Sen. Chuck Hagel Says Iraq War Looking Like Vietnam.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

WASHINGTON - A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq.

Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

Article

As far as i know, one doesn't receive the Purple Heart (let alone two) without having some 'savvy'.

Sanc'.




posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Don't put too much emphasis on the Purple Heart when it comes to strategic matters. Purple Hearts are usually earned by young men in tactical positions who don't know the proverbial "Big Picture." I imagine Hagel is positioning himself for a run for the Presidency. Clearly, anyone who compares Iraq to Vietnam is not being rational and is ignoring the historical facts of Vietnam.


[edit on 2005/8/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
The press just loves it when these moderate Republican dissenters jumps out to express his disagreement with the current administration and the war with Iraq. And to label him a "prospective presidential candidate" is just wishful thinking.

It is just like all these polls we have been seeing lately with McCain, Giuliani, and Arnold as the leading Rep. candidates. They are crazy, half of the people who voted for Bush think he is not conservative enough, thats what got him in trouble with the social security debate. You ever notice that these polls about approval in Iraq never ask WHY you disapprove of the way things are being handled? Becuase they know the answer would show America wants a President who is willing to get the job done in that country and not babysit it.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Far be it from me to interrupt my favorite sport, RINO hunting, but I had to jump in here.


Originally posted by JoshGator54
And to label him a "prospective presidential candidate" is just wishful thinking.


Grady is right. Right now EVERYONE is a potential candidate, and Chuck Hagel is doing the smart thing. He's distancing himself as far away from the Bush camp as possible. He's recognizing moderate republican fears of a new Vietnam occuring on their watch.


Originally posted by JoshGator54It is just like all these polls we have been seeing lately with McCain, Giuliani, and Arnold as the leading Rep. candidates. They are crazy, half of the people who voted for Bush think he is not conservative enough,


Nonsense. There are exactly 4 million evengelical voters who think Bush isn't conservative enough, and that's about it. There is such a creature as a moderate Republican, and many of them are simply fiscally conservative and socially liberal. They probably account for half of your base, I wouldn't be so quick to drive them out with pitchforks.

I mean, would you care to explain to me how conservative, further to the right than Bush, actually wins a presidential election in the United States? If your logic were sound Pat Buchanan would have been a contender. So would Ralph Reed. So would Pat Robertson.

Certainly, that particular candidate will carry conservative states like Utah and Idaho and the deep south, but they lose Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, possibly New Mexico and other moderate states. They lose women voters, 18-36 voters, and if you were crazy enough to throw in the SS reform, then you lose seniors too.

Go look up the word "Demographics", and then get back to me.


Originally posted by JoshGator54 thats what got him in trouble with the social security debate.


What got George Bush into trouble over SS, is the false notion of trying to change it in the first place. Social Security is the third rail of American politics. Nobody, anywhere, ever, in the last 50 years, from either party, has successfully managed to run a campaign, or even a platform, of major Social Security changes.

Senior Citizens, a major demographic (There's that word again) of the GOP, turned on Bush the minute they assumed that would lose 12 cents in benefits. Republican politicans turned on Bush the minute they thought they would lose seniors citizens to Democrats.

Running in front of the Social Security Ball is guaranteed to end in nothing less than an unmittigating disaster



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
brimstone735 I agree. I just don't believe that a moderate republican would win an election. I also don't believe they would be able to pass off someone much more conservative than Bush for the reasons you mentioned.

When I look at the upcoming election I see it shaping up something like this; John Edwards Prez/Hillary Clinton VP for the Dems and Jeb Bush Prez/Condi Rice VP for the Reps.

That would be an extremely close race.





new topics
 
0

log in

join