Chuck Hagel: Ending the Nonsense in American Foreign Policy

-

hagel.jpg
Today, at 12:15 pm until about 1:30 pm, I will be live streaming an event I will be chairing with Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) who will be speaking about “Ending the Nonsense in American Foreign Policy.”
Hagel will also be speaking about the themes in his important new book America: Our Next Chapter — Tough Questions, Straight Answers.

If the feed is overloaded, two other sites that will live feed Hagel’s remarks and questions with the audience are The American Strategist and the New America Foundation.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

29 comments on “Chuck Hagel: Ending the Nonsense in American Foreign Policy

  1. söve says:

    The gop is the party of fascists, supremists, elitist, corporatist, predatory, pathological liars, perverts, söve and traitors. The people mindlessly succumbed to the blandishments, naked deceptions, söve and false parables of the fascists in the Bush government, söve and the complicit parrots and “message-force multipliers” in the socalled MSM – and sheepishly imagined there was söve some truth, or noble söve cause behind the bloody, costly, noendinsight Bush government söve work. Oil was $35.00 a barrel in 2003. 70% of the peoples intelligence söve product, (formally the purview of federal organizations, söve bureaus, offices, directives, and operations, söve and the US government) – is now jobbedoff to contractors without review, recourse, or remedy for abuse.

    Reply

  2. David says:

    Amen to your recommendation, Kathleen, and three amens (in the tradition of my Southern Protestant forebears) to: “Without a just solution to the issue, however, a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians and in the whole region could not be achieved.”

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    Sen Hagel should soend his remnainbing months in the Senate taking the nonsense out of our Israel-Palestine Policy. A UN Conference on the Palestinian refugees is opening in Paris today.
    UN International Conference on Palestine refugees opens in Paris: Individual, Collective Rights of Palestine Refugees Remain Undiminished, Ban Ki-moon says
    PARIS, 29 April — ‘The Palestinian people’s desire to or right to live a normal daily life in their own sovereign land remains undiminished, as do the individual and collective rights of Palestine refugees,’ Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his message to the opening session of the United Nations International Conference on Palestine Refugees.
    “Paul Badji ( Senegal), Chairman of the Palestinian Rights Committee, said, for the past six decades, no other refugees in modern history had remained refugees for such a long time as the Palestinians who had fled their homes in 1948. Yet, their predicament and the long-lost justice received little attention of the international community. Without a just solution to the issue, however, a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians and in the whole region could not be achieved. ‘Palestine refugees had gone through the suffering, humiliation and dispossession for far too long. Under international law, and also on a moral ground, all of us have a responsibility to continue to work towards bringing about a just solution to this problem.’ ”
    Full report and statements at http://www.thecornerreport.com

    Reply

  4. TonyForesta says:

    Read this and weep progressives? http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=18
    Note if you dare the date. The recent Pentagon disinformation warfare, perception management campaign revelations are nothing new. This is old news, formally relegated to the marginalized realms of conspiracy theory, and now exposed to the hot lights of truth as fact.
    Hagel may oppose the Iraq war, and the woefull mismanagement and criminal profiteering in the prosecution of the Iraq war, – but he is gop, and so part of the problem, and certainly not any hope for a solution.
    The gop is the party of fascists, supremists, elitist, corporatist, predatory, pathological liars, perverts, and traitors. The people mindlessly succumbed to the blandishments, naked deceptions, and false parables of the fascists in the Bush government, and the complicit parrots and “message-force multipliers” in the socalled MSM – and sheepishly imagined there was some truth, or noble cause behind the bloody, costly, noendinsight Bush government work. Oil was $35.00 a barrel in 2003. 70% of the peoples intelligence product, (formally the purview of federal organizations, bureaus, offices, directives, and operations, and the US government) – is now jobbedoff to contractors without review, recourse, or remedy for abuse.
    We were bold and decisive, and making progress, and the evildoers and deadenders were on the run, and the mission is accomplished, and America has prevailed, nor does America torture, or rendition, and centuries of habeaus corpus precedents are discarded for national security reasons, and war is untidy, and I don’t recall, and there are unknown unknowns, and trust us, and don’t bother hoping for transparency, or disclosure, or cooperation, or bipatisan effort, or respect for, or appreciation of comity, the rule of law, or that goddamn piece of paper you constituency groups in America call the Constitution, – kings rights are proclaimed, near dictatorial powers conjured, the people are silenced, disavantaged, and oppressed, and – let’s not forget, or ignore the WANTON PROFITEERING.
    McCain is Bush three. Hagel, – Bush four.

    Reply

  5. ... says:

    you guys are being pretty hard on steves man hagel… if steve wasn’t so nice, he could write up another article on hagel and that would really put you all in a fit, lol.. steve, go for it!!!

