The AP is reporting that the Iraqi government met with Barack Obama today and then reiterated that they want us out of their country on Obama’s basic timeline.
Iraq’s government spokesman is hopeful that U.S. combat forces could be out of the country by 2010.
Ali al-Dabbagh made the comments following a meeting in Baghdad on Monday between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama, who arrived in Iraq earlier in the day.
The timeframe is similar to Obama’s proposal to pull back combat troops within 16 months.
Asked to respond, McCain said, “The Surge…The Suurrrrrge!!”
It’s interesting that Jack Reed and Chuck Hagel were chosen to accompany Obama on this trip. A lot of people are speculating that Reed might be a selected as Obama’s running mate and Hagel could become Secretary of Defense. I’m not saying that is uninformed speculation, but it isn’t the most logical explanation. Hagel is a creature of the Senate Foreign Relations committee which oversees the Department of State, while Reed is the fifth ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee (fourth, if you exclude Lieberman) which oversees the Pentagon. As a matter of experience, Hagel is far more qualified to run the State Department than the Pentagon.
There is real value in having Republicans in any cabinet. Bill Clinton gained valuable bipartisan cover by tapping moderate Republican senator Bill Cohen to be his Secretary of Defense. FDR selected Republicans to run both the Department of State Navy and the Department of War when he needed support for the Lend-Lease Program prior to our entry into World War Two. No one questions the wisdom of that decision.
The Department of State is traditionally the most important and prestigious department of government, although that has not been true in the Bush administration which elevated the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice-President. State is also the most traditionally reviled Department by movement conservatives that distrust the United Nations and resent foreign aid. Its day-to-day operations are usually overseen by the Undersecretary of State, with the Secretary taking on the big picture, media, and high profile meetings aspects of the job. Those that are concerned that Chuck Hagel is too conservative to serve in an Obama cabinet shouldn’t automatically jump to the conclusion that he will cause problems in the State Department. A good undersecretary will make sure that won’t happen.
If you look at the makeup of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, you’ll notice that the higher ranking Republicans fit into the mold of what passes for a moderate Republican these days. Richard Lugar of Indiana is the Ranking Member, and he is followed in seniority by Hagel, Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Bob Corker of Tennessee, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Coleman faces a tough reelection bid, but this nucleus of pro-State Department Republicans could form a vitally important bridge to a bipartisan foreign policy that places new efforts on reinvigorating diplomatic relations and solutions to our global problems. Picking one of them to head the State Department would facilitate this process and assure there is a lot of trust in the working relationship between the administration and the Senate.
Jack Reed would be an excellent selection for vice-president. But he’d also be an excellent pick for Secretary of Defense. While the Democratic leadership of the Armed Services committee includes anti-war senators Carl Levin, Teddy Kennedy, and Robert Byrd, the rest of the committee is tilted heavily to conservative Democrats.
Sen. Jack Reed (DEM-RI)
Sen. Daniel Akaka (DEM-HI)
Sen. Bill Nelson (DEM-FL)
Sen. Ben Nelson (DEM-NE)
Sen. Evan Bayh (DEM-IN)
Sen. Hillary Clinton (DEM-NY)
Sen. Mark Pryor (DEM-AR)
Sen. James Webb (DEM-VA)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (DEM-MO)
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (IND-CT)
Of that group, only Akaka and Reed were in the Senate and voted against the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq. Jim Webb penned an editorial in the Washington Post in August 2002 advising against invading Iraq. As for the Republicans on the committee, well, just take a look.
Sen.
John McCain (REP-AZ) (Ranking Member)
Sen. John Warner (REP-VA)
Sen. James Inhofe (REP-OK)
Sen. Jeff Sessions (REP-AL)
Sen. Susan Collins (REP-ME)
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (REP-GA)
Sen. Lindsey Graham (REP-SC)
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (REP-NC)
Sen. John Cornyn (REP-TX)
Sen. John Thune (REP-SD)
Sen. Mel Martinez (REP-FL)
Sen. Roger Wicker (REP-MS)
John Warner is retiring. Susan Collins and Mel Martinez show occasional signs of moderation. The rest of this crew is unlikely to be helpful in forging a bipartisan consensus for a new foreign policy. Yet, despite a Progressive Punch score that marks him as the sixth most progressive member of the Senate, Senator Reed is well-respected by his Republican colleagues. For one thing, he’s a veteran:
After graduating from West Point and receiving an active duty commission in the United States Army, Reed attended the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University where he received a Masters of Public Policy. Reed, an Army Ranger and a paratrooper, served in the 82nd Airborne Division as an Infantry Platoon Leader, a Company Commander, and a Battalion Staff Officer. He returned to West Point in 1978 as an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Sciences.
