Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Hagel Assails McCain; Lieberman Assails Obama

May 21, 2008 8:39 AM

Quiz question -- who were the four senators who endorsed Sen. John McCain's underdog bid in 2000?

Jon Kyl of Arizona, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Fred Thompson of Tennessee (aka Statler to McCain's Waldorf during this year's GOP debates) and the man who was at the time one of McCain's closest GOP colleagues, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

But things might grow a little tense in the Senate Russell Building after a talk Hagel had Tuesday night at the home of the Italian Ambassador to the U.S. Giovanni Castellaneta , in an event hosted by the Ploughshares Fund that also featured actor Michael Douglas.

As covered by Posts Washington and Huffington, Hagel lambasted McCain's rhetoric in his foreign policy back-and-forth with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois.

"Presidential candidates will say many things in a campaign," Hagel said. "But once they have the responsibility to govern the country and lead the world, that difference between what they said and what responsibilities they have to fulfill are vastly different. I'm very upset with John with some of the things he's been saying. And I can't get into the psychoanalysis of it. But I believe that John is smarter than some of the things he is saying."

Hagel went on to praise Obama and say, "John is a man who reads a lot, he's been around the world. I want him to get above that and maybe when he gets into the general election, and becomes the general election candidate he will have a higher-level discourse on these things."

Hagel specifically took aim at any willingness to engage in high level talks with Iran, unconditionally, constituted appeasement.

"I never understand how anyone in any realm of civilized discourse could sort through the big issues and challenges and threats and figure out how to deal with those without engaging in some way," Hagel said. "You take some risks in talking about this, especially in the Congress, because you can immediately be branded as an appeaser."

In the Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, erstwhile Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ind-Conn., takes on Obama in an op-ed adapted from a speech Lieberman gave on May 18 hosted by Commentary Magazine.

Lieberman criticizes how leaders of his then-party, the Democrats, didn't "embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own."

He goes on to say: "When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years. Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.

"In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.

"John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.

"There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.

"Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot."

- jpt

May 21, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (44)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

geevill,

losing 1/4 Dem seat that's 75% of running out neo Repubs...is not bad....

Please...here's what McCain record:

1. Voted FOR War
2. Voted AGAINST GI Bill
3. Voted AGAINST Women's Equal Pay
4. Voted AGAINST Katrina Relief (Yes he did)
5. His CAMPAIGN MANGER just stepped down.
6. 75% of his campaign are lobbyists
7. Voted FOR TORTURE
8. PROLIFE
9. Voted AGAINST MLK Holiday 5x!
10. Voted for Bush Tax Cut's
11. Voted for Corporate Tax Cut's

I'm sorry GEEVILL, McCain has alienated:

1. Women 60% vote
2. African-American 10%
3. Veteran's 10%
4. Active Duty Soldiers & Spouses 7%
5. Rural America 30%

I believe this is all the demographics that make up at least 75% of the voting pool.

AND former dem....WE WON THE COLD WAR DUE TO DIPLOMACY....we Won Agreement with USSR by Economic Prowess

You do your Financial HISTORY....Building weapons and STILL DIDN"T USE THEM is the ANSWER. They were not used!

SO DIPLOMACY WORKED!

Posted by: paul | May 21, 2008 10:39:55 AM

geevill,

losing 1/4 Dem seat that's 75% of running out neo Repubs...is not bad....

Please...here's what McCain record:

1. Voted FOR War
2. Voted AGAINST GI Bill
3. Voted AGAINST Women's Equal Pay
4. Voted AGAINST Katrina Relief (Yes he did)
5. His CAMPAIGN MANGER just stepped down.
6. 75% of his campaign are lobbyists
7. Voted FOR TORTURE
8. PROLIFE
9. Voted AGAINST MLK Holiday 5x!
10. Voted for Bush Tax Cut's
11. Voted for Corporate Tax Cut's

I'm sorry GEEVILL, McCain has alienated:

1. Women 60% vote
2. African-American 10%
3. Veteran's 10%
4. Active Duty Soldiers & Spouses 7%
5. Rural America 30%

I believe this is all the demographics that make up at least 75% of the voting pool.

AND former dem....WE WON THE COLD WAR DUE TO DIPLOMACY....we Won Agreement with USSR by Economic Prowess

You do your Financial HISTORY....Building weapons and STILL DIDN"T USE THEM is the ANSWER. They were not used!

SO DIPLOMACY WORKED!

Posted by: paul | May 21, 2008 10:39:49 AM

Joe 'Turncoat' Lieberman should be ashamed to show his face to the world. This little traitor's loyalties are not with the United States, but with the state of Israel.
He is the only one outside the Bush cabinet who feels that our invasion of Iraq was right. that is because it fits in neatly with Israel's agenda.

Posted by: Al Zachariah | May 21, 2008 10:37:01 AM

@James Danley - - A *fight for the survival of Western Civilization...* are you kidding?
It must be tough, being so scared of everything.
It's very sad that you've bought the whole fear garbage, of the GOP. Because several planes were hijacked, and hit 3 buildings, this is the end of Western Civilization?
The problem is, that those that attacked us, are still hanging out, because your ruler decided to ignore them, and attack an unarmed country instead.
And if your party wins the Presidency again, this crazy policy will continue... as the perps of 9/11 keep strengthening, in Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Posted by: jon | May 21, 2008 10:36:36 AM

Joe 'Turncoat' Lieberman should be ashamed to show his face to the world. This little traitor's loyalties are not with the United States, but with the state of Israel.
He is the only one outside the Bush cabinet who feels that our invasion of Iraq was right. that is because it fits in neatly with Israel's agenda.

Posted by: Al Zachariah | May 21, 2008 10:36:11 AM

1st off digita is just wrong. I would guess the uneducated blue collar?

McCain is an out and out liar! He's a maverick and a reformer ... he's so toast, he will lose all the indies because he can't stay in the middle and appease Rush and the other blowholes. He plays like he's John Wayne, when in fact he's more like the "Ugly", which would make Obama the "Good" and Hillary the "Bad"

Posted by: digitahh | May 21, 2008 10:29:05 AM

Obama is the most hyprocrytical candidate in American history. Not even touching on about Wright and Iraq and so on, let's just look at the Gas relief. Obama said that it's a ploy by politician. Why? Because he had already tried in in State Senate for Illinois.

Posted by: digita | May 21, 2008 10:20:43 AM

From the National security Archive:
In the sphere of U.S.-Soviet relations, the first year of perestroika was one of building trust and of intense learning for both Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan. Although public rhetoric did not change to any significant degree, the unprecedented exchange of letters between the two leaders gave them an opportunity to engage in a serious dialog about the issues each saw as the most important ones, and prepared the ground for their face-to-face meeting in Geneva. One of the most important issues that came up repeatedly in the letters was the need to prevent nuclear war by way of reducing the level of armaments to reasonable sufficiency, where each side would enjoy equal security without striving for superiority. Both leaders came out of the summit with a new appreciation of each other as a partner. They succeeded in building trust and opening a dialog, which in very short order made possible such breakthroughs as Gorbachev's Program on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

No guns were ever fired.

Posted by: power2people | May 21, 2008 10:19:22 AM

Q1: If McCain had all this time to get his campaign in line, why did it take himself until now to figure out the conflicts of interest w all the lobbyist influence on his staff?

A1: Better questions is, what if Hillary would be the nominee? He wouldn’t have fired a soul. He did this purely because just as Obama out-Democrat’d HRC, Obama will out-reform McCain. As soon as it became clear that Obama was in, Mr. Integrity started purging lobbyists.

Q2: Beside the besmirch on McCain’s credibility and integrity, what does this mean long term?

A2: If he were to be Pres, he would hire all those lobbyists back.

Straight talk, my ash.

Posted by: Sidney is lying | May 21, 2008 10:14:31 AM

In 2002 Obama attended an anti-war rally and gave an anti-war speech to a group of anti-war protestors. This is the hook he hangs his "superior judgment" hat on. From his subsequent behavior, we now see it for what it was - telling the group he was speaking to what they wanted to hear.

In 2003 when he began campaigning for the U.S. Senate - and patriotism for Iraq was high - he was pro-Iraq. He deleted the anti-war speech transcript from his website since it might interfere with his getting elected.

Since he's been in the Senate, he's voted repeatedly to fund the War. In fact, he's voted with Senator Clinton in all but one instance (the Casey confirmation) on Iraq. He's also admitted that he didn't have access to intelligence which the Senate had at the time of the Resolution vote, and that he really isn't sure how he would have voted.

Great candidate the Dems are putting forward. The Reps will make mincemeat out of him.

Posted by: HoosierSue | May 21, 2008 10:12:58 AM

"Reagan sat successfully with Gorbechev that resluted in oh yeah.. THE COLD WAR." Power2thepeople, Reagan forced the USSR into financial insolvency in the COLD WAR arms race. Reagan had the U.S. manufacture more weapons and missiles than the USSR could keep up with! READ your history! Reagan won by brute force of weapons as the threat, not by diplomacy.

Posted by: former dem in chicago | May 21, 2008 10:04:36 AM

sorry... The END of the cold war! My typo!

Posted by: power2people | May 21, 2008 9:53:53 AM

Nixon sat successfully with Mao Tse Tung resulting in the end to a bitter hatred between the two countries (not to mentiona giftof tow adorable pandas from the Chinese government). Reagan sat successfully with Gorbechev that resluted in oh yeah.. THE COLD WAR.

Diplomacy works.

Posted by: power2people | May 21, 2008 9:52:19 AM

Who cares what Hagel thinks. Hello, he's not a conservative. Joe Lieberman's a statesman.

Posted by: Ron | May 21, 2008 9:51:57 AM

I cannot believe Joe Libermann, whom I used to respect immensely, could say that Obama hasn't been strong!! He stood up for what he believed was the right way to vote on the war, plus this gas tax rebate farce...Is he in the same Twilight Zone as McCain?

Posted by: cindyct | May 21, 2008 9:41:15 AM

Hagel is one of the few credible republican politicians. An Obama-Hagel ticket would be very interesting!!!
Obama 2008!

Posted by: pt | May 21, 2008 9:26:13 AM

To answer Leiberman, Democrats did not embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our NOT own. Bush's war in Iraq has done NOTHING to protect the USA. It has cost us $12B-15B per MONTH that would be better spent in America, not in Iraq. Lieberman is wrong and he is a traitor to the Democratic party. The Republicans can have him. Better yet, he should just go away.

Posted by: power2people | May 21, 2008 9:25:55 AM

Geevill,

I'm sorry, Lieberman is the laughing cow in CT......believe me, he will be voted out.

Hagel is great, smart, experience, and knows his foreign policy. He will be a great "shortlister" as VP for Obama.

McCain is such a DISSAPOINTMENT TO ME. As a disabled veteran he INSULTS me everyday by speaking about war and then turn HIS BACK on the GI BILL...

TERRIBLE

"PATRIOTIC ACTIONS SPEAKS VOLUME THAN SYMBOLIC WORDS"

Posted by: paul | May 21, 2008 9:23:03 AM

Sivan, you can deny it all you want! But that won't change the fact that we ARE in a fight for the survival of Western Civilization. There are just two outcomes: We defeat the terrorists or we die. It is that simple. I just pray that when the next series of attacks come all you deniers are just close enough to witness one, but far enough away that you will have to live the rest of your life knowing you were wrong.

Posted by: James Danley | May 21, 2008 9:18:42 AM

Obama is a fool. It's one thing for the Secretary of State or other emissary to talk with Ahmadinejad; it's entirely another for the President to personally do so - especially without pre-conditions or negotiations. In Obama's words, this gives Ahmadinejad "street cred" that only serves to promote him to undue status, particularly in his own mind.

Ahmadinejad has called Israel a "stinking corpse" doomed to disappear and denies that the Holocaust happened. We also know that Iran is providing training, arms, and funding for terrorists in Iraq that are killing American troops and the Iraqi Army and Police (the people we need to be in control so we can bring our troops home).

I'd like to know exactly how Obama's discussion would go with Ahmadinejad. More importantly, I'd like to know who in the Obama cabinet would then be sent to clarify for Ahmadinejad exactly what it was that Obama meant to say upon the inevitable "mangling" of his words or "boneheaded" mistake he'd made during the discussion!

Posted by: HoosierSue | May 21, 2008 9:18:02 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS