Hagel's Office Officially Announces Iraq/Afghanistan Trip With Obama
It's official: Republican Senator Chuck Hagel's office has put out an announcement that he will be joining Barack Obama on a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, along with Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island.
In many ways, Hagel has become the mirror image of Joe Lieberman -- he is a conservative who has infuriated his party through his opposition to the Iraq War. However, Hagel has not crossed party lines to endorse Barack Obama as of yet, opting only to refuse to endorse John McCain.
However, going on a overseas visit in the middle of the campaign season will be about as much of a vote of confidence in Obama's foreign policy vision as you could get without it turning into an outright endorsement.
Thus, expect a lot of reporters to ask Hagel repeatedly whether he is supporting Obama. As it is, expect him to do a lot for Obama in terms of running interference against Republican attacks that Obama doesn't have the experience or judgment for foreign policy.












Comments (77)
Yeah, but he's nowhere close to being as irritating as Lieberman is. Every time I hear him speak, I want to hurl something at the TV or radio.
July 13, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
probably because Hagel still has his integrity.
July 13, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
...or it could be because he's on your side.
July 14, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
True. Still, it would be fun if Hagel threw 1/10th of the shit McCain's way that Senator Schmendrake tries to throw at Obama. I suspect he won't though because, as you note, he has integrity and he's intellectually honest.
July 14, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
KABUL, Afghanistan — A multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote U.S. base killed nine American soldiers and wounded 15 Sunday in the deadliest attack on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in three years, officials said.
So:
How you propose to keep the troops safe while being in these countries for 100 years Senator McCain - maybe you should explain it to the families above that just lost their loved ones.
July 13, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
While eliminating the country's massive debt. How do you plan to do all that?
July 13, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, Hagel is not currently actively attacking McCain, nor is he fanning false rumors about the candidate of his own party. Hagel, as much as I might disagree with many of his social and economic views, is a much much better person than Lieberman could hope to become.
July 13, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is an important difference and unlike Lieberman, Hagel wouldn't have to make stuff up. I am not confident that he will endorse Obama. Hagel is a member of four Senate committees, Foreign Relations, Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Committee on Rules and Administration. Unlike the Dems re: Lieberman, the G.O.P. would have nothing to lose in immediately stripping his committee assignments. Granted, it would only be until the end of his current term.
July 13, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreeing to travel with Obama is endorsement enough. It allows Obama to prove that he will reach out to moderates from the other side.
July 13, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel is about as passionate as a guy like Hagel ever gets about foreign wars that get Americans killed for nothing and he absolutely loathes the neocons.
It will be very interesting to see if Obama puts someone like Hagel who thinks for himself on the ticket or in his cabinet or if he picks a stooge like Evan Bayh.
July 13, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Based on Obama's recent activities, I'd say he'll pick a stooge like Evan Bayh. However, stooge and all, he's still a much better pick than that bad-tempered, ignorant old man.
July 13, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I rather Obama pick Ed Rendell than Bayh if he has to pick a Hillary surrogate for his VP. But hopefully that never happens.
Hagel, Richardson, or Sebelius are the man & woman for the job as vice president.
July 13, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a very strong supporter of Obama and I DO NOT want him to pick a Republican for his running mate. A non-major cabinet position; sure (not Defense or Sec of State) but not VP. I would not want a Republican to take over for Obama if needed (God forbid.)
And, I don't think it can be a woman if it isn't Hillary.
Richardson, Biden, Dodd, or Edwards to provide that "Team of Rivals" feel would be good VP choices.
Ed Rendell would be fine with me too - he is a proven campaigner and surrogate.
But my current dark horse is Obama's other companion on this trip: Jack Reed.
His military and foreign policy credentials are solid; as is his progressive record. He has experience but isn't too well known. He is also Catholic which might help with that demographic.
July 13, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to hear it's official about Hagel joining Obama on the Iraq/Afghanistan Trip. I hope the media bothers to ask him his thoughts while he's there, not just Obama.
For anyone interested, some of Hagel's greatest moments as a straight-talker:
Confronting C. Rice at a Senate hearing on the troop escalation (11/07)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=3wlMxxyKztw
Confronting Lieberman on Meet the Press (~2 minutes in)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EUf7vbuzMxI&feature=related
Confronting McCain in a Senate speech about conflicting war votes on Bosnia & Somalia (2/07)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nvXtdA2spWM&feature=related
The last one is almost 8 minutes, but well worth the time to hear him take McCain to task for his hypocrisy in criticizing Iraq dissenters when 10 years before this he was criticizing President Clinton's actions overseas.
