By JOSEPH LELYVELD
"With a bluntness that seems habitual ? and more than occasionally strikes fellow Republicans as disloyal ? Senator Chuck Hagel started voicing skepticism about the Bush administration's fixation on Iraq as a place to fight the Global War on Terror more than half a year before the president gave the go-ahead for the assault. What the senator said in public was milder than what he said in private conversations with foreign-policy gurus like Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser in another Bush administration, or his friend Colin Powell, the secretary of state, who thought he still had a chance to steer the administration on a diplomatic course. The Nebraskan wanted to believe Powell but, deep down, felt the White House wasn't going to be diverted from its drive to topple Saddam Hussein. When he rose on the Senate floor that October to explain his vote in favor of the resolution authorizing force ? he'd persuaded himself that his vote might strengthen Powell's hand ? he gave a speech that would have required no editing had he decided to vote against it. What sounded then to the venture's true believers like the scolding of a Cassandra sounds fairly obvious three and a half years later, which is to say that Hagel's words can reasonably be read as prescient: "How many of us really know and understand Iraq, its country, history, people and role in the Arab world?. . .The American people must be told of the long-term commitment, risk and cost of this undertaking. We should not be seduced by the expectations of dancing in the streets." The president had said "precious little" about post-Saddam Iraq, which could prove costly, Hagel warned, "in both American blood and treasure." "
Usual login firstname.lastname@example.org, pw speakeasy.
At least someone in the Party has some sense. And don't confuse blind partisanship with either loyalty or integrity or real Republican values. I have spent much time here pointing out how little the current Republican Party resembles the old Republican Party. These days its about intrusion into or abrogation of the Constitution or pandering to Religious interests which ought to have no place in politics, or good ole boy business lobby backscratching.
I have lots of quarrels with Democrats, not least their equal inclination to corruption as their Republican "opponents" but they're not in power, and Bush is leading this country towards Autocracy and Oligarchy, not towards anything resembling the equality of each person as promised in the Declaration of Independence, and bolstered by the Constiturion and Bill of Rights.
Please note: the Bill of Rights is a bill governing every American, it is not the Bill for the Rights of the Rich, for the Elect, by the True Believers, or any such malarkey as purveyed here.
PS: Mark, to answer your previous taunt, that's how to quote an article.
Pint-size luxury and funky style
Shopping for a new car this weekend? See how the BMW X2 stacks up against the Volvo XC40 in our side-by-side comparison.