Students for Hagel

Senator Hagel's Book Now for Sale

2008-03-28T01:21:00.001-07:00

Senator Hagel's book America: Our Next Chapter: Tough Questions, Straight Answers came out on Tuesday. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but I have heard great reviews about it and would encourage everyone to buy a copy.

Farewell

2007-09-10T09:05:00.000-07:00

Thank you for posting that Charlie - unfortunately I had Calc. class and was unable to see the speech and post the official announcement.

It is with a heavy heart that I say farewell to all of you.

It's been a good journey, and I wish you all the best as you now move on to another candidate.

As of now, I'm undecided in who I'll support in 2008, but I would like to thank Senator Hagel for his excellent service for this country.

Senator Hagel, you are a truly great American - God bless you. Maybe you'll come back into the political world another day.

~~Nathan Inks

Hagel not running in 2008

2007-09-10T08:26:00.001-07:00

Chuck Hagel has announced today that he will not be seeking a third term in the Senate and that he will not be running for Presdient.

Here is the text of Chuck Hagel's announcement today (the text from Sandhills PAC):

Hagel Announces He Will Not Seek A Third Term In Senate

OMAHA, NE – United States Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) announced this morning that he will not seek a third term in the United States Senate and does not intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008. Below is a text of Hagel’s remarks delivered at the Omaha Press Club:

“I will not seek a third term in the United States Senate, nor do I intend to be a candidate for any office in 2008. It has been my greatest honor and privilege to serve my country and represent my fellow Nebraskans in the U.S. Senate. My family and I will be forever grateful for this opportunity and the trust placed in me by the people of Nebraska. It has enriched all of us.

I have always tried to live up to the promise I made to the people of Nebraska the day I announced my intention to seek this Senate seat. On March 30, 1995 I said, “I intend to be a Senator all Nebraskans can be proud of.” I hope I’ve done that, and made some contributions to our state and country along the way. History will sort that out.

I am proud of my Senate record and deeply grateful to all those who helped get me there and keep me there, and those who have worked so hard for the people of Nebraska—my staff. I would like to particularly thank Mike McCarthy, Ken Stinson and Lou Ann Linehan. I owe a great deal to these three individuals.

I would have been unable to do my job without the love, wise perspective and constant encouragement of my wife Lilibet, my daughter Allyn and my son Ziller. My appreciation for their support is immeasurable. I would also like to thank my brothers, Tom and Mike, for their constant support and occasional brotherly constructive evaluations.

I said after I was elected in 1996 that 12 years in the Senate would probably be enough. It is. I have always believed that democracies work best when there is a constant cycle of new energy and ideas, and fresh leadership.

I will leave the Senate with the same enthusiasm, sense of purpose and love of my country that I started with. I leave maybe a little wiser, surely a little more experienced and with a very respectable amount of humility.

Public service has always been a big part of my life, and I hope to have another opportunity to serve my country in some new capacity down the road.

This afternoon, my family and I will return to Washington, and I will go back to work. I look forward to working as hard in the remaining 16 months of my Senate term for the people of Nebraska as I have over the last 11 years.

Thank you.”

Monday!

2007-09-07T19:23:00.000-07:00

The wait may soon be over. Here is the message from Chuck Hagel's PAC website:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) will hold a press conference on Monday, September 10th. The press conference will be held at 10:00 a.m. at the Omaha Press Club. Hagel will announce a decision regarding his future.

I and many others are hoping that Chuck Hagel will jump into the 2008 Presidential race on Monday, but we'll have to wait a few more days to find out.

Hagel, Dodd Introduce Bill to Revitalize America’s Infrastructure

2007-08-13T20:54:00.000-07:00

My apologies for not posting - I got really busy, it's not a good excuse, but I'm gonna use it!

Hagel, Dodd Introduce Bill to Revitalize America’s Infrastructure
Bill Would Help Make Roads, Bridges, Transit Systems, and Water Safer and Spur Economic Growth

August 1st, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Responding to a looming crisis that jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans, Senators Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, today introduced a measure to revitalize, repair, and replace America’s aging and crumbling roads, bridges, transit systems, and water treatment facilities. Two dramatic headlines in recent weeks have highlighted the escalating problem. Two weeks ago, an 83-year-old steam pipe burst in midtown Manhattan, releasing asbestos laden particles and causing widespread damage. Media reports have also recently questioned whether contaminated drinking water near Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, may have exposed families in the area to high levels of dangerous chemicals.

“The current infrastructure in our country is wholly inadequate to handle the demands of a 21st Century economy. We see our ports backed-up by expanding international trade, our rails overloaded by our increasing energy demands and our highways hopelessly clogged by traffic. We run the risk of being left behind by our international competitors if we do not begin to modernize our national infrastructure. It will require a huge financial commitment to modernize our national infrastructure. The legislation we are introducing establishes a new system through which the federal government can finance infrastructure projects by leveraging private and public capital to fund large projects that are vital to our country. This legislation provides a new model for prioritizing the building and maintenance of our national infrastructure,” Hagel said.

“The 21st century holds great promise for our nation. But you can’t journey to a brighter tomorrow by relying on yesterday’s infrastructure,” said Dodd. “This measure can help rebuild our roads, bridges, transit and water systems, improve our quality of life, and spur jobs and economic growth. By investing today, we can minimize costs down the road and provide a brighter, more secure future for all Americans.”

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of our nation’s major infrastructure system earns a grade point average of D. The average age of drinking water and wastewater systems range in age from 50 to 100 years in age. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the average traveler is delayed 51.5 hours in the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan areas. The delays range from 93 hours in Los Angeles to 14 hours in Pittsburgh. Combined these delays waste 1.78 billion gallons of fuel each year and waste almost $50.3 billion in congestion costs.

The bill, the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007, would streamline the process by which national infrastructure projects are targeted. It would create an independent national bank that would identify, evaluate and help finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national significance. Infrastructure projects under the Bank’s jurisdiction would include publicly-owned mass transit systems, roads, bridges, drinking water and wastewater systems, and housing properties.

The Dodd-Hagel legislation follows two reports released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 2005 and 2006 that highlighted the urgent need for a national plan and investments to improve infrastructure needs across the nation. Felix G. Rohatyn and Senator Warren Rudman were Co-Chairmen of the CSIS Commission on Public Infrastructure.

“Senators Dodd and Hagel do a great service to our country by introducing the National Infrastructure Bank Act,” said Rohatyn and Rudman. “This bipartisan legislation can reverse decades of shortchanging our public infrastructure. By investing in our future, it will increase our national productivity and improve our standard of living.”

"Last year, Senators Dodd and Hagel signed on to a set of 'Guiding Principles for Strengthening America’s Infrastructure' developed by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Commission on Public Infrastructure," said CSIS President and CEO John Hamre. "These principles were established to recommend changes to rebuild America's decaying infrastructure. CSIS is proud to have helped stimulate this important initiative. The leadership of Senators Dodd and Hagel on this crucial issue will now will help the nation ensure future productivity and growth for our economy."

Possible Nebraska Projects that would qualify:

• Construction of the Heartland Expressway in South Dakota and Western Nebraska (~$664 million).

• Lincoln South Beltway (~$135 million)

• Antelope Valley (in Lincoln) Waterway relocation and revitalization (~$175 million).

• Construction of the Nebraska Highway 35 project between Norfolk and Sioux City, IA (~$300 million).

• A full expansion of I-80 to six lanes from Lincoln to Kearney (~$100 million).

• Construction of the new US-34 four-lane bridge over the Missouri river between Bellevue, NE and Mills County, IA (~$80 million).

A summary of the legislation and a list of supporters is below:

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK ACT OF 2007
Senator Christopher J. Dodd and Senator Chuck Hagel

OVERVIEW

The Dodd-Hagel National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 is a bipartisan measure that addresses the critical needs of our nation’s major infrastructure systems. The legislation establishes a new method through which the Federal government can finance infrastructure projects of substantial regional or national significance more effectively with public and private capital.

THE PROBLEM

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the current condition of our nation’s major infrastructure systems earns a grade point average of D and jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans.

According to the Federal Transit Administration, $21.8 billion is needed annually over the next 20 years to maintain and improve the operational capacity of transit systems.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, there are
1.2 million units of public housing with critical capital needs totaling $18 billion.

According to the Texas Transportation Institute, the average traveler is delayed 51.5 hours annually due to traffic and infrastructure-related congestion in the nation’s 20 largest metropolitan areas. The delays range from 93 hours in Los Angeles to 14 hours in Pittsburgh. Combined, these delays waste 1.78 billion gallons of fuel each year and waste almost $50.3 billion in congestion costs. Furthermore, the average delay in these metropolitan areas has increased by almost 35.3 hours since 1982.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, $131.7 billion and
$9.4 billion is needed respectively every year over the next 20 years to repair
deficient roads and bridges. The average age of bridges is 40 years.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, $151 billion and $390 billion is needed respectively every year over the next 20 years to repair obsolete drinking water and wastewater systems. Drinking water and wastewater systems range in age from 50 to 100 years in age.

Current Federal financing methods do not adequately distribute funding
based on an infrastructure project’s size, location, cost, usage, or economic
benefit to a region or the entire nation.

THE DODD-HAGEL SOLUTION

The Dodd-Hagel legislation establishes the National Infrastructure Bank, which as an independent entity of the government is tasked with evaluating and financing capacity-building infrastructure projects of substantial regional and national significance. Infrastructure projects that come under the Bank’s consideration are publicly-owned mass transit systems, housing properties, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and wastewater systems.

Modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bank is led by a five member Board of Directors, each whom are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The Bank’s Board has flexibility to develop an organization of professional civil service staff to carry out the Bank’s authorized activities. An Inspector General oversees the Bank’s daily operations and reports on those operations to Congress.

Infrastructure projects with a potential Federal investment of at least $75 million are brought to the Bank’s attention by a project sponsor (state, locality, tribe, infrastructure agency (e.g. transit agency), or a consortium of these entities.

To determine a level of Federal investment, the Bank uses a sliding scale method that incorporates conditions such as the type of infrastructure system or systems, project location, project cost, current and projected usage, non-Federal revenue, regional or national significance, promotion of economic growth and community development, reduction in traffic congestion, environmental benefits, land use policies that promote smart growth, and mobility improvements.

Once a level of investment is determined for a project, the Bank develops a financing package with full faith and credit from the government. The
financing package could include direct subsidies, direct loan guarantees, long-term tax-credit general purpose bonds, and long-term tax-credit infrastructure project specific bonds. The initial ceiling to issue bonds is $60 billion.

The Bank is tasked to report annually to Congress on the projects it reviews and finances. A public database is created to catalog what projects were funded and what financing packages were provided. The Bank is also tasked to report every three years on the economic efficacy and transparency of all current Federal infrastructure financing methods, and how those methods could be improved. After five years, the Government Accountability Office would be tasked with evaluating the Bank’s operations and efficacy.

The Bank does not displace existing formula grants and earmarks for infrastructure. It targets specifically large capacity-building projects that are not adequately served by current financing mechanisms.

Happy 4th of July

2007-07-04T10:21:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to wish you all a safe and Happy Fourth of July, and God bless America!

Hagel’s Statement on the Retirement of Major General Roger Lempke

2007-06-28T10:07:00.001-07:00

Hagel’s Statement on the Retirement of Major General Roger Lempke

June 22nd, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) issued the following statement today on the retirement of Major General Roger Lempke. Major General Lempke is the current Adjutant General of the Nebraska National Guard, and current President of the Adjutants General Association of the United States.

“Major General Roger Lempke served his country with honor and commitment throughout his distinguished military career. He has been one of America’s most effective Adjutant’s General.

“Following September 11, 2001, and with the onset of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the National Guard was thrust into a new period of demanding challenges. While the Guard’s overseas deployments increased, General Lempke bolstered the Guard’s traditional homeland missions, with Nebraska’s Guard serving the state in times of emergency; members deployed along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of Operation Jump Start; as well as the Nebraska Guard’s mobilization to support gulf coast states in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Throughout this difficult time, General Lempke has been a courageous leader and vocal advocate for the National Guard. As President of the Adjutants General Association of the United States, General Lempke built consensus among the 54 Adjutants General that has guided the Guard into the relevant force it is today.

“All of Nebraska appreciates the service of General Lempke at this very demanding and challenging time for the Guard. All of Nebraska congratulates him and wishes him much success, but we will miss him,” said Hagel.

Hagel Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Improve VA Services for Blind Veterans

2007-06-28T10:03:00.000-07:00

Hagel Introduces Bipartisan Bill to Improve VA Services for Blind Veterans
Authorizes Scholarship Program for Students Seeking Training in Blind Rehabilitation

June 21st, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced legislation today that would help the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) meet the increasing demands of today’s blind veteran population. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), both members of the Senate Veteran Affairs Committee, joined Hagel as original cosponsors of the legislation. The legislation directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a scholarship program for students seeking a degree or training in the area of blind rehabilitation. Recipients of the scholarship would be required to work at least three years in the VA system.

“Service members sacrificing for our country in a time of war should be assured that they will receive the best medical treatment and rehabilitation available, without having to wait months or years due to staff shortages. Rehabilitation training for those who have lost their eyesight enables them to function in their surroundings and live more independently. This legislation would encourage students to enter employment in an under-populated medical field, while also serving our nation’s veterans,” Hagel said.

Between March 2003 and April 2005, sixteen percent of all casualties evacuated from Iraq had associated eye injuries. In the coming years, the blind and low-vision veterans’ population is expected to grow by forty percent.

In 2006, a provision in the annual veterans benefits bill expanded the pool of individuals serving our veterans as Blind Rehab Outpatient Specialists (BROS). Today, the VA employs 30 BROS. Unfortunately, there are not enough counselors certified in blind rehabilitation to provide the growing number of blind or low-vision veterans. This has caused a long waiting list for admission at the ten VA Blind Rehabilitation Centers.

Draft Hagel 08 e-mail update

2007-06-18T20:18:00.000-07:00

Draft Hagel 08 Supporter:

What are you doing to bring in new individuals to the movement? Is
there something that seems to work better than anything else? Let us
know so we can share it with fellow Hagel supporters!

Now, we know that it is easier to do when Senator Hagel is visible in
the national media than when he is not, but that is why your
involvement is so important! Establishing ourselves as a movement is
necessary in order to provide support for the Senator in the future!

So, if you are talking to someone and they say, "I don't know too much
about him," then just hand them a flier and say, "Here's a little
information on the Senator. Give it a look.". It really is that
simple!

The Draft Hagel 08 movement was started because after looking at the
current field of candidates, there was something missing. That has
not changed. The future of our country is far too important to allow
it to continue on its current path. As supporters of Senator Hagel,
we know he has the vision, common sense, and integrity that this
nation needs at this critical point it time. We need to do everything
we can to try and make his candidacy for president a reality. Let's
get to work!!!

The Draft Hagel 08 Team
www.drafthagel08.com
Info@drafthagel08.com

Hagel Introduces Comprehensive Energy Reform Legislation

2007-06-18T20:17:00.000-07:00

Hagel Introduces Comprehensive Energy Reform Legislation

June 12th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced legislation today to provide a comprehensive approach to the issues of U.S. energy security and climate policy. Hagel’s legislative package consists of four bills which address research and development, regulatory reform, tax policy, and energy security policy. It focuses on the role of private-public partnerships, technology, and removing existing barriers to national energy security.