    Reply

  6. TonyForesta says:

    After all the costly bloody neverending deceptions, abuses, failures, financial malfeasance, wanton profiteering, treacheries, and treasons poor and middle class Americans have suffered and endured under the tyrannical reign of King George, and the fascist enablers in the republican reich, and the partisans in the gop – how is it possible for any sane American to four more years of republican leadership of any kind?
    The democratic leaderships imponderable incompetence, cowardice, and/or complicity, (as though Karl Rove is running the DNC) allowed (somehow) the gop to “come back” or reanimate in this election. How is it possible that any gop candidate, and especially McCain (who will perpetuate the exact same peridious policies of the facists in the Bush government) is even in this race? The old gaurd of the Democratic party needs to step aside. They have failed the people miserably, and done absolutely nothing to redress to crimes, wanton profiteering, and fascist policies and practices of the Bush government.
    The peoples only hope for salvaging what little remains of our “once more perfect union”, and restoring some semblence of the rule of law, and the Constitution to the conduct of our government, – is for the people to demand and prosecute change. The fascists and the Bush government, and the gop are frightenly close to destroying America. The democratic party leadership are impotent and week. It is time for new voices, and new leadership, and real CHANGE.
    “Deliver us from evil”
    No one

    Reply

  7. rapier says:

    Hagel is irrelevant. He’s a Senator. Nearly an ex one makes it only slightly worse.
    The entire corps of the ‘establishment’ moves about and makes noises at meetings and dinners and presents the occasional paper and it means nothing. It’s a shadow play. People are allowed to make a living discussing these things and are treated with a modicum of respect in the public sphere and in private. The show adds a bit of reality to the tattered perception that we are not an empire and becoming ever more militarized and authoritarian.
    We await our Caesar, when the time comes that elements of the shrinking middle class get a bit uppity over the next decade. General Petraeus perhaps. The chatterers will tsk.

    Reply

  8. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Read the last paragraph of the following excerpt. In fact, read it a few times, and try to digest its full import.
    Truth is, as long as we allow this, any foreign policy discussions are just useless banter, because most of them are based in the assumption that these criminal pieces of shit are working in America’s best interests.
    Does Hagel talk a good foreign policy rap? Maybe. But really, whats he doing standing in front of the podium in the first place? Theres a pretty good argument to be made that he should be in prison.
    But its just us little people that go to prison.
    Criminals of Hagel’s stature get to give speeches about foreign policy, and get suggested for cabinet posts and vice presidencies.
    Conyers Threatens Rove with Subpoena for Testimony on Siegelman
    By Paul Kiel – May 1, 2008, 4:54PM
    It’s deja vu all over again.
    House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) says that if Karl Rove won’t agree to testify before his committee about his involvement in the prosecution of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D), then he’ll be forced to consider issuing a subpoena. You can read his letter to Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin below.
    In response to Conyers’ initial request for Rove to testify, Luskin offered to have Rove speak to the committee behind closed doors, without a transcript and not under oath — the same offer administration lawyers made to Congress in the U.S. attorney firings investigation. And you know where that went: the House is currently suing to enforce those subpoenas after finding former White House counsel Harriet Miers and chief of staff Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress.
    Rove was subpoenaed by the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of that investigation and refused to show up to testify. That committee subsequently voted to find him in contempt, but the full Senate never voted on the citation.
    Continued at…..
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/conyers_threatens_rove_with_su.php

    Reply

  9. David says:

    POA,
    A speech stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who delivered it. Ghaddafi once delivered a speech regarding the US that was dead on. In that case, it was unnerving at the time to think that Reagan was lying and Ghaddafi was telling a truth. Now I’ve come to expect that sort of distressing irony.
    Also, any public figure rightly stands or falls by the decisions he or she makes and the causes he or she champions, as well as the tone he or she sets. Personal failings are just that. Now in Hagel’s case, the voting machine problem is anything but a private matter, and as a consequence it is the most disturbing negative I am aware of. On the other hand, he is one of the few Republicans to come to his senses on foreign policy and have the courage to speak up. Walter Jones is another one, he who renamed French fries freedom fries.
    As a public figure, Chuck Hagel is totally unacceptable on domestic policy, but he is now at the forefront on foreign policy, at least among Republicans. A Russ Feingold he’s not, but then he’s also not a Democrat, and for all its problems, the Democratic Party is head-and-shoulders above the Republican Party. Does anyone seriously believe a Republican could have been an FDR?
    For me it’s remember all of Hagel’s drawbacks as a public figure, but also give him his due, but no more than he is actually due.

    Reply

  10. George Bush says:

    “Who are you and what have you done to POA?!?”
    We waterborded him into yusing the Englich speling for beehavyer.

