Hagel Kinda Sorta Calls for Impeachment

What a typically almost-awesome remark:

"The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore," Hagel says, measuring his words by the syllable and his syllables almost by the letter. "He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes.

You might see calls? From whom?

"Congress abdicated its oversight responsibility," he says. "The press abdicated its responsibility, and the American people abdicated their responsibilities. Terror was on the minds of everyone, and nobody questioned anything, quite frankly."

Boy, it's too bad there wasn't someone like Chuck Hagel in congress to avoid this abdicating. Oh, wait, there was. He just . . . abdicated.

I mean, whatever, he's still good for a Republican and I hope he runs against the Three Stooges, but there's something pretty absurd about this pattern; Hagel talking about himself as if he doesn't know who he is or what job he has.

Comments

Chuck Hagel is a postmodern Senator. His self-conscious leaves him commenting on our understanding of reality, and powerless to do anything about that reality.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | March 9, 2007 1:10 PM

"I mean, whatever, he's still good for a Republican"

Well, that's only true if you only care about Iraq...

Posted by Petey | March 9, 2007 1:14 PM

Here's a line I like from Pierce's article: "The voters want Congress to function, but they also clearly want somebody's head on a stick."

Why can't the Democrats in Washington start using vivid, evocative language like this?

Posted by Jim W | March 9, 2007 1:15 PM

In Hagel's defense, he did (according to the article) at least give verbal warning's about the dangers of invading Iraq before voting to give the Prez. authority. He gave reasonable explanations for why he voted like he did: he believed in giving the president a lot of leeway, etc. If Bush had acted in good faith in 2003, it would have turned out to be an ok vote. The problem is, as Obama has pointed out, that in principle one shouldn't give the president this kind of authority, where you end up having to trust him to act in good faith.

Also, he has actually acted against the president to a certain extent recently, such as voting against the surge (the nonbinding resolution). I'm not sure how what else he could do now. I mean, he is just one senator.

Posted by Jim W | March 9, 2007 1:22 PM

I hate the "X is the new Y" formulation, but when I read that piece, I couldn't escape the thought that Hagel is the new McCain -- at least as far as journalistic fellatio goes. I especially liked how the author latched on to the line, "I will resist it", for dramatic effect. Too bad he never thought to ask the obvious follow-up questions: When? How?

Posted by sglover | March 9, 2007 1:25 PM

In Hagel's defense, he did (according to the article) at least give verbal warning's about the dangers of invading Iraq before voting to give the Prez. authority. He gave reasonable explanations for why he voted like he did: he believed in giving the president a lot of leeway, etc. If Bush had acted in good faith in 2003, it would have turned out to be an ok vote. The problem is, as Obama has pointed out, that in principle one shouldn't give the president this kind of authority, where you end up having to trust him to act in good faith.

Yeah, well, my senators -- Mikulsky and Sarbanes -- decided to skip the prescient warning 'n' misgiving horseshit, and cut to the "No" vote.

Posted by sglover | March 9, 2007 1:27 PM

I couldn't escape the thought that Hagel is the new McCain -- at least as far as journalistic fellatio goes

Funny how journalists fellate Republicans opposed to Bush. And as soon as a Republican stops opposing Bush, the fellatio by journalists ceases. I mean, just so odd how that works out among the neutral, unbiased journalist class.

Posted by Al | March 9, 2007 1:30 PM

"I hate the 'X is the new Y' formulation, but when I read that piece, I couldn't escape the thought that Hagel is the new McCain -- at least as far as journalistic fellatio goes."

I agree with this completely (both parts) and it's one of the reasons I think Hagel would be a very strong candidate.

Matt should be careful what he wishes for-- Hagel is still extremely conservative, and it would worry me if he were the nominee.

Posted by Doh | March 9, 2007 1:30 PM

Given the lack of context I don't know how to be certain, but it seems at least possible that Hagel is purposefully including himself in the Congress that abdicated.

Posted by washerdreyer | March 9, 2007 1:31 PM

It's an unreasonable expectation to imagine a Republican Senator could have voted "No" against the War. Democrats who were for this War are the ones who should really be found wanting. Hagel even issued a challenge to chickenhawk Perle in the leadup to the War. I don't recall any Democrat doing that. Our dangerously counter-productive foreign policy puts us all at risk. As we've seen with Obama's recent AIPAC rimjob - none of the Democrats can be trusted to do the right thing on the most vital of issues. I hope Hagel jumps in- he's the only candidate willing to stand up and do what's right for America and the world. If Obama, Hillary, or Edwards a re better than Hagel on abortion or whatever- who cares? All three are willing pawns of the Israel Lobby. Hagel is not.

Posted by Trevor | March 9, 2007 2:09 PM

Just so I can keep things straight, which RepubliStooge is Larry, which is Moe, and is the third Curly or Shemp?

Posted by CJColucci | March 9, 2007 2:22 PM

Giuliani's gotta be Moe, but not sure about the others. Actually, maybe McCain is also Moe.

Posted by JP | March 9, 2007 2:26 PM

Also, he has actually acted against the president to a certain extent recently, such as voting against the surge (the nonbinding resolution).

Actually, Senator Hagel joined in filibustering the nonbinding resolution that he supposedly supported.

I'm not sure how what else he could do now. I mean, he is just one senator.

Yeah, same with, e.g., the Bolton nomination. What could one single member of a closely-divided committee possibly do? He was but one man. And he dropped his objections to the President violating FISA, because what could a mere member of the Senate Intelligence Committee do? And a narrow vote to indefinitely repeal habeas and effectively legalize torture? His hands were tied. Tied, I say.

Posted by mds | March 9, 2007 2:50 PM

Little Green Footballs (those darlings) are more afraid of Hagel than anyone. They almost like the don't rock the Israel boat Dems.

Posted by Trevor | March 9, 2007 2:58 PM

ITSJA

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 9, 2007 3:24 PM

Trevor: Why is it unrealistic to expect a Senator of either party to do the right thing? Senator Chafee and Congressmen Paul, Duncan, Hostettler, Houghton, Leach, and Morella apparently had higher concerns than being "realistic."
On the other hand, mds, he voted for cloture the second time the resolution was brought up.

Posted by James Kabala | March 9, 2007 4:44 PM

James, Didn't realize there were any Republicans who voted against the War- so you're probably right. Hagel's own brother faults him for misplaced loyalty. But, Hagel deserves a lot more slack than Hillary, Edwards, and Biden. If Bush launches a War against Iran- will any of those Dems including Obama and Dodd denounce it? They'll sit on their hands and not say a thing. And, we know that Giuliani, McCain, and Romney will be cheering it on. There will be only two Presidential contenders screaming bloody murder about it: Dennis "No Chance" Kucinich and Chuck Hagel.

Posted by Trevor | March 9, 2007 5:24 PM

But, Hagel deserves a lot more slack than Hillary, Edwards, and Biden. If Bush launches a War against Iran- will any of those Dems including Obama and Dodd denounce it?

I dunno if you've noticed, but over the years there have been about 10 million blog posts on various leftie sites calling Clinton, Edwards, Biden, et al to task for rolling over in 2002-03. More recently, one of Obama's strengths in that same crowd is that he was an early and articulate critic of the Iraq adventure -- "early" meaning before it began. Anyway, the notion that lots of prominent Dems have been big fucking disappointments isn't exactly a revelation.

If you're trying to argue that, say, Hagel couldn't help it because he's a Republican, and they're all cretins and toadies by nature, I guess you've got a point, kinda sorta. Trouble is, it doesn't square too well with the thoughtful maverick image he's trying to cultivate. It seems more like you're just doing some special pleading on Hagel's behalf. The guy's got the same kind of track record as the very Dems you're bashing -- he'll do all the "tough", "straight" talk anybody could want, and when the really important votes come up, he'll fold.

Posted by sglover | March 9, 2007 5:46 PM

To go against your own sitting President on an authorization of War- I don't think Hagel's a "cretin" nor a "toady" for not having the courage of his convictions. He was just being a pol. But, somehow now, I tend to have more faith in him with regard to resisting Bush's premptive madness than the Dems. Maybe I'll be proven wrong and you right, but I'll go with my gut and say he'll stand up.

Posted by Trevor | March 9, 2007 8:22 PM

I've read at least one quote from Hagel in which he stated explicitly that he includes himself among the responsible. I think he gets a bum rap on this point.

Posted by David Tomlin | March 10, 2007 11:18 AM

Hagel is simply illustrating the emerging notion in economics of multiple selves and the difficulty of keeping them all in sync over the course of a lifetime:

"Having established that we systematically make choices that are quite different from those predicted by current economic theory, behavioral economics is now attempting to develop new mathematical models, often using game theory, that yield accurate choice predictions. For example, there is an article in the latest American Economic Review entitled "A Dual-Self Model of Impulse Control." It turns out that models of dual or multiple selves — a long-term self and a short-term self (or selves) — best explain choice behavior. Perhaps economics is beginning to move toward the religious concept of man."

Posted by DB | March 11, 2007 12:55 AM