“For decades our country has drifted without a coherent national energy policy. This policy must incorporate our economic, environmental and national security priorities. My comprehensive energy reform legislation will help empower America to develop the resources required to meet our 21st century energy needs and compete in a new competitive world,” said Hagel.

“This legislation will address four integral components for an effective U.S. national energy policy – a fundamental shift in the way energy research and development is approached; regulatory reform; energy infrastructure investment; and energy security policy.

“We can no longer defer the tough choices necessary to ensure that the next generation of Americans have the opportunities, freedoms and quality of life that Americans before us worked hard to build,” concluded Hagel.

~Below are fact sheets on the four pieces of legislation~

The Energy Research and Development Prioritization Act of 2007

This bill reforms the way in which energy research and development priorities are determined by:

- requiring the Secretary of Energy to conduct a survey of all interested parties within government, academia, and private industry, to determine the top ten energy “problems to be solved” that are required to achieve energy security in the future;

- authorizing the Secretary to identify two additional research and development priorities;

- refocusing all research and development funding towards resolving those top energy “problems to be solved”;

- establishing an Energy Technology Information Network which contains a database of all current Federal research and development efforts and allows private industry to contribute to the database; and

- encouraging collaboration among scientists from public and private institutions to develop energy solutions while protecting intellectual property rights.

The Energy Regulatory Reform Act of 2007

This bill promotes the use of innovative energy technologies and removes regulatory barriers by:

- establishing an outside commission in each appropriate federal department and agency to review existing regulations that have had a significant impact on energy security;

- requiring the commission to make recommendations to each agency head on how to reform regulations to increase energy security;

- requiring a Regulatory Impact Analysis be completed before completion of an agency/department’s final rule for every new major energy regulation that could have an adverse effect on energy security;

- reforming the “permitting process” for new energy facilities by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be the lead agency. The EPA shall establish a time line in which all local, state and federal permitting processes must be completed; and

- amending the National Environmental Protection Act to require an assessment of a proposed project’s impact on the energy security of the United States.

The Energy Infrastructure Tax Reform and Incentives Act of 2007

This bill reforms the tax code by:

- reducing the recovery period for investment in electricity transmission lines from 20 years to 15 years
- reducing the recovery period for investment in smart-grid computer devices from 20 years to 5 years;
- providing accelerated depreciation for qualified cellulosic ethanol plants, coal-to-liquid facilities, and dedicated ethanol pipelines; and
- providing a tax credit for voluntary installation of pollution control technology on energy facilities and small businesses.

This bill encourages investment in clean energy technologies by:

- modifying and expanding the clean renewable energy bonds for public power facilities;
- extends tax credits for investment and installation of residential and commercial wind, solar and geothermal projects;
- provides tax credits for investment in best available transmission technologies for investor owned utilities;
- extends the Production Tax Credit for renewable electricity generation for an additional 5 years; and
- provides incentives for green building energy efficient technologies.

Clean, Reliable, Efficient and Secure Energy Act of 2007

Title I - Electricity Sector
This title encourages the use of clean and efficient energy technologies in the electricity sector by:

- establishing a public-private commission to set energy efficiency standards for appliances to accelerate achievements in energy efficiency;
- encouraging the use of Smart Grid technology for new and replacement electricity transmission;
- creating a Clean Energy Portfolio Standard to require that an additional 20% of national electricity generation by 2030 comes from clean technologies (e.g., renewable sources, nuclear power, and clean coal with carbon capture);
- resolving outstanding issues to allow Yucca Mountain to begin receiving spent nuclear waste (e.g., securing the surrounding lands, building a rail line for transport of the waste into the site, and allowing greater access to the Nuclear Waste Fund); and
- providing loan guarantees and regulatory incentives to encourage the use of advanced coal-fired electricity generation technologies.

Title II - Transportation Sector
This title enhances energy security in the transportation sector by:

- amending the current laws governing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), and increasing the CAFE standard by 4% per year only if the increase is technologically feasible and would not compromise safety;
- requiring the federal government to report on the average fuel economy of the federal fleet to better assess the government’s energy efficiency;
- providing States and local governments grants and regulatory incentives to encourage investment in transportation energy efficiency measures (e.g., traffic signal coordination and minimizing vehicle idling times);

- creating a separate Renewable Fuel Standard for renewable or alternative diesel fuel;
- encouraging the growth of the coal-to-liquid industry by allowing loan guarantees and by requiring the phased reduction of traditional fossil fuel use in the Department of Defense aircraft fleet; and
- lifting the moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, for those States who request it, to allow oil and natural gas exploration and production.

Title III - Buildings and Manufacturing Sectors

This title requires the increased efficiency of Federal facilities and encourages increased efficiency in the manufacturing sector by:
- establishing an Office of High-Performance Green Buildings in the General Services Administration, that would develop and enforce energy efficiency requirements for all newly acquired or renovated Federal buildings;
- stimulating the commercialization of new, energy efficient building technologies by requiring that energy efficiency technologies are used in federal buildings;
- providing grants to states and local governments to make energy efficiency improvements in public schools; and
- establishing a public-private commission to study and develop new manufacturing processes and materials that are able to use a diverse array of energy sources to provide enhanced security, flexibility and competitive edge to the manufacturing industry.

Title IV - National Carbon Policy

This title establishes the groundwork of a national carbon policy that is necessary for any future action on carbon emissions by:
- establishing a National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Registry;
- requiring a National Academy of Sciences report to study any commercial or industrial uses of captured carbon dioxide other than sequestration;
- requiring the Secretary of Energy to conduct a carbon dioxide storage assessment in the contiguous 48 states;
- creating a Regulatory Reform for Carbon Sequestration commission to determine the regulatory barriers to siting manufacturing, power plants and other necessary infrastructure near sites identified by the carbon dioxide storage assessment;
- assigning liability of full carbon dioxide sequestration locations to the federal government; and
- stipulating that if 75% of the authorized funding for this section is not appropriated, all requirements on the private sector regarding investment in carbon capture and sequestration are terminated.

Title V - Studies, Energy Education and Office of Technological Assessment
This title provides information for Congress and the public to make future energy decisions by:

- Requiring studies to look at:
- requiring replacement of Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) equipment that do not meet minimum efficiency standards at time of sale of residential homes;
- the energy security benefits and costs of instituting a CAFÉ standard for heavy trucks;
- the use of synthetic fuel in commercial aircraft;
- infrastructure needs for an expanded Renewable Fuel Standard; and
- the necessity of building a Strategic Natural Gas Reserve similar to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve;

- Establishing a national Energy Day that would coordinate public outreach and educational activities for primary and secondary schools; and
- Reestablishing the Office of Technological Assessment to provide objective assessments to Congress regarding technologies, scientific needs and foreign science and technological capabilities.

Press Release Update

2007-06-18T20:14:00.000-07:00

Hehehe! The Senator's office kinda died down on press releases, and I had exams and college orientation, so it's been a while since the last update.

Here's a somewhat outdated press release though:

Statement by Senator Hagel on the Death of Senator Craig Thomas

June 5th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement this morning regarding the death of U.S. Senator Craig Thomas (R-WY):

“This is a sad day for all of us. Craig Thomas was a neighbor and a friend who committed his remarkable life to his country and his state. I will be forever grateful to him for being one of the first U.S. Senators to campaign for me in my 1996 race for the Senate, when few thought I had a chance to win. I had an opportunity to work closely with Craig Thomas on the Senate Foreign Relations and Energy Committees. He worked hard, was always prepared and was the kind of Senator the people of Wyoming could be proud of every day.

“If service is the highest American value, then Craig Thomas leaves a legacy that speaks volumes. He leaves his country and his state better because of his service. Craig Thomas was a straight-shooter. Being a Marine and having been raised on a ranch in Wyoming...what else could he be?

“Lilibet and I offer our prayers to Susan Thomas and the Thomas family.”

