Have you read Hagel's GQ article?? It's a barn burner...

http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_5326&pageNum=1

It's an insiders (Republican) story on the run up to the war. Abu Gonzales had no intention of going Congress at all. And when they DID, grudgingly, send over a request?:

do here at DU:

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

<snip>

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.

how can we not impeach the whole lot of them?

I'm glad that there is criticism from both sides and people like Hagel are needed.
But I'm not sure how vocal he was about it when it mattered. He says he had great doubts even before the invasion. Did he attack Bush before 2004 about it? Because at the moment, it doesn't hurt at all to attack Bush or the Iraq war.

I believe him that he is really concerned about this topic and that it is not only about a possible run in 2008. But when did he start taking a stand against this war?

We need votes to initiate impeachment proceedings.....

'08 is too late

Being critical of this administration on foreign policy is nothing new for Hagel.

He's been a thorn in the administration's ass for a while now. But while he has talked a good talk, he usually rolls over when it comes to legislation. He usually gives the administration what they want.

Maybe things will change now in that regard.

i remember listening to him in 2003 and being saurprised trhat a conservative republican was being so vocally critical.

However, the media gave him no coverage. Joe Lieberman saying Democrats who question Bush are traitors got a ton of coverage, however.

K, thanks for all who provided information.
I was serious about not knowing better. I simply couldn't remember reading anything concerning his opinion about the war shortly after the invasion or at least before the 2004 elections. I assume it wasn't big news when he spoke out but many war critics apparently got the same media treatment (no coverage).

I do have one question in my mind. Why has it taken the Senator so long to speak up.

The balance of power and the public mood shifts and suddenly these jackasses find their consciences? More like renting them cheap.

Sure, it could all just be opportunistic posturing, letting the winds of public opinion blow political leader's views.

BUT - at the time of the IWR, Dubya hadn't yet been caught lying to the American people. While there may have been doubts about the intelligence, many may have felt the consequences of underestimating the threat and NOT dealing with it were greater than the consequences of dealing with an overestimated threat. At that time, for the most part, people trusted Dubya. So, when he said he would use diplomacy first, he was largely believed. It also didn't help that Clinton supposedly said he thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Many "experts" believe Hussein wanted the world to think he had them.

I'm not saying I'm convinced of all this, but it's just another perspective.

all who buy into it are goddamn fools IMNSHO.

of Impeachment?

I thought so. Never.

If he isn't willing to put his money where his mouth is, then he is just another Repub in the race for the repub presidential nomination.

Wait and see. He is riding a wave.

Of course, he could call loudly for impeachment and get together with Republican House members to push for impeachment.

he not have any kindred souls in the House to which he can present sample articles of impeachment? Is he prohibited from forming a committee to work on impeachment, which a committee member who happens to be a representative can present to the House?

It irks me no end that there is all this fucking TALKING going on, and nothing gets DONE. It's been 6 years, for Christ's sake!! Are we really still debating this insane madness?? It sure didn't take long for a goddam blowjob to incite articles of impeachment. WTF is the matter with our representatives? It's like they've been paralyzed.

Question is, would he vote to impeach the Liar if such a resolution were to pass the House?

and he genuinely sounds incredibly pissed off.

I may not ever vote for him, but he's one of the few conservatives I can actually respect even when I disagree with his stance on 99% of the issues.

I think that Hagel is more of a Populist than
Nebraska's OTHER Senator, Ben Nelson.

Nelson voted for IWR as well, and he's SUPPOSED
to be a DEMOCRAT.

than Nelson.

On the flip side, Nelson actually gives us the majority in the Senate...and it's a pretty conservative state. Maybe because he's a Dem Nelson feels he needs to pander to the RWers so much. Either way, it's not excusable though, because his corporatist economic policies don't really help the poor and middle class in the state (though on those policies, Hagel is very far to the right as well).

Nebraska's an interesting state. It gave Bush an insanely high margin of victory but put people like Kerey and Hagel into office.

state approved civil unions and is NOT a fundie supporter.

and still votes every other way with them.. I am glad he is seeing the light on the war, yet I remember he did not do a damn thing about this war till the people voted for change...

to the intimidation of the WH. But to his credit, he has always been vocally critical of the administration's foreign policy.

