Beck calls Hagel "100 percent clear and consistent" in opposing war he voted for

On the January 18 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck claimed that Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) "has been 100 percent clear and consistent with his opinions" on the war in Iraq. But while contending that Hagel has "continued to throw up every red flag he can find" about the war, Beck ignored Hagel's vote for the October 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Throughout the "Real Story" segment, on-screen text read: "Hagel's Been Consistent."

Earlier in the segment, Beck claimed that "Hagel has been consistently railing against this war since 2001, well before anybody even contemplated going into Iraq." Beck then highlighted a speech Hagel made on the Senate floor on October 9, 2002, (though Beck said it was from 2003), in which Beck said Hagel sounded "almost like Nostradamus with his concerns about the war." Media Matters for America has noted that while Hagel was certainly one of the first prominent Republican politicians to express concerns about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Beck's claim that he "has been 100 percent clear and consistent with his opinions" does not hold up -- on October 11, 2002, Hagel voted in favor of H.J.R. 114, which authorized President Bush to "use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to ... defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."

Hagel did express misgivings about the possibility of a war with Iraq during a December 9, 2001, appearance on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, in which he said, "We are going to have to deal with [Saddam Hussein]. But I think we must be very careful here. ... [A]s far as I can tell, there is no alternative to Saddam Hussein. ... We don't want to set in motion unintended consequences that could have devastating effects here throughout the Muslim world, Arab world."

Beck's omission recalled that of Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who wrote in his November 29, 2006, column that Hagel "had prescient misgivings about the Iraq war -- and, more important, the political courage to express these doubts clearly, at a time when many politicians were running for cover." Ignatius did not note Hagel's vote for the resolution. Ignatius later wrote that readers who noted the omission were right.

From the January 18 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:

BECK: All right. Welcome to "The Real Story."

Yesterday, three senators proposed a resolution against sending additional troops into Iraq, and one of them was a Republican. Yeah, was. Chuck Hagel stood right up there with Carl Levin [D-MI] and Joe Biden [D-DE], which allowed Biden to say Iraq is not a partisan issue.

But the real story tonight -- Joe Biden. Come on, man. You don't actually believe that. Iraq is a very partisan issue in Washington.

Here's the one thing that everybody forgets. Partisanship, on its own, isn't always a bad thing, if it's based on a genuine disagreement about policies, not on politics.

I want to illustrate this point to you by telling you about two politicians on this issue in Iraq. Both of these guys are against the troop surge strategy. One is against it for the right reasons. One of them is just transparently playing political games with our national security.

First, Chuck Hagel. This is the guy who stood next to Carl Levin yesterday. Now, I couldn't disagree with him more on the war. I think, man, let's go in and fight it to win. But you know what? Chuck Hagel has been consistently railing against this war since 2001, well before anybody even contemplated going into Iraq.

In 2003, on the Senate floor, Hagel sounded almost like Nostradamus with his concerns about the war. He said, and I quote, "How many of us really know and understand Iraq, its country, its history, people and the role in the Arab world? ... The American people must be told of the long-term commitment, risk, and cost of taking this undertaking. We shouldn't be seduced by the expectations of dancing in the streets."

You were right then. Since that speech, he's continued to throw up every red flag he can find, at every chance he's had, from being one of the first to say that he had lost faith in [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, to leading the charge for a new strategy. Agree with him or not -- and I don't -- Chuck Hagel has been 100 percent clear and consistent with his opinions.

Now, let me tell you the confusing story about another politician, Congressman Silvestre Reyes [D-TX]. He's the new chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. The chairman. Got it?

In early December, Reyes shocked everybody, probably, you know, nobody more than [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi [D-CA], by supporting the troops for Iraq. He said at the time, quote, "We have to consider the need for additional troops in Iraq. I'd say 20,000, 30,000 for the specific purpose of making sure those militias are dismantled," end quote.

I remember reading that, thinking, "Wait a minute. You're kidding me, really? Somebody who's in with Nancy Pelosi says this?" Unfortunately, not so much. Reyes apparently wasn't allowed to have his own opinions, at least for very long, because after the president gave his speech announcing that exact strategy, Reyes gave this quote to a newspaper: "We don't have the capability to escalate our troops, even to this minimal level. The president hasn't changed direction but is simply changing tactics."

Uh-huh. So can I translate? I voted for the troop increase before I voted against it. Mr. Reyes, you're the one who's changing tactics, and I think it's because you realized you can't be the chairman of Intelligence Committee and also disagree with Nancy Pelosi. Am I wrong?

Joe Biden was right: Bringing our troops home and safe and sound shouldn't be a political partisan issue. Unfortunately, it is. People like Mr. Reyes seem to make it that way.