Chuck Hagel strongly defends Obama's Iran Rhethoric, Slams Hillary/Guiliani Hmm,...

Make no mistake, this election cycle is about America's short/long term national security. The next president is gonna be given a mandate to lead the world again.

On CNBC, Chuck Hagel(R-Nebraska) strongly defended obama's rhethoric on Iran and had equally strong words for Hillary/Guilliani.

Here you Go.

Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton were ``recklessly irresponsible'' and acting like ``cowboys'' for rejecting calls for direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program, charged Senator Chuck Hagel, a top Republican lawmaker.

Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who supports talks, was critical of Giuliani, the top Republican contender, and Clinton, a New York senator and leader of the Democratic field, for lambasting presidential rival Barack Obama, who proposed such discussions.

When world leaders ``hear leading presidential candidates talk like cowboys with the lowest common denominator being `I can be tougher than you, I'll go to war before you or we aren't going to talk to anybody,' that's recklessly irresponsible,'' Hagel said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt,'' scheduled to air today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=2 0601070&sid=a0h8abc0d1tM&refer=h ome

Tags: 2008, Chuck Hagel, foreign policy, obama (all tags)

Comments

16 Comments

WTF is he talking about?

Hillary has over and over again pressed for talks with Iran.  I am so sick of the smears.

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF is he talking about?

I'm sick of the misrepresentations, especially when direct quotes and video of Clinton talking about the issue is readily available.

by RJEvans 2007-11-09 09:47AM | 0 recs
I know. And, I give a frig about

Hagel.  He just can't stand the thought of a Hillary presidency, or maybe he thinks Obama will do what Kerry did with McCain and ask him to run with him.  

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF is he talking about?

"Hillary has over and over again pressed for talks with Iran.  I am so sick of the smears."

"Double-talk" Hillary Clinton has a position now?

Based on your comments, Hillary Clinton is "FOR AND AGAINST" talks with Iran....at the same time! Pick your answer!

Where is the misrepresentation?

by win 2007-11-09 09:53AM | 0 recs
No, she's not.

That's BS.  She has called for diplomacy with Iran for 3 years.  

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

But then she still voted for kyl-lieberman, just like she called for diplomacy with Iraq but still voted for the AUMF.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-09 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

No, not at all like that.  This is effing nuts.  I'm not going to go through this agian, but if the gutted Kyl-lieberman were a vote for war, you can bet Obama would have made an appearance.

by bookgrl 2007-11-09 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

Oh, I agree that kyl-lieberman wasn't a vote for war, but it sure as hell wasn't a vote for diplomacy either.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-09 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

Hillary Clinton has called for diplomacy and strong negotiations with Iran for years now and you CANNOT deny that. Simple as that. Her vote for Kyl-Lieberman was a way to send a message to the government of Iran and to the President that we mean business and expect that we begin to talk to talk with our enemies. The State Department has long considered placing the Qods force on the terror watch list and they did and imposed various sanctions on Iran to send a message to them. Sanctions is part of diplomacy and negotiating is part of diplomacy and Clinton SUPPORTS both.

by RJEvans 2007-11-09 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

kyl-lieberman was a non-binding resolution which basically amounted to name-calling. The message it sent was, "Bad! Bad! Bad bad terrorists! No! No!"

That's not diplomacy.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-09 10:57AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

So what is your issue with it? If it did not matter so much, why attack it and Clinton for supporting it?

by RJEvans 2007-11-09 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

I'm just pointing out that she can "call for diplomacy" all she wants, but actions, and votes, speak louder than words.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-09 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she's not.

So what is your reservation with the Kyl Amendment? It was a vote. What is your reservation?

And you're right, actions speak louder than words, I have said it many times on this site, but Edwards have only talked and talked and talked with no action to prove his words. Obama, well, I'll cut Obama some slack.

by RJEvans 2007-11-09 11:19AM | 0 recs
Well I'm out the door

so I'll have to make this quick. The 'cliff notes' version is that KL was silly. It's one thing if the SD declares them terrorists because that at least has an effect on our ability to go after their money. But for the Senate do do this was plain silliness. And it was the exact opposite of diplomacy. As a general rule name-calling is not the tool of choice for diplomats, particularly when it's pointless name-calling.

Some of our Senators need a refresher on the basics--a kindergarten level refresher on the basics.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-09 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: WTF is he talking about?

not DIRECT talks. no smear here. Hillary is for pre-conditions. She will not meet face-to-face...

by rapcetera 2007-11-09 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Chuck Hagel

Hagel is an idiot -

Hillary never said that she wouldnt speak with Iran, she just said she wont go into a meeting with Iran blindly and you need high level negotiations first, without preconditions.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-09 11:02AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads