Seems like we discussed this not three weeks ago… yet, here we are again:
Sen. Chuck Hagel said Sunday that President Bush’s go-it-alone approach on Iraq could so anger lawmakers that some may consider impeachment to stop his war policy.
The Nebraska Republican, a frequent critic of the war, did not call for Bush’s impeachment. But in an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.
“Some lawmakers.” Cryptic phrasing from Hagel, and I have trouble believing him, frankly, because it’s not at all clear that we have 50 United States Senators in favor of ending the war in Iraq. I suspect the number who would consider his impeachment an option at this point to be even lower. And, since we’re not interested in impeaching the President if it’s not going to do anything, we need 67 votes.
Listen, Hagel’s got a tendency to speak his mind, and if he didn’t so consistently show himself as willing to sell out his principles in the name of party loyalty, I might even respect him for it. He’s been outspoken on the war – and he may even be an ally in the upcoming fight to end the war. But here’s some free career advice for the Senator: if you want to get elected to anything, ever again, you should probably shut up about impeachment.
I’m having trouble understanding Hagel’s strategy here. Despite having one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate, Hagel has repeatedly thrown the President under the bus with his rhetoric – like Joe Lieberman, except with the truth on his side. You may remember what happened to Joe Lieberman in 2006. I’m beginning to think that Hagel may find the same problem in 2008 should he decide to seek re-election. Except I don’t think we’re going to see the “Nebraska For Hagel” party formed (plus, we have a “sore loser” law), and I think Nebraska Democrats can nominate someone better than a degenerate gambler for their candidate.
Yet another reason why we cannot concede this race. Even if Hagel’s running for reelection. Because, if he continues to piss off Republicans in Nebraska, there’s a good chance that he won’t be the nominee.
You know, I think Hagel’s recent statements are being blown out of proportion a little bit. When I saw this interview, it sounded to me like Hagel was merely stating a fact: The President is accountable to Congress in part because the Congress has checks on the President’s power including the power to impeach. Furthermore, in this instance Stephanopoulos brought it up, and Hagel specifically said he didn’t necessarily think impeachment was appropriate in this case. It seemed to me that he was just angry with the President’s arrogance and assertion that there is no place for the Congress in matters of war.
Sure, and I don’t necessarily disagree with him… But does that matter to Republicans?