps some other non-Republican) in the 2008 general election.

IF the Democratic ticket is led by someone (Biden, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich come to mind) committed to ending the occupation, and avoiding unending war with Iran (& others), Hagel is likely to PUBLICLY SUPPORT the Democratic ticket in 2008.

And Hagel's sentiments are shared by a significant number of purple state independents, just the kind of voter that went strongly Democratic in 2006.






The flip side of this reality, unfortunately, is that a DLC strategy of attempting to appeal to "the center" by running a hawkish, pro-war Democrat, instead of standing for our values (and those of the great majority of Americans) is misguided . . . and a recipe for defeat.

The way to win . . the way to deserve the continued support of independents (and disillusioned Republicans) is to run a candidate strongly committed to ending the occupation, avoiding unending war, and reversing the constitutional abuses of 8 years of Bush/Cheney.

Hagel is not likely to wear a "Hillary for president" shirt either.

(if, in fact, he would not support her.)

I'm inclined to think that in a Clinton - Giuliani contest, Hagel would neither support Giuliani nor remain neutral.

(Whether he would become part of a Bloomberg/Hagel "unity" ticket, or would support another 3rd party, such as a Ron Paul libertarian candidacy, is another question.)

I'm inclined to think that Hagel would support Clinton over Giliani unless he became convinced a 3rd party candidacy would not give Giuliani the win, but who knows?

Even prior to this explicit statement that he might support a candidate other than the Republican, his statements for several months have implied that he has clearly left the ranch, and would support any Democrat presenting an alternative to a Republican running on war and fear.

plenty of speculations possible about all this. It would be nice to be able to poke Hagel's brain for a few moments, plenty of interesting stuff to be found, I am sure :-).

Hagel is just a Hillary hater and he is sexist! :sarcasm: oh oh and let me not forget that this shows Obama's inexperience...

Obama's proposal of Peace through Diplomacy is in stark contrast to Hillary trying to convince voters she can execute a better war.

When a Republican backs a Democrat (Hagel has endorsed Biden I believe), that speaks volumes about the bent the GOP is taking.

see the end of the OP. The Biden thing you may be referring to was a Halloween friendly joke. But the fact that he so clearly said that he may not end up endorisng the republican nominee speaks indeed volumes.

I thought it was 4real!