Hagel says Iraq looking like Viet Nam

[LoungeMachine]

Philadelphia 1787 vs. Baghdad 2005


When things go particularly badly in Iraq—anarchy, insurgency, and now the delays in crafti... More


GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
The Associated Press
Sunday, August 21, 2005; 6:36 PM

WASHINGTON -- A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq. Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.



U.S. troops patrol the road in Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, Aug. 21, 2005. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's top general, said Saturday the US Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of US soldiers in Iraq for four more years. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban) (Hadi Mizban - AP)
"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

President Bush was preparing for separate speeches this week to reaffirm his plan to help Iraq train its security forces while its leaders build a democratic government. In his weekly Saturday radio address, Bush said the fighting there protected Americans at home.

Polls show the public growing more skeptical about Bush's handling of the war.

In Iraq, officials continued to craft a new constitution in the face of a Monday night deadline for parliamentary approval. They missed the initial deadline last week.

Other Republican senators appearing on Sunday news shows advocated remaining in Iraq until the mission set by Bush is completed, but they also noted that the public is becoming more and more concerned and needs to be reassured.

Sen. George Allen, R-Va., another possible candidate for president in 2008, disagreed that the U.S. is losing in Iraq. He said a constitution guaranteeing basic freedoms would provide a rallying point for Iraqis.

"I think this is a very crucial time for the future of Iraq," said Allen, also on ABC. "The terrorists don't have anything to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. All they care to do is disrupt."

Hagel, who was among those who advocated sending two to three times as many troops to Iraq when the war began in March 2003, said a stronger military presence by the U.S. is not the solution today.

"We're past that stage now because now we are locked into a bogged-down problem not unsimilar, dissimilar to where we were in Vietnam," Hagel said. "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have."


MORE

[LoungeMachine]

Page 2 of 2 < Back

GOP Senator Says Iraq Looking Like Vietnam

Allen said that unlike the communist-guided North Vietnamese who fought the U.S., the insurgents in Iraq have no guiding political philosophy or organization. Still, Hagel argued, the similarities are growing.

"What I think the White House does not yet understand _ and some of my colleagues _ the dam has broke on this policy," Hagel said. "The longer we stay there, the more similarities (to Vietnam) are going to come together."



U.S. troops patrol the road in Baghdad, Iraq, Sunday, Aug. 21, 2005. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army's top general, said Saturday the US Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of US soldiers in Iraq for four more years. (AP Photo/Hadi Mizban) (Hadi Mizban - AP)
The Army's top general, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, said Saturday in an interview with The Associated Press that the Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq _ well over 100,000 _ for four more years as part of preparations for a worst-case scenario.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said U.S. security is tied to success in Iraq, and he counseled people to be patient.

"The worst-case scenario is not staying four years. The worst-case scenario is leaving a dysfunctional, repressive government behind that becomes part of the problem in the war on terror and not the solution," Graham said on "Fox News Sunday.

Allen said the military would be strained at such levels in four years yet could handle that difficult assignment. Hagel described the Army contingency plan as "complete folly."

"I don't know where he's going to get these troops," Hagel said. "There won't be any National Guard left ... no Army Reserve left ... there is no way America is going to have 100,000 troops in Iraq, nor should it, in four years."

Hagel added: "It would bog us down, it would further destabilize the Middle East, it would give Iran more influence, it would hurt Israel, it would put our allies over there in Saudi Arabia and Jordan in a terrible position. It won't be four years. We need to be out."

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said the U.S. is winning in Iraq but has "a way to go" before it meets its goals there. Meanwhile, more needs to be done to lay out the strategy, Lott said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I do think we, the president, all of us need to do a better job, do more," Lott said, by telling people "why we have made this commitment, what is being done now, what we do expect in the process and, yes, why it's going to take more time."

[FORD]

Hagel seems down right sane compared to the BCE, but I can't really trust a guy who used to be the CEO of an electro-fraud voting machine company (ESS Systems)

[Warham]

You wouldn't trust Mother Theresa.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
Hagel seems down right sane compared to the BCE, but I can't really trust a guy who used to be the CEO of an electro-fraud voting machine company (ESS Systems)

A Hagel / McCain ticket would cause me to switch parties at this point

And Allen is just another Chimp-lite empty suit:rolleyes:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
You wouldn't trust Mother Theresa.

She was just another Liberal Bleeding heart pacifist

[FORD]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
A Hagel / McCain ticket would cause me to switch parties at this point

If the competition was Hillary/Biden, Hagel & McCain might be the lesser of two evils (or at least the John McCain pre-2000 would be)

And Allen is just another Chimp-lite empty suit:rolleyes:

True. Hell, he might even be dumber than Junior.

[Warham]

Allen is my fave right now for the nomination.

