Financial Times - "Internationalize Iraq"

Senator Hagel had a piece, Internationalize Iraq, in the Financial Times on July 3rd, 2007. Once again, Chuck Hagel clearly and articulately lays out his views on how the United States should approach Iraq. The piece is well worth a read.

Hagel's op-ed in today's Washington Post

Senator Hagel wrote an op-ed that is in today's Washington Post. This piece is the result of his recent trip to Iraq.

In Iraq, All Terribly Familiar

By Chuck Hagel

Sunday, April 22, 2007; Page B01

Last weekend, along with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), I completed my fifth trip to Iraq, and I am frustrated and worried. We are still risking the lives of our troops without giving them a realistic policy worthy of their sacrifices. To me, as a Vietnam veteran, that feels terribly familiar.

If success were simply a matter of the determination and ability of U.S. troops and civil servants, we would have already created a secure and stable Iraq. But unfortunately, the reality is that after more than four years, America remains the country's occupying power. Iraq's future will be determined by Iraqis, who, I hope, will reach a political accommodation -- but America is still making the major decisions and taking the lead militarily in most critical areas of the country. We can continue to help buy time for the Iraqi government -- but that time is running out.

The signs are everywhere. Key Shiite leaders told me that they remain deeply skeptical of Sunni intentions. They derided as "appeasement" constructive attempts to reintegrate select ex-Baath Party officials into public life and the government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders openly suggested that Iraq simply pursue what's known as "the 80/20 solution" -- meaning that the Kurds and Shiites, who make up some 80 percent of the population, would run the country without regard for the minority Sunnis, who had grown accustomed to dominating Iraq. Almost no one in Baghdad was talking about using new provincial elections this year to help bring the Sunnis into the national government. The governor of Anbar province, al-Qaeda's base in Iraq, agreed that security had improved recently but raised concerns that his province still gets almost no assistance from the central government in Baghdad. That has left citizens in his province without jobs, electricity and potable water, even as open sewers spill filth into the streets.

There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them. In Anbar province, for example, U.S. military leaders highlighted the significant success they have had in lowering the number of attacks by al-Qaeda. The military has successfully engaged tribal leaders who have provided informal governance there for hundreds of years. The U.S. military has also succeeded in helping double the size of the Iraqi forces in the province. Whether this progress can be sustained or is temporary will be up to the Iraqis.

If the good news is mixed, the bad news is downright troubling. Within the past two weeks, hundreds of Iraqis were slaughtered in Baghdad, the Iraqi Parliament's cafeteria was hit by a suicide bomber, and a historic Baghdad bridge over the Tigris River was destroyed. Ominously, these increased acts of violence occurred in the area where the United States and Iraq have deployed 80,000 security forces.

So what do we do?

We must start by understanding what's really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a "self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" and also includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence." This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias -- not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is. The Bush administration's rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.

American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq's anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.

So how can America influence the Iraqis to reconcile their differences -- at least enough to form some kind of responsible government?

First, we must recognize that we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.

Second, we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before, and that means addressing the nearly universal perception in the Middle East that we are imposing our will on the region for our own purposes.

To get more help from our regional friends, we must also have Middle Eastern countries see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. And to get our regional strategy right, we must clearly recognize the depth of the Sunni-Shiite split and factor it into our Middle East policy and relationships. If we do not, the region could explode into ethnic and religious conflict.

Third, and closer to home, the administration and Congress must untangle themselves from the debate over funding our continued involvement in Iraq. The Iraqis must be jolted into understanding that America's continued commitment of troops and money is not open-ended. Significantly, American leaders in Iraq told me that they believed the debate on this issue in Congress had actually helped them get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point.

I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines. They are blunt instruments in an area of policy that requires flexibility. But they are some of the few levers Congress has when the majority of Congress and the American people have lost confidence in the president's policy.

We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.

The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff -- with U.S. troops caught in the middle. This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities. The longer we are bogged down in Iraq, the more difficult and painful it will be to get out. And the deeper we are bogged down in Iraq, the fewer resources we have to devote to the many other important challenges facing America, especially in Afghanistan but also elsewhere around the globe and here at home.

If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish. The president will be left with a bitter few allies in our party, and we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq in a way that greatly damages U.S. interests in the Middle East and leaves the world far more dangerous than it is today. Forging a bipartisan consensus now that places responsible conditions on U.S. war funding could forestall a time when we have no options. The Baker-Hamilton report could have been the base for that bipartisan consensus.

I came home from my fifth trip to Iraq with one enduring impression. The Iraqi government must make the tough choices now to produce political reconciliation. If there is no such reconciliation in Iraq, there will be no progress -- no matter how many American lives we lose and how much American money we give. We will have squandered our resources and efforts, undermined our interests in the Middle East and, however unintentionally, produced a more dangerous world.

Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.

"If Steve McQueen had ever run for political office, he would have been Chuck Hagel."

There is a piece in the SeacoastOnline that is well worth a read. It's quite entertaining, really. Here is an excerpt:

[T]he point is this: Now in particular, after the 16 years that will have preceded our next president, we’re going to need an individual we can respect and admire and take pride in. Someone who can inspire us and help define us as a nation. Or in this case, redefine us.

When even the national media was busy playing cheerleader during our march into war in Iraq, Hagel had the insight to recognize the potential for disaster and the cajones to voice his concerns in public. He recently returned from his fifth visit to the war-torn country, reiterating the importance “that the Iraqi people now carry forward the assistance that the American government has given.”

“The future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people,” he said.

The refreshing candor Hagel has brought to Washington would be welcomed in the presidential campaign, and especially in New Hampshire. Web sites like drafthagel08.com have already sprung up on the Internet to encourage his run for the White House.

The senator recently announced he will make his decision on a presidential bid later in the year. Here’s hoping he gives it a shot. At this point, we probably need Hagel a lot more than he needs us.

"Diamonds Don't Always Lie at the Surface: For a Chuck Hagel Presidency"

There is a good editorial in favor of a Hagel Presidency at First Call. The piece, "Diamonds Don't Always Lie at the Surface: For a Chuck Hagel Presidency," is by Al Moran. Here are some excerpts:

Hagel’s conservative credentials are extremely sound: he has consistently voted against abortion, downplayed the need for even more money to be put into public education programs without organizing the tremendous amount that’s already there, supported reforming Social Security so the nest egg doesn’t dry up in the very-near future, etc.
...
Hagel has responded with the statement that he swore an oath of office to the Constitution, and not one to a party or particular ideology. I greatly admire and respect this; Hagel seems to be a voice of reason in a conservative base that is increasingly straying from its intellectual and traditional roots. He simply wants to question an administration that has erred. We have been involved in Iraq for quite some time now. The administration’s proposals must be questioned by Congress. Otherwise, why would a separate but coequal executive and legislature be necessary? The senator is not an advocate of the “cut-and-run” strategy, nor has he any desire to undermine the troops. Rather, he simply advocates the moral consequences of sending another 20,000 young people into a conflict that seems to be spiraling downward into total civil war. A fundamental recurring point throughout history is the necessity that policy match strategy. Hagel’s invocation of both terms recently in regards to Iraq seems both salient and wise. Without a sound policy, a change in strategy becomes extremely difficult and improbable.
...
n a Republican Party that has become corrupt and estranged from its values, he seems to be a genuinely good and honest man, who is unafraid of alienating himself based on stringent party lines. He favors curbing government expenditures. He favors cutting down the federal bureaucracy. He favors maintaining a strong military and strong American standing in the world. But most importantly, he knows the necessity of examining policy initiatives with scrutiny, and believes all politicians owe this to the American people.

Be sure to check out the full article.

"Hagel has what it takes: Integrity"

Here's a nice piece from Daniel Klimek that was in The Depaulia a while back.

