[www.huffingtonpost.com]
OMAHA, Neb. — Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, fresh from an Iraq trip with Democrat Barack Obama, said the presidential candidates should focus on the war's future and stop arguing over the success of last year's troop surge.

Hagel mentioned both candidates, but his comments seemed directed at Republican John McCain. McCain, while Obama traveled the Middle East, attacked Obama for opposing the military escalation last year that increased security in Iraq.

"Quit talking about, 'Did the surge work or not work,' or, 'Did you vote for this or support this,'" Hagel said Thursday on a conference call with reporters.

"Get out of that. We're done with that. How are we going to project forward?" the Nebraska senator said. "What are we going to do for the next four years to protect the interest of America and our allies and restructure a new order in the world. ... That's what America needs to hear from these two candidates. And that's where I am."

Hagel, too, opposed the troop increase strategy, though he acknowledged Thursday it brought about positive changes. "When you flood the zone with superior American military firepower, and you put 30,000 of the world's best troops in a country, there's going to be a result there," Hagel said.

Whether the surge worked, though, can't be measured, Hagel said, arguing the small gains came at a high price. He said President Bush's decision last year to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq has cost more than 1,000 American lives and billions of dollars.

Hagel is an asshat!

Americans are just supposed to conveniently forget what's gone before? Voting records, previous policy positions, statements on record are just to be ignored so we can "move forward" and "restructure a new order to the world"?

I reject this premise completely. We have the right and the _duty_ to examine candidates. We must look at their past in order to judge by our _own_ knowledge and experience who will best represent our political philosophies.

Too many times we have been snookered by high toned rhetoric and grand promises from politicians talking about "the future". I'm more convinced by their past actions, words and deeds than I am by any promises in the future. I can vote for a man who can admit he made a mistake, but I won't vote for a man who obfuscates, denies, covers up, ducks and hides, or just ignores the hard questions about his past.

I will vote for a humble man not one who surrounds himself with symbolic trappings of his self perceived greatness. I will vote for a man who will shake hands with the troops and look them straight in the eye and express gratitude for their service, not one who only seeks the photo op. I will vote for a man that loves his country and can express that love with a tear on his cheek when he hears the National Anthem and sees our flag waving in the breeze, not one who pays terse lip service to patriotism.

As we all go through our own vetting of the candidates and when we enter the voting booth, we arrive at our decision based on our knowledge and experience as _individuals_. I'm just a simple country woman. I was raised to respect others, love my country and treat others as I would wish to be treated. I was taught that in order to lead you must be willing to follow. Never ask someone to do something you wouldn't do yourself. Be independent, but be willing to share. Be honest in your dealings with other people and with yourself. Don't toot your own horn. Seek wisdom and truth. Stand up for principles. Don't be presumptuous. Always say please and thank you. Respect your elders. And so much more, but you get my drift.

---

Quote
swampy
but you get my drift.

Yes. So you won't be voting for the senator who cheated on his wife and married another for money, then?

>>Too many times we have been snookered by high toned rhetoric

eh, its been about 12 years since that happened.

---

Lux..

>>"Yes. So you won't be voting for the senator who cheated on his wife and married another for money, then?"

And who are you to judge? Like I said, we all come to this with our own knowledge and experiences. I was married to an Army helicopter pilot during Vietnam. He served 3 1/2 tours over there. My husband also had an affair and walked out on me and our son. Been through the Big C (cancer) without his help. So, like Mrs. McCain (the first), I've been there done that. I watched my ex go though post trauma syndrome and mid-life-crisis. He suffered a lot and is now married to wife number 6. If I could find it in my heart to forgive my ex, then perhaps she can too in her own way. So get off your superior high horse.

And you know for a fact that he married for money? Link please.

---

Quote
swampy

And you know for a fact that he married for money? Link please.

No more a fact than one of the candidates is "one who only seeks the photo op" and "one who pays terse lip service to patriotism "

The laundry list of things you want in a presidential candidate simply doesn't exist in any of them.

Jeebus, for a minute there I thought I was reading layfayettepete.

---

Quote
swampy
Hagel is an asshat!

Americans are just supposed to conveniently forget what's gone before? Voting records, previous policy positions, statements on record are just to be ignored so we can "move forward" and "restructure a new order to the world"?

I reject this premise completely. We have the right and the _duty_ to examine candidates. We must look at their past in order to judge by our _own_ knowledge and experience who will best represent our political philosophies.

Actually I agree with this. And what is the most important contentious decision the two candidates have made in the past: to advocate for or reject the War in Iraq (version 2) in the first place. McCain was very gung-ho for the war and Obama rejected it. You may think McCain was right that the war needed to happen - that, of course, is your privilege and right - but 60% of American think the war was a mistake. If that 60% take your advice that previous policy positions should be an important measure of a candidate then his strong advocacy for the war in the first place will incline them not to vote for McCain.

I would like to point out that it strikes me as odd that so many McCain supporters seem to think that Obama's stance on the "surge" is an absolutely essential issue to consider but McCain's position on strongly advocating for the war in the first place, that a large majority of Americans thinks was a mistake, is "old news" (Even McCain himself has said exactly that repeatedly when asked about it).

You appear to be a nice person so you might consider being a little less free with the name calling. Aside from seeming to be a generally nice enough guy, Hagel fought in Vietnam earning the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, a Purple Heart, and Army Commendation Medal. If you are generally "conservative" in outlook and checked his positions on a broad range of issues, you would probably be in agreement with him on the vast majority of them. On just about everything but the Iraq war, Hagel has been a staunch Republican.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2008 10:56PM by Ted King.

Quote
Ted King
side from seeming to be a generally nice enough guy, Hagel fought in Vietnam earning the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, a Purple Heart, and Army Commendation Medal.

Well, we know how much a Purple Heart means to the Republicans.

Check with Max Cleland on that.

Shakeman, is that you? Hmm. Pete?