Sen Hagel (R) loses confidence in Rumsfeld

[LynnTheDem]

He actually HAD any confidance in Rumsfailed to lose???

On Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer today, Chuck Hagel stated he has completely lost confidence in Donald Rumsfeld over his remark to the soldier that "they have to fight with the army they've got."

Hagel stated that he has talked with many returning soldiers and national guardsmen who returned from the war, and they have all told him that they need body and vehicle armor to protect themselves from bullets. He also questioned the honesty of administration officials who were "going around the country reassuring the American people our troops have everything they need."

Hagel characterized Rumsfeld's performance as "incompetent" and refused to endorse him for another 4 years. "Bush has got to live with his choice for the next four years," said Hagel.

http://www.dailykos.com

[indianablue]

1. I saw that but rember he is bucking for 2008.

[CatholicEdHead]

5. Giving Rove ammunition

While he may be gunning for 2008 against Jeb, Condi, etc... he is giving Rove lots of ammo. I would expect Rove to be put in charge or at least have lots of influence on the 2008 run. He has come out quite a few times raising questions and taking statements that are more based in the "Reality based community" by attacking the White House policy, which is deadly sin #1 politically.

Rove will have a field day in the primaries.

[grumpy old fart]

2. And our soldiers will DIE with this choice......

and the many many other choices.....

[liberalpragmatist]

3. What can I say? I like Hagel

I probably wouldn't vote for him for President, but he's head and shoulders above Bush or any Republican, and frankly, better than McCain. I would take Hagel over Bush any day.

And you know, if the GOP is smart in 2008, they'll nominate him. I don't think they will, but the public has shown it's interested in maverick common-sense conservatives - hence McCain's popularity. And I'm betting that in '08 the Bush administration will be VERY discredited. Hagel may well run as an "anti-Bush" candidate. In other words, lead a campaign repudiating neo-Conservatism.

As Democrats we should fear him. He would certainly beat Hillary. And I think he'd beat whoever else we put up - Warner, Edwards, Dean, Clark, Bayh, Kerry, Gore... whoever.

Of course, a lot can happen in 4 years, and if you asked me a week after 9-11 I would have said that we wouldn't have even had a chance at beating Bush this year.

UPDATE: Actually, I should say that I'd at least consider voting for Hagel if he were running, depending on who controlled Congress and who the democrats put up. I'd certainly vote Democrat if it's someone I really liked, but if I felt the Democrat were merely a hack, I might go for Hagel - independent thought is a good thing.

Not bloody likely. But possible.

[Hippo_Tron]

4. The irony is that he has probably criticzed Bush more than the DEMOCRATIC

Senator from his state. Same thing goes for Dick Lugar of Indiana.

[liberalpragmatist]

7. Oh, no doubt - I'm a former Hoosier

I have a lot of respect for Dick Lugar. Probably wouldn't vote for him, (too young to vote when I moved), but I really respect him. I've met him once before too at a youth thing. Very nice guy and very intelligent.

Bayh, on the other hand - well, I don't think he's as bad as people on DU think. He's a good moderate/centrist Democrat and he was a good governor of the state, but on the war he's been absolutely terrible. Refuses to criticize Bush strongly. I've spoken to many progressives in Indianapolis - friends and former teachers I've kept in touch with. One of them (a Minnesota transplant from the 70s) was furious at Bayh.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. You are 100% correct about Bayh

Not to mention that he doesn't need to be kissing Bush's ass on Iraq, or even appealing to corporations. As I recall, Bayh has a huge personal fortune from Goldmann Sachs meaning that he can largely finance his own campaigns and doesn't need corporate money. Being socially conservative I can understand, it's a red state, red states tend to be socially conservative. But you'd think that Bayh would run an economically populist message in a midwestern state with an economy that's been hit very hard. He also should be criticizing a FAILED war.

I'm glad that we have a democratic senator from Indiana but out of all of those senators who tow the DLC line, Bayh makes the absolute least sense out of all of them (except maybe Kerry).

[liberalpragmatist]

12. Well, I disagree with you about Kerry

I really like Kerry and while he's a member of the DLC, he isn't really involved with the association. But there are enough Kerry/anti-Kerry flame wars going up right here. So let's just agree to disagree on that one.

As for Bayh, the irony is he's not that socially conservative, and even on economics, his record is relatively moderate. More right-leaning than I'd like and I don't really think his formula of economic centrism is a good idea for economically depressed red states - I agree we need to go more with populism of the John Edwards variety.

The thing about Bayh is his rhetoric. It's not even ideology. It's the fact that he's very unwilling to criticize Bush and be strongly partisan Dem. He's not been as wussy as Lieberman, but still.

I'd still vote Bayh for President, but unless he really comes out roaring the next 4 years, I'm not going to be pleased about it.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Oh no I wasn't criticizng Kerry

I just said that it makes no sense for him to be a member of the DLC, especially since his positions are more liberal than Bayh's and Lieberman's.

As for Bayh running for president, I doubt that he'd win the nomination and that's probably a good thing. Unless the Republican were somebody like Lincoln Chafee (less likely to happen than Bayh winning the dem nomination), I'd hold my nose and vote for Bayh. Now if it were Bayh were running against McCain or Hagel and one of those two could convince me that they wouldn't be controlled by the Repuke machine, I might vote for them over Bayh, although I would have a VERY difficult time voting for a Republican.

To lessen Bayh's chances at the white house, he seems like a complete lightweight to me.

[sallyseven]

17. McCain would never in a million years get my vote

Not ever. He is useless and dishonest.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. You're probably right, McCain pissed me off a bit in this election

But I REALLY don't like the idea of Evan Bayh as president. Then again, it's a stupid point, Evan Bayh is a lightweight and too centrist to win in the primaries.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Neocons won't put him in power...

He wouldn't carry out the PNAC agenda.

[RafterMan]

9. I like him too

He's been very honest about the Iraq war and seems to have a firm and rational grasp on world affairs.

I could see myself voting for him, depending on who the Dems put up. I'll take a solid look at him, anyway.

[NEOBuckeye]

8. What took him so long? n/t

[RafterMan]

10. He has spoken out against the conduct of the war

frequently and for a long time. Yes, long before the election.

[LynnTheDem]

16. "No, I don't think we're winning," Hagel told a CBS interviewer.

"We're in trouble, we're in deep trouble in Iraq."

http://www.iht.com/articles/539563.htm

Republican senator Richard Lugar, Foreign Relations Committee chairman, was asked on ABC why only $1 billion of the $18 billion appropriated last year for Iraqi reconstruction had been spent.

"Well, this is the incompetence in the administration," he replied.

http://www.iht.com/articles/539563.htm

[flyingfysh]

13. is this the same Hagel who is involved with the voting machine company?

He is an investor (or something) of one of the 2 major voting machine companies. His home state was persuaded to use the machines, then he won both the primary and the senate races, in spite of polls in both saying that he was far behind the opposition?

Is this the same Hagel, or am I confused?

[charlie]

15. Same Hagel n/t