Reed resigned from the Army as a Captain in 1979 and enrolled at Harvard Law School.
Here are the positions he holds on Armed Services (with his ranking on each committee):
Senate Committee on Armed Services – 5
Subcommittee on Seapower – 3
Subcommittee on Strategic Forces – 3
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities – Chair
He’s clearly well-versed with how the Pentagon works and is therefore very well qualified to be Secretary. He’s certainly better qualified than Chuck Hagel. Reed is a strong progressive (especially by Senate standards) but he has good working relations with some of the troglodytes on the Republican side of the aisle. A team of Reed at Defense and Hagel at State could be a potent and effective one, and progressives should not automatically sneeze at it just because Chuck Hagel is an economic and social conservative. On foreign policy he’s reasonable, and that is what the State Department is for. By making it clear that he is looking to put Hagel and Reed in these positions, Obama would free himself up to pick someone like Kathleen Sebelius as vice-president. I’d feel very comfortable with that team, especially if I felt good about the selection of Undersecretary of State.
I really like Reed as VP. He has the national security credentials very solidly. Yet, he is not a BMOC who would overshadow Obama on this front. He has just the right level of charisma (not that Obama has a deficit on that front), and would be a wonderful choice.
He’d be a great story.
His father was a World War Two vet that working as a janitor. He’s Catholic. He’s a West Point graduate and 82nd Airborne. He’s been a professor at West Point and he has a Harvard Law Degree.
It would be a real rags-to-riches story. He’s also about the most progressive option available.
Whenever I hear him on the sunday shows, he is impressive, well within himself, and unflappable. He is also quiet and controlled. He makes his points, and cannot be assaulted from the other side.
That is the quality about Obama as well which always impresses. Probably the legal training, which emphasizes control of the emotions under pressure.
Hillary also has legal training, and her demeanor is completely different.
But Hillary is cool under fire as well. I never saw her in the debates lose her concentration, nor become unpleasant.
Like many, I admire Hillary. I just don’t want her as president, her and Bill together again triangulating like mad. She is a pretty good advocate, and I agree with many of her positions.
“I never saw her in the debates lose her concentration, nor become unpleasant.“
You don’t think that long, drawn-out derisive, dismissive laugh she liked to unleash on her opponents is being unpleasant?! I find it unpleasant on multiple levels.
I admire her, too, in a number of ways, and I do not want her has president because she has a terrible record in the areas that mean the most to me, among them foreign and military policy, and human rights.
The re-affirmation of the Obama 16-month plan is a big deal. More than meets the eye. Under the covers you’ll find Sistani. And the WH and Rice will discover what a huge insult arise from their blunder in the managing of the Der Speigel interview. Poor McCain – it leaves him reeling in a wheel chair
On the VP front
Gov. Sebelius or any other woman except HRC in the VP slot will send all those HRC female supporters who are just warming up to Obama in a hissy. A real hissy. We don’t need another opening up or salting of the wounds.
Obama-Hagel will be nixed by Israel. Aired in Ha’aretz, Israel’s daily a few months ago (when the Bloomberg-Hagel combo was being floated) is that Hagel is a threat to Israel. Imho, we need a few more Hagels.
Obama-Reed rolls off the tongue, is pleasing to the ear. Of all the names floated, Reed has just the right profile in the public square
For me, anyone but HRC is fine.
if this proves correct, we’ve a storm churning in the Mccain camp.
The Drudge Report just posted a banner
The New York Times has refused a McCain editorial
Read the McCain editorial as written
Say what you will about The Hatman. In this cycle, he’s an Obama fan.
“Under the covers you’ll find Sistani.“
I don’t think so. I can’t see Sistani going for what amounts to a reconfiguring of the occupation, which is exactly what Obamna’s 16 month plan is and always was. Nor will Iraqi nationalists go for it. The will see it for what it is, and reject it.
It is incredible to me that they very people who relentlessly attacked Clinton for her support for the war are hyping Hagel and other conservatives. Hagel voted for the war crimes commission act. How does being pro-torture make you qualified to be in the cabinet?
Why don’t give me a list of Republicans that voted against that bill?
We have to govern the country. We can benefit by making allies of the leadership of the Republicans on the Foreign Affairs committee.
It isn’t about a purity test or pretending that Chuck Hagel has a good voting record. He doesn’t. It’s awful. That’s not the point.
Republicans who have not been in the senate? We are about to win by a landslide, we don’t need Republican in the cabinet anymore than FDR or Lyndon Johnson did.
No torturers in the cabinet. Could we set our standards any lower?
link
Chuck Hagel is an economic and social conservative
Hagel has a totally right wing voting record and is radically anti-abortion, which is not surprising considering his patron is Howard Ahmanson.
He voted against Medicare for crying out loud. Booman, where are you getting your information?
I said he was a social and economic conservative. You telling me about votes that reflect the truth of that statement is not a rebuttal. How is voting against Medicare relevant to how he would implement Obama’s diplomatic policies?
that’s an excellent question Alice.
I guess the only answer is that only those who were wrong from the get-go are seen as “serious” in terms of foreign policy (I think atrios trademarked that one).
Personally, I think the republicans have shown they are not responsible when they have power (booman thinks I’m cynical and that I don’t believe that power can EVER be used benevolently, but he’s wrong on that count), and like a child that’s misbehaved, need to have a good long time out. Furthermore, given their well-known tactic of gaming the system, I wouldn’t trust a Republican to act in good faith in a Democratic Cabinet, except perhaps as court jester.
And then of course there’s the issue of torture, which he voted for. And FISA, which he also supported.
I would sooner trust a scorpion or a rabid raccoon than even the most moderate republican. That’s not cynicism either: that’s called “paying attention”. As I wrote this I checked in to see any other comments that preceded this one. i see that Booman writes,
if his voting record is awful, why bring him on board? The “leadership of the Republicans on the Foreign Affairs committee” didn’t give a rat’s ass what the democrats wanted when they had the majority, and I see no need to hand them a baseball bat and sing a few rounds of “I’d like to teach the world to sing”.
Booman you are right: it’s not about a purity test. It’s about not knee-capping the democratic president right out of the gate. And that’s exactly the result of bringing these republican ratfuckers on board as cabinet members.
Hagel’s over in Iraq with Obama and Reed right now. How’s that an indication that he will kneecap us? It’s the Department of State, not Health & Human Resources or National Intelligence.
He don’t need Hagel. But we can use him effectively.
“How’s that an indication that he will kneecap us?”
it’s in his nature. he’s a republican and that’s what they do.
I think the past eight years has taught us all we need to know about republicans and the lengths they’ll go to obstruct and undermine policies they don’t like. He would be a mole.
I’d take your argument more seriously if you’d address the strengths of my argument before dismissing it.
I’m just not sure of the strengths of your argument, which is why I didn’t address them. In fact, going back over your post, i am hardpressed to identify any.
For example:
How? How will a good undersecretary make sure that someone who endorsed torture and the repeal of habeas corpus, and also voted to go to war “won’t cause problems in the State Department”? You don’t say how. I can’t just assume it will be so.
The fact is that, like Arlen Specter, what Hagel says rarely matches what he DOES. And you’ll notice I’m not arguing against the rest of your post. I am arguing that there is no place for today’s republicans in a democratic administration.
“Reasonable on foreign policy”? Like on supporting John Bolton for the UN? or voting for war in Iraq and then being sorry with the way it turned out?
I think Hagel’s said the right things, ex post facto, on Iraq. But like Clinton, he voted the wrong way. And unlike Clinton, Hagel is wrong on civil liberties, wrong on reproductive rights (and isn’t it the state department that hands down those gag orders on abortion and borth control), wrong on torture, and on so much more.
