Now
Fair
18°
High
30°
Low
12°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Politics
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Nelson, Hagel agree on Iraq compromise

Comments 22 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY DON WALTON / Lincoln Journal Star

Thursday, Feb 01, 2007 - 07:00:41 pm CST

A compromise Senate resolution disagreeing with President Bush’s dispatch of additional troops to Iraq will send “a very powerful message” to the White House, Sen. Ben Nelson said Thursday.

“We would hope the president and the Pentagon would listen,” Nebraska’s Democratic senator said during a telephone interview from Washington.

“It’s not just the president who has the responsibility to lead,” Nelson declared.  “This is a check, maybe a rebalance,” of constitutional responsibility and power.

Story Photo
U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.

Related Link(s):


See the text of the resolution

Nelson is co-sponsor of a resolution that has been revised in bipartisan negotiations to attract the support of sponsors of an alternative proposal authored by key Democratic leaders and Nebraska’s Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel.

As amended, the compromise resolution would require the Iraqis to accept responsibility for quelling domestic violence and begin to disengage U.S. troops from the middle of sectarian warfare.

Senate debate is likely to begin next week.

Nelson has been engaged in a series of meetings and phone calls in recent days attempting to help nail down the agreement.  A log of his activity includes five meetings or telephone conversations this week with Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who has spearheaded the resolution now in play.

Last week, in a flurry of activity, Nelson logged phone calls to 16 Democratic senators on a single day.

On Thursday, Nelson pitched the compromise plan to the caucus of all Democratic senators.

Hagel, who talked with Warner several times about combining the competing resolutions, said he’s pleased with the result.

“I appreciated the willingness of Sen. Warner, Sen. Nelson and others to take a serious look at how we could work together,” Hagel told his weekly telephone news conference Thursday.

“I expect strong bipartisan support (and) I’m grateful to Sen. Nelson and others.”

The language in the operative resolution seeking to redirect U.S. military responsibilities to territorial security, counterterrorism, promotion of regional stability, and training, supporting and equipping Iraqi forces was essentially authored by Hagel.

Language requiring the Iraqi government to meet specific benchmarks for progress matches the strategy long championed by Nelson.

“We can’t get people on the far left and the far right together,” Nelson said, “but we can attract the middle of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats working together in broad bipartisan support.”

Hagel, who was returning to Washington from the funeral of Army 1st Lt. Jacob Fritz in Falls City when the compromise was announced Wednesday night on the floor of the Senate, said the proposal “makes a lot of sense.”

The agreement also gained the support of Hagel’s co-sponsors, Foreign Relations Chairman Joe Biden, D-Del, and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich.

The resolution urges President Bush to “consider other options,” Hagel said.  “More young Americans are dying every day, being maimed every day.  Our standing in the world is being challenged every day.”

Fritz, who hailed from rural Verdon, was one of four U.S. soldiers abducted and killed in Iraq 12 days ago.

Reach Don Walton at 473-7248 or at dwalton@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Pah wrote on February 1, 2007 12:41 pm:
" Please. Just pass a resolution, surrendering to the Islamic lunatic terrorists. Let's just get it over with, and give Iran, Syria, and France a collective 51% majority of seats in Congress and the Senate. That will bring the troops home. If you're bound and determined to guarantee that my grandchildren will be fighting for their survival, just do it now and save them the trouble. Pathetic... Senator Hagel. Just pathetic. "

 Dave wrote on February 1, 2007 1:50 pm:
" I did'nt think Senator Hagel could beat his vote on giving Social Security payments to thousands of illegal aliens here and Mexico.But he has with his position on Iraq! "

 Kenneth H. Zike wrote on February 1, 2007 3:01 pm:
" Compromise.?? Hagel is a master at back stabbing, getting and keeping his name in the media, Senator Hagel, has earn the name most Republicans are calling him ' DISPICTABLE'. He has demonstrated his lack of trustworthiness, His constant fault finding with our Commander in Chief, during the time of war, his verbal assault on the plans and policies of President Bush is designed solely to name recognition. He intends to run for President. His left wing bed mates, Biden, Kennedy and the rest of the liberals, peace at any price clowns want the President to fail.. This includes the United States losing the War. The left wingers have taken Hagel in to their hearts, he probably will be given the seat next to convicted Kennedy. What burns me, I voted for Hagel, thinking he was a Republican. 'He's for Hagel, his dream to be President is strictly that, a dream. He could not get elect dog catcher here in my district. "

 Craig wrote on February 1, 2007 3:43 pm:
" Hagel has now done the exact same thing to our soldiers in Iraq as John Kerry did to him for his service in Vietnam. He is also telling the terrorists that they are winning and encouraging more attacks on our troops. If Hagel wants to be President (God help us), he needs to change parties, because no Republicans are going to vote for him. "

 Biff wrote on February 1, 2007 3:44 pm:
" Let us see the resolution before dissecting it. Hagel has been working hard and the troops in Iraq desrve every initiative Americans can muster to get them out of that horrific blunder. Too many lives have been ended prematurely and Bush still has no clear rationale. "

 Jody P. wrote on February 1, 2007 5:22 pm:
" The drama queens on the far right (e.g. the first post at the bottom) need to take a deep breath, calm down, and stop believing everything Bush tells them. Remember Bush raving about how we faced a mushroom cloud if we didn't invade Iraq? Well, it turned out he was dead wrong. There were no WMD at all in Iraq. So only true fools would still believe him today when he tells us the sky will fall if we gradually give Iraq back to the Iraqis. All we're achieving right now is to make more terrorists, not less. We invaded another nation, and people there are fighting back - what on earth do you expect them to do? "

 Julie wrote on February 1, 2007 6:14 pm:
" The fact is that Hagel could not win reelction in NE today. "

 Matt Poulsen wrote on February 1, 2007 6:28 pm:
" Please! Hagel would in a land slide just like he always has. After a while you have to look at what/who you are defending! Both of the Nebraska senators disagree with Bush. Nearly 75% of the American public do not approve of Bush. Many republican members of congress disagree with Bush. At some point you have to recognize there is a reason for all this. Hagel and Nelson are doing what they believe is best for the welfare of the troops. Hagel would in a senate election easily! To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. "

 Brian wrote on February 1, 2007 6:51 pm:
" For once, the representatives of Nebraska are stepping up and doing the right thing. They're also doing it together despite party lines. The push to allow the Iraqi government to take responsibility for their own country is long overdue. The development of benchmarks to evaluate progress in the war is long overdue. President Bush is willing to continue this war as if it's the Alamo. It is not. He needs to realize that the majority of America is not willing to continue this war with our blindingly trusting support, or our tax dollars. We can continue to fight the war on terror with or without additional troops in Iraq. The question is: what price are we willing to pay? How much of our future, and our children's futures are we willing to stake on such a choice? "

 Zoomie wrote on February 1, 2007 7:05 pm:
" Its hard to believe after the constant stream of deceit, corruption and illegalities from the Bush Administration that anyone is actually still believing anything they say! He lied to get us into a war for his own personal and political reasons; he lied about plans to fire Rummie because of politics (and has admitted it); hes lied about virtually everything! And our soldiers are paying the price, so badly even they no longer support Bush or believe in his war! Eventually the kool-aid drinkers who still love Dear Leader will realize there is NO victory in Iraq. We can leave soon, and save American lives, or leave later after thousands more die or are crippled! At this point, its obvious Bush will happily allow thousands more Americans to die, just so he can say we didn't leave Iraq until after he's out of office (even though he knows he's already lost Iraq)! "

 True Blue wrote on February 1, 2007 7:50 pm:
" Let's face it, Americans want to win. If they are not winning(defined by the media), then let's go home. How do you make terrorist? Defending yourself poorly and with Hagel in the lead we know how to do that. Prediction- next 911 will be in England in Sept.2008.They will stay away from the US until a Democrat is elected president.We will be pulling out of Iraq with Hagel leading the way before July 4, 2008. After the next 911, Hagel is toast. "