Hagel has what it takes: Integrity
by Daniel Klimek
Staff Writer

After Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made her appearance before a bipartisan Senate committee last week, a day after George Bush presented his idiotic plan for war escalation in a nationally televised address, she ended up experiencing a lot of resistance in her attempts to purvey the president's newest foreign policy wishes.

The ubiquitous resistance against a plan that would send over 20,000 more American lives to the contemporary, war-infected tragedy that is Iraq was fervently dismantled, with the greatest opposition produced by no one other than fellow Republican Chuck Hagel.

An independent-thinking Maverick Senator from Nebraska, Hagel is one of those rare creatures in the American political world: an individualist who refuses to be corrupted by the blindness of partisanship in order to influence decision-making efforts.

Never one to shy away from criticizing his own party when necessary, Hagel once famously remarked, "I took an oath of office to the Constitution. I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."

That is why when one of the president's top officials made an appearance before him, Hagel did not fail to disappoint with his natural rhetoric, blasting away at an ill-fated policy and at the pawn sent to sell it.

"To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war, is wrong," Hagel told Rice. "It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong."

Hagel, a decorated Vietnam Veteran who (unlike certain Republican leaders) knows what war means firsthand, went on to say, "Some of us remember 1970, Madam Secretary, and that was Cambodia, when our government lied to the American people. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee."

The two-time Purple Heart winner continued: "So Madam Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous." Then, in one of those poignant moments that sees integrity challenging the authoritarian forces of power, Hagel followed with a set of words that would be repeated all week throughout the national networks around the country.

"As a matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out. I will resist it."

Seldom does one hear the cheers of public applause at an American Congressional hearing televised on C-SPAN. But the moment could not have come at a more urgent time. Historically, Hagel's dissidence has caused him undeserving criticism. Members of his own party have gone as far as to comparing him to a Democrat. Which is not fair for such a comparison defames the good senator.

Far from a Democrat, Hagel's political liberalism is balanced with the proper amount of social conservatism. Unlike the ideological hypocrites on the Left who advocate the end to killing abroad in the name of peace, yet possess absolutely no shame in supporting similarly heinous actions on the domestic front in the name of "choice," Hagel's record shows a perfect recognition for the dignity of human life, opposing various forms of violence. When it comes to the great abortion debate, the senator shows equal respect for both mother and child with his pro-life stance. The Christian Coalition has given him a rating of 100%, representing a pro-family voting record.

Without question a prominent name considered for the 2008 Presidential Race, Hagel's supporters have developed a grassroots movement backing his candidacy. Though he has not officially announced it yet, the desire to recruit the senator for the '08 race has been established. Numerous unassociated online blogs and sites have been formed organizing efforts for a possible run.

The reason to support Hagel does lie in his individualistic integrity, embodied not only in the man as a politician but also as a human being. Perhaps yet the best example of this free-thinking independence exists in Hagel's response to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict which took place last summer.

While all mainstream politicians from each end of the political aisle�the Bush administration as well as self-proclaimed "progressives" like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi�supported Israel unequivocally as its military forces invaded Lebanon, killing over 1000 innocent civilians and displacing over one million people while labeling these atrocities as acts of "defense," only one high-profile senator spoke out.

Flirting with the possibility of breaking the unspoken, golden rule of American politics: do not ever cross the overly power Israel Lobby, exemplified so artfully in AIPAC (since doing so can result in political suicide), Hagel came before the senate floor in July, 2006, and declared that "The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now. This madness must stop." The latter point referring not only to the violence in the Middle East but also to the unequivocal support offered by both major U.S. parties.

Now that took some chutzpah�the kind necessary in 2008.

"Editorial: Hagel Will Sell Well In the Heartland"

Here's an piece worth sharing (from Huntington News in WV).