    Reply

  11. Kathleen says:

    Don Bacon…on unreasonable search and seizure, Larissa Alexandrova at Raw Story is reporting mysterious breakins for tasrgets of FBI investiagtions.
    http://rawstory.com/mews/2008/Breakins_Justice_Department_whistleblowers_0430htm

    Reply

  12. arthurdecco says:

    “Behaviour” is not the English spelling. It’s the rest of the English speaking world’s spelling.

    Reply

  13. FaceOnMars says:

    “tolerate this behaviour”
    That’s an English spelling.
    Who are you and what have you done to POA?!?

    Reply

  14. Sounds says:

    Senator Bingaman endorsed Senator Obama this week.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kd8xp86reY

    Reply

  15. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “If looking back his foreign policy speeches, his is still one of the best, more clearly
    articulated, sensible policy offered from current politicians including candidates”
    So we overlook the crimes of a leader because one aspect of his speech portfolio is more in line with what certain foreign policy wonks would like to hear? WTF is a matter with us? The truth is, no matter what Hagel’s foreign policy views are, he has completely violated the trust of the American people, and exhibited an utter disrespect for ethics and the law. If we tolerate this behaviour from our politicians, than we DESERVE people like these criminals Bush and Cheney. And not only do we DESERVE them, it is inevitable that we will have them.

    Reply

  16. Sue says:

    Hi, guys. Sen. Hagel is not running for president. If looking back his
    foreign policy speeches, his is still one of the best, more clearly
    articulated, sensible policy offered from current politicians
    including candidates.

    Reply

  17. Syed Qamar Afzal Rizvi says:

    Still incredible to believe that senator Chuck Hagel is trying to solicit his case for making new orientations in the US- sponsored foreign policy despite the fact that the realists’ advocated foreign policy era does reflect certain shades of idiosyncrasies in the US -foreign policy, indoctrinated in the post cold- war era.

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Friday, February 08, 2008
    ES&S behind the meltdown in New Mexico
    Apparently New Mexico’s Secretary of State, Mary Herrera, gave the Democratic Party
    a bad list compiled by ES&S, whose officials, Steve Rosenfeld reports below, “could
    not be reached for comment.”
    Like Diebold (a/k/a Premier) and Hart InterCivic, ES&S is a Republican operation,
    whose CEO, from 1992 to 1996, was Chuck Hagel. (ES&S is headquartered in Omaha.)
    Hagel stepped down to run for the Senate: a contest that he won by higher margins than
    expected; and then he did still better in his re-electoral bid in 2002. (“Hagel overwhelmingly
    won re-election with over 83% of the vote, the largest margin of victory in any statewide race
    in Nebraska history,” as Wikipedia puts it.) Each of Hagel’s wins came as a big surprise–
    to those who didn’t realize that the votes were “counted” by ES&S machines. (Hagel
    maintained quite a bond with his old company even after moving to the Senate, holding
    on to some $5 million worth of ES&S stock.)
    As telling as it is, Hagel’s stewardship is just one small part of ES&S’s dismal record.
    That corporation’s wares have figured heavily in suspicious races coast to coast
    throughout Bush/Cheney’s rule (including Ohio in 2004). So it does not take any
    giant leap of the imagination to suggest that such a company would be deployed
    to help put Hillary on top, since she’s the one that the Republicans want most
    to run against.
    http://tinyurl.com/5258gc

    Reply

  19. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Senator Hagel Admits Owning Voting Machine Company
    Friday, 31 January 2003, 10:13 am
    BREAKING NEWS: Senate Ethics Director Resigns; Senator Hagel Admits Owning Voting Machine Company
    By Bev Harris
    U.S. CHUCK HAGEL NOW ADMITS OWNERSHIP IN VOTING MACHINE COMPANY SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE DIRECTOR RESIGNS
    “Hagel’s ethics filings pose disclosure issue” —
    “The Hill” 1/29/2003
    On October, 10, 2002 Bev Harris, author of the upcoming “Black Box Voting: Ballot-Tampering” in the 21st Century, revealed that Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has ties to the largest voting machine company, Election Systems & Software (ES&S). She reported that he was an owner, Chairman and CEO of Election Systems & Software (called American Information Systems until name change filed in 1997). ES&S was the ONLY company whose machines counted Hagel’s votes when he ran for election in 1996 and 2002. The Hill, a Washington D.C. newspaper that covers the U.S. national political scene, confirmed her findings today and uncovered more details.
    Hagel’s campaign finance director, Michael McCarthy, now admits that Senator Hagel still owns a beneficial interest in the ES&S parent company, the McCarthy Group. ES&S counts approximately 60 percent of all votes cast in the United States. According to the Omaha World-Herald which is also a beneficial owner of ES&S, Hagel was CEO of American Information Systems, now called ES&S, from November 1993 through June 2, 1994. He was Chairman from July 1992 until March 15 1995. He was required to disclose these positions on his FEC Personal Disclosure statements, but he did not.
    Hagel still owns up to $5 million in the ES&S parent company, McCarthy Group. But Hagel’s office, when interviewed by Channel 8 News in Lincoln, Nebraska for the evening news on October 22, 2002, said he had sold his shares before he was elected. His office issued a fact sheet claiming that he had made full disclosure.
    Last week, Hagel’s campaign finance director, Michael McCarthy (currently an owner and a director of ES&S) admitted to Alexander Bolton of The Hill that Hagel is still an owner of ES&S parent company, the McCarthy Group, and said that Hagel also had owned shares in AIS Investors Inc., a group of investors in ES&S itself. Yet Hagel did not disclose owning or selling shares in AIS Investors Inc. on his FEC documents, a required disclosure, nor did he disclose that ES&S is an underlying asset of McCarthy Group, in which he lists an investment of up to $5 million in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
    SENATE ETHICS COMMITTEE CHIEF COUNSEL / DIRECTOR RESIGNS
    Harris spoke with Victor Baird of the Senate Ethics Committee office January 9, and asked him who is responsible for ensuring that FEC disclosures are complete. She asked whether anyone had followed up to see why Senator Hagel did not list his positions with the voting machine company, and she asked about his characterization of the McCarthy Group as an “excepted investment fund” and his failure to disclose that it owned ES&S. Baird was silent, and then said “If you want to look into this, you’ll need to come in and get hold of the documents.”
    Unfortunately, according to Alexander Bolton, a reporter at The Hill, when he went to the Senate Public Documents Room to retrieve originals of Hagel’s 1995 and 1996 documents he was told they were destroyed. “They said anything over five years old is destroyed by law, and they pulled out the law,” says Bolton. However, when he spoke with Hagel’s staff, they said had obtained the documents from Senate Ethics Committee files. Copies of the documents are available at OpenSecrets.org/pfds — a repository for FEC disclosures.
    continues at……..
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm

    Reply

  20. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Steve’s fawning adoration for Chuck Hagel is yet one more example of how willing the Washington elite are to overlook egregious abuses of power, and actions, practices, and habits that skirt around the law, violate oaths of office, and show a tremendous disregard for proffessional ethics.
    Chuch Hagel’s actions in regards to failing to disclose his financial interests in ES&S were a serious breech of proffessional ethics, and very likely a violation of the law. Such an abuse, certainly, does not rise to the satanic level of lying a nation into a war that has resulted in well over a million deaths, cost countless billions of dollars, and seriously damaged our security.
    HOWEVER.
    Perhaps, if we impeached politicians, and prosecuted them, for lesser crimes of the nature that Hagel seems to have committed, instead of giving them a pat on the ass and a Get Out Of Jail Free Card, politicians that ascend to the Oval Office might be the ones that have a bit of respect for ethics and the law. And they might be a bit less prone to torture, murder, lie, and cheat, like this piece of crap Bush has done now for eight years.
    Bottom line, our politicians should get ONE CHANCE, and if they break the law, they should be thrown out on their asses. If we held these people to the letter of the law, this monkey Bush would have never made it into the history books.

    Reply

  21. Spunkmeyer says:

    The Democrats’ worst nightmare is a McCain-Hagel ticket. The
    “maverick” label is turned up to 11, with little substance of
    follow-through to support the aura.

    Reply

  22. carsick says:

    Gosh, it must be anti-brevity day at the Washington Note.
    I’m gonna buck the trend.
    Steve,
    Time to move beyond the Hagel for President posts and move toward Hagel in the cabinet posts. Secretary of State? Secretary of Defense?
    Which do you prefer?
    Of course, McCain doesn’t seem the type to add his colleague into his inner circle any longer, but Obama might. (I point to Obama because I don’t see how Senator Clinton gets to the general.)

    Reply

  23. Don Bacon says:

    National Security Letters authorizing the search and seizure of personal information are unconstitutional if they are “unreasonable.” Is it reasonable for the government to know whom I call and what web sites I look at? I don’t think so — but that’s just my opinion. We should have more opinions, and the Congress must decide.
    Amendment IV – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Reply

  24. Kathleen says:

    I agree that Senator Hagel did bring some common sense to the table, espe4cially when he called for agreater role for the UN in Iraq, re keeping peace as we withdraw.
    I hope Senator Hagel is determined to defend our Constitution..will he join his colleague Senator Russ Feingold in stopping the FBI’s use of secret security letters to spy on ordinary citizens..
    Powering Down the Patriot Act
    By Brian Beutler
    The Media Consortium
    Tuesday 29 April 2008
    In the wake of another damaging report detailing the bureau’s abuse of its data-gathering power, Congress is seeking to limit the use of national security letters.
    There’s a move afoot on Capitol Hill to rein in some of the vast powers conferred upon government investigators by the Patriot Act, the infamous, hastily crafted law written in response to the 9/11 attacks. New legislation has been introduced in both houses of Congress intended to curb the FBI’s ability to collect private data on virtually anybody using a tool called a national security letter (NSL). The bills come in the wake of yet another damaging FBI inspector general report on the bureau’s abuse of its expanded authorities.
    “The privacy of American citizens is a core value in our society,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a former federal prosecutor and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at an April 23 hearing on the FBI’s use of NSLs. “I think this is our next really big civil liberties issue.”
    And addressing that issue may start with a bill, sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), which would both drastically limit the circumstances under which these secretive orders are issued and strictly regulate how the information obtained is handled by the FBI.
    NSLs function, in some superficial ways, as traditional subpoenas. Like subpoenas, they require recipients to turn over information that might be relevant to criminal investigators. Unlike subpoenas, however, NSLs aren’t subject to judicial oversight, making them ripe for abuse.
    An NSL authorizes the acquisition of what’s known as metadata, information like phone records and financial statements – that reveal a suspect’s behavior only. An NSL can’t, for instance, serve as a warrant for a wiretap, which gathers the contents of a conversation, but it can be used to obtain reams of data (such as phone numbers called) about an individual’s calling patterns. It is often used to collect a person’s business (or “transactional”) information as well – with an NSL, the FBI can ask for a person’s insurance information, but not his medical records.
    NSLs aren’t subject to the approval of any court or judge, they can be issued under extremely broad circumstances, and, by way of a sweeping gag order, they forbid the recipient from discussing the information request under almost any circumstances. Their use has exploded since the passage of the Patriot Act, which removed almost all legal restrictions on the FBI’s authority to issue them.
    Dubbed the National Security Letter Reform Act of 2007, Feingold’s bill would check NSL authority in a number of ways. Among other things, it would limit the type of information the FBI can demand in an NSL to a defined category of less-sensitive data (such as names, addresses, account numbers, IP addresses, and other identifying materials), while requiring agents to seek more personal information (phone and financial records, for instance) through some sort of judicial process. It would limit the now-indefinite term of the gag order to no more than six months. And it would restrict the FBI’s ability to share the obtained information – now accessible to thousands of people – with other agencies. A similar bill introduced in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) would allow victims of illegally applied NSLs to sue for damages in civil court.
    Both bills seek to prevent the FBI from repeating an incident that took place in North Carolina in July 2005. At the time, FBI agents in Raleigh were seeking the educational records of an Egyptian man named Magdy Mahmoud Mustafa el-Nashar, once a student at North Carolina State University, in conjunction with their investigation of the London subway bombings earlier that month. (As it turns out, he was innocent of any wrongdoing.) As part of an apparent attempt to avoid judicial oversight, and despite the fact that NSLs do not apply to school records, the FBI handed university officials an NSL. In doing so, the bureau broke the law.
    Realizing, correctly, that NSLs did not apply to el-Nashar’s private files, lawyers for the university refused to turn over his records to the FBI, telling the agents to come back with a grand jury subpoena instead.
    In fact, according to a report released earlier this month by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the FBI had already obtained the documents using a subpoena days before the university rebuffed its NSL request. But then, perhaps to keep its investigation of el-Nashar as covert as possible, FBI agents returned the documents to the school and re-requested them with the unlawful NSL. When the university refused to comply with the letter, FBI director Robert Mueller used the occasion to argue that his agency’s NSL authority needed to be strengthened.
    Not all letter recipients have been as cautious as North Carolina State. A 2007 FBI audit, which sampled 10 percent of all NSLs issued since 2002, discovered hundreds of instances in which the FBI collected information it didn’t have the authority to obtain. In only four cases was that improperly obtained information purged from the FBI’s databases, Feingold said at last week’s hearing.
    A widely reported inspector general review in 2007 documented hundreds of other examples of NSL abuse, and a follow-up report released this March concluded that the FBI had failed to implement safeguards to mitigate those abuses.
    Aside from the Judiciary committee’s ranking member, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.), only two Republicans – Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) – attended last Wednesday’s hearing. As a harbinger of the legislative skirmish ahead, both men voiced strong reservations about the bill. Sessions, who once served as Alabama’s attorney general, said he disagreed with a previous tightening of the national security letter provision in the Patriot Reauthorization Act of 2005, and objected to further restrictions on the FBI’s use of NSLs. The limits in the proposed legislation, Sessions said, were “all to make sure that the spies and terrorists have their full rights – in fact, have more rights than drug dealers.”
    A distinctly different view was voiced by Specter, who complained that, when it comes to the FBI’s use of NSLs, Congress currently does not have “the semblance of effective oversight.”
    ——————————————————————————–
    Brian Beutler is the Washington correspondent for The Media Consortium, a network of progressive media organizations, including Mother Jones.
    ——-

