Carol Platt Liebau: Absolutely <i>Not</i>!

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Absolutely Not!

I've long disliked him -- he's John McCain with all of the sanctimony and none of the charm. Of course, I'm talking about Chuck Hagel. Nauseatingly enough, the Washington Post's David Ignatius is trying to tout a Hagel presidential campaign as a possible solution to the Republicans' problems.

It's interesting. David Ignatius tries to characterize Hagel's doomsaying on Iraq as somehow prescient. But it's also worth wondering how much all the doom-saying -- like that indulged in with gusto by people like Hagel -- has contributed to the problems we've encountered in trying to win a war that's as much about will and morale as it is about firepower.

I might vote for Hagel. That is, if he were just about the last Republican on earth besides Lincoln Chafee. And in my opposition to Hagel, I'm apparently in good company.


Blogger Brian Busse said...

Oh, right. The problems in Iraq are all the fault of the nay-sayers. Never mind the lessons of history that the hard part starts after the shooting stops. Never mind the lack of an after action plan. Never mind that the reconstruction was run by those chosen for ideological purity instead of technical competence. W and the neo-con group thinkers have sown the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind. But the fault lies with those who refused to drink the cool-aid. Sure thing.

10:13 PM  
Blogger Lysander Spooner said...

Your comparison of McCain to Hagel does not hold water.

For example, Hagel voted against McCain-Feingold and for the Bush tax cuts (which McCain opposed). Hagel is also strongly pro-gun while McCain is weak on this issue. Finally, McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq while Hagel wants to pull them out.

11:08 AM  
Blogger Lysander Spooner said...

Your comparison to McCain does not hold water. For example, Hagel voted against McCain's campaign finance reform bill and for the Bush tax cuts (while McCain voted no). Hagel is pro-second amendment while McCain is wobbly. Also, of course, they are polar opposites on Iraq. McCain wants to send in more troops while Hagel wants to get them out.

11:12 AM  
Blogger Marshall Art said...


We constantly have to listen to drivel about no "after action plan". Perhaps you could enlighten us on any such plans conceived and implented after other conflicts, say, WWII. Was it written down and held in a folder someplace for the eventuality that we might win, or was it simply play it by ear? It's a lib talking point on which I've never heard elaboration. I await your response.

10:58 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

McCain and Hagel -- interesting comparison. I don't think Hagel is in McCain's league. I believe, sadly. that McCain is an honorable man who, quite frankly, is not up to the demands of the job. I respect him highly no matter how strongly I disagree with him. He deserves no less.

Hagel on the other hand is an unmmitigated opportunist.

6:18 AM  
Blogger Cavalor Epthith said...


There was quite an elaborate after action plan drawn up at the Yalta Conference in 1945. The allies recognizing the necessity of settling issues in Europe as a whole quickly agreed to meet again as soon as the Nazi government in Germany collapsed and the hostilities has concluded with a formal surrender.

The denazification and disarmament of the country was seen as a vital first step. This has only been half done in Iraq. I would posit, as General Patton did in the post war period that using Ba'athists in Iraq might have saved thousands of lives by keeping vital ministries open. Instead the debaathification left Iraq without a control on a civilian population ready and willing to loot the entire nation for their self enrichment without concern of the long term social consequences.

While there was no "folder" with the post war plan in Europe during the Second Terran War there was an understanding that politics would be limited to those of capitalists vice Stalinist rather than a conflict between Truman and his GOP adversaries. Imagine if this great man from Missouri had, because of an opportunity to enrich a major campaign contributor decided to go with operations Olympic and Coronet the ground invasion and air bombardment of the Japanese home islands. Reasonable estimates of the casualties to American soldiers run as high as one million with 300 thousand of those dead. But no such economopolitical agenda existed in a time when wars were fought for different reasons and Americans faced their historical realities and accepted sacrifice as a part of their victory effort.

Now the goal of the war on terror feeds the very reason it is a sham war. There can be no sacrifice for America today for it is not built on the principles of democracy as it was in 1939, even if those principles only were offered to the majority at the time. The nation now sees itself as a font of consumerism and ideology bent to become something in word but not in deed. America has become the capital of Terra's most materialist beings the religious who bring a message of hate for all of those who are unlike them.

A moral nation of immoral cravings, a Union of church going sinners, a state of freedom loving bigots and a homeland of wildly spendthrift so-called conservatives.

So despite my digression America under the current leadership had many options that even in a play it by ear manner could have saved Iraq from the Hell that it faces in the coming years. The generations that it takes to reshape this scar of folly will speak volumes not about the man so many pundits and citizens feel the left hates. I do not think it is the man who could have been one of the greatest presidents ever despite his lack of intellectual acumen. I feel it is the untrusting manner in which they went about their plans in Iraq that has done them in. The need to ensure that loyalists even when unqualified worked in the reconstruction of Iraq points in this demon journalists mind to events that would need to be hidden or methods that more qualified centrist individuals would find unethical.

This war was botched for two reasons: the failure of the United States to recognize the historical rifts between Shi'a and Sunni in the pre 1958 era in Iraq and the belief within the Oval Office within this presidency at the highest levels that no matter how qualified a person was if he did not swear loyalty to the ideology of neoconservatism as spelled out by Kristol and Perle and Co., their help in this massive daunting task could not be accepted.

C.E. esq.

6:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home