Senator Chuck Hagel's wife endorses Obama

Will Chuck Hagel be far behind?

Apparently Hagel has been supporting Obama without actually endorsing him for some time now. This story in Huffington Post described a Hagel speaking engagement last May:

The Republican Senator from Nebraska was a political thorn in McCain's side on Tuesday night, repeatedly lavishing praise on the presumptive Democratic candidate and levying major foreign policy criticisms at the GOP nominee and the Republican Party as a whole. At one point, Hagel even urged the Arizona Republican to elevate his campaign discourse to a higher, more honest level.

I can only imagine what Hagel thinks of this recent barrage of McCain attack ads.

Chuck Hagel is an honorable and reasonable man. He would have made a good president. Very few people seem to remember that it was actually Hagel who first brought up the subject of impeachment. Of course there wasn't much he could do without even lukewarm Democrat support (and poor Nancy, having lost her table.)

Hagel also supported Obama's pledge to use diplomacy when dealing with Iran, saying that engagement is very different than capitulation:

Hagel, speaking to a small gathering at the residence of the Italian ambassador, took umbrage with several positions taken by the McCain campaign, including the Arizona Senator's criticism of Obama for pledging to engage with Iran. Engagement is not, and should not be confused for, capitulation, he argued.

"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way...."

Hagel then offered a wry tweak of his GOP colleague. "I am confident that if Obama is elected president that is the approach we will take. And my friend John McCain said some other things about that. We'll see, but in my opinion it has to be done. It is essential."

Hagel, who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went on to belittle the tendency for some within his own party to disparage those who tout diplomacy. "You take some risks in talking about this," he said, "especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser."

And when asked to respond to rumors circulating within political circles that the Bush administration was ginning up the possibility of war with Iran, the Senator even raised the specter of impeachment.

"You've got the power of impeachment, now that is a very defined measure if you are willing to bring charges against the president at all. You can't just say I disagree with him, let's impeach him," said Hagel. An attack on Iran without Congress' consent, he added, "would bring with it... outstanding political consequences, including for the Republican Party."

Finally, he charged that if the preeminent foreign policy objective is to achieve security in Israel and stability within the broader Middle East, then the Bush track -- which McCain has endorsed -- is ill-advised.

"If you engage a world power or a rival, it doesn't mean you agree with them or subscribe with what they believe or you support them in any way," he said. "What it does tell you is that you've got a problem you need to resolve. And you've got to understand the other side and the other side has got to understand you."

Hagel to retire

The word on the street is that Senator Hagel plans to retire, and does not intend to run for President.

Hagel is a statesman, and along with Lugar and Biden, went to the White House and demanded that Congress be kept in the loop about the Iraq invasion:

In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region:

HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.

GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?

HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.

GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?

HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.

That he is retiring - along with Warner - makes me wonder if Lugar will stay, or if they have all had enough of this train wreck.

It also makes me wonder if they already know its not going to end.

This guy was on our side. Maybe he just got tired of fighting literally everyone. God knows we never gave him any support, and the Republicans crucified him.



He has also spoken out against the Patriot Act, against Bush, was the first guy to mention impeachment (of either party.)

"When government continues to erode individual rights, that's the most dangerous, dangerous threat to freedom there is," he said, calling it "far more dangerous than terrorism." His reaction was similarly sharp when he first heard of the report in this newspaper that the president had claimed authority to order domestic wiretapping without court approval. "If, in fact, this is true," he said, "then it needs to stop." When the White House acknowledged it was true, Hagel pressed for Congressional hearings and a national debate. "I think Congress has failed the country in many ways," he said at a forum in California last month. One way was to allow the administration "to completely overpower the debate based on, 'I'm the commander in chief, and I know what's best.' "

Well, whoever replaces him has some big shoes to fill. For example... the ability to tell the truth. And some idea of what it means to serve as a Senator in a 'representative government.' One that doesn't just represent corporations.