 DJ wrote on February 1, 2007 8:11 pm:
" I love how everyone thinks Bush was the only one who thought Saddam had WMD. All of your favorite Democrats and world leaders thought he had them too but I guess they get a free pass. People can criticize how things have gone in Iraq over the past couple of years but get over this "he lied" to us bologna. I wonder if Bush's plan of adding more troops works, if people or the media will give him any credit. I know if it was Clinton they sure would, but I doubt Bush will ever get credit for anything. "

 Arkie wrote on February 1, 2007 8:13 pm:
" Jody P: Has your stand been sanctioned by the Episcopal Church? "

 Biased wrote on February 1, 2007 8:18 pm:
" It's funny how the only time the national media talks with a republican is when they disagree with the President. At least they're not biased or anything. "

 Dennis wrote on February 1, 2007 8:24 pm:
" Those who contend that this Senate resolution disapproving of Bush's surge will encourage our enemies are missing the point. It is Bush's failing policies in Iraq that are encouraging the enemy. The Bush Administration has mismanaged the war in Iraq for nearly four years now and this surge plan will only suceed if the Administration demonstrates a level of competence we have never seen from them. Backing Bush's surge plan would be like backing Bill Jennings to coach the Nebraska football team in 1962 instead of Bob Devaney. "

 dave wrote on February 1, 2007 8:43 pm:
" Any one in this war to WIN besides GW? "

 Ashamed to be Nebraskan wrote on February 2, 2007 12:35 pm:
" Why? See below. I didn't realize how anti-American/anti-military people could be. Hagel is a joke and so are his followers. "

 Interesting wrote on February 2, 2007 1:09 pm:
" When did the threat to us start? Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979: Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983: Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983: Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to N.Y. 1988: First NY World Trade center attack 1993: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996: Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998: Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998: Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000: New York World Trade Center 2001: Pentagon 2001. Note - during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide... Attacks happened during the administrations of Pres. Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either Republicans or Democrats as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Pres. Ford or Carter. In each case the attacks were carried out by Muslims. Might want to do a "Google search" on Dr. Chong, Major General, USAF, retired Air Force Surgeon. He is connected to Veterans Affairs in Calif. "

 Mindless Robot wrote on February 2, 2007 3:21 pm:
" So you're saying Iraq was responsible for all those attacks? "

 Dennis wrote on February 2, 2007 5:03 pm:
" The question has been asked if anybody wants to win other than GW? My answer is that the war has already been lost thanks to the serial blunders by this Administration. It is time to recognize reality and begin to cut our losses. Even if you agree that this war was worth fighting as long as we believed Saddam Hussein had WMD’s aimed at America, at some point you have to face the facts: the Bush administration was wrong about those weapons, wrong about the nuclear program, wrong about their refusal to quell rioting early, wrong about Bremer’s gutting of the Iraqi army and police force, wrong about refusing to kill or capture al Sadr in 2003, wrong to tell the generals not speak of the coming insurgency, wrong to stubbornly refuse to give generals the troops they needed to win this war, wrong to make the “Mission Accomplished” declaration, wrong for the VP to claim that the insurgency was in its death throes and wrong to push a surge plan that the president’s top generals opposed.The list could continue for pages but I will be generous to the White House and leave it at that. "

 RK wrote on February 2, 2007 5:13 pm:
" Hagel could easily win again in Nebraska. True, he's all but lost the support of the far right. But he still has broad support from MOST Republicans, many Democrats, and nearly all of the center. Why? Because he's standing up for what's RIGHT. Bush and his dwindling fan base don't want to pull out because they'd rather save face than save lives. It's no wonder that far more Republicans than just Hagel are distancing themselves from this failed presidency. "

 Grim Reaper Watch wrote on February 2, 2007 8:00 pm:
" Yes of course. Iraqis are not real people with real lives. So what if there is an ethnic and religious culling after we high tail it and run. Hagel doesn't care about that. Democrats certainly could not care less, especially while they are on a roll with their defamation of Bush campaign. When the snakes are good and established in the bloody aftermath, we can all blow kisses to our grand kids as they pack up to fight this war that WE left unfinished. Brilliant plan. Absolutely brilliant. gag. "

Ads by Yahoo!