Now
Fair
89°
High
91°
Low
73°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

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

Hagel, Warner plan to force Iraq debate

Comments 14 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 08, 2007 - 12:07:14 am CST

Sen. Chuck Hagel and six Republican colleagues served notice Wednesday they plan to force swift consideration of a resolution opposing President Bush’s Iraq policy despite a Senate leadership standoff.

In a letter to Senate leaders, the seven Republicans said they will attempt to attach that resolution to other legislation and use all Senate procedures to require a full debate.

The effect of their action could be to force the Senate to debate Iraq policy before it could complete work on a continuing budget resolution that needs to be approved by Feb. 15 to fund the federal government.

Story Photo
Chuck Hagel

“We will explore all options,” Hagel said in a telephone interview from Washington.

“I wouldn’t dismiss any option.”

The war in Iraq is “the most pressing issue of our time,” the senators wrote in their letter to the leadership of both parties.

“It urgently deserves the attention of the full Senate and a full debate on the Senate floor without delay.

“The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country,” they wrote.

Hagel and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chief sponsor of the compromise resolution that would express the Senate’s disagreement with the president’s decision to send an additional 21,500 combat troops to Iraq, mapped their course of action after the Iraq debate hit a roadblock Monday night.

“Senator Warner and I were both frustrated and distressed that the Senate was unable to accommodate an agreement on the procedure to move this debate forward,” said Hagel, who authored much of the language in the resolution.

“We decided if there was no agreement between the two leaders by this morning, we would move ahead.”

Both Hagel and Warner voted against Monday night’s motion to proceed with debate on their resolution because Republican and Democratic leaders could not agree on which competing Iraq resolutions would be included in the debate.

The motion gained a 49-47 majority vote, but needed 60 votes.

“We strongly believe the Senate should be allowed to work its will on our resolution as well as the concepts brought forward by other senators,” Hagel, Warner and their five colleagues wrote in their letter.

“Monday’s procedural vote should not be interpreted as any lessening of our resolve to go forward advocating the concepts” expressed in their resolution, they wrote.

The letter was delivered to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., as well as the two assistant Senate leaders.

Also signing the document were Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine; Susan Collins, R-Maine; Gordon Smith, R-Ore.; George Voinovich, R-Ohio; and Norm Coleman, R-Minn.

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  
KLM wrote on February 8, 2007 12:33 am:
" Senator Hagel helped create this stalemate by falling in line with his party's leaders on Monday rather than standing up for principle as he should have done. Hagel's hypocritical vote was essentially a thumbs up to the Republican leadership to play all the games they wanted to keep debate of President Bush's disastrous Iraq policy off the Senate floor. Now, to save their skins in 2008 and to salvage some shred of credibility, Hagel and his tiny band of non-Neocon Republicans want to force the debate by other means, but it's TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. This debate is going to happen - the Democratic Party will make sure of that. What we see here is just Hagel's usual attempt to take the credit for it. But, on Monday, he showed his true colors, and we won't be fooled again. "

 Phil wrote on February 8, 2007 7:16 am:
" Yes of course. Obstruction by the minority is an unheard of attrocity. Give me a break! Hagel thinks he is motivated by principles, when in fact, he has signed on to the Zawahiri jihad against humanity. "

 Put up or shut up wrote on February 8, 2007 7:43 am:
" When the time came on Monday for Hegel to put up or shut up, he once again dutifully fell in line with the Bush agenda that he has voted to support more than any other Senator. Well put KLM. I've had a suspicion all along that Hagel's posturing on Iraq has been mostly a political ploy designed to make him appear to stand out against a slate of automaton GOP presidential hopefuls and give the appearance that he's more than a GOP rubber stamp, and his cop-out on Monday only confirmed that suspicion. "

 Zoomie wrote on February 8, 2007 7:54 am:
" Is it any wonder most Americans see the GOP as the party of hypocrisy these days? After weeks of bloviating against the surge by Warner, Hagel and Smith, when it actually came time to debate the measure and vote, they play Rubber-Stamp-Republican and follow the Party line, voting against even having a debate! At least Collins and Coleman joined Democrats (though its worth remembering both are from Blue/moving to Blue states and both are up for reelection in 2008)! Correction to the story above - there are three bills, and both parties agreed to debate all three. Disagreement was over terms of passage. Democrats want a simple majority; GOP are demanding a 60-vote supermajority to pass (remember how long long ago...like six months ago...the GOP were calling such a move undemocratic and tyranny of the minority? How fast they flip-flop!). "

 t-whiffle wrote on February 8, 2007 9:20 am:
" There is much big talk about stopping "the surge", or getting "swift consideration" in Congress and a lot of other talk concerning the war in Iraq, Iran and the middle east. Truth of the matter is that it is all talk and the Bush war machine rolls along as fast or faster than before and nothing is apparent that will even slow down Bush's escalation of the hostilities in the middle east. One must wonder if the politicians in Washington DC are really trying to stop or slow down the "surge" or any other military activities in the middle east or are they just positioning themselves for the 2008 elections. Hypocrisy at its best.....or worst. "

 Pah wrote on February 8, 2007 9:38 am:
" If we don't Win the War, we Lose the war. There are always dire consequences for losing a war, but that won't get in the way of the Peter Pan folks like the Democrats and Chuck Hagel. Losing the Vietnam war is considered a badge of honor amongst the spineless baby boomer liberals. Hagel... he's just a very confused man. "

 Hypocrisy wrote on February 8, 2007 9:49 am:
" And remember how long, long ago ... like 6 months ago ... you and the Dems were crying that the minority had to follow democratic principles and block the foolish (stupid, ignorant, rubber-stamp Bush followers) majority from a tyranny of the majority. Indeed, how fast they do flip-flop. "

 Jody P. wrote on February 8, 2007 10:09 am:
" Actions speak louder than words, so I'll believe Hagel, Warner, etc when I see some action from them. Bush and his far-right supporters in the Republic Party do not want to see any light of truth shed on their Iraq invasion. They want the nation to be in a state of hysteria blindly following their policy without any questions. I wonder why a little American democratic debate scares them so much? "

 hap wrote on February 8, 2007 10:37 am:
" The war was lost when control was not established after the over powering of Saddam. Insurgents, not an organized national militarfy has befuddled the USA and questions the readiness of our military. That is a defeat in itself as it exposed vulnerability of the world's most expensive military. Failure has dominated the performance too too long. "

 whatever wrote on February 8, 2007 10:48 am:
" I would not be quick to judge the motivations of Hagel and Warner just yet. The Republican "counter attack" may have caught them off guard and they just "waited" to see how it played out, or waited to let them run out of ammo. They may also have been concerned that a real vote on cutting off funding may have been in the works and "changed their vote", till they could determine if this threat was real. Remember, this was originally just a non binding resolution. I too am a bit disappointed, but this is the way it works sometimes. Until millions start marching in the streets nothing will change. "

 Leadership wrote on February 8, 2007 10:54 am:
" Anyone else notice Hagel talks about leadership when there isnt a relevant Senate vote in sight. You want to see the real CHuck Hagel? look at his vote on monday against his own resolution. Now, he's against his own vote against his own resolution. What's next from this poser? "

 Gooollee wrote on February 8, 2007 11:33 am:
" Did anyone read the article? It says they voted against the debate because the senate leaders could not decide on which resolution to debate. It did not say that Hagel voted against the debate so it wouldn't be debated, he wanted them to decide on one of those resolutions. Now, I don't always agree with Hagel or his positions, but if you are going to knock someone, please get your facts straight first. "

 Good question wrote on February 8, 2007 3:34 pm:
" Who knows what Hagel stands for! What ever will get him recognized and the votes. After all he voted to give our Social Security pay to illigal immigrants that paid not one dime in SSC tax. That should get him alot of votes after they have stolen peoples U.S. identification. "

 Chuck wrote on February 8, 2007 8:28 pm:
" Hagel is a waste of anything good! "

Ads by Yahoo!

More Stories In Politics

Also in Politics