Bush chief of staff faces possible contempt charge

Possible contempt. I suppose like Gonzales -- anything is possible, if not likely. Somehow these guys just always skate.

But here's the goods, from Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House chief of staff faced possible contempt charges after a congressional panel on Thursday ruled as invalid President George W. Bush's bid to limit the probe of the firing of federal prosecutors.

On a party-line vote of 7-3, a Democratic-led House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee rejected Bush's contention that his claim of executive privilege shields the top aide, Joshua Bolten, from having to turn over subpoenaed documents.

"Those claims are not legally valid," said panel Chairwoman Linda Sanchez, a California Democrat.

Here is the official letter from Chairman Conyers:

BY FAX AND U.S. MAIL

Mr. Fred F. Fielding
Counsel to the President
Office of the Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Mr. Fielding:

I am disappointed that the President's Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has continued to disobey the subpoena served on him on June 13, 2007, and has not produced the documents called for by that subpoena. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of the text of a ruling by Chairwoman Sanchez at today's meeting of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law rejecting the claims of privilege that you have sought to raise in response to that subpoena. The ruling was sustained by a 7-3 vote of the Subcommittee.

This letter is to formally notify you that I must insist on compliance with the subpoena, and that Mr. Bolten's failure to promptly mitigate his noncompliance could result in contempt proceedings, including, but not limited to proceedings under 2 U.S.C §§ 192, 194 or under the inherent contempt authority of the House of Representatives. In light of Chairwoman Sanchez's ruling, we strongly urge immediate production of the responsive documents pursuant to the subpoena. Please let me know in writing by 10 a.m. on Monday July 23, 2007. whether Mr. Bolten will comply. If I do not hear from you in the affirmative by then, the Committee will have no choice but to consider appropriate recourse.

The Senate Follies... (or should I say folly)

Meanwhile GOP members of the Senate - the obstructionists - are facing our own contempt... but as you can see, we're not terribly effective either. Over 70% of us want out... but hey, who's counting heads?

I so enjoyed the all-nighter with the Senate, (except for Libermouth - did he talk for an hour or did it just feel like a week?) I was happy to see my respect for Chuck Hagel was well placed (he once again bucked the GOP lockstep and voted to hold a vote; yes, it this was all simply about holding an up and down vote on an amendment to get our troops started on an exit from Iraq. Republicans can't even manage that.)

Was disappointed with my own Senator Lugar - especially after his recent speech calling for a change in direction prior to the September deadline (which by the way just magically changed to November!) It would have been nice if his words could have been accompanied by his vote. As they say... talk is cheap.

We did get a little more insight into the 'why' of the GOP obstruction, with an eye-opener of a comment from Idaho Senator, Republican Larry Craig, who came right out and admitted we can't leave Iraq 'without the oil:'

Idaho GOP Sen. Larry Craig stood on the Senate floor late Tuesday night and said:

"What happens to the world energy supply if Iran does gain more control in the Middle East? What are the realities of the consequences of an Iran that possibly could gain control over 54% of the world energy supply? They could place a choke hold over the Strait of Hormuz and possibly in sea lanes in the region, severely limiting the supply of oil to the world market. That is not just a reality that the United States must face, but a reality for the world. I have worked very hard with my colleagues to lessen the U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

He was cut off by the presiding officer, but later amended his remarks to include in the Congressional Record this:

However, we are not yet capable of raising production in the United States because we have been blocked by the other side of the aisle from doing so. Therefore, a premature withdrawal from Iraq could have dire consequences with our economy and energy supply; but would also have the same effects on the world economy.

Waiting on Iraqis to sign that 'we're taking all of your oil' bill, aren't you?

Well, the Iraqi Parliment is taking the summer off... and apparently so are you! Golly - I guess those poor troops will just have to slog around in 100+ heat and get their limbs shot off until you all come back from summer vacation. Happy golfing and I hope y'all get nice tans. I'm sure the troops are getting very tanned... or are those scorch marks from the bomb blasts?

(This makes me sick.)