Editorial: Hagel Will Sell Well In the Heartland

In every presidential primary, Republican or Democrat, each party's dominant wing (right for Republicans, left for Democrats) are courted heavily. Take the Republicans. Even if the vast majority of Republican voters are not strongly conservative in the Republican primaries, those conservatives are highly prized because they always vote and are passionate enough to get others to vote.

So every Republican who wants to have a chance of victory is talking conservatives' language on social issues and foreign policy in anticipation of next year's primary contests. Even former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is trying to convince wary conservatives that his liberal advocacy on issues ranging from abortion to gun control to gay rights is behind him now.

What a relief for supporters of U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) that their man doesn't have to try so hard to convince conservatives that he is one of them. On abortion issues, Hagel has a sterling pro-life record in the U.S. Senate. The same is true on issues involving family values like marriage to a defense of the Second Amendment. Moreover, Hagel is a strong anti-tax Republican who wants a balanced budget. And as for his stand against some of the strategy leading up to the Iraq war and the blunders caused in it, Hagel always comes in the name of the soldiers themselves--and a more sensible, effective foreign policy to fight terrorism worldwide.

This is the kind of common-sense conservatism that appeals to both the social conservatives and the traditional, anti-tax conservatives in the Republican Party. More importantly for the GOP as it looks for a winner nationally in what will be a very close election in 2008, Hagel's common sense will resonate with the general voting public in both parties.

Rural states similar to Nebraska, like West Virginia, are as much traditional as they are conservative. Their voters want someone who understands rural issues. Given West Virginia's rise to prominence in the electoral college tally in 2000, putting George W. Bush over the top, look for candidates like Hagel to put in some time in states like West Virginia where they have natural common ground. Hagel can do well nationally, both in the primaries and the general election, in rural states like West Virginia. Hagel's straight-talking yet always-respectful style will be appreciated here.

The American people may be ready for a "Steady Eddie," a fresh face with a solid record of achievement in the U.S. Senate, and a seasoned leader with an intimate understanding of our nation's military, foreign policy, and what makes the private sector hum. If so, the Republicans would be wise to put forward a midwestern statesman this time around for President: U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel.

"Bill Wineke: Hagel would make the best president"

Here's an article that's worth taking a look at: Bill Wineke: Hagel would make the best president. Here's an excerpt:

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Hagel is the best person to run this country for the next few years.
...
Hagel is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and I disagree with him on virtually every issue. I even disagree with him on the war in Iraq. I don't think we can just walk away from the mess we created.

So why would I suggest Hagel is the best person to run our country?

Because this country has a lot of big problems to solve and it is doing precious little to solve any of them.

I'm not at all sure it makes any difference whether our leaders follow liberal policies to solve those problems or follow conservative policies. There are different paths to solving problems. But for the past 16 years, at least, we haven't followed any path; we've just spent all our time fighting.

Hagel, I think, has the opportunity to pull the country together. He is a war hero who was wounded in Vietnam. That should mollify the hawks. He opposes the war in Iraq. That should mollify the doves.

He built a business from scratch. I have never heard any scandal associated with his name. He's not running around the country trying to convince fruitcakes that he's one of them.

In short, Chuck Hagel is the conservative Republican everyone thought George W. Bush would be - but wasn't.

Hagel gets a great deal of respect due to his competence.

Leadership, Vision, and Experience - that's why I support Hagel for '08.

Also, please donate today.

"EDITORIAL: Hagel Will Make 2008 an Adventure"

Here's an editorial from Huntington News in Huntington, WV that sums up why many want to see Chuck Hagel in the White House.

U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) has led what some would call an adventuresome life: helping to fight the Vietnam War, some serious success as a businessman and entrepreneur, and one of the most respected, independent political voices at the nation's capitol.

He could cash in his chips right now and leave a hero. Or perhaps opt for a significant appointment in the next administration like Colin Powell chose to do, perhaps to his regret.

But increasingly, Senator Hagel sounds like a Republican Presidential candidate, and when one surveys the field of likely candidates in parties, no one else has the blend of experience, the understanding of war, and the pulse of the American people like Senator Hagel does.

