Time's Duffy touted Hagel as a candidate "clearly against the war going back or going forward" -- but he voted for it
On the March 11 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Time magazine assistant managing editor Michael Duffy stated that if Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) decides to run for president, he might have cross-party appeal as a third-party candidate "if the Democrats do not nominate someone who was against the [Iraq] war from the start." Duffy added that Hagel's appeal would be as "someone who is clearly against the war going back or going forward." Hagel, however, voted for the October 2002 resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq.
As Media Matters for America has documented, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius also did not mention Hagel's vote to authorize the Iraq war in his November 29, 2006, column, in which he stated that Hagel "can claim to have been right about Iraq and other key issues earlier than almost any national politician, Republican or Democratic." Ignatius, as Media Matters noted, wrote in his December 6, 2006, column that his "readers" were "right" to point out Hagel's vote.
From the March 11 broadcast of NBC News' Meet the Press:
RUSSERT: Sixteen candidates. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska's thinking about running tomorrow. He's senator from Nebraska, the most supportive senator of George W. Bush, except he has broken with him on the war.
DUFFY: And that's what -- that would distinguish him, particularly in the Republican field. The Republican who has become opposed to the president on the war, particularly the surge, would create a whole new, you know, category on that side of the race, and even -- well, he would be able to have appeal across party lines, which may be what Chuck Hagel is thinking.
Try it for a while as a Republican and if it doesn't work necessarily as a nominee -- as a potential nominee, there's a possibility here -- if the Democrats do not nominate someone who was against the war from the start -- for a third-party candidate, for someone who is clearly against the war going back or going forward.
Whoops. Them facts are a B***H sometimes.
He was for it before he was against it.
FLIP FLOP!
Yeah, but IOKIYAR.
I wonder when Dark Cheney is going to accuse Hagel of undermining the troops.
Cheney says negative things about anyone who is against him. He is evil
Yes Duffy is wrong here, Hagel did [like so many others] voted for this war, based on the lies toted by the Bush/Cheney duo.
However, anyone who has read Hubris [written by Michael Isikoff and David Corn] knows that Hagel, unlike many of his colleagues on the left & right had misgivings from the start and contacted Senator Biden about his suspicions as to the true extent of this White House's war aims. [he suspected Iraq was only the first invasion Bush/Cheney had in mind]
I suggest you read the book to learn more about this guy.
He's on the top of my list should he decide to throw his hat into the ring.
BTW I'm sorry to see Biden's bid for the Presidency virtually ignored by Democrats. Good man, who I'd also consider giving my vote to.
jeter2 -
John Kerry also had misgivings about the Iraq War when he voted to authorize it. Do you give Kerry credit for that?
Actually Eric I do. I give credit to anyone that had their doubts, but felt not enough of the facts to vote against it. Unfortunately what they had as "facts" were lies. I give even far more credit to those who voted against the war. And I give credit to those that now admit they were hoodwinked by this administration and are working towards ending this illegal war & bringing our troops home.
I don't much care for Kerry [he, along with Teddy are my State Senators], BUT I will always give credit where credit is due.
On a personal note I was against the invasion of Iraq from the get go. I felt Bush should have allowed UN Inspectors to finish their job in searching for WMD.
I've never voted for a Republican candidate for president but of all of those Republicans who might be running I might be able to support Chuck Hagel. Not that I know a whole hell of a lot about him, yet.
He's willing to take an unpopular stand within his party and I admire that.
Hey King,
I don't know a lot about Hagel myself BUT have begun reading up on his opinions on various issues other than Iraq.
He might still be too Conservative for most Liberals to consider, BUT from what I've read thus far, I really like the guy.
Doesn't Giuliani at time take decisions unpopular in the GOP as well?
Why Hagel and not Giuliani?
First off, I don't know much about Hagel. I like that he isn't going to stand with these criminals anymore as far as this war goes.
As for Rudy. I feel he is despicable. He may be a conservative Republican with liberal stances on some social issues but he will do or say whatever it takes to shore up this war. No one has stooped as low as he has to show disrespect for those fighting this war.
He deflected the blame for hundreds of tons of missing ammunition from the administration to the troops who he claimed might not have searched properly. Here is his defense of George W. Bush during the 2004 presidential election.
"No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there,"... "Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
Is this how we show support for those who are over there dying, to allow creeps like rudy use them to cover up the mistakes of this administration?
I'd vote for Dick Cheney before I'd ever vote for Rudy.
Third party candidate? What is Duffy smoking? Hagel wouldn't run as a 3rd party candidate - he's a conservative Republican.
And how is that if a Republican who was against the Iraq war from the start (he doesn't exist, I know) has "cross-party appeal" but Barack Obama, a democrat who was truly against the war from the start doesn't have cross-party appeal? Gimme a break.
I believe both Obama and Dennis Kucinich were against Iraq from the start - it's embarassing that someone in Michael Duffy's position doesn't know this. Then again, he does work for a magazine that couldn't didn't know how to decide on "a" person of the year and instead chose "you."
Also, it's about time the mainstream media WAKES UP and realizes that Chuck Hagel and Hillary Clinton evolved on Iraq publicly around the same time - shortly after the war started and almost a full year after they BOTH voted to authorize the resolution.
I don't quite read Duffy's comment as being that absolute to exclude knowledge of Hagel's vote for the war. He says "The Republican who has become opposed to the president on the war," which implies there was a time he wasn't opposed.
The last statement is tangled, but it doesn't say "going back to the beginning." Running as a third party anti-war candidate against a Democrat with a similar record would be insane, though.
It might be insane, but it would throw a nasty monkey wrench into the works, wouldn't it?
I don't see much misinformation here. If the Republicans nominate Hagel and the Democrats nominate Clinton, both voted for the war resolution but Hagel has since become an outspoken opponent of "staying the course", showing he has spine enough to break with Bush, while Hillary, it seems to me, has shown little. As a party, it would be very much to the Republicans' advantage to see that this happens. Hagel appears to be with them on most other issues, and many are having reservations about Bush's Iraq policy.
see [link to www.nytimes.com] more reason to go with Obama or Kucinich.