    Reply

  25. WigWag says:

    Steve, you’ve said that “his (Senator Hagel’s)foreign policy approach is, in my mind, stunningly good — and worth a lot of grief that I might have with him on other issues.” His policies on the Middle East are clearly outstanding; his policies on everything else are clearly awful. Roger’s post demolishes the idea that Senator Hagel is a leader that a progressive person can support. Senator Hagel’s views about gay people, for example, are not as extreme as those espoused by radical islamists, (he doesn’t support capital punishment for gay people)but once that’s taken off the table, his view about this subject isn’t much more enlightened than theirs. Highlighting the Senator’s approach to the Middle East is great. On this issue he can be a role model. But, respectfully Steve, saying you miss him more and more from the presidential campaign does seem just a bit much.

    Reply

  26. Roger says:

    Chuck Hagel on Abortion
    Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform
    abortions. (Oct 2007)
    Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell
    lines. (Apr 2007)
    Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state
    abortions. (Jul 2006)
    Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education &
    contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
    Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during
    other crime. (Mar 2004)
    Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal
    life. (Mar 2003)
    Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun
    2000)
    Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
    Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
    Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec
    2003)
    Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance (190
    members). (Dec 2006)
    Chuck Hagel on Budget & Economy background on Budget &
    Economy.
    Voted YES on paying down federal debt by rating programs’
    effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
    Voted YES on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec
    2005)
    Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts.
    (Apr 2000)
    Voted YES on 1998 GOP budget. (May 1997)
    Voted YES on Balanced-budget constitutional amendment. (Mar
    1997)
    Chuck Hagel on Civil Rights
    Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag
    desecration. (Jun 2006)
    Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate
    crimes. (Jun 2002)
    Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
    (Oct 2001)
    Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual
    orientation. (Jun 2000)
    Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities &
    women. (Mar 1998)
    Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-
    owned business. (Oct 1997)
    Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
    Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting
    record. (Dec 2002)
    Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance. (Dec
    2006)
    Rated 11% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action
    stance. (Dec 2006)
    Chuck Hagel on Corporations
    Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move
    US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
    Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing &
    restrictions. (Mar 2005)
    Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
    Rated 87% by the US COC, indicating a pro-business voting
    record. (Dec 2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Crime
    Prosecute most dangerous crimes with full range of options.
    (Nov 2002)
    Voted NO on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS
    Program. (Mar 2007)
    Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS
    program. (May 1999)
    Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation.
    (Dec 2000)
    Rated 75% by the NCJA, indicating a mixed record on criminal
    justice. (Dec 2005)
    Chuck Hagel on Drugs
    Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
    Chuck Hagel on Education
    Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS
    projects. (Oct 2007)
    Voted NO on $52M for “21st century community learning
    centers”. (Oct 2005)
    Voted NO on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (Oct
    2005)
    Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to
    education. (Mar 2005)
    Voted NO on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors.
    (May 2001)
    Voted NO on funding student testing instead of private tutors.
    (May 2001)
    Voted NO on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt
    reduction. (Apr 2001)
    Voted YES on Educational Savings Accounts. (Mar 2000)
    Voted YES on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules.
    (Mar 1999)
    Voted YES on education savings accounts. (Jun 1998)
    Voted YES on school vouchers in DC. (Sep 1997)
    Rated 36% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public
    education. (Dec 2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Energy & Oil
    Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun
    2007)
    Voted NO on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.
    (Jun 2007)
    Voted NO on factoring global warming into federal project
    planning. (May 2007)
    Voted NO on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska’s
    ANWR. (Nov 2005)
    Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-
    hit areas. (Oct 2005)
    Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).
    (Jun 2005)
    Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge. (Mar 2005)
    Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
    Voted NO on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by
    2010. (Jun 2003)
    Voted NO on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from
    budget bill. (Mar 2003)
    Voted YES on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr
    2002)
    Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months.
    (Mar 2002)
    Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr
    2000)
    Voted NO on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency
    standards. (Sep 1999)
    Voted NO on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
    Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository. (Apr 1997)
    Rated 17% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy
    independence. (Dec 2006)
    Chuck Hagel on Environment
    Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or
    grazing land. (Dec 2007)
    Voted NO on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury
    regulations. (Sep 2005)
    Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior.
    (Jan 2001)
    Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat.
    (Sep 1999)
    Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
    Voted NO on reducing funds for road-building in National
    Forests. (Sep 1997)
    Rated 0% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec
    2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Families & Children
    Voted YES on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors.
    (May 1999)
    Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting
    record. (Dec 2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Foreign Policy
    Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (May
    2002)
    Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells
    weapons. (Sep 2000)
    Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (Oct 1999)
    Voted NO on limiting the President’s power to impose economic
    sanctions. (Jul 1998)
    Voted NO on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary
    & Czech. (Apr 1998)
    Voted YES on $17.9 billion to IMF. (Mar 1998)
    Multi-year commitment to Africa for food & medicine. (Apr
    2001)
    Impose sanctions and an import ban on Burma. (Oct 2007)
    Chuck Hagel on Free Trade
    Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007)
    Voted YES on free trade agreement with Oman. (Jun 2006)
    Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-
    trade. (Jul 2005)
    Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore.
    (Jul 2003)
    Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile.
    (Jul 2003)
    Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May
    2002)
    Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam.
    (Oct 2001)
    Voted YES on removing common goods from national security
    export rules. (Sep 2001)
    Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep
    2000)
    Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
    Voted YES on renewing ‘fast track’ presidential trade authority.
    (Nov 1997)
    Rated 92% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.
    (Dec 2002)
    Chuck Hagel on Government Reform
    Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in
    Congress. (Sep 2007)
    Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul
    2007)
    Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar
    2006)
    Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.
    (Mar 2006)
    Voted NO on banning “soft money” contributions and restricting
    issue ads. (Mar 2002)
    Voted YES on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter
    registration. (Feb 2002)
    Voted NO on banning campaign donations from unions &
    corporations. (Apr 2001)
    Voted NO on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug
    1999)
    Voted NO on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of
    campaign finance. (Oct 1997)
    Chuck Hagel on Gun Control
    Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun
    ownership. (Sep 2007)
    Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
    (Jul 2005)
    Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for
    gun violence. (Mar 2004)
    Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May
    1999)
    Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun
    shows. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger
    locks. (Jul 1998)
    Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record.
    (Dec 2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Health Care
    Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.
    (Nov 2007)
    Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.
    (Apr 2007)
    Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000.
    (May 2006)
    Voted NO on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D.
    (Feb 2006)
    Voted NO on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics.
    (Nov 2005)
    Voted NO on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare
    prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
    Voted YES on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare
    prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
    Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada.
    (Jul 2002)
    Voted NO on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive
    damages. (Jun 2001)
    Voted YES on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug
    benefit. (Apr 2001)
    Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun
    2000)
    Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul
    1999)
    Voted NO on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998)
    Voted YES on Medicare means-testing. (Jun 1997)
    Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (Apr 2001)
    Rated 12% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting
    record. (Dec 2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Homeland Security
    Pay attention to 2B people in poverty, or terrorists will. (Mar
    2007)
    Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping
    abroad. (Aug 2007)
    Voted YES on limiting soldiers’ deployment to 12 months. (Jul
    2007)
    Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar
    2007)
    Voted NO on preserving habeus corpus for Guantanamo
    detainees. (Sep 2006)
    Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation
    methods. (Sep 2006)
    Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
    Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act’s wiretap provision.
    (Dec 2005)
    Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to
    terrorism. (Jul 2005)
    Voted NO on restoring $565M for states’ and ports’ first
    responders. (Mar 2005)
    Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
    Treaty. (Oct 1999)
    Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures.
    (May 1999)
    Voted YES on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (May
    1999)
    Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (Mar
    1999)
    Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (Feb 1999)
    Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
    Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (Oct 1997)
    Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. (Apr 1997)
    Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec
    2003)
    Hiding sources made post-9-11 analysis impossible. (Jul 2004)
    CIA depends too heavily on defectors & not enough on HUMINT.
    (Jul 2004)
    Administration did not pressure CIA on WMD conclusions. (Jul
    2004)
    Chuck Hagel on Immigration
    Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
    Voted YES on declaring English as the official language of the US
    government. (Jun 2007)
    Voted NO on eliminating the “Y” nonimmigrant guestworker
    program. (May 2007)
    Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep
    2006)
    Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
    Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social
    Security. (May 2006)
    Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May
    2006)
    Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm
    work. (Jul 1998)
    Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
    Voted YES on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
    Rated 16% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec
    2006)
    Chuck Hagel on Jobs
    Voted NO on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under
    $750,000. (Dec 2007)
    Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union
    organizing. (Jun 2007)
    Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Feb 2007)
    Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than
    $6.25. (Mar 2005)
    Voted YES on repealing Clinton’s ergonomic rules on repetitive
    stress. (Mar 2001)
    Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov
    1999)
    Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime &
    comp-time. (May 1997)
    Rated 8% by the AFL-CIO, indicating an anti-union voting
    record. (Dec 2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Principles & Values
    16 years is enough in the Senate; not running for president. (Sep
    2007)
    Third-party candidacies difficult; but we need alternatives. (Sep
    2007)
    Voted with Republican Party 79.4% of 311 votes. (Sep 2007)
    No plans to change party; no current plans to run for prez. (Jul
    2007)
    Presidential race started absurdly early; need issues focus. (Jul
    2007)
    Offers independent ticket to NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg. (May
    2007)
    Sandhills PAC supports 17 Senate & 12 House candidates. (Dec
    2006)
    90% conservative voting record; 95% support of Pres. Bush. (Dec
    2006)
    Voted YES on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice.
    (Jan 2006)
    Voted YES on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the
    Supreme Court. (Sep 2005)
    Religious affiliation: Episcopalian. (Nov 2000)
    Rated 0% by the AU, indicating opposition to church-state
    separation. (Dec 2006)
    Chuck Hagel on Social Security
    Do not alter government workers’ pension plans. (Mar 2007)
    Voted YES on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for
    Social Security. (Mar 2007)
    Voted YES on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt.
    (Apr 1999)
    Voted YES on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (May 1998)
    Voted YES on allowing personal retirement accounts. (Apr 1998)
    Rated 22% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.
    (Dec 2003)
    Chuck Hagel on Tax Reform
    Voted YES on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (Mar
    2007)
    Voted YES on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (Mar
    2007)
    Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug
    2006)
    Voted YES on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (Jun 2006)
    Voted NO on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut.
    (Feb 2006)
    Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains &
    dividends. (Feb 2006)
    Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and
    dividends. (Nov 2005)
    Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May
    2003)
    Voted NO on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top
    tax rates. (May 2001)
    Voted NO on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (May
    2001)
    Voted YES on eliminating the ‘marriage penalty’. (Jul 2000)
    Voted YES on across-the-board spending cut. (Oct 1999)
    Voted YES on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (Apr
    1998)
    Rated 78% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes.
    (Dec 2003)
    Rated 0% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive
    taxation. (Dec 2006)
    Chuck Hagel on Technology
    Voted YES on $23B instead of $4.9B for waterway infrastructure.
    (Nov 2007)
    Voted YES on restoring $550M in funding for Amtrak for 2007.
    (Mar 2006)
    Voted NO on disallowing FCC approval of larger media
    conglomerates. (Sep 2003)
    Voted YES on Internet sales tax moratorium. (Oct 1998)
    Facilitate nationwide 2-1-1 phone line for human services. (Jan
    2007)
    Chuck Hagel on War & Peace
    Our current Iraq policy is not worthy of soldiers’ sacrifice. (Jul
    2007)
    Engage with Iran & Syria; follow Baker-Hamilton. (Jul 2007)
    Internationalize Iraq or we’ll be seen as occupiers. (Jul 2007)
    Open to withdrawal timelines, but look at other issues too. (Jul
    2007)
    Bush administration wanted to go to war with Saddam. (Jul 2007)
    No Iraq military solution; focus on political accommodation. (Jul
    2007)
    Outcome in Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis. (Jul 2007)
    Iraq was a war of choice, like Vietnam. (Jul 2007)
    Congress should oppose Bush’s actions, but not impeachable.
    (Jul 2007)
    Soldiers in Iraq deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifice. (Mar
    2007)
    US in “deep trouble” in Iraq. (Sep 2004)
    Iraq took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan. (Aug 2004)
    Voted NO on redeploying non-essential US troops out of Iraq in
    9 months. (Dec 2007)
    Voted NO on designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as
    terrorists. (Sep 2007)
    Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008.
    (Mar 2007)
    Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun
    2006)
    Voted NO on investigating contract awards in Iraq &
    Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
    Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not
    emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
    Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq &
    Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
    Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct
    2002)
    Voted NO on allowing all necessary force in Kosovo. (May 1999)
    Voted YES on authorizing air strikes in Kosovo. (Mar 1999)
    CIA mischaracterized Iraq WMD & abused intelligence position.
    (Jul 2004)
    Iraq-al-Qaida contacts, but no complicity or assistance. (Jul
    2004)
    CIA knew State of the Union Iraq-Niger connection was false.
    (Jul 2004)
    Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear program. (Jul 2004)
    Iraq was not developing its biological weapons program. (Jul
    2004)
    Iraq was not developing its chemical weapons program. (Jul
    2004)
    Iraq was developing missiles, but not to reach the US. (Jul 2004)

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *