Chuck Hagel seems to save his best stuff for men’s magazines. He told GQ that the White House’s original draft of the 2002 Iraq resolution was a blank check to invade everybody before he and fellow senators rewrote it.
Now in Esquire he has uttered the dreaded “I” word. Saying that Bush is “not accountable anymore,” Hagel adds, “before this is over you might see calls for his impeachment.”
On Monday the Senator is expected to announce he is running for President, finally giving voters a Republican candidate who wants to stop the war.
A word of advice from an admirer: Think twice before giving an interview to Playboy.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Hagel GQ. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Hagel GQ. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Why We're in Iraq: The Smoking Gun
As Chuck Hagel was making an impassioned plea against the surge in a Senate hearing room, he was providing the last piece of the Iraq puzzle in a less visible venue, GQ Magazine.
In an interview, the Nebraska Senator described the Administration’s “astounding” original draft of the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq:
“It said they could go anywhere in the region...Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.”
Hagel, with fellow Senators Biden and Lugar, “had to rewrite it...stripped the language the White House had set up and put our language in it.”
After all the circumstantial evidence from Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward et al, a conservative Republican Senator finally reveals the breathtaking arrogance and stupidity of the neo-cons behind a barely elected President.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al had put on paper their grandiose pipedreams of using American power to police the world in their “Project for the New American Century” in 2000.
Now they saw 9/11 as another Pearl Harbor, a chance to carry out their loony plans of world domination with a blank check from a traumatized Congress.
Bad as Iraq is, how much worse would it have been if they got what they asked for?
In an interview, the Nebraska Senator described the Administration’s “astounding” original draft of the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq:
“It said they could go anywhere in the region...Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything they wanted. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.”
Hagel, with fellow Senators Biden and Lugar, “had to rewrite it...stripped the language the White House had set up and put our language in it.”
After all the circumstantial evidence from Richard Clarke, Bob Woodward et al, a conservative Republican Senator finally reveals the breathtaking arrogance and stupidity of the neo-cons behind a barely elected President.
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz et al had put on paper their grandiose pipedreams of using American power to police the world in their “Project for the New American Century” in 2000.
Now they saw 9/11 as another Pearl Harbor, a chance to carry out their loony plans of world domination with a blank check from a traumatized Congress.
Bad as Iraq is, how much worse would it have been if they got what they asked for?
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Clinton Hardball
In the sad-but-probably-true department comes a Politico story about how GQ killed a piece about in-fighting in Hillary’s campaign for cover-story access to the former President.
One of the strengths of magazines is, unlike daily hard-news media, freedom of choice about what to cover and when. But along with that comes more dependence on sources for interviews in depth and cover sittings, among other needs.
When I retired two decades ago, the subjects of pieces and their publicity people, especially in show business, were getting very aggressive in bargaining for conditions that journalists should not accept. But in those days, when a major magazine cover story meant more than it does now, it was easier to resist.
But before bloggers and other finger pointers get too huffy about “selling out,” they should check the other side of the ledger. In the past year, GQ interviews have given us, among other news, Chuck Hagel’s unvarnished account of how the Bush Administration ramrodded the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq and the closest to a mea culpa from Colin Powell that we are likely to get.
In the lack-of-virtue-is-its-own-reward department, the Clinton campaign will probably sustain as much damage from the news of its arm-twisting as it might have from the story that never ran. Moreover, the juicy bits will leak out one way or another.
One of the strengths of magazines is, unlike daily hard-news media, freedom of choice about what to cover and when. But along with that comes more dependence on sources for interviews in depth and cover sittings, among other needs.
When I retired two decades ago, the subjects of pieces and their publicity people, especially in show business, were getting very aggressive in bargaining for conditions that journalists should not accept. But in those days, when a major magazine cover story meant more than it does now, it was easier to resist.
But before bloggers and other finger pointers get too huffy about “selling out,” they should check the other side of the ledger. In the past year, GQ interviews have given us, among other news, Chuck Hagel’s unvarnished account of how the Bush Administration ramrodded the 2002 resolution to invade Iraq and the closest to a mea culpa from Colin Powell that we are likely to get.
In the lack-of-virtue-is-its-own-reward department, the Clinton campaign will probably sustain as much damage from the news of its arm-twisting as it might have from the story that never ran. Moreover, the juicy bits will leak out one way or another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)