Even while John "Goiter" McCain is trying to rebuild his image from his disastrous flirtation with the driveby media and the Left, it seems that another Republican is stepping into the breach to fill the role of turncoat, untrustworthy, defeatist Republocrat: Chuck Hagel! Yes, what McCain was to treatment of Prisoners and Gitmo, Hagel is to the Troop Surge! And, just as McCain was the rock star during the talk about "torture" and such, Hagel is the new one. Just look at the headlines from the Washington Post from last week: Hagel Ponders White House Run As War Criticism Raises His Profile
Friday, January 26, 2007; Page A01
His Republican colleagues regard him warily. The White House barely speaks to him. He is reviled by his party's conservative base.
Looks as though Sen. Chuck Hagel is on a roll.
Yes, folks, in the eyes of the Post,you are only a serious contender if Republicans and conservatives hate you, if you don't want to give our troops what they need, if you don't support the person you just approved to command them's notion that non-binding resolutions of cowardice embolden the enemy, and if you think a unity ticket is a good idea. Sick and disgusting.
As you read further in the article, all the cute little codewords are used again, just as they were for McCain: pariah, maverick, unity, etc. It is disgusting.
However, just as McCain's flirtation ended with him realizing he was a shmuck and possibly ruined any chance he has of winning the nomination, Hagel will be sunk as well. What is disgusting about Hagel is he has been so seduced by the invites to the parties, by the media attention, he doesn't even see the harm he is doing. Oh, wait, he is in the Senate, this is standard of their groupthink.
And to further illustrate his idiocy, check out this interview with Clueless Meredith Viera from the Today Show from January 26, 2007:
Senator, at this point do you believe that we are fighting and dying for nothing?"
HAGEL: Congress needs to take a look at it, and each member of Congress needs to go on the record and need to address the issue in a very clear way so that they can go back to their constituents and say, "Yes," I either support an escalation of putting 22,000 more American troops in the middle of a sectarian civil war, or I don't. Take a stand. That's why we're here.
First, if I were asked that question by this pompous asshat notalent hack Viera, I would first say, Ms. Viagra, er Viera...the only way our soldiers will have died for nothing is if we don't get the job done. But look at Hagel's answer. Chuckie, first, you and your little whiny cadre of spineless idiots in the Senate are not Commander in Chief. If you were, the Taliban would still be in charge of Afghanistan. If you were, Saddam would still be in Baghdad. But, wait, Ms. Viagra, er, Viera realizes her question is not answered and asks it again. Here is Hagel's "principled (read: CYA)" Position:
HAGEL: When you say "dying and fighting for nothing," well, what are the parameters? What's the definition? What is it that we are seeking? Men and women are dying, and when men and women are dying, the American people require, they expect, us to do these kinds of things. That's part of our job. We're not trying to hurt the president. Nobody wants to defeat America. That's not what we're trying to -- to do here.
What the hell is this? He asks what the definition of fighting and dying for nothing is? This f***ing moron doens't know what we are seeking in Iraq? Hell, the dumbest possible grunt in the military knows the objectives, you flaming idiotic fool! Damn, maybe we should impose higher standards on our Senators, like being able to sound cogent, and actually being able to make a solid argument. Of course, this is typical Senate rambling. And he thinks that what he and the Dems on the Senate Armed Services commitee, what he and the other anti-Troop left are doing, isn't harmful to our efforts, isn't trying to defeat America? Just ask the guy you all approved unanimously to head the operations in Iraq, General Petraeus. He said that all those statements and nonbinding resolutions only serve to hurt the troops, to sever morale and to embolden and encourage the enemy. Were you sleeping during those statements, or were you too busy sucking at the media's teat, Senator? Ms. Viagra, er Viera, then goes on to say: Senator, let me tell you what Senator Hatch had to say about you recently. He said, 'I really don't understand Senator Hagel but playing around with resolutions when we all know we gotta stay and get the job done doesn't make any sense. Most Republicans want us to win over there?" Here is the Republican Chuck the Shmuck's answer:
HAGEL: What do you mean, win? This is not a matter for the US to win or lose. This is not a prize. Are we going to just blindly continue to feed more troops, uh, into this situation, a sectarian civil war, that American troops cannot win? We put these young men and women in situations, uh, where -- where -- where they can't win. So somebody better ask some questions.
OK, this moronic castrated chicken doesn't nkow what victory is. He says it is not about winning. This should remove him from consideration for any office above dog catcher. Isn't getting rid of the insurgents considered victory? How about stomping the insurgecy? Hagel doesn't even consider that victory. In fact, he doesn't even know what victory is! This guy is a disgrace, but sadly typical of the insulated insolence at the Senate. However, I think in the state of Nebraska we need to start instituting IQ tests to allow people to vote. How in the blue hell can you send such a moron back so much?