What a breath of fresh air this guy is.
July 13, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Hagel would have a role in Obama's cabinet, however not as VP. As I've said elsewhere he is just too socially conservative. If Gates feels he needs to step down or Obama wants a clean break from all things Bush I think Hagel would be the front runner for Secretary of Defense.
I think any comparison of Hagel to Lieberman is an insult to Sen. Hagel.
July 13, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree on the point of being Obama's VP. If Obama is all about change and working together to be bi-partisan, this would send a huge message to the country that we are ready to work together across the divide. Hagel may be a social conservative, but people again vote at the top of the ticket on those issues and not the bottom. Now, he might have some explaining to do, but he could come across as meeting Obama halfway on all of the issues not just the war in Iraq.
I do agree that any comparison of Hagel to Lieberman is an insult to Hagel, and this was reiterated best by The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan: "How F--- you to McCain-Lieberman is that?" (referring to Hagel on Obama's Iraq trip)
July 13, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think Obama's move to the center has alienated a lot of the activist base and choosing Hagel would be seen as a further slap in the face. As has been mentioned, other than Iraq they really have nothing in common policy wise - it's just not a good fit.
July 13, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Choosing Evan Bayh or one of the other "Iran is about to invade Indiana" types would be a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned. What I like about Hagel is that he is totally clear on the fact that the people of Nebraska receive little if any benefit from wars of choice. I think he'd be a better fit at Defense or as national security advisor but he's the kind of advisor Obama needs, one who can think for himself.
I'm very concerned that Obama is going to go along with the conventional wisdom folks (read the list of those voting for FISA and you'll see almost all of them).
But it's pretty much hopeless anyway. This country is going to decay and implode before the Congress has the guts to address problems at home rather than squandering borrowed Chinese money abroad.
July 13, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am certainly one of the base Obama alienated with his embrace of FISA, but I wouldn't see tapping Chuck Hagel for VP as a slap in the face. I, too, disagree with many of his social positions, but I have a lot of respect for him as a person, and best of all, he'd just drive McSame ballistic.
July 13, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus, it would give a Republican a leg up for 2016 presidential run. Granted, Hagel wouldn't be as bad a prez as any Rethug you could name, but we need to keep white house and congress for as many years as possible.
July 13, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's the #1 problem for me. If not for that, I'd be OK with it.
Hagel's got enough cred with Joe Nascar, and is sensible enough on foreign policy issues, that he could really make a difference.
July 13, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such a situation might render Obama assassinated half way through his inauguration speech.
Some half wit wing nut conservative with nothing to lose and wanting to make a name for himself, once he realizes that one bullet could preserve the ascendancy of the arian race, well, I shudder to say more.
A better option would be to put Hillary in as vp. No wing nut is going to kill Obama only to install Hillary as President (though a militant feminist might).
I think there are better options out there. But I trust Obama to make the best pick here.
July 13, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a big difference between reaching out to the other side on issues and policy and making someone from the other side first in the order of succession.
July 13, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would never pick hagel as vp. That would be a disaster. Other than iraq, they have nothing in common politically. Everyone focuses on iraq unfortunately.
I actually would rather see obama keep gates at defense. It makes sense in that gates has been doing a good job all things considered and is saving the country, as best he can, from the king's administration and another freaking war. Gates also would evidence bipartisanship and having the best and the brightest in the cabinet. Gates should stay.
July 13, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Which is why I tried to qualify my Sec of Defense endorsement with Gates possibly stepping down (maybe if Obama wants the troops out and he disagrees). I would want Hagel in any Obama cabinet though, how about Homeland Security?
July 13, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's not a bad idea. One thing though, I would guess that obama breaks up "homeland security." It's too big and like a blind elephant in a china shop. Also, I hate that gd name, I hope at least he changes the name. The king should have called it the fatherland security department the way he has been running the country.
July 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take their Hagel. They (the Repubs) are welcome to Lieberman and I hope they keep him!
July 13, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel is sharp, Lieberman is just a reason to change the channel.