So if I gave the strengths of your argument short shrift, that’s why. I honestly don’t see a benefit, at this point in time, to letting the republicans get within even an inch of the levers of power. They have proved they cannot be trusted to act reasonably or rationally. Hagel is like McCain in this aspect: he talks a good game, but watch how he votes.
Okay. Let me address some of your concerns.
Condi Rice is the current Secretary of State but the Deputy Secretary is John Negroponte (a career diplomat). Rice goes on teevee and articulates Bush’s talking points. She flies to foreign nations and discusses issues laid out for her by the National Security Council. But she does almost no management level work in the department. She never worked there before and she has no clue how to run the organization. Plus, it’s not her job.
It’s Negroponte that oversees staffing, internal policy, oversight, contracting, etc.
Now, Negroponte is a bad dude. But the point is that we can put in a Republican at State provided that the actually day-to-day operations are left to a Democrat. Hagel would talk to Congress, put a bipartisan face on teevee, show a united front abroad, and serve at the pleasure of the president.
His willingness to do this is on display in Iraq right now. There is all kinds of value involved in this that you are blithely dismissing.
Hagel will not be implementing gags on family planning programs, and interactions with the UN will be coordinated thru the Ambassador, who can be directed directly through the National Security Adviser.
Hagel’s positions on domestic and economic policy will be wholly irrelevant, and his positions on Human Rights and War and Peace will dictated to him by the National Security Council and in consultation with Congress.
If you are saying that a Democrat deserves the position, I’ll agree with you. My point is two-fold. First, they are definite advantages to having Hagel in the cabinet. Second, State is a much better place for him than Defense.
His willingness to do this is on display in Iraq right now. There is all kinds of value involved in this that you are blithely dismissing.
I agree with this statement: there is definitely value in having someone like Hagel putting a “bipartisan face on teevee, show[ing] a united front abroad” etc.
First, they are definite advantages to having Hagel in the cabinet. Second, State is a much better place for him than Defense.
My position is also twofold. There are also disadvantages to having a Republican in the cabinet, the most important being that you cannot trust them. Second, while State is a much better place for him than Defense, at home enjoying his retirement where he can’t do any more damage is better than State.
You want to stick a republican in state, go get Lincoln Chaffee or someone that’s not a lockstep, movement conservative, which is what Hagel is on all issues except for Iraq.
YMMV.
What I would ask is that you make more distinctions.
For example, Dick Lugar is about as good of a Republican as there is on foreign policy but he’s very conservative on other things. His performance on Bolton was revolting and made more so because Lugar knew better. But he’s critical to Obama’s chances of having a foreign policy that isn’t being undermined and politicized at every turn. Some of that will go on as it always does, but if Lugar is on board with something, all that nipping is ineffective. Think Rockefeller in reverse. Getting Rockefeller to run interference on FISA assured that it would pass. Same thing would happen with Lugar. Now, picture Sec. Hagel testifying before a panel with Lugar as Ranking Member. Get it?
Go back to the aftermath of Vietnam where cutting off funding and giving amnesty to the draft dodgers seeded thirty years of weak-on-defense narrative. That’s the kind of thing we need to inoculate ourselves from.
Hagel’s prior positions are actually a plus that Lincoln Chafee cannot provide. He’s respected by Republicans in the Senate and across the country and in the press. I’d love to have Chafee serve in the cabinet. But it should be in an area where he has expertise and where his presence will give maximum value.
OK, I can see your point.
It still makes me want to vomit up my entire alimentary canal from entrance to exit.
In other news… well, see my email.
I’m all for denigrating the opposition, but is saying “but he has good working relations with some of the troglodytes on the Republican side of the aisle” substantively different from someone on the other side saying “but he has good working relations with some of the faeries on the Democratic side of the aisle”? I would think there would be some objections on this side of the aisle, but I could be wrong. I really don’t care one way or another, but something about this strikes me as odd or out-of-place, and it may be the fever that I’m running that’s keeping me from putting my finger on it.
Just a thought/question.