Nobody.

Hagel was the first Republican to question whether the Iraq War was heading in the right track. He courageously asked questions nobody else would ask -- in either party -- of this administration's key foreign policy decision. Having seen war up close, Hagel is neither afraid to prosecute a just war, nor is he patient with bland excuses for warfare that seems to be listless and meaningful only in the number of casualties.

The man who is both comfortable with power but responsible and judicious in its use is who American needs now. Like George Washington, who always returned his power back to the people who gave it to him, Senator Hagel appears to have the integrity to be trusted with power in next year's election and beyond.

We hope he runs--for the sake of our country and the world. Those who have the audacity to question Senator Hagel for merely raising the most obvious of questions about a failed strategy need to get a serious reality check--and to check out the continued drumbeat of the public opinion polls.

Hagel is a man whose time has come -- because he's one of us. He understands the price of war and how to prosecute a necessary military conflict effectively. How?

Because he does his homework and casts a wide net for advice.

Two articles making the case for Hagel

There are two articles out today making the case that Chuck Hagel is the right choice for the Republicans. They both note (as I have heard many times) that Republicans are not excited about the 2008 field.

The first is "Long-Shot Hagel May Be Republican's Best Bet" by Margaret Carlson. Here are some excerpts.

With no Secretariat in the stable, there's room for a dark horse. Galloping in is Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.
...
If party activists could see past his sharp criticism of Bush's foreign policy, they would like his life story. Hagel's father died when he was a teenager, and young Chuck helped look after the other children and worked as a carhop at a hamburger joint. He and his younger brother joined the infantry and nearly died in Vietnam. He worked several jobs before starting a hugely successful cell-phone company. It made him a millionaire.
...

Although he's often referred to as McCain without the attitude, Hagel is hardly an economic populist. He is an ardent tax cutter and fiscal conservative who votes with Bush, as he reminds me, more than 90 percent of the time.

He's not an evangelical (he's Episcopalian), but they could hardly fault his voting record, which garners a pro-family score of 100 from the Christian Coalition.
...
He's not the only Republican to turn against Bush on the war, just the one who most annoys the White House.
...
It's hard to make smears like ``you're emboldening the enemy'' and ``sending the wrong message to the troops'' stick to Hagel, who still carries shrapnel and burn scars from pulling his brother to safety in Vietnam.

The second piece is "Hagel's the only real right stuff" by Brett Arends.

Conservatives should stop complaining about their choices for president. They already have a serious candidate who is to the right of Ronald Reagan - and who could actually win a general election.
Despite his current liberal vogue over the Iraq war, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) has a 100 percent lifetime rating from the Christian Coalition. One hundred percent. He has a 0 percent rating from pro-choice pressure groups. He has a right-wing record right down the line, from gun rights to gay marriage to ANWAR petroleum drilling to tax cuts. He even opposed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which President Bush signed.

He’s also an expert on foreign relations and intelligence. Oh yes, and he’s a decorated veteran who served his country in Vietnam.
...
The irony is that Hagel is the sort of conservative candidate who could win over a lot of independents in a general election, even if they may not agree with him on some issues.

Why?
The man has moxie - enough to stand up to the Bush administration in 2005, when even many Democrats were still hiding in their bunker. He has been proven correct on the handling of postwar Iraq. He has the foreign policy experience, through his work on non-governmental organizations and on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees. And finally, Hagel’s conservative principles even extend to a burning issue for independents: the Constitution.
...
Grassroots conservatives have to ask themselves a simple question: Are they really conservatives or just loyalists to the party leadership?

Peggy Noonan in the WSJ: "He's Got Guts"

Take a look at Peggy Noonan's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, "He's Got Guts: In Praise of Chuck Hagel." Here's an excerpt:

But Mr. Hagel said the most serious thing that has been said in Congress in a long time. This is what we're here for. This is why we're here, to decide, to think it through and take a stand, and if we can't do that, why don't we just leave and give someone else a chance?

Mr. Hagel has shown courage for a long time. He voted for the war resolution in 2002 but soon after began to question how it was being waged. This was before everyone did. He also stood against the war when that was a lonely place to be. Senate Democrats sat back and watched: If the war worked, they'd change the subject; and if it didn't, they'd hang it on President Bush. Republicans did their version of inaction; they supported the president until he was unpopular, and then peeled off. This is almost not to be criticized. It's what politicians do. But it's not what Mr. Hagel did. He had guts.

USA Today Op-ed

Senators Chuck Hagel and Joseph Biden have an editorial in today's USA Today about Iraq.

A first step in Iraq

By Chuck Hagel and Joseph Biden

Today, Congress takes an important step in what we believe is our constitutional responsibility to actively engage and debate the war in Iraq. We agree with the president that our previous strategy in Iraq was failing. Equally, we are convinced that to succeed in Iraq, America's objective and strategy must enjoy the support of the American people and a bipartisan support in Congress.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on a resolution we introduced with our colleagues Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, believe: America should not deepen its military involvement in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war. More troops in Baghdad will increase the likelihood of more American casualties and will not end the sectarian Iraqi massacres that are occurring every day.

Just as important, our resolution proposes an alternative. The primary objective of America's strategy should be to help Iraqis achieve a political settlement in Iraq, secure support for that settlement from Iraq's neighbors and refocus the mission of our remaining troops on achievable objectives. That is the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Here are the main elements of our plan:

• Redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq's cities with a more limited mission focused on defending Iraq's territorial integrity, counterterrorism, border control, and accelerated training of Iraqi forces;

• Transfer responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence to Iraqi forces under an appropriately expedited timeline;

• Continue to support Iraq's political process while making it clear that Iraqi leaders must make the political compromises necessary to help Iraq move forward;

• Engage Iraq's neighbors and the international community to build a regional framework to help support and sustain a political solution and national reconciliation.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presented the president's plan to the Foreign Relations Committee. The reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.

A strong majority of the American people opposes sending more American troops into Iraq. So does a broad cross section of this country's leaders, military and civilian, as we have heard this month in hearings in Congress. In December, the Baker-Hamilton Commission issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy "to enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly" based on "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region."

Our fundamental objective is to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to support a U.S. policy on Iraq that stands the best chance of succeeding and bringing our men and women in uniform home.

We welcome debate of our resolution and proposed alternatives. The resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., contributes to this debate. As we have made clear publicly and privately, we are prepared to adjust our resolution to help broaden bipartisan support. Ultimately, this debate will give every senator a chance to say where he or she stands.

We believe that the single most effective way for Congress to engage the president in developing a way forward in Iraq is to demonstrate the depth and breadth of bipartisan concern regarding his policy. The power of our resolution rests in its bipartisan foundation.

Iraq is not a partisan issue. It is a challenge that we must meet as Americans. No one in Congress and no one in America wants to see America defeated. We believe our nation is stronger when Congress fulfills its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., is a member of the committee.

Hagel for President in the News Again

Our grassroots efforts have made the news again, this time in the New York Sun.

"Hagel's Moment"

The Washington Post today has a great piece by David Ignatius ("Hagel's Moment?"). It is well worth the read. My appologies for two full article posts in one week, but they're both so good...

Hagel's Moment?

By David Ignatius

Wednesday, November 29, 2006; Page A23

A month ago the idea that Sen. Chuck Hagel would make a serious run for the Republican presidential nomination would have been a non-starter. As an outspoken critic of President Bush on Iraq and other issues, Hagel's way was blocked. His best hope was nomination by a quixotic third party in an online convention.

It's a measure of the step change brought about by the Nov. 7 elections that Hagel is now seriously exploring a GOP presidential bid. The Republican blowout, he says, reflected a "breakdown of confidence and trust in governance" and opened the way for what he believes will be "the most wide-open presidential race since 1952." The Nebraska senator says he will make a formal decision in the next two months on whether to run.