He's a RWer through and through, but his foreign policy isn't very much in line with that of the neocons - which is also what will doom any chance of capturing his party's nomination in '08.

He is saying things that most of our DEMS don't
have the courage to say.

If his house has less square footage than Edwards,
I'd say we just may be looking at the next
President
of the United States. :evilgrin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZCeUhLkGto

is "what is their home's square footage".

Anyways, I don't think he'll get the repuke nomination. That braindead 30% of the nation is the republican base. Considering they put Bush up as their nominee in '00, I think we give them too much credit by worrying about a Hagel nomination.

But he could always run as an indie of course...

Hagel's in the middle? And has more courage than Democrats? Have you forgotten that it was Democrats who negotiated that broad regional authority out of the bush's first draft of the IWR? It's swell that Hagel's finally remembering that outrageous power grab but it was in all the papers back in 02.

I'm glad he's come around but he's in deep shadow compared to most dems.

Bet it's over 98% too!

"compared to most dems", Hagel is shooting about 50%.

However, this guy also joined the filibuster on the minimum wage and generally rates very highly among folks like the Club for Growth, the Moral Majority and similar.

I know that will be meet with chilly reception here, but I still think Democrats have a long road to hoe when it comes to national security prowess in the minds of swing voters.

I know if find him infinitely more knowledgable and realistic than Edwards on the subject.

That said, I don't agree with his positions on choice and some other issues, but, then again, I'm an informed voter and know that it's not all about one issue - but many of our fellow citizens aren't.

(and win)......


Hagel is despised by Republican insiders & the hardcore base that controls precinct, state, and national conventions. Even with 60%+ Americans against the war, Hagel's chances of being selected Republican nominee for presidency is zero. There is a more significant chance of Hagel being purged from the GOP (via a primary challenge by a party-line Republican) if, in fact, Hagel chooses to run for re-election to the Senate in 2008. (Perhaps that is related to rumors that Hagel may choose to run for neither the presidency nor re-election to the Senate. Such a decision would also remove what little motivation may remain to kowtow to the Republican leadership.)

But if Hagel does run for president, however, he would attract a great deal of support from independents, other renegade conservatives, and others opposed to the war, in primary states which have open primaries.

And a third party/independent run does not seem out of the question.

As we all know, the effect of 3rd party runs is unpredictable at best, and potentially catastrophic.

His simple existence, however, is representative of powerful antiwar sentiments among independents, even among many Republican conservatives and the near-extinct Republican moderates.

On the plus side, the THREAT of a potential Hagel 3rd party candidacy could potentially have the effect of forcing our party to ACTUALLY COMPETE for the votes of the 60%+ of Americans who oppose the war.

Rather than taking the antiwar voter for granted, and staging a (doomed & losing) fight for pro-war voters with "pseudo-centrists" of the Lieberman/Zell Miller/DLC variety, our party would be forced to realize that victory can only be won by assertively fighting for our core values, standing tall against warmongering, and nominating a non-apologetic candidate who is not a watered-down "me too" hawk.




Such an assertive, progressive, and moral stance is, of course, what we need to do TO WIN.












(Where is AL GORE & WESLEY CLARK when you need them?)

GORE / CLARK 2008

the war authority....

Damn...I'll be the first to admit...I would consider voting for Hagel...even over Hillary...

And it was also reported that DEMS were responsible for restricting the language. Here's some background-

On October 2, President Bush, along with Senator Lott and Representatives Hastert andGephardt, announced that an agreement had been reached on a resolution authorizing the use of militaryforce against Iraq. This announcement marked the culmination of over two weeks of intense and attimes politically charged negotiations between the White House and Congress over specific language inthe resolution.During this time, the White House has actually developed three different draft resolutions onIraq, the subsequent changes in each reflecting, for the most part, negotiations with bipartisancongressional leadership.

The dates these draft resolutions were released by the White House are asfollows:1) September 19, the “Further Resolution on Iraq,” (S.J. Res. 45);2) September 26, “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq;” and3) October 2, same title as the September 26 draft, (S.J. Res. 46).S.J. Res. 45 is identical to the White House language of September 19, and was introduced onSeptember 26 by Senators Daschle and Lott with the intention of getting a bill onto the SenateCalendar to serve as a legislative placeholder from which to begin debate on an Iraq resolution.

Specifically, the language of this resolution was viewed by many Senators and Representatives as problematic because of the breadth of authority it gave the President to exercise military force, its inclusion of the Persian Gulf region as a whole in the exercise of such authority, and its failure to acknowledge the need for Congressional oversight and consultation.In response to criticism of this draft, the White House released an alternative draft onSeptember 26, the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.” More narrow in scope,this second draft resolution amends the language authorizing the President to use force to defend U.S.national interests: the language which originally read, “threat posed by Iraq, and restore internationalpeace and security in the region” was changed to read, “threat posed by Iraq.”In addition, the draft of September 26 added a “Determination” clause requiring the Presidentto make known to the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate hisdeterminations for the use of force “prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible.” This section also requires the President to place greater reliance on exhausting diplomatic means toaddress the threat posed by Iraq before exercising the use of force.Finally, the draft of September 26 preserves congressional authority by acknowledging the WarPowers Resolution requirements and adding a reporting requirement, Section 3, “Reports toCongress.” Under this section, the President must submit reports to Congress at least once every 90days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
3BILLPROVISIONSAlthough the changes made in the September 26 draft are significant, congressional Democratsstill rejected the draft resolution believing that it needed to be narrower still. The ensuing negotiationsled to the agreement of October 2. While Senators Lott and Daschle and Representatives Hastert andGephardt were part of the White House meetings, to date Senator Daschle has not supported thisagreement. He has stated that while the resolution is an improvement over the previous draft, heprefers alternative language that has been circulated by Senators Biden and Lugar. According toreports, their alternative is more narrow in scope and possibly makes the use of force contingent uponthe actions of the United Nations Security Council.Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, Bayh, McConnell, Domenici, Hutchinson, Landrieu,Allard, Helms and Miller introduced the October 2 agreement in the Senate as S.J. Res. 46 and willlikely offer it as a substitute to S.J. Res. 45.The October 2 agreement (i.e., S.J. Res. 46) is similar to the White House draft of September26 but, in a concession to Representative Gephardt, includes a new section 2, “Support for UnitedStates Diplomatic Efforts.” The intent of this section is not to make the use of force contingent uponapproval from the United Nations Security Council, but to reaffirm that diplomatic efforts should first beexhausted.In addition, S.J. Res. 46 changes the “Determination” section to “Presidential Determination”and places a limit on the length of time in which presidential determinations can be made known tocongressional leadership: “prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no laterthan 48 hours after exercising such authority.”

more..........
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:ytYE4ewu7YoJ:rpc.senate.gov/_files/L56DEFENSEje100302.pdf+%22first+draft%22+iraq+resolution+negotiations+region+2002&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

The admin had tried the same thing with the UN, earlier-

11/09/2002
Two months ago, after Vice President Dick Cheney all but dismissed UN weapons inspections, the United States submitted a draft resolution that relied more on the threat of military action than on the power of UN inspections. That first draft threatened "all necessary means" should Iraq fail to comply with strict new inspections, and those words held open the prospect of an immediate American-led war to oust Hussein.
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/iraq/globe_stories/un_110902_sc.htm

Doesn't anyone else remember the bushbots had to have their arms twisted to go to Congress about Iraq in the first place. Still, I guess it's newsworthy that a repub is finally speaking like he's had a peek into the reality based world, finally admitting that what happened actually *happened*. Pretty safe for him, what with the public already opposing the war and all.

about the war, not many have had the guts to say that.

You gotta read this, its astonishing. Is this the end for these guys? When one of the own says they are lying? Or will he retreat like McCain did on torture?

May you live in interesting times. . .