July 13, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
i can't wait to see them side by side going over policy in iraq..... the repubs has to be sick plus arnold s. said he would not mind being obama energy czar today......i would not be surprise powell will endorse obama after rnc to kill what ever bounce mcsame get............
July 13, 2008 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what arnie said. He truthfully probably wouldn't mind, but that's not what he said. He said he would talk to obama if obama called, but he specifically avoided saying one way or the other that he would serve in an obama administration.
July 13, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
arnold also said "when he is president" not if he is president was that a fraudulent slip????? smell like a in the closet obamacon............
July 13, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Also, his mcbush endorsement sounded forced and canned. I think he may be in the closet as well.
July 13, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel, a harsh Iraq war critic and Reed, who voted against going to war sends a pretty damn strong message doesn't it? I love it. How can anybody question Obama's experience when he has Hagel and Reed as his Defense advisors? Far cry from Lieberman whispering in McCain's ear on McCain's ME trip.
Any word of who is accompanying Obama on his European tour? That could be dicey as Biden and Kerry are both jockying for that spot and Richardson feels he's owed something for his timely endorsement.
July 13, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anybody answer for certain whether Rhode Island's Republican governor would pick Reed's replacement if he should be tabbed for VP?
July 13, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the issue is whether ri law requires the governor to appoint a dem or not. Some states do require the appointment of a pol from the same party and I would guess that ri would most likely be one of those states. However, I don't know for sure.
July 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like there could be a conflict of interest there. You don't imagine a Republican governor required to appoint a Democratic senator might select someone who would have trouble winning reelection?
July 13, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, I don't know what ri law is, but the states that require the gov to appoint someone from the same party also require that the party leadership in the state provide a list of people, normally 5, that the governor could select from. Of course, the governor may pick the weakest one. Again, my guess is that since ri is royal blue the gov wouldn't do anything to kill his political future by playing games on this. It wouldn't be worth it.
July 13, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
hagel has a gravitas that lieberman doesn't at all possess; and his intentions are clearly for the good of the country, whereas lieberman's are not.
i also wouldn't object to him at the pentagon, as he's a firm believer in the chain of command. he could remind his employees of that; a message that seems to be increasingly ignored.
July 13, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you good folks have a short memory and forget that Chuck Hagel gave us Michael Mukasey, the Attorney General who now protects George W. Bush and the telecom industry and those involved in illegal torture, and who refuses to cooperate with Congressional investigations everytime he turns around.
When are you going to learn that our corporate controlled congress fears us?
If the recent vote on FISA hasn't awakened you by now, well...your kids and mine are going to be the targets and pay for our doing nothing.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
July 13, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your line about our corporate controlled Congress reminded me of this quote somebody sent me a couple years ago.
It should probably be noted that Huey Long really didn't have a problem with fascism, although that was pre-WWII and the label didn't possess the same stigma that it would later.
July 13, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not so sure the current Congress has any problem with fascism either.
July 13, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is very good for Obama's legitimacy vis a vis the foreign policy criticisms. The same with his interview today with Fareed Zakaria. It will be impressive to see him coming back talking on a bipartisan basis about the hard decisions that Bush's disastrous foreign policy has left us with a Republican whose foreign policy bonafides cannot be argued. It'll be a serious blow to the McCain foreign policy claim since it will show without question that disagreement with McCain and Bush's position doesn't mean you are naive or inexperienced, it just means you've come to a different assessment of the facts! I've had this argument in numerous forums recently with a lot of ex-military folks and this criticism comes up often that if you don't have their experience then you simply don't know what you're talking about and your opinion is invalid. I tried my best (with some degree of success) to explain that there are many roads one can travel to gain the requisite understanding to lead to a correct assessment and their road can be just as likely to lead to an incorrect one as any other. I was very impressed with Obama's grasp of the big concepts that are going on right now that he displayed during the Zakaria interview. I'm certain Bush would have been (probably currently still is!) unable to do so while he was running for office and I'm questionable as to whether McCain could. At times it certainly seems like he can't.
July 13, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Hagel as VP
Now that's CHANGE that works for YOU
July 13, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ONLY thing Hagel has disagreed with Bush on is the war. He has pretty much voted with Bush on every thing else.
July 13, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/13/zakaria.obama/index.html
Obama is just so damn bright. Can you imagine McCain answering questions in this type of interview? McCain cannot even stay on topic for more than two sentences with reporters when answering a question.
July 13, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you haven't seen this, I think it's a must see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2nNSMZKv_A
Mark Sanford is done as a potential McCain VP pick....
July 13, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious clip of Stanton.
He and Kirk Watson should start a support group.
July 13, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should be "Sanford."
Hmm. Maybe I can join that group.
July 13, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Media and the pundits doing what they're known for- over analyzing and exaggerating the significance of Hagel/Obama partnership. And perhaps that's what Obama wants- people making it more of their joint trip than it is.
July 13, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we should all drop a line to the New Yorker, as this is the most offensive thing I have seen in a long time. They say it's satire, B.S.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html#postComment
July 13, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check out the fireplace.....
July 13, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
themail@newyorker.com
July 13, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh, really offensive and pathetic. However, it may be a blessing in disguise. It is satire and people will find it offensive and maybe, just maybe, it will insulate some people to the outrageous claims of the republicans and the far right. I know that I am grasping at straws, but maybe, just maybe it might accomplish something. I hope so in any event.
July 13, 2008 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that I've had some time to let it sink in and have seen some of the artist's other covers, I think you might be on to something. I'll bet the editorial staff had some heated discussions. They'll probably have to hire extra staff to field all the incoming brickbats.
July 13, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so. My first reaction was oh my God. Then, after I thought about it for a while, like you, I thought that maybe it might be beneficial in some weird way. It is what it is and its really too late to do anything about it anyway, so we can only hope.
July 13, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ratfood and Michael: I thought that briefly, but you know, even if that is the case, isn't this so disrespectful? I would be just as upset if they they had done a 'make fun of McCain as a POW' or something like that too. I get the New Yorker, and how they think their readers are all that, and maybe so. I guess what really upset me wasn't so much Michelle and Obama (that was bad), but the Bin Laden picture over the fireplace in the Oval Office with the American flag burning. I hope you two are right, but I always end up disappointed. I was thrilled at the comments and outrage on Huffington Post, although that was initially, maybe that has changed since I looked. The media just cannot accept this guy, or for that matter, any Democrat. They had such glee over Bill Clinton's impeachment, and other than that they fail to find a way to embrace a Democrat, money matters more. Funny thing is, I feel Obama winning would give them more viewership than McCain, a definite snooze, hit mute button.
July 14, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read The New Yorker article, "Makin' It: How Chicago Shaped Obama," and thought it was pretty good. THEN I saw this cover and thought gad, is it April 1st again already? Sure it's satire... you could probably also use that term in defense of pickaninny depictions of blacks in the early 20th century. I guess what I would like to know is how does The New Yorker decide WHICH racist stereotypes are appropriate for use on the cover?
July 13, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was a good article, I read it too. However, from what I have read today, this article, by the same person only now it is 18 pages, is not too kind.
July 14, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, he's gonna endorse Obama....Along with Colin Powell. You just wait and see!
July 13, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shouldn't have said that...that was very mean!
July 13, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it just me, or does Lieberman look like Bozo The Clown.
July 13, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shouldn't have said that....that was very mean! (I meant to say that about this comment, not the above).
July 13, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind, I'm confusing people now.
July 13, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hagel is independent and principled. Leibenschmootz is Independent and nakedly self-serving.
July 13, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just checked out the links in the post. Hagel is a statesman.
July 13, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I seem to recall that Hagel was the CEO of Election Systems Software here in Omaha. I admire his war stance wouldn't want to see him on the ticket. conservative judges, no equal rights, creationism, ........
July 13, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
........wait a minute, I feeling like we might be supporting a guy who will goes that way anyway?
July 13, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that is so nice, Chuckie is going to help Obama look viable in the fall election.
All those "white" guys buired in Mississippi who believed in Martin Luther King, Jr's., pack of BS, my goodness they were so *ucking stupid, like you know, that Mississippie burning movie, where white guys died for black people's and their stupid civil rights, based on some stupid premise that somehow anyone can't believe those stupid words in the US Constitution. Boggles the mind really!
There is not one single *ucking African American out there who would not vouch for those stupid idiot, dead WHITE guys, stupid as they were, imagine that, that they stood for African Ameican equality? I hate African Americans - they are so damn cheap, as cheap as Obama ever was to sell out his oath of office.
Really, I don't think there is even the mere premise that, that, that ever stupid sacrificial icon, OR pretense of an icon known of a US Constitution, even remotely met that African Americans have any equality, certainly no more that AT&T and Verizon, as well as a score of the other telecoms rights to even start asking opportunist leaders like Obama to spying on people and their war time kids for an entitlement program know of as the Pell Grant - stop bitching, please. Obama isn't going to give you a break, least not more that AT&T and Verizon.
I guess I just think that a natural leader that CAN NOT stand-up to the guys in Arlington Cemetery with the same utterly preachery talk about responsibility?
"We need fathers to realize that responsibility does not end at conception. We need them to realize that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. It's the courage to raise one."
Thank you Oama for your courage in lecturing, however feeble it is - that it requires no responsibility to the US Consititution whatsoever. Those vets out in the field must live up to their oath, but Obama????
Keep preaching to the choir Obama and don't follow ANY of your own words, for Christ sakes dude, just lie for AT&T and Verizon, and the act of torture if you have to, to win, anything goes.
“I believe in personal responsibility; I also believe in faith,” he said. “That’s not something new; I’ve been talking about that for years. So the notion that this is me trying to look” — he waved his hands around his head — “centrist is not true.”
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
AT&T and Verizon were the "domestic enemies" and thus Obama did, you know, commit treason, no faith need apply.
It is all corporate gain. Does anything else really matter?
July 13, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
AT&T and Verizon were the "domestic enemies" and thus Obama did, you know, commit treason, no faith need apply.
It is all corporate gain. Does anything else really matter?
July 13, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Bush?
July 14, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
oops, sorry for double post.
my wireless is giving me fits.
July 13, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is great i want hagel as VP but thats if obama doesnt choose tom kaine
they caught the guy who vandalized cars with anti-obama statements back in june
July 14, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I do think it'll be Tim Kaine as the VP. Though, ideally I would like Schweitzer. Kaine would run wild in the southern states of VA and NC and possibly GA. His southern attitude and populist approach would make PA secure, though Ohio and Michigan would be tougher, especially if McCain picks Romney. If McCain picks Ridge though, damn it's going to be tough.
July 14, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Kaine would be an excellent VP for Obama.
Hagel won't be Obama's VP but he still can be used as an attack dog against anybody who says that Obama lacks the experience to be a great commander in chief.
July 14, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from Nebraska, and I respect Sen. Hagel for his opposition to the Iraq War. That principled stand has cost him his political career.
But on every other issue, Hagel has been one of Bush's staunchest supporters. He is very much a right-wing Republican (his anti-environmental stance has been a particular pain). Do not look at his intelligent statements on Iraq and forget about the rest of his positions.
Some people here apparently see what they want to see. Look closer. I respect the man, but I do NOT agree with him about most things. He is certainly not the person we need as vice-president!
July 14, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absofuckinglutely WCG!!!
I live in Omaha. The guy has a reputation for ruthless viciousness from his time at Election Systems Software.
He was unknown on the political scene and came out of nowhere to unseat a popular incumbent when all the polls had him behind by enormous margins. Suspicion of rigged software in their machines ran rampant until Beverly Harris of Black Box Voting basically absolved him and ES&S of the scandal.
My suspicions remain as there was not much done at the time by him or his campaign to present an appearance propriety.
I admire him for standing on his principles but, his anti-war stance is not politically motivated. Its foundation is based on his experiences in Viet Nam and military knowledge. He is not a NeoCon but a very far right wing social conservative.
He does not belong on the ticket, in the party or, for that matter any where near the oval office in my opinion.
Don't let this rare display of courage and strength from a political leader override your good judgment.
We are all hoping that in Obama, we will have a man with the same level of courage but, I admit to pondering on possibility that we don't have this kind of man given the apparent change to expediency we seem to be witnessing. I hope that change proves to be a mirage and I, am simply overreacting.
July 17, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why hasn't McCain been asked the most basic question? You believe that Iraq in analogous to Germany, S. Korea and Japan? Germany which had the Red Army on its door step that raped 2million German women on its way to Berlin, or South Korea which had millions of Chinese and N. Koreans who had already almost taken over all of South Korea but for US marines and Japan which had Russia and China on its door step and a demilitarized constitution. If MCCain believes that Iraq is analogous to those he is seriously delusional.
July 14, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink