Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Press Release: "Hagel-Webb Introduce Amendment to Protect Readiness of U.S. Troops and Limit Deployments"

Here's a press release from Chuck Hagel's Senate website:
Hagel-Webb Introduce Amendment to Protect Readiness of U.S. Troops and Limit Deployments

March 27th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced a bipartisan amendment today to the Iraq War supplemental spending bill. The amendment:

• ensures that units and individuals in the Armed Forces be certified as “fully mission capable” 15 days prior to deployment;

• limits the length of overseas deployments of the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard;

• establishes a minimum time between deployments for the Army, Marine Corps and National Guard;

• provides additional appropriations totaling approximately $3.1 billion to reset Army National Guard and Reserve equipment and to address funding shortfalls for Army National Guard training, operations and maintenance; and to fund the acquisition of additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protection vehicles for the Marine Corps;

• and requires the President to report to Congress on the comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy of the U.S. regarding Iraq.

“This amendment puts the focus where it should be: on the men and women of our military. No American wants to allow a single soldier or Marine to be deployed without meeting the military’s standard of readiness. Yet that is what we are doing. We are breaking our military and this amendment will help put a stop to it. This amendment is about taking care of our troops,” Hagel said.

“I have long advocated that the U.S. strategy in Iraq should embrace concerted regional and international diplomacy,” said Senator Webb. “This bipartisan amendment will advance efforts to achieve that goal. Moreover, we will take critical and necessary steps to strengthen congressional oversight regarding military readiness and the administration’s policies for deploying and redeploying personnel and units to Iraq. The amendment’s increased appropriations for military readiness and force-protection vehicles reflect a determination to assist our ground forces reverse their worrisome decline in readiness–especially the National Guard in both its domestic and federal missions.”


Anonymous said...

Hagel siding with Reid and the Democracts today made me ? how I ever wanted to draft him for pRES.
His vote today sealed his chances to ever be elected Pres. He showed his true colors...he could not be counted on to fight the War on Terror !!

Anonymous said...

Hagel's vote today siding with Reid and the Dem.'s doomed his chance of becoming President. He is afraid to fight the War on Terror.
How is he so deluded by Reid and his buddies who have 1 object--crucify Bush and get a Dem. as Pres. He has sided with the enemy !

ericpaddon said...

Webb at least had the guts to leave the GOP. Hagel should do the same now and leave the GOP to those who stay true to its principles.

Anonymous said...

I for one hope and pray the Senator Hagel runs for President. Should he win the nomination, it would be my duty to vote for Senator Clinton over him. He has disappointed all Republicans today and brought dishonor on himself. I am sure he will enjoy all of the media fawning all over him because of his "courage". It doesn't take courage to run against the grain. Did Senator Reid offer him 30 pieces of silver?

Very sad.


A lifelong Republican.

Anonymous said...

Congratulations, Mr. Hagel, on stabbing my president, my party, my country and me in the back today with your vote.

I promise that I will fight to prevent your political ascendency - both nationally as well as locally.

I have compiled and sent a lenghty letter of complaint about you to the RNC. They will not receive another cent from me until RINO's like you are gone.

Anonymous said...

Chuck Hagel is no more than a Democratic puppet. He does not represent Nebraska! This guy couldn't get elected dog catcher in Nebraska and would never carry the state on a presidential bid.
You've Gotta Be Kidding Chucky!

Anonymous said...

If I was responsible for Chucky Cheese's "grass roots" web site I would pull the plug quickly and take this pipe dream off life support.

Anonymous said...

As a loyal Republican and supporter of this crucial War on Terror, Senator Hagel will never get my vote for anything from this day forward. He has sacrificed Beltway Politics and his personal need for fame, power and recognition over Honor, Commitment and doing what is Right for our country. Hagel is a disgrace to us all and a comfort to our enemies! President in '08? What a joke!

Maj D said...

Just want to know when Senator Hagel will make it official and switch parties to the gutless wonder democrats because there's no way in hell this cowardly bastard is going to get nominated as the Republican candidate. He wants to quit and run. It's not like he has a better idea about how to win in Iraq. If he thought he had a better idea about victory, I could respect him challenging the strategy. Unfortunately, not only does he not have a better idea about how to win, he doesn't even understand that surrender will empower the sworn enemies of this country.

William Dalton said...

"Anonymous" is usually the shield behind which one hides when concerned how others will receive his remarks. In this case it seems to be the path taken by one RNC plant to disguise his origin. He seems to be the one participant on this weblog who is so ignorant of Republican politics that he doesn't know Chuck Hagel has risen to prominence as Presidential timber precisely because he was the first and loudest voice among Republican conservatives to expose the "War on Terror" as a fraud - a fraud perpetrated by the Bush Administration, taking advantage of the nation's raw feelings after the 9/11 attack, to pump up the President's popularity rating and propel him to reelection. With the exception of Ron Paul, Senator Hagel is only Republican contemplating running for President who IS a conservative on the issue of American foreign policy, the "War on Terror", and, in particular, the misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the other candidates are content to take the "safe" road - not bucking the Party establishment, happy to take the money of the big money interests who are glad to see our government squandering our national wealth and the blood of our patriots while pursuing the fantasy world of "battling evil" and "making the world safe through democracy", which is nothing but a fig leaf cover for pursuing world empire.

Men like Chuck Hagel will either lead the Republican Party out of the dark woods into which it has wandered, or the party will soon emerge from the darkness by following its pied piper over the edge of the cliff beckoning it to self-destruction.

michelle said...

Let's hear it for William Dalton!...(scroll down and see his comments). It's not about being a Republican or a Democrat, it's about being an American and wanting what is best for our country and our people. Obviously none of the others who have left comments even remotely know someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan, much less care about our military's safety. Those are real people over there, and they don't really know what they are fighting for anymore. Weapons of mass destruction...weren't found, Sadaam Hussein...he's dead. What is it now that Bush is saying we're there for? There isn't even any form of real government in place, how will anything we may be doing there be sustained regardless of how long we stay?

I hope Chuck Hagel does run for President, at least then we would have a reason to vote. I am a Nebraskan and am proud to say he represents our state, and our nation. Perhaps everyone should think about what this nation was founded on, we were trying to get away from the monarchy, not encourage it.

Hagel is right, Bush has ignored all opinions, advice and strategies other than his own. That is not representing the people. Let's face it, he made a HUGE mistake, and he has no idea how to fix it, so he simply won't. Instead will take the coward way out and leave his mess for someone to clean up.

Hagel in '08 !

mia said...

this is how the neocons have polluted our party, republicans can't see a conservative when they have one in their face.......

it is a sad sad day we have all been duped by pres. bush....

we so desperately need a man with hagel who actually went to war, unlike bush and cheney...

i believe you already linked to this article once..


even with the vote i think this still holds true.....


Rob Schroeder said...

What's with all the anonymous cowards trashing Hagel? Just because the man disagrees with you, doesn't make him a traitor to anything. The funniest part about all you anti-Hagels is the fact that you think Iraq has fuck all to do with fighting terrorism. It doesn't, it never did. If Bush really wanted to invade a country that has strong ties to terrorism, he would've aimed south of Iraq, to Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Wahabbism, which is the particular brand of Islam for Al Qeada.

Iraq, under Saddam, was never friendly territory for extremists like the Wahabbis, they challenged his power.

That said, I congratulate Senator Hagel on his courage and conviction.

ericpaddon said...

Despite the fact that I know this will not be printed, I'm writing it anyway.

The grandstanding posturing of Michelle and Dalton again ignore a rather salient fact that Hagel's denunciation of the President revealed his manifest ignorance of the Constitution of the United States, and any candidate who doesn't realize that vetoing a measure that passed with a one vote majority (and only got it when Nancy Pelosi shoved all kinds of pork into it. So much for Hagel and his committment to real fiscal responsibility that he'll sign off on pork projects if it means meddling in foreign policy in the name of kowtowing to the Cindy Sheehan-Michael Moore faction).

Michelle's comment about there not being a real government in place in Iraq is not only a demeaning insult to the Iraqis who have come together in the time since to get a government formed, it's also a crass insult of the effort our troops have achieved during that time, and for which they need the unquestioned support to finish the job, which Senator Hagel opposes with his appeal to George McGovern's "come home America" philsophy.

Any "conservative" who subscribes to the Cindy Sheehan-Michael Moore characterization of the President and the War on Terror, as I have noticed EVERY Hagel supporter on this blog has been doing, is a phony conservative of the first order, and the ultimate grandstander.

This will be printed at my blog if you're not big enough to countenance dissent at your own site.

William Dalton said...


If you want to know my credentials to write as a conservative (I served as a lawyer in the Reagan Administration) and my understanding of the Constitution, you are welcome to read a note Charlie posted here previously:


And, as Charlie was so gracious as to post your comments on his weblog, I challenge you to post my cited note on your blog as well!

Redneck Texan said...

Seriously Charlie, how can you look at this list

YEAs ---51
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

...and not conclude Hagel is a traitor to both his party and his nation's fighting men and women?

If I didn't know anything else about Chuck....this would be all I needed to determine his lack of electability in a Republican nomination process.

And frankly I will be shocked if he retains his Senate seat next time.

ericpaddon said...

Comments of Charlie have always been posted my blog and you are free to do the same on my own. By all means do so. So long as there is no profanity any comment on the issue is welcome.

As a history teacher with a graduate degree in American history (and someone who knows all about having to be exposed to radical Left Wing opinion on a daily basis, and believe me what I hear expressed there doesn't deviate one iota from what I hear Chuck Hagel say on foreign policy), I too know something of the Constitution, and the Constitution does not allow foreign policy or the deployment of the military in tactical war strategy to be dictated by the legislative branch. The Congress did not take such votes relative to the prosecution of World War II, nor should they have, as wartime strategy was to be left to the Commander in Chief.

For Senator Hagel to claim the President is "lacking in accountability" by refusing to listen to such an un-Constitutional attempt at usurping Presidential power (eerily reminiscent of how Congressional irresponsibility in similar resolutions led to the betrayal of South Vietnam in the critical 1973-75 poeriod) that only could get a two vote majority because of pork stuffing (which in itself reveals that Senator Hagel is checking his principles on fiscal matters at the door if it means serving the interests of the Far Left) is the height of irresponsibility on Hagel's part.

For him to even suggest the President could or should be impeached over a proper use of the veto power for something totally lacking in a mandate (let alone Constitutional propriety) is beyond irresponsible, it is reprehensible. And even if he was only just saying "this might happen" then it was incumbent on him to denounce such an endeavor right now. By not doing so, Senator Hagel willingly allowed himself to appear once again in headlines of liberal news media as someone in the GOP ranks denouncing the President, in the media's usual attempts to denounce the President.

Senator Hagel has also shown a strange willingness to align himself with the Cindy Sheehan-Michael Moore crowd that he must explain. When I hear rhetoric saying the President lied us into War, that is not rhetoric worthy of anyone who claims to respect the traditions of Ronald Reagan. That is rhetoric of the Far Left, and reminiscent only of George McGovern and other likeminded people who denounced Reagan as an evil warmongerer and how the United States could not win the Cold War.

When Hagel borrows from the traditions of the 1970s Far Left, when not from the 1930s America First Committee, why should I, as someone who admires the legacy of the Republican party as defined by Ronald Reagan, give him any consideration whatsoever?

That question has remained unanswered in the remarks of all of Hagel's supporters in this blog, which is why I find myself so often coming back to it ever since National Review Online first made me aware of its existence.

William Dalton said...

Eric, if you have followed my comments on the Hagel 2008 and Iraq Victory blogs on the Yahoo site, you will know that I also believe that it is an intrusion by the Congress upon the President's prerogative as Commander in Chief to be making tactical decisions in the conduct of the Iraq War, including setting "benchmarks" and "timetables" to change troop deployments. However, it is fully within Congress' power to declare our adventure in Iraq to be at an end, withdraw the authority of the President to wage war there, and cut off funds for anything other the means necessary to secure our embassy and bring our troops home safely. This in no way endangers our troops or undermines their mission. On the contrary, their only achievable mission in Iraq was accomplished at the time the President stood on that aircraft carrier under the banner,"Mission Accomplished". We had kicked Saddam and his party out of power over Iraq's government, all our Army and Marines were trained and equipped to do. Unfortunately, we also created a grand mal mess over there, and without an Army of a few hundred thousand Americans who are fluent in Arabic and knowledgable of Iraqi culture and customs, we were, predictably, incapable of governing that country ourselves. Now, after the loss of a few hundred thousand lives and a hundred billion dollars or two, we have succeeded in putting a government of Iraqis into place to govern the country. It is their job, not ours, to consolidate their control of the country, its borders, and suppress armed rebellion against them. If they can't do the job, someone else will replace them. But at this time it is beyond the power of the United States to control the outcome of that war. It is their war, not ours. By staying one day longer, we only succeed in putting our own troops further in harm's way, and our military operations there only serve to continue to inflame Iraqi opinion against us.

It would have been nice if Senator Hagel and his colleagues had had that resolution to vote on, but a majority of Senators, Democrat and Republican didn't want to vote on that bill, and so what was left was what was voted upon. I don't fault any principled conservative for voting for or against the bill. Some, like Congressmen Paul and Duncan, long war opponents, voted against the pork-laden, dicatated timeline for withdrawal bill. Others, like Congressman Jones and Senator Hagel, both also proven conservatives, even though they had first voted to authorize the war, voted for it.

I consider the importance of this vote to be tactical - it doesn't, in fact, tie the President's hands to do anything. But by refusing to pass a war funding authorization without strings attached, Senator Hagel and the rest of Congress has put the President on notice that, even after his veto of this bill, he will not get the war funds he wants without a serious revision of his war policy to one leading quickly to the withdrawal of American combat forces, and the end of a policy of trying to protect or destroy Middle East governments by sending Americans to war there.

As for impeaching President Bush, his lying us into war is only the first of many charges that could be brought against him. Just ask Bob Barr, who led the team to prosecute Bill Clinton for his crimes. The note for which I provided a link basically outlines a list of the charges that should be drawn. Just as in the case of Bill Clinton, judging whether a President has broken the law or not should not be the subject of partisan debate. If he is a criminal, members of his own party should be the first and strongest voices calling to remove him. Unfortunately that is not the way Washington works, and impeachment is not a practical option at this late stage of Bush's last term in office. But don't you dare to say a conservative wouldn't call a liar a liar just because he is a Republican president. If there was ever reason to give Bush benefit of the doubt - that he may have been misled by his own staff and advisors, that time has long since passed. The facts of the bad intelligence, its deliberate concoction and the deliberate suppression of the truth by the Bush Administration has been well publicized by conservative as well as liberal journals and websites (I recommend you read a few years back issues of "The American Conservative", and columns by Pat Buchanan, Joe Sobran, Charlie Reese, Robert Novak, etc.), which deception the President has refused to acknowledge and punish (on the contrary, until Rumsfeld's firing, he continually removed his administration's truth tellers in favor of its liars). Consequently, one can only conclude that the President is himself a knowing participant in the fraud used to expand his powers and perpetuate his presidency.

Any Republican who continues to carry water for this President might as well take down his elephant paraphernalia and replace it with images of an ostrich, its head firmly entrenched "where the sun don't shine".

ericpaddon said...

If you are against the intrusion of Congress into the role of usurping the authority of the Commander in Chief by interfering with tactical military strategy with timetables, then you have already made the case as to why Chuck Hagel is unfit to be President of the United States. He voted for such an un-Constitutional measure and then said the President could be subject to impeachment for properly using the veto power of such an un-Constitutional measure of the Congress.

The last time Congress cut off funds in a blatant attempt to make a meddling statement on foreign policy was in 1973-75 and the end result was what turned Saigon into Ho Chi Minh City and gave us a totaliarian tyrrany in Vietnam that rendered the sacrifice of 50,000 Americans in vain, and also gave us the human tragedy of the Boat People. And the Congress of 1973-75 that betrayed the South Vietnamese was also influenced by the same radical Left wing that is more and more influencing Chuck Hagel in addition to the Congressional Democrats they've controlled since then.

And when you start listing the names of Buchanan, Sobran etc. as the "conservative" voices I should listen to regarding the War on Terror, when those gents have a rap sheet of being anti-Israel that automatically renders them worthless voices from my standpoint (I have zero patience for those who constantly seek to whitewash Palestinian and Arab violence and terror as that crowd has done for too long) with their irrational hatred of any "conservative" who doesn't subscribe to the 1930s philosophy of Charles Lindbergh.

And BTW, it really doesn't help your case as a conservative in my eyes to learn you thought Mary Kay LeTourneau's father was the best candidate for President in 1972, either.

mia said...

not sure where to put this but joe has another great columns about limbaugh attacking sen hagel.



William Dalton said...

Here's a column you should read, Eric, thanks to my friend, David Pyne:


Anonymous said...

As a Mother of a United States Marine, I am glad Senator Hagel has the guts to speak the TRUTH! We went to war based on a lie, we went to war without the proper armor, again the entire war is a LIE! I hope Senator Hagel runs as an Independent and if he decides to run as a Republican, that will not hinder my decision, to still vote for him. Devil Dog Ma

Charlie said...

This is from an interview with Matthew Dowd, a former key player in the Bush campaigns:

"He said he clung to the hope that Mr. Bush would get back to his Texas style of governing if he won. But he saw no change after the 2004 victory.

He describes as further cause for doubt two events in the summer of 2005: the administration’s handling of Hurricane Katrina and the president’s refusal, around the same time that he was entertaining the bicyclist Lance Armstrong at his Crawford ranch, to meet with the war protester Cindy Sheehan, whose son died in Iraq.

“I had finally come to the conclusion that maybe all these things along do add up,” he said. “That it’s not the same, it’s not the person I thought.” "

The key is not that he agreed with Sheehan, but that the President made a mistake in not meeting with her. Sounds like what Hagel said.

ericpaddon said...

Good riddance to Matthew Dowd (of whom it can be said, shows no signs of having any legitimate conservative opinions on anything) if he honestly felt the President should waste his time listening to the preening blatherings of someone who if there was any decency in the judicial system (in light of the travesty that's befallen Scooter Libby) should be prosecuted for treason.