What would make a Hagel candidacy interesting is that he can claim to have been right about Iraq and other key issues earlier than almost any national politician, Republican or Democratic. Though a Vietnam veteran and a hawk on many national security issues, he had prescient misgivings about the Iraq war -- and, more important, the political courage to express these doubts clearly, at a time when many politicians were running for cover.

Hagel warned about the dangers of invading Iraq in a Feb. 20, 2003, speech in Kansas. He noted that America stood "nearly alone" in advocating military force to disarm Iraq and cautioned against "a rush to war." Some of Hagel's premonitions were almost eerie: "What comes after Saddam Hussein? The uncertainties of a post-Saddam, post-conflict Middle East should give us pause, encourage prudence and force us to recognize the necessity of coalitions in seeing it through." He urged the Bush administration to transfer postwar oversight to the United Nations as soon as possible, and he admonished Iraq boosters to "put aside the mistaken delusion that democracy is just around the corner."

Hagel was also early to understand the importance of talking to Iran, another idea that has since become commonplace but at the time took political guts. In a July 10, 2003, speech on the Senate floor, he said that a direct U.S. dialogue with Tehran about the nuclear issue might be necessary. In a Nov. 15, 2005, speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he was emphatic: "The fact that our two governments cannot -- or will not -- sit down to exchange views must end."

Such outspoken criticisms of Bush policies had put Hagel outside the respectable Republican perimeter -- until Election Day. Hagel delivered his own blunt postmortem in a Nov. 16 speech to a conservative political action committee, GOPAC. The message of the election, he said, "is the American people saying you failed." Republicans had become so focused on keeping power that "we came loose of our moorings."

Hagel went on to criticize his party's failings in language you rarely hear in the usual pre-masticated sound bites of today's politicians. On GOP ethics lapses: "When you blow past the ethical standards and you play on the edge of legality, you're in trouble." On Bush administration foreign policy: "You cannot have a foreign policy based on divine mission. We tried that in the Middle Ages, that's what the Crusades were about."

It strains credulity to imagine that a GOP controlled by Bush and Karl Rove could learn to love Hagel, but, as the Nebraskan says, this is a time of "transformational politics." A more practical problem is that if Hagel does decide to seek the nomination, he will be competing for the same niche as the GOP front-runner, Sen. John McCain, who has been on his "straight-talk express" longer than has Hagel. And although McCain's centrist halo has been tarnished by his efforts to woo the far right, he remains a far more polished speaker and campaigner than Hagel. But on Iraq, Hagel has a clearer stance than does McCain, whose call for a big increase in troops is out of step with both the recommendations of U.S. military commanders and the public mood.

Hagel likes to evoke the Republicanism of Dwight Eisenhower, another former military officer who could be devastating in his criticism of the policies advocated by the military-industrial complex. "This was a real Republican president," he told the GOPAC audience.

Will that pre-Reagan Revolution message play to the party faithful in Iowa and New Hampshire in 2008? Will the Bush administration's problems become so severe that Republicans would embrace a senator from the radical center? The very fact that Hagel is mulling a campaign reminds us that American politics turned a corner this month and that we are in new territory.

Technorati tags: Chuck Hagel, 2008 Election, Washington Post

An Editorial on Immigration

The Omaha World-Herald has a nice editorial about immigration, which supports the Hagel plan.

Responsible Balance - If both sides on immigration furl their flags, they might see wisdom behind Hagel proposal.

Sober realism - a state not easily reached amid dueling cries of "racism" and "amnesty" - dictates that 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants cannot simply be thrown out of this country. Their numbers ought not grow further, but those who are already here need to be assimilated or encouraged to go home and try to come back legally.

Read the full opinion piece here (registration required).

Technorati tags: Chuck Hagel, Immigration