Hagel supports "slow bleed" for our troops...
Not mentioned in the article, of course, is the fact that this latest Murtha plan is nothing but a not-so-thinly veiled mantlepiece of Murtha's "slow bleed" plan, that will stifle funding for troops in the field, and thus choke off the effectiveness of Bush's plan for reinforcements to quell sectarian violence in Baghdad.Senator Chuck Hagel says he will consider supporting a proposal by a House Democrat intended to make certain that American troops are properly trained and equipped before being deployed to iraq.
Hagel commented Sunday during his latest appearance on Meet the Press.
Host Tim Russert asked the Nebraska Republican:
‘Senator Hagel, will you support Congressman Murtha’s approach that says no one can spend more than a year in Iraq, and they’re not going there without the proper training and equipment, which in effect—in Murtha’s words—would stop the surge?”
Ultimately, Hagel indicated he might support Murtha’s idea.
Hagel: “Well, first, I think Congressman Murtha makes some very valid points. Many of the points that he makes in what I assume, as you note, he is going to propose, were the result of questions that some of us asked four years ago. For example, the tempo of troops. How can you continue to have that kind of rotation schedule? Not many people listen. Now, when the House passes whatever they’re going to pass, it will come over to the Senate, as you note; we’ll take a look at it, and we’ll have that debate. That debate will be forced on us. We need to have that debate.”
“This debate, partly, is not about supporting the troops there. Now, of course we’re going to support the troops. There isn’t anybody in the House or Senate that would vote otherwise. What this debate is about right now is a continuation and an escalation of American military involvement in Iraq, putting young men and women in the middle of a sectarian, an intra-sectarian civil war. That’s what this debate is really about. So, yes, I’m going to look very carefully at Congressman Murtha’s points. And again, when you...”
Russert: And you may be open to them?
Hagel: “And I’d be open to it.
To call it anything else is nothing less than disingenuous tripe. The fact that Hagel is willing to buy into it speaks volumes not only of his complete naievite, but his lack of standing as a person of presidential timbre.
History will judge Hagel by relegating him to the "Hall of Shame" shared by such stalwarts as Jack Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy, Millard Fillmore, and Neville Chamberlain (along with Norm Coleman and a few other RINOs, for that matter).
-----------------------------------------------------------
|