Tags for this video have been changed from 'SNL, Satarday Night Live, Chuck Hagel' to 'SNL, Saturday Night Live, Chuck Hagel, israel, congress, senator' - edited by kulpims

>> ^Stormsinger:
Wow, an honest, reasonable Republican. I thought we lost the last one of those when Chuck Hagel retired.

We did, the Tom Carper is a Democrat.

Wow, an honest, reasonable Republican. I thought we lost the last one of those when Chuck Hagel retired.

I don't see a problem with saying that nobody reads the legislative language. I only wish that the "plain English" versions were released alongside the legislative language version of every bill. That way, those rare individuals (OCD sufferers?) who actually -can- pull clarity out of the complexity could comb it over and holler about issues that don't match.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Chuck Hagel, Dick Cheney, Obama, Rachel Maddow, Russia' to 'Chuck Hagel, Dick Cheney, Obama, Rachel Maddow, Russia, Nebraska' - edited by MrFisk

I don't think Clintons play nice with others, furthermore I think alot of Americans do not want to see any more old guard players coming in from the past. They need a fresh face for Obama, who should be more conservative.

I wish it was Chuck Hagel. Personally.

I was very sad as well to hear he had retired... ... we need Chuck Hagel!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'chuck hagel, bill maher' to 'chuck hagel, bill maher, gop, iran, deficit, incompetence, bush, petraeus, iraq' - edited by winkler1

Sen. Chuck Hagel is the man. This is my choice for President.

And I wouldn't say that it's the new congress that's thawing Hagel out, he had initially reluctantly voted for the war as per the reasoning given by the president.

Having seen it as a disaster slowly occurring he started voicing concern in 2004, which got him name dropped by Kerry during a presidential debate and made him a complete persona non grata at the GOP.

Seeing as the GOP wouldn't really back him for the Presidential run, I think he simply doesn't give a damn anymore and wants to do as much as possible for the troops who he can relate to more so then McCain.

Since there's a difference between seeing a war on the ground and a war in the air.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Rep-Sen-Chuck-Hagel-Confronts-Secretary-Rice
http://www.videosift.com/video/Hagel-Tells-it-Like-it-Is

Chuck Hagel is the only person in the GOP that seems to know something. Or at least the only one who has the balls to stand up and actually say something.

SENATOR HAGEL: ... but I would even begin with this evaluation; that we owe the military and their families a policy, a policy worthy of their sacrifices, and I don't believe, Dr. Rice, we have that policy today.

I think what the president said last night -- and I listened carefully and read through it again this morning -- is all about a broadened American involvement, escalation in Iraq and the Middle East. I do not agree with that escalation, and I would further note that when you say, as you have here this morning, that we need to address and help the Iraqis and pay attention to the fact that Iraqis are being killed, Madame Secretary, Iraqis are killing Iraqis. We are in a civil war. This is sectarian violence out of control -- Iraqi on Iraqi. Worse, it is inter-sectarian violence -- Shi'a killing Shi'a.

To ask our young men and women to sacrifice their lives, to be put in the middle of a civil war is wrong.

It's, first of all, in my opinion, morally wrong. It's tactically, strategically, militarily wrong. We will not win a war of attrition in the Middle East.

And I further note that you talk about skepticism and pessimism of the American people and some in Congress. That is not some kind of a subjective analysis, that is because, Madame Secretary, we've been there almost four years, and there's a reason for that skepticism and pessimism, and that is based on the facts on the ground, the reality of the dynamics.

And so I have been one, as you know, who have believed that the appropriate focus is not to escalate, but to try to find a broader incorporation of a framework. And it will have to be, certainly, regional, as many of us have been saying for a long time. That should not be new to anyone. But it has to be more than regional, it is going to have to be internally sponsored, and that's going to include Iran and Syria.

When you were engaging Chairman Biden on this issue, on the specific question -- will our troops go into Iran or Syria in pursuit, based on what the president said last night -- you cannot sit here today -- not because you're dishonest or you don't understand, but no one in our government can sit here today and tell Americans that we won't engage the Iranians and the Syrians cross-border.

Some of us remember 1970, Madame Secretary, and that was Cambodia, and when our government lied to the American people and said we didn't cross the border going into Cambodia. In fact we did. I happen to know something about that, as do some on this committee.

So, Madame Secretary, when you set in motion the kind of policy that the president is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous. Matter of fact, I have to say, Madame Secretary, that I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out. I will resist it.

Charles Timothy "Chuck" Hagel (born October 4, 1946) is the senior United States Senator from Nebraska. A member of the Republican Party, he was first elected in 1996 and was reelected in 2002. He is a Vietnam War veteran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel

Okay I like Barak Obama.

But let's not forget besides his vision and his charisma, Obama has not really done anything concrete. Does America see Obama or even Clinton as a possible strong person to run a war on terror? I don't know. How far can they convince the American people that they could be tough on terror? (even if I believe personally the threat of worldwide terrorism is about as empty as the threat of the Soviet Union in the late 80s)

There are also two republicans who could also be running such as John McCain and Chuck Hagel (I hope to God). Both are Army vets. Now I don't like McCain much at all, while he is a war vet his military strategy is entirely flawed as he is pushing for the surge just as much as the Whitehouse is. Hagel has been persona non grata with the Republicans after Kerry dropped his name yet he is the only one who has expressed skepticism about the War in Iraq all this time since 2004, and says that the surge is entirely foolish endeavor. Both men initially voted for the war, however only Hagel has really developed an understanding that it can't work, he's not in the cut and run crowd yet he understands that sending an additional 20,000 troops wont fix the problem.

There is no plan for the surge forces, most of them are being sent to Baghdad to keep the security situation? But how? Will they be used to force a settlement between Sunnis and Shias? Are you going to lockdown Baghdad? All it will do is increase Iraqi animosity and strengthen resistance. Vietnam should have reminded the administration that you CANNOT fight a war of independence for someone else.

What are the Democrats doing? Well they don't want to be labeled as weak on terror so are sidestepping cutting the funds to the new surge, though whether or not they will allow troops to be sent is another matter. Obama himself said that the surge would be a mistake compounding a mistake, however argued that he could not in good conscience cut off funding for troops that are there.

Honestly I think this is starting the race entirely too soon. It really depends on how the so called surge plays out. This is all building up a public persona of a person, however that without real action is merely a paper face still. Furthermore, the Democrats would just as easily divide amongst ties (imagine Obama vs Hillary) and fight it out between themselves instead of joining forces. But I don't think either wants to join forces even when both candidates strengths and weaknesses balance each other out nicely.

Ok, first of all Diebold just bought the voting machine business in 2002, so don't compare the ATM bulls^#@$. Global Election Systems changed its name to Diebold Election Systems, Inc.

"Jeff Dean, Senior Vice-President and Senior Programmer at Global Election Systems (GES), the company purchased by Diebold in 2002 which became Diebold Election Systems, was convicted of 23 counts of felony theft for planting back doors in software he created for ATMs using, according to court documents, a "high degree of sophistication" to evade detection over a period of 2 years"

So yes, worry about using your ATM.

"Voter advocate Bev Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of Diebold Inc., one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions, and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records. "

The vice-president of Diebold and the president of ES&S are brothers.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel used to be chairman of ES&S. He became Senator based on votes counted by ES&S machines.