I Cogitate

"We better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder," said Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, the sole Republican to join 11 Democrats in support of the measure.

"This is not a defeatist resolution. This is not a cut-and-run resolution," Hagel said. "We are not talking about cutting off funds, not supporting the troops. This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam." While casting a vote on the resolution may be difficult for some, every senator needs to take a stand on the issue, he said.

"I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes," Hagel said.

GWEN IFILL: Two prominent senators are going against the tide within their own parties on Iraq. Connecticut's Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, says congressional resolutions could undercut the warriors on the ground. And Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, a Republican, argues that the full Senate should be heard, that if lawmakers want, quote, "a safe job, they should go sell shoes."

Both join us now. Welcome, gentlemen.

Senator Hagel, as Ray Suarez just reported, you were the only senator on this committee today who approved this resolution -- in fact, you were a cosponsor of it. You heard what Senator Lugar had to say about what the president would do, and Vice President Cheney said today that, as far as he was concerned, that "the resolution won't stop us."

So what can a resolution force the president to do?

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), Nebraska: Well, first, if, in fact, the Senate passes a resolution, that's rather significant. Let's think about this for a moment, what that does say.

The United States Senate is part of a co-equal branch of our government. It's worked pretty well for 200 years, Gwen. For a president to step away from that -- if, in fact, we would pass a resolution, putting the Senate on record opposing his plan -- that's rather significant, and it represents the voices of the people we represent.

The fact is, on November 7th of last year, there was an election, and I think it's quite clear. Some of the senators who are not back and House members who are not back went down because of one predominant issue, and that is the American people wanted a change in direction, not just on Iraq, but a number of things.

Politics is accountable. There are consequences to this. The process is accountable. The United States Senate needs to have this debate. We need to be on record. All 100 senators need to step up, explain, if they support the president wanting to insert 22,000 more troops in Iraq, then they should explain to their constituents why they support that. If you don't, explain why not.

No one wants defeat here. This is a very, very dishonest witch hunt that some are on. Somehow it's either cut and run or defeatist versus send more troops in. No, that's not the debate here.

We have not had a real, legitimate debate in four years on the most divisive issue facing this country since Vietnam. The fact is, we are already divided. Look at where the American people are on this.

The president can't sustain a war policy. He can't sustain any policy. He can't govern without the support of the American people. That's why this debate is important.

GWEN IFILL: Senator Hagel, Senator Lieberman said many things, among them that there's a certain fish-or-cut-bait quality to this, that there should be a vote, if you oppose this, to just simply cut off the funding for this enterprise. It's something Vice President Cheney said again today; it's something the White House had said. Why not?

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL: Well, first of all, we may get to that. I hope not. That's why we are doing what we are doing now, to have a legitimate debate. We started in the legitimate oversight committee of the Senate that has responsibility for foreign policy. That's the Foreign Relations Committee.

We will have, I hope, a very significant debate next week, lay it out, let people know where we are, why, ask questions, probe the issue. Should, in fact, we insert 22,000 more Americans or not?

Let's look at a couple of facts here. We're beyond disarray. We're beyond division. We've got anarchy and very clearly defined tribal sectarian civil war in Iraq. That's happening right now.

You talk about General Petraeus. He's one of the finest generals maybe we've ever had. But if the policy is flawed, he will fail.

Let's go back to a couple other generals that we heard from in Joe Lieberman's Armed Services Committee in November. General Abizaid, General Casey, General Chiarelli made comments on this in the last 60 days. All three said, "We don't need more troops there." General Chiarelli, the three-star general in charge of Baghdad, said, "I don't need more American troops. I need more Iraqi jobs."

So this is not quite as clear a situation as some would like to present it, that somehow, well, if you don't support those increase in troops and just cut off funds. We're far more responsible than that; that is a false choice. That's irresponsible.

The way we're doing this is the responsible way. The American people expect it; they deserve it.

But, most important, those men and women that we ask to fight and die, they deserve a policy worthy of their sacrifices. They, in my opinion, do not have that policy today.

General Petraeus doesn't set policy. We set policy. The commander-in-chief sets policy. A co-equal branch of government does that. General Petraeus deals with the policy that he is assigned to implement.

GWEN IFILL: A final question, and for you both, and once again from Vice President Cheney. His interview, Senator Hagel, today at CNN, he said that part of what's going on here is that people do not have the stomach to complete this mission. Senator Hagel, your response to that?

SEN. CHUCK HAGEL: Oh, I'm so sorry the vice president so underestimates the people of this country. He has so little faith in this country to say something like that. That's an astounding statement from the vice president of the United States.

You're telling me -- or maybe more directly, maybe the vice president should tell the families of those who have lost their lives, over 3,000, and over 23,000 wounded, some very seriously for life, that they don't have the stomach? Come on, let's get real here.

That is the last bastion of no facts, and no realities, and not having a real argument, or being afraid, or being afraid of a real debate.

I want to add one other thing on General Petraeus, to what my good friend Joe Lieberman said. General Petraeus has just written the new field manual on counterinsurgency. You know what he said is the most important ingredient, dynamic of successful counterinsurgency strategy? Political strategy. He said it was even more important than military strategy.

Nowhere in the president's so-called new plan, which we've really not seen, is there any focus on any new political initiatives or diplomatically focused initiatives.

 RSS feed