He actually suggested that Bush should meet with that squatter Sheehan, so I wouldn't give him too much flak just yet.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
True. Hell, he might even be dumber than Junior.

Dumber? Hell yes.

As devious, hypocritical, devoid of a soul, and sociopathic?

Nah.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Allen is my fave right now for the nomination.



Jesus Fucking Christ your standards are lower than snake piss :rolleyes:

Dumb and Dumberer

[Warham]

I like him. Classy chap. Has voted on everything like I prefer in my candidates.

McCain's a Democrat in disguise. Forget it.

Giuliani is the only other guy I would care to see get the nomination.

We need enough firepower to beat Hillary in '08, otherwise Bill will be First Lady again.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham


Giuliani is the only other guy I would care to see get the nomination.

Rudy?? The pro-choicer who moved in with 2 gay guys when his wife booted him out of the mayor's mansion?
And you call McCain a "Democrat"

We need enough firepower to beat Hillary in '08, otherwise Bill will be First Lady again.

If Hillary's the nominee in 2008 don't even bother with a candidate. Nobody's gonna show up to vote anyway, and even if she wins, you'll have another corporatist neocon president.

[Warham]

Rudy's flaw is that he's pro-choice. That's why I prefer Allen.

[Phil theStalker]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
MORE
LM,

What's the difference between Bill Clinton, Jane Fonda and George Bush?


Jane Fonda is the only o1ne who went t2o Vietnam.


:spank:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Jesus Fucking Christ your standards are lower than snake piss :rolleyes:

Dumb and Dumberer

I think your intent is to piss Warham off. Stop it and debate sensibly like I do...I never post inflammatory shit.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I think your intent is to piss Warham off. Stop it and debate sensibly like I do...I never post inflammatory shit.

:gulp:

LMMFAO

I just spit beer on my screen


Thanks:D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Rudy's flaw is that he's pro-choice. That's why I prefer Allen.

Yeah, THAT'S his flaw :rolleyes:

[Warham]

Yep, next to Hillary, who has MANY flaws.

[Warham]

I don't really care for Novak, but I thought I'd post it here for it's relevance.

Hillary vs. Allen
Robert Novak (archive)


May 14, 2005 | Print | Send


WASHINGTON -- Members of the inner circle of high-ranking House Republicans privately agree that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is an absolute lock for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and will not be easy to defeat in the general election.

The same lawmakers believe the Republican race to oppose Clinton is wide open but regard Sen. George Allen of Virginia as having the edge over Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee. The consensus among them is that Allen is a better candidate than Frist and will the advantage over him in GOP primaries. The House members see little or no prospect for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain of Arizona or Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The Clinton-vs.-Allen forecast by the leading House members duplicates the National Journal's poll of insiders from both parties.

[Warham]

From another article...

'Allen also emulates Reagan in that he is adored by the religious right despite not being outspoken about his beliefs or even really pledging committment to many of their goals. That is not to say he isn't committed to them, simply that he is not necessarily vocal about it. Furthermore, it seems that the mere sound of his voice sends liberals into a frothy rage wherein they babble incoherently and run screaming from the premises. Reagan (as well as our current President) invoked similar reactions from the left who couldn't understand why people liked and agreed with the man.'

Definately somebody I can vote for. Ha ha!

[rucalobe]

How about this ticket:

1-Hillary Clinton/Wesley Clark?
2-Hillary Clinton/Max Cleland?
3-Hillary Clinton/Bill Richardson?
4-Hillary Clinton/Mark Warner?

[FORD]

Sure, as long as you like empty suited morons fronting for the same fucking criminals who are there right now

[Unchainme]

Guilaniani/McCain Would be pretty much get my vote, Even if Rudy is pro choice, he would be a far surperior choice than Hillary.

[LoungeMachine]

I LOATHE Rudy.

Fucking hypocrite.

Tried to blame THE TROOPS on the Today show for the insurgents' bomb making materials

[Warham]

I have a hard time believing that.

Sounds like DNC propaganda to me.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I LOATHE Rudy.

Fucking hypocrite.

Tried to blame THE TROOPS on the Today show for the insurgents' bomb making materials

GUILIANI sold out NEW YORK to a President which bestows Homeland Security funding on his beloved Red STATE mouth breathers. The real targets of terrorism, port cities like BOSTON and NEW YORK CITY, go with less...

Fuck GULIANI, he's a two-faced hypocrite.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I have a hard time believing that.

Sounds like DNC propaganda to me.


I magine my surprise :rolleyes:

Propaganda:rolleyes:

"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there," Giuliani said on NBC's "Today" show. "Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"

Gulianni on Today Show speaking about lost ammunition and weapons caches that ended up in insurgent's hands


Google it yourself and watch the video. I've seen it.

propaganda
:rolleyes: