What's Bothering Chuck?

Let's start off by saying Senator Chuck Hagel is an American patriot. Let's get that out of the way pronto. Anybody with a pair of Purple Hearts is OK by me.

However.

There comes a time when the head scratching begins. Such is the case when I read his interview in the web-edition of Gentleman's Quarterly. (By the way, why is called quarterly when it's published monthly?)

Chuck (or Charles Timothy, take your pick) is a Republican from Nebraska. Among his senatorial duties are his seemingly weekly appearances on the Sundays talk shows. (Central casting bills him as the "moderate Republican.") That's all fine and good -- goes to show that Big Tent Republicanism is alive and well.

Yet, in the aforementioned interview, you'd think he was a San Francisco liberal in the way he bashes the Bush Administration for its conduct leading to and in the in execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, it's much worse -- the three words that came to mind when I read the article were weaselly, petulant and wrong. There's no point in rebutting some of his ill-considered remarks. (This isn't to suggest that his criticisms aren't valid -- it's just that it seems to be more of a venting that a deliberate review of what went wrong -- and to review how Senator Hagel was complicit in the manner. Alas -- to save you from reading it -- he allies himself with the "Bush lied" crowd. ) After reading the interview, you have to ask yourself -- why?

Is it because the President is low in the polls and the best time to kick a man is when he's down; even if he's from your own party? (Shades of Kennedy vs. Carter in '80?)
Is he angling for a draft bid to win the Republican nomination in 08? (Good luck standing out in that crowd -- you'd better off finding a seat on the New York City subway during rush hour than getting the GOP nod.)
Does he read the tea leaves that the Democrats will win in '08 and he's looking for the SECDEF gig -- just like Cohen for Clinton in '96? (And while on that topic, Cohen was no great shakes.)

Perhaps it's all of the above or none of the above.

Alas, my limited blogging skills preclude me from showing the picture that graces the cover of his biography -- it's taken as Senator Hagel is looking out into some unknown horizon and the photographer is looking up to Chuck. (It's creepily messianic in its overtones.) But it does come across as saying Chuck knows best -- even if you if you don't have a clue.

And I'm certainly clueless as to what is bothering Chuck.

Little Dinero for Gilberto

In the sports section of today's Washington Times, Tim Lemke wants to know why Gilberto Arenas, the shooting guard for the Washington Wizards, isn't the recipient of lucrative endorsement deals given his elevated play this year.

It comes down to the math of yk/m =45.

Or the 45 times Mr. Arenas will, in a minute's worth of conversation, say "you know."

Everyone is guilty of it from time to time, but with Mr. Arenas it borders on a speech impediment. I heard him being interviewed on the radio and it was painful. You want this guy to pitch your product?

Just for the record, you know, Mr. Lemke doesn't, you know, mention this at all, you know.

Keep Them Guessing

Perhaps Muqtada al-Sadr has an open source collection cell. If so, he's getting mixed signals as noted below --

Here's a headline from the 19 January edition of The Miami Herald by the Associated Press:
"U.S. may have go ahead to take on Sadr's militia."

A day earlier, Robert H. Reid, of the Associated Press, in The Philadelphia Inquirer, authored this report with the title, "US commanders reluctant to take on Shiite militia."

According to the former report, five top aides have been either killed or captured in the past few months. Perhaps rather than going for a full Fallujah style offensive, US Forces are preferring a more indirect route of going for the leadership -- believing that the followers would scatter.

So let them keep guessing and worrying. A toothless and scared militia is in Iraq's best interest.

Who Knows?

It's easy to pile on Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) for his ignorance on al-Qaeda. Congressional representatives aren't concerned about the details -- they're the big picture guys. And invariably, that big picture is focused on getting re-elected or running for higher office. That's why they have aides after all.

Another case in point, a year or two ago a Congressional delegation came out on a "fact-finding" mission to Baghdad. They were -- I got this second hand -- earnest in finding out what was going on from the perspective of the ground commanders. From what I learned, they were also profoundly ignorant as to the situation – both in terms of the good news and the bad news. That's not directed as a slam -- it's just that they have so much on their plate -- they can't afford to be a shadow secretaries of defense.

So what's your point Maguire?

It's that those who oppose the war (or, for now the surge) are doing so based on political considerations. (The same, of course, can be said those who favor the war and its escalation – but they’re the ones taking the beating in the polls – there’s very little upside right now for supporting the war.) I doubt that there is one member up on the Hill who can talk rationally – pro or con – about the war without reverting to talking points (e.g., cut and run, redeployment, etc.).

Trust me, I wish the war was going better and I certainly did not enjoy my time over there – but the next time you hear an elected representative talk about his or her view on the war, ask yourself this question – “What do they really know?” You’d be surprised as to how little they do know.