Hagel Offers Congratulations to Nebraska Astronaut Clayton Anderson on Eve of Launch

June 8th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - Nebraska’s U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel called Astronaut Clayton Anderson, of Ashland, last night to offer congratulations and to tell him how proud Nebraskans are of him. Today at 6:38 p.m. CDT, Clayton is scheduled to lift off on the Space Shuttle Atlantis. He will be the first native Nebraskan to travel into outer space.

“All Nebraskans are proud to have Astronaut Clayton Anderson as a native son. He has represented Nebraska with distinction and honor. We all anxiously await tonight’s lift off, and it was wonderful to hear that Clayton invited his family, friends and even a few former Hastings college professors to watch the launch from the launch pad,” Hagel said.

“He told me that he would put two Big Red N’s in the Space Station. We are proud of Clayton and keep him in our thoughts and prayers.”

Anderson will depart today from the Kennedy Space Center near Cape Canaveral, Florida on board Space Shuttle Atlantis for a shuttle mission to the International Space Station. Anderson will be a flight engineer and NASA science officer on the mission and will remain on the Space Station for about five months.

Clayton is a 1981 graduate of Hastings College. Hagel is a member of Hastings College’s Board of Trustees.

Hagel's Iraq Plan Would've Worked Today

2007-06-06T20:27:00.001-07:00

Today, the Turks came into Iraq with tanks to chase Kurdish Guerrillas. Had we have implemented Senator Hagel's plan of moving U.S. troops to the border and let Iraq forces deal with civil unrest, this wouldn't have happened. This just shows you that the path we are on currently in Iraq is a wrong one, and we need to switch what we're doing.

Happy Memorial Day

2007-05-29T19:58:00.000-07:00

I know it's a day late - I couldn't get on the computer to put this up yesterday - but I just wanted to thank all of our men and women who are serving in the armed forces, and honor those who have died fighting to protect our freedom.

Senate Passes Water Resources Development Act

2007-05-17T19:59:00.000-07:00

Senate Passes Water Resources Development Act

May 16th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Senate passed today by a vote of 91-4 the Water Resources Development Act. This legislation authorizes the Army Corps of Engineers to construct various projects for improvements to U.S. waterways, including improvement and expansion of existing locks on U.S. rivers, environmental restoration projects, and flood damage reduction projects. U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) supported authorization of several Nebraska projects that were included in the bill.

“This legislation addresses needed improvements in waterway infrastructure that will help Nebraska’s agricultural producers bring their goods to market. Additionally, this bill authorizes important projects in Nebraska addressing flood control, environmental restoration and Endangered Species recovery. The targeted programs address significant needs in Nebraska communities,” Hagel said.

The bill includes the following projects for Nebraska:

• Authorizes $12 million for watershed planning, water resources assessments, and environmental restoration and flood damage reduction projects in the Lower Platte River basin;

• Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on how best to mitigate losses to habitat, recover Endangered Species, and restore the ecosystem in the Missouri River; and

• Authorizes the Secretary of Interior to perform Endangered Species recovery and habitat-loss mitigation activities in the upper basin of the Missouri River.

The Water Resources Development Act will now go to a House-Senate conference.

What is the purpose of a draft movement?

2007-05-17T19:58:00.000-07:00

What is the purpose of a draft movement?

To create a buzz, a groundswell of support, to influence a decision.We do not care which party the candidate desires to represent, onlythat he/she is the right person for the job. This is what we need todo. We cannot wait for a decision, and then jump into action. Weneed to be in action to influence a decision.

At this point in time, Senator Hagel is focused on his job as a USSenator, as he should be. While he thinks about a decision to run, itis the job of Draft Hagel 08 movement supporters to show him that theenergy is out there to ensure that a decision to enter thePresidential race has the potential to be successful.

Looking at the direction and future of our country, it is hard toimagine that doing so could ever be considered a waste. Start a localgroup in your area. Have some type of political experience, or wantto gain some? Contact us to be a regional or state coordinator.Whatever your commitment to the movement can be, make it vocal andlet's go! At no other point in this country's history has it matteredmore!

The Draft Hagel 08 Team
www.drafthagel08.com
info@drafthagel08.com

Hagel Calls for Resignation of Attorney General Gonzales

2007-05-17T19:56:00.000-07:00

Hagel Calls for Resignation of Attorney General Gonzales

May 16th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today released the following statement calling for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday that, as White House Counsel, Gonzales attempted to undermine Comey’s authority as the acting Attorney General and persuade Attorney General John Ashcroft to re-authorize a domestic surveillance program from his hospital bed.

“The American people deserve an Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of our country, whose honesty and capability are beyond question. Attorney General Gonzales can no longer meet this standard. He has failed this country. He has lost the moral authority to lead. Comey’s testimony yesterday brings to light the latest episode in a series of questionable actions by Attorney General Gonzales. It is another part of a pattern of flawed decision making by the Attorney General.

“America is a nation of laws. In the interest of the American people, Alberto Gonzales should resign now,” said Hagel.

Mission: Memorial Day update

2007-05-09T09:09:00.001-07:00

Here's an e-mail from Jeremy:

Now that "Mission: Memorial Day" is under way, think of it like this:sign-up 1 person a day, or possibly spend a few hrs over a weekend at a large public space, and we will meet our goal of every supportersigning up 25 new individuals who would like to see Chuck Hagel in the2008 Presidential race by May 28th!

How would you do this?
Like this...."Would you like to see Chuck Hagel run for President? Let him know!" "Well, I don't really know who he is." "Here you go, take a look!"Then hand out a flier. It's that simple! Aim to hand out 50-100 fliers a week.Black and white instead of color? Don't worry about it!

Now, I know that some are saying, "That sounds like a great idea! I'msure others will do it, so I won't have to try and get 25.". If you're happy with the way things are now, then that's fine. If you would like to right the direction America is headed and restore its greatness, then let's go!Running for President is a momentous decision, and we want to show Senator Hagelhow many people out there believe that he should!

Thanks, and let's get moving!
The Draft Hagel 08 Team
www.drafthagel08.com
info@drafthagel08.com

Hagel Introduces Veterans and Survivors Employment and Training Act

2007-05-06T20:12:00.000-07:00

Hagel Introduces Veterans and Survivors Employment and Training Act

May 3rd, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Jack Reed (D-RI) today introduced the “Veterans and Survivors Employment and Training Act of 2007.” This legislation would make school more affordable to veterans, survivors, and dependents pursuing an education in high tech fields. The bill would expand the education programs that are eligible for accelerated payments under the Montgomery GI Bill, and provide the benefit to recipients of the Survivors’ and Dependents Educational Assistance Program (SDEAP).

“America’s service men and women make tremendous sacrifices in service to our country. As policymakers, we have an obligation to ensure they have the resources they need to pursue their education. This legislation will make it easier for veterans, and the families of veterans killed or permanently disabled in service to our country, to afford higher education and expand the much needed high tech workforce in our country,” Hagel said.

Under current law, individuals eligible for the Montgomery GI Bill qualify for accelerated payments of their education benefit if they are pursuing two or four year programs in life or physical sciences, engineering, mathematics, science technology, computer specialties and management. The accelerated payment option is currently not available to individuals eligible under SDEAP.

This bill would provide 60% of the benefit for each semester in a single lump sum at the beginning of that eligible semester for veterans, survivors, and dependents pursuing an education in approved fields. Further, this bill would:

· Expand the programs eligible for accelerated payments; and,

· Extend the same eligibility for the accelerated payments to recipients of SDEAP as recipients of the GI bill.

Hagel On Iraq

2007-05-02T19:15:00.000-07:00

Novak does a great job here - showing what I tell people all the time. Hagel doesn't want to recklessly withdraw from Iraq like the Democrats - he wants a controlled draw - something that won't kill what we've already done there.

Hagel on Iraq
Republican Senator Votes to Withdraw from Iraq

By Robert Novak

Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., returned from his fifth visit to Iraq to join Senate Democrats last Thursday as one of two Republicans voting to begin withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. It was not an easy vote for a conservative party regular and faithful supporter of President Bush’s non-Iraq policies. A few days earlier, Hagel sat down with me to paint a bleak picture of the war and U.S. policy.

Over a dozen years, I have had many such conversations with Hagel not for quotation. This time, I asked him to go on the record about his assessment of what the “surge” has accomplished. In language more blunt than his prepared speeches and articles, he described Iraq as “coming undone,” with its regime “weaker by the day.” He deplored the Bush administration’s failure to craft a coherent Middle East policy, blaming the influence of Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams.

Hagel faces a political paradox as he ponders a career decision — to run for president, seek re-election next year or get out of elective politics. His harsh assessment resonates with many Republicans who believe Bush’s war policy has led the party to disaster. Yet, this message faces rejection by GOP primary voters, and he is under attack from the right at home in Nebraska (with 38-year-old state Attorney General Jon Bruning threatening to run against him).

After his latest visit to Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi and Anbar Province, Hagel told me: “This thing is really coming undone quickly, and [Prime Minister Nouri al-] Maliki’s government is weaker by the day. The police are corrupt, top to bottom. The oil problem is a huge problem. They still can’t get anything through the parliament — no hydrocarbon law, no de-Baathification law, no provincial elections [needed to bring Sunnis into the governing process].”

The regional problem, as described by Hagel, is a U.S. policy breakdown with a failure to engage Iran and Syria. “I do know that there are a number of Israelis who would like to engage Syria,” said Hagel. “They have said that Elliott Abrams keeps pushing them back.” He quoted foreign ministers, ambassadors and former U.S. officials as saying they believe Abrams “is making policy in the Middle East.”

Hagel certainly is no peace-now zealot. “We’re not going to precipitously pull out,” he told me. “We have [national] interests in Iraq.” While he asserted “we can’t get out by the end of the year,” he called for “pulling some of our guys out — not all of them, but you’ve got to get them out of [Baghdad] at least, get them out of the middle of civil war.” If not, Hagel said, “then the prospects of the Republican Party are very dim next year.”

What about claims by proponents of the Iraqi intervention that failure to stop the terrorists in Iraq will open the door to them in the American homeland?

“That’s nonsense,” Hagel replied. “I’ve never believed that. That’s the same kind of rhetoric and thinking that neo-cons used to get us into this mess, and everything that [Donald] Rumsfeld, [Paul] Wolfowitz, [Richard] Perle, [Douglas] Feith and the vice president all said. Nothing turned out the way they said it would.”

It is “nonsense,” Hagel said, because “Iraq is not embroiled in a terrorist war today.” A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he cited “national intelligence” attributing “maybe 10 percent of the insurgency and violence” to al Qaeda. Indeed, he described Shias, Sunnis and Kurds as opposed to al Qaeda: “They don’t like the terrorists. What’s happened in Anbar Province is the tribes are finally starting to connect with us because al Qaeda started killing some of their leadership and threatening their people. So the tribes now are at war with al Qaeda.”

“So,” said Hagel, “when I hear people say, ‘Well, if we leave them to that, it will be chaos.’ What do you think is going on now? Scaring the American people into this blind alley is so dangerous.”

These judgments come from someone credited with rebuilding Nebraska’s Republican Party who has a lifetime American Conservative Union record of 85.2 percent. Hagel represents millions of Republicans who are repelled by the Democratic personal assault on President Bush but deeply unhappy about his course in Iraq.

Leaders needed at campuses

2007-05-01T20:30:00.000-07:00

I know that Charlie announced this before, but if anybody is interested at leading grassroots movements at his/her local campus - let us know so we can get you some help. You can either e-mail me or Charlie. Don't be afraid to step up and get involved - it's the stuff that we do now that's gonna win us the election!

Hagel Applauds President Bush’s Nomination of Joe Stecher for U.S. Attorney

2007-05-01T20:29:00.000-07:00

Hagel Applauds President Bush’s Nomination of Joe Stecher for U.S. Attorney

April 30th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released this statement today following notification from the Department of Justice that President Bush will nominate Mr. Joe Stecher for the position of U.S. Attorney for the District of Nebraska. Mr. Stecher currently serves as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nebraska. In December, Senator Hagel – in consultation with Nebraska’s Congressional Delegation – recommended to President Bush that Mr. Stecher be nominated for the position:

“This is important news for the federal justice system in Nebraska. Joe Stecher brings enormous commitment and integrity to the U.S. Attorney’s office. He has done an exceptional job over the last few months as acting U.S. Attorney and enjoys widespread support in Nebraska for his nomination to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Nebraska. I will work with my colleagues to ensure that Joe Stecher is confirmed by the Senate as soon as possible.”

Mr. Stecher’s nomination will now be considered in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Hagel Statement on Vote in Favor of War Supplemental Spending Bill

2007-04-26T20:01:00.000-07:00

Hagel Statement on Vote in Favor of War Supplemental Spending Bill

April 26th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding his vote in favor of the Iraq War Supplemental spending bill:

“I do not believe the current policy we have in Iraq is worthy of the sacrifices our troops are making and I will not continue to support it. Given a choice between the two options of voting for this bill or supporting the current course we are on in Iraq, I chose to vote for this bill. We need a change of policy.

“The President will veto this legislation and we will find ourselves at a crossroads. The Administration and Congress must find a responsible common ground on a new Iraq policy that funds our troops, strips the unnecessary spending out of this bill, addresses our national interests in Iraq and the Middle East, and presses the Iraqi government to find a political accommodation and make the tough choices they need to make in order to govern and defend their country. This is a time for responsible government and far-sighted leadership. We cannot and will not continue to be an occupying presence in Iraq,” Hagel said.

Hagel Introduces Legislation to Deal with Illegal Immigrants Living in the U.S.

2007-04-26T19:45:00.000-07:00

Hagel Introduces Legislation to Deal with Illegal Immigrants Living in the U.S.

April 26th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today introduced “The Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007.” The legislation would create a merit-based point system to deal with those living in the country illegally. Those who receive enough points would be put on a pathway to earn citizenship after 13 years. Under Hagel’s bill, no person here illegally would be able to jump in line ahead of someone who has applied for citizenship legally.

Hagel’s legislation is a compromise intended to be incorporated into the comprehensive immigration reform legislation the Senate will consider in May. The legislation builds on previous immigration reform legislation introduced by Hagel in the last two Congresses.

“It is not in our interest to have 12 million people living here illegally. We must create a system in which those who are contributing to our country, speaking English, and helping build a better America are given a pathway toward earned citizenship, while those who are not contributing to our country can be identified and deported. This legislation creates that kind of responsible system. This is an issue of national security as well as an economic issue. We cannot afford to continue to ignore it,” Hagel said.

To be eligible for the point system under Hagel’s legislation, an illegal immigrant must have been in the country since before January 7, 2004; pass a criminal or national security background check; pay back state and federal income taxes; demonstrate a proficiency in English and U.S. history; register for selective service; and pay a $2000 fine and additional fees. The system is modeled after those used by Canada and Australia.

Attached is a summary of the Immigrant Accountability Act of 2007

This legislation builds on the Hagel/Daschle legislation introduced in January 2004, the Hagel Immigrant Accountability Act of 2005, and the Hagel/Martinez compromise that made passage of the Senate Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act possible in 2006. This legislation embraces the concept from the Hagel/Martinez compromise allowing long-term, employed illegal aliens to stay in the United States if they prove that they are invested and contributing to the United States. Illegal aliens who arrived after January 7, 2004 would have to leave the U.S. or be deported.

Under the Hagel Immigrant Accountability Act, illegal aliens applying for earned adjustment would have to pass criminal and national security background checks; pay back state and federal income taxes; demonstrate English proficiency and knowledge of U.S. history and government; register for the military selective service; and pay a $2,000 fine and additional fees. They would have to wait in the back of the line behind those who have already applied before earning a greencard.

New provisions under the Hagel legislation require illegal aliens to demonstrate they are contributing to the United States to be eligible to earn an eventual path (after 13 years) to American Citizenship. To qualify for a greencard, an individual here illegally must earn points in categories that show specific characteristics that demonstrate investment, contribution and assimilation into the United States. The individual would be required to receive 65% of the available points to qualify for a greencard. (Point table attached.) After the initial application, if at anytime DHS determines that the alien cannot qualify for the program, the alien would have to leave the U.S. or would be deported.

The bill establishes the following point categories:

• Military Service (after meeting initial qualifications for adjustment)

• Advanced English proficiency

• Civic Engagement – significant community service work (religious or secular), a clean criminal record, and on time payment of income taxes for past work

• Business ownership (which employs at least 2 unrelated “legal” workers)

• Home ownership

• Work History (points for each year of work an alien can prove) (Like Hagel/Martinez)

• Education (additional points for all levels of education)

• U.S. Presence (points for length of time in the U.S.) (Like Hagel/Martinez)

· U.S. Citizen/Permanent Resident Spouse or minor child

Basic Points

FACTOR
POSSIBLE POINTS

Work

The range of points is based on the number of years a person has worked in the U.S. (Up to 5 points per year possible.)
15-30

Education

An alien may earn minimal points for primary school, additional points for high school or obtaining a GED, or skilled trade license.
15-30

Family

A person may earn points for having a U.S. citizen child; additional points may be awarded for a U.S. citizen/legal resident spouse.
10-20

English

The range of points is based on level of proficiency - the more fluent, the more points.
5-15

Civic Engagement

Points may be earned for community service, having no criminal or civil infractions, and on time payment of taxes.
5-20

U.S. Presence

The range of points is based on the number of years a person has lived in the U.S.

(Up to 5 points per year possible.)
10-12

Total Possible Points

Specific point values will be determined by regulation.
60-127

An alien must earn 65% of available Basic Points to eventually qualify for a green card and citizenship.

Extra Credit Points

Extra points may be awarded to those immigrants who have made exceptional contributions.

FACTOR
POINTS

U.S. Military Service

Points for being eligible for honorable discharge.
Up to 20

Business Ownership

Points awarded if business is sustained for 18 months and alien employs at least 2 non-relative employees.
Up to 10

Advanced Education

Points for college degree or advanced degree.
Up to 15

Home Ownership
Up to 5

Other Circumstances: There will be factors that we are unable to anticipate at this time. These factors, and the points to assign to them, are at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security
Up to 20

Hagel, Tanner, Webb and Castle Reintroduce Bicameral and Bipartisan Legislation to Create Comprehensive Entitlement Reform Commission

2007-04-26T19:42:00.000-07:00

Hagel, Tanner, Webb and Castle Reintroduce Bicameral and Bipartisan Legislation to Create Comprehensive Entitlement Reform Commission

April 24th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Jim Webb (D-VA), and Representatives John Tanner (D-TN) and Mike Castle (R-DE) reintroduced legislation in the Senate and House today to create a Comprehensive Entitlement Reform Commission. The commission would review Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and make recommendations to Congress that would sustain the solvency and stability of these three programs for future generations. Hagel and Tanner both introduced the legislation in the last Congress.

“Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have played a vital role for millions of Americans to cope with the financial burdens of retirement and health care costs. However, over the next 75 years these three programs represent a $47 trillion unfunded commitment and are on a trajectory that cannot be sustained. The Commission will review America’s three major entitlement programs and make comprehensive recommendations to sustain the solvency and stability of these programs for future generations. Confronting the financial challenges that exist with these entitlement programs now means facing less dramatic and difficult choices down the road,” Hagel said.

“Millions of Americans depend on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid everyday, but the programs are not financially sustainable over time if we do not take a comprehensive look at potential reforms. We have a responsibility to strengthen these programs for the Baby Boomers who are retiring now and also for future generations who deserve the assistance they have helped support for those before them,” Tanner said.

“For decades, hard-working Americans have counted on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as a safety net to protect their basic needs,” Webb said. “The intentions of these programs are unquestionable. They foster a level of fairness and government responsibility that Americans deserve. But with nearly 80 million baby boomers retiring in the next few years and the costs of medical care continually rising, we need to take the responsible steps to ensure the solvency of these programs in the years ahead.

“For too long, Congressional debate on these programs has been mired in partisan politics. As the latest trustees’ report makes all too clear, we need leadership to ensure the long-term financial health of these programs. That’s why it is time for a neutral commission to recommend solutions to Congress within one year of the bill’s passage,” continued Webb.

“With the Trustees Report yesterday reconfirming for all of us, the urgent need to address the solvency of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security sooner rather than later, this Commission can play a vital role in making specific recommendations on how to do so. With these three entitlement programs comprising such a large chunk of our federal budget every year, there is no question that in order to be fiscally responsible we can no longer wait to make changes. Facing the tough choices now, will ensure a healthier economy in the long run,” Castle said.

The bipartisan Commission would be comprised of eight members appointed by bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate. Its work would fall under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires Government Accountability Office oversight and full public access. The Commission would be required to submit a final report to the President and Congress one year after the appointment of all Commission members and staff, and Congress would be required to hold committee hearings to review the Commission’s recommendations.

Attached below is a fact sheet detailing the proposed Commission.

Comprehensive Entitlement Reform Commission Act of 2007
Purpose:

• The Entitlement Reform Commission will review Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and make comprehensive recommendations to sustain the solvency and stability of these three programs for future generations.

Facts:

• Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid face a $47 trillion unfunded commitment over the next 75 years. (Source: Government Accountability Office; Social Security Administration; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; Congressional Research Service)

• The Social Security Trust Fund will pay out more money than it takes in beginning in 2017 and will be exhausted in 2041. Social Security faces a $4.7 trillion unfunded commitment over the next 75 years. (Source: Social Security Administration)

• The Medicare Part A Trust Fund (hospital insurance) will be exhausted in 2019 and faces an $11.6 trillion unfunded commitment over the next 75 years. (Source: Government Accountability Office; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)

• The Medicare Part B (supplementary medical insurance) faces a $13.9 trillion unfunded commitment over the next 75 years. (Source: Government Accountability Office; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)

• The Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) faces an $8.4 trillion unfunded commitment over the next 75 years. (Source: Government Accountability Office; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services)

• Medicaid faces an $8.4 trillion unfunded commitment over the next 75 years. (Source: Congressional Research Service report – August 2005)

• Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid represent America’s three major entitlement programs. Together, these programs make up 78% of total mandatory spending. (Source: Office of Management and Budget)

• Spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is projected to increase from 8.7% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006 to 16% of GDP in 2080. (Source: Congressional Research Service report – February 2007)

• In March 2005, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress to act on modernizing entitlement programs, “sooner rather than later.” He warned that unless we act now to meet the huge unfunded commitments of our entitlement programs, there will be significant economic consequences for our nation.

• We need to comprehensively reform these programs so they are sustainable for future generations.

Commission Overview:

• The Commission will be comprised of 8 total members. The House Speaker, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority Leader will each appoint two members.

• The Commission shall select two Co-Chairmen from among its members.

• All appointments must be made 30 days after enactment of the Act.

• Following the appointment of all Commission members, the Commission will have an initial organization period of two months to establish an outline for work. The Commission work will fall under the Federal Advisory Committee Act requiring Government Accountability Office oversight and full public access.

• The Commission shall appoint an Executive Director. The Executive Director will hire additional staff with approval of the Commission Co-Chairmen.

• The Commission is required to submit the final report to the President and Congress one year after the selection of the two Co-Chairmen of the Commission and the Executive Director.

• Congress is required to hold Committee hearings to review the Commission’s recommendations.

• The legislation authorizes $1.5 million to carry out the necessary tasks of the Commission, such as salary for the Executive Director and staff and travel expenses for the members. Members will not be compensated with salary.

Memorial Day Mission

2007-04-25T19:08:00.001-07:00

Here's an e-mail from Jeremy:

We have a mission to accomplish by Memorial Day if we want to see Chuck Hagel's views presented to the American people in the 2008 Presidential election!

We are asking that, by May 28, you try and find 25 new supporters to sign the online petition! How? Talk to people you know, talk to people they know, let them know that we need their help in making sure that America does not have to suffer through the 2008 election, that signing the online petition shows Senator Hagel that we need his views expressed through the Presidential election! If you and a friend were to stand on a busy corner over a weekend, that's all it would take to accomplish the 25!

If you hear someone say, "It's too early to make that decision," tell them you're not asking them who they will support in 2008, but rather that you would like their help in making sure a true American is one of their choices!

Are you a doctor, nurse, teacher, lawyer, scientist, housewife, househusband,etc? Start a local coalition of like individuals in your area!

Wondering how to go about any of this? Don't be afraid to ask us for help - info@drafthagel08.com !

Let's get to work! We've got a mission to right the direction of our country!

Thanks!

Jeremy Mullen
www.drafthagel08.com
info@drafthagel08.com

In Iraq, All Terribly Familiar

2007-04-22T20:25:00.000-07:00

Senator Hagel wrote an op-ed that is in today's Washington Post. This was in response to his recent trip to Iraq.

In Iraq, All Terribly Familiar
By Chuck HagelSunday, April 22, 2007; Page B01
Last weekend, along with Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), I completed my fifth trip to Iraq, and I am frustrated and worried. We are still risking the lives of our troops without giving them a realistic policy worthy of their sacrifices. To me, as a Vietnam veteran, that feels terribly familiar.
If success were simply a matter of the determination and ability of U.S. troops and civil servants, we would have already created a secure and stable Iraq. But unfortunately, the reality is that after more than four years, America remains the country's occupying power. Iraq's future will be determined by Iraqis, who, I hope, will reach a political accommodation -- but America is still making the major decisions and taking the lead militarily in most critical areas of the country. We can continue to help buy time for the Iraqi government -- but that time is running out.
The signs are everywhere. Key Shiite leaders told me that they remain deeply skeptical of Sunni intentions. They derided as "appeasement" constructive attempts to reintegrate select ex-Baath Party officials into public life and the government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders openly suggested that Iraq simply pursue what's known as "the 80/20 solution" -- meaning that the Kurds and Shiites, who make up some 80 percent of the population, would run the country without regard for the minority Sunnis, who had grown accustomed to dominating Iraq. Almost no one in Baghdad was talking about using new provincial elections this year to help bring the Sunnis into the national government. The governor of Anbar province, al-Qaeda's base in Iraq, agreed that security had improved recently but raised concerns that his province still gets almost no assistance from the central government in Baghdad. That has left citizens in his province without jobs, electricity and potable water, even as open sewers spill filth into the streets.
There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them. In Anbar province, for example, U.S. military leaders highlighted the significant success they have had in lowering the number of attacks by al-Qaeda. The military has successfully engaged tribal leaders who have provided informal governance there for hundreds of years. The U.S. military has also succeeded in helping double the size of the Iraqi forces in the province. Whether this progress can be sustained or is temporary will be up to the Iraqis.
If the good news is mixed, the bad news is downright troubling. Within the past two weeks, hundreds of Iraqis were slaughtered in Baghdad, the Iraqi Parliament's cafeteria was hit by a suicide bomber, and a historic Baghdad bridge over the Tigris River was destroyed. Ominously, these increased acts of violence occurred in the area where the United States and Iraq have deployed 80,000 security forces.
So what do we do?
We must start by understanding what's really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a "self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis" and also includes "extensive Shia-on-Shia violence." This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias -- not al-Qaeda terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaeda branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is. The Bush administration's rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.
American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq's anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.
So how can America influence the Iraqis to reconcile their differences -- at least enough to form some kind of responsible government?
First, we must recognize that we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.
Second, we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before, and that means addressing the nearly universal perception in the Middle East that we are imposing our will on the region for our own purposes.
To get more help from our regional friends, we must also have Middle Eastern countries see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. And to get our regional strategy right, we must clearly recognize the depth of the Sunni-Shiite split and factor it into our Middle East policy and relationships. If we do not, the region could explode into ethnic and religious conflict.
Third, and closer to home, the administration and Congress must untangle themselves from the debate over funding our continued involvement in Iraq. The Iraqis must be jolted into understanding that America's continued commitment of troops and money is not open-ended. Significantly, American leaders in Iraq told me that they believed the debate on this issue in Congress had actually helped them get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point.
I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines. They are blunt instruments in an area of policy that requires flexibility. But they are some of the few levers Congress has when the majority of Congress and the American people have lost confidence in the president's policy.
We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.
The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff -- with U.S. troops caught in the middle. This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities. The longer we are bogged down in Iraq, the more difficult and painful it will be to get out. And the deeper we are bogged down in Iraq, the fewer resources we have to devote to the many other important challenges facing America, especially in Afghanistan but also elsewhere around the globe and here at home.
If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish. The president will be left with a bitter few allies in our party, and we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq in a way that greatly damages U.S. interests in the Middle East and leaves the world far more dangerous than it is today. Forging a bipartisan consensus now that places responsible conditions on U.S. war funding could forestall a time when we have no options. The Baker-Hamilton report could have been the base for that bipartisan consensus.
I came home from my fifth trip to Iraq with one enduring impression. The Iraqi government must make the tough choices now to produce political reconciliation. If there is no such reconciliation in Iraq, there will be no progress -- no matter how many American lives we lose and how much American money we give. We will have squandered our resources and efforts, undermined our interests in the Middle East and, however unintentionally, produced a more dangerous world.
Chuck Hagel, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Nebraska.

Read more at... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR2007042002007.html

Draft Hagel 08

2007-04-22T20:23:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple of e-mails I received from Jeremy - webmaster for our Draft Hagel 08 site and store:

The Draft Hagel 08 store now has T-Shirts available! Be sure to
visitthe site and check them out, and, if you haven't ordered some
bumperstickers or buttons yet, what are you waiting
for!?!http://officialdrafthagel08store.com/

VIDEOSMany of you have asked that we include videos on our site, and now, we do!http://www.drafthagel08.com/video.html Check them out and let us know what you think! Special thanks to Mike Wallach for setting them all up!As always, it's all about numbers. Know 10 people? Have them sign the petition! America deserves the choice!

So...chekc out www.drafthagel08.com today! What are you waiting for?

Hagel-Harkin Reintroduce Bill to Fund Federal Commitment to IDEA

2007-04-19T18:48:00.000-07:00

Hagel-Harkin Reintroduce Bill to Fund Federal Commitment to IDEA

April 19th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) reintroduced legislation today to meet the federal government’s commitment to fund 40 percent of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Hagel and Harkin first introduced this legislation in 2001. Cosponsors of the Hagel-Harkin bill include Senators Coleman (R-MN), Collins (R-ME), Dodd (D-CT), Kennedy (D-MA), Lieberman (I-CT), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Roberts (R-KS), Schumer (D-NY), Snowe (R-ME), and Warner (R-VA).

“When the federal government created IDEA it committed to funding 40 percent of the costs. For over 30 years, it has failed to meet its obligation and pushed the costs down to states and local governments. This is wrong and it takes resources away from education needs in each state. While we have made progress in increasing IDEA funding over the last 10 years, the federal government is still not close to meeting its commitment. This bipartisan legislation takes a responsible approach to fixing this problem and freeing up critical education funds in states like Nebraska,” Hagel said.

IDEA guarantees a free and appropriate public education to students with special needs. When Congress passed IDEA in 1975 it pledged to provide states and local school districts with 40 percent of the funding needed to support this mandate. Sen. Hagel has worked to fully fund IDEA since arriving in the Senate in 1997, and under his leadership federal funding for IDEA has increased by $6.9 billion. In Fiscal Year 1998, federal funding for IDEA was $3.8 billion, or 10.5 percent of the authorized level. In Fiscal Year 2007 federal funding for IDEA was $10.7 billion, or 17.2 percent of the authorized level.

Despite efforts from Hagel and Harkin to fully fund IDEA over the last 10 years, federal funds for IDEA have not exceeded 19 percent of the authorized level. This leaves state governments and local school districts to pick up the tab for this federally mandated program, taking away funds for other local education needs.

The Hagel-Harkin bill would fully-fund IDEA in seven years through mandatory annual phased-in spending increases, until federal funding reaches $30.8 billion in Fiscal Year 2015. The bill would free up local and state funds that had previously been used to meet IDEA requirements for other important education priorities. Therefore, as the federal IDEA share grows, local school districts will have increased flexibility for all their education programs.

The Hagel-Harkin bill is supported by the following groups: American Art Therapy Association; American Association of School Administrators; American Association of University Women; American Counseling Association; American Dance Therapy Association; American Federation of Teachers; American Music Therapy Association; American Occupational Therapy Association; American School Counselor Association; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; Association for Career and Technical Education; Association of University Centers on Disabilities; Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders; Council of Great City Schools; Easter Seals; Higher Education Consortium for Special Education; International Reading Association; Learning Disabilities Association of America; National Alliance of Black School Educators; National Association of Elementary School Principals; National Association of Federally Impacted Schools; National Association of Pupil Services Administrators; National Association of School Psychologists; National Association of Secondary School Principals; National Association of State Directors of Special Education; National Down Syndrome Society; National Education Association; National Parent Teacher Association; National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition; National School Boards Association; People for the American Way; School Social Work Association of America; Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children; The Advocacy Institute.

Official Draft Hagel 08 Store

2007-04-19T18:45:00.000-07:00

Have you checked out the Draft Hagel 08 store?

If not - head over there right now to buy some awesome Hagel merchandise!

Hagel’s Dilemma

2007-04-18T20:06:00.000-07:00

Hagel’s Dilemma
The senator is vague about his political future but clear in his opposition to the Iraq War.
by Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Something happened to Sen. Charles T. “Chuck” Hagel on the way to the press conference. The man of seemingly impenetrable defenses and unshakable disposition took the curious step of announcing on March 12 that he had nothing to announce about his much-anticipated run for president, making himself vulnerable to spurned reporters and snarky bloggers for days afterward.

The 60-year-old Nebraska Republican is known for playing it close to the vest but seemed to surprise even his staff with his non-announcement. Deflated supporters did not know what to think when he told reporters at the University of Nebraska event, planned days before, that he was still mulling his options.

Hagel: Time for Iraqis to Step Up

2007-04-18T20:05:00.000-07:00

Hagel: Time for Iraqis to Step Up

OMAHA, Neb. -- Nebraska U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel is expected back on Monday from a trip to Iraq.

The Republican said that America's support for the war in Iraq has limits.

"We, the U.S., has invested heavily in this country on behalf of the Iraqi people ," Hagel said from Iraq. "And I think it is up to the Iraqi people now to determine their future and money would be forthcoming with some conditions."

Hagel, Sununu, Dole and Martinez Re-Introduce Legislation to Reform Oversight of Government Sponsored Enterprises

2007-04-18T20:04:00.001-07:00

Hagel, Sununu, Dole and Martinez Re-Introduce Legislation to Reform Oversight of Government Sponsored Enterprises

April 12th, 2007 - Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John Sununu (R-NH), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) and Mel Martinez (R-FL) re-introduced legislation today to improve oversight of Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE). Similar legislation was introduced in 2003 and 2005. The Senate Banking Committee passed this legislation in both the 108th and 109th Congresses.

“Fannie and Freddie have experienced multi billion dollar accounting restatements, paid millions in bonuses and salaries to their executives, paid millions of dollars in fines to their regulators, and spent over a billion dollars in consulting fees to clean up their financial mess which is still not cleaned up. We need a world class GSE regulator with the authority and resources to responsibly regulate these unaccountable GSEs. Our legislation re-focuses the GSEs on their Congressionally chartered housing mission. Congress must address this issue now,” Hagel said.

“The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s annual report to Congress makes clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac continue to raise significant oversight concerns. With taxpayers on the line if either of these businesses fail, this news highlights the need for improved regulation of the GSEs. Fannie and Freddie hold nearly $1.5 trillion in debt; an independent regulator is essential to protect taxpayers and align the GSEs with their core mission. This bill would refocus the GSEs’ practices and investments on affordable housing, thereby reducing overall systemic risk,” Sununu said.

“Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be run properly and with adequate transparency and oversight. We will not tolerate an intentionally weak regulator, especially when the stakes are so high for American taxpayers, the housing sector and the economy as a whole,” Dole said.

“The actions of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose a serious threat to our nation’s financial system. It’s clear our action is required,” said Martinez. “Congress must act to protect taxpayers and focus the GSEs back on their affordable housing mission. The reforms we propose take bold steps toward strengthening the regulation and supervision of the GSEs.”

The legislation would:

• Create an independent world class regulator to oversee the safety and soundness of the housing enterprises;

• Focus Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s $1.4 trillion portfolios back on their housing mission: to promote affordable housing;

• Give the new regulator the authority to close down a failing GSE and protect against a taxpayer bailout;

• Give the new regulator greater discretion in raising capital standards to protect against insolvency;

• Give the new regulator approval power over new programs and activities proposed by a GSE to hold GSEs to their Congressionally chartered mission;

• Gives the regulator greater authority to limit lucrative severance packages or “golden parachutes” of executives who are removed for cause;

• Require the annual audits of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s affordable housing programs to ensure that these programs support and strengthen the enterprises’ affordable housing mission;
• Strengthens Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s affordable housing goals;

• Require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to improve their financial disclosure;

• Not raise the conforming loan limits; and

• End presidential appointments to the board of directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and require all Federal Home Loan Bank directors to be elected by Federal Home Loan Bank members.

Hagel, Clinton Introduce Resolution Marking 75th Anniversary of the Military Order of the Purple Heart

2007-04-17T19:57:00.000-07:00

HAGEL, CLINTON INTRODUCE RESOLUTION MARKING 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART
Senators also reintroduce legislation to support National Purple Heart Recognition Day

April 12th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, DC - Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) today are introducing a resolution to recognize the 75th Anniversary of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and to commend all recipients of the Purple Heart for their demonstration of heroism on behalf of the United States. Also today, the Senators reintroduced legislation to support “National Purple Heart Recognition Day,” which honors all of those brave service members who were severely injured while serving their country and who were awarded a Purple Heart.

“The men and women of our armed forces who have received the Purple Heart have gone above and beyond the call of duty in order to help preserve America’s freedom. The sacrifices made by these men and women have helped create and strengthen the nation we live in today. ‘National Purple Heart Recognition Day’ is an appropriate way to honor their enormous sacrifices,” Senator Hagel said.

‘National Purple Heart Recognition Day’ reminds all Americans of the tremendous sacrifices our brave men and women in uniform have made in the defense of our nation and also reminds us of the valor and service of all our veterans. I am proud to once again support this honor and to recognize the efforts of the Military Order of the Purple Heart and all that it has done to sustain and encourage support for Purple Heart recipients,” said Senator Clinton.

The Purple Heart was established on August 7, 1782 in Newburgh, NY, during the Revolutionary War, when General George Washington issued an order establishing the Honorary Badge of Distinction, otherwise known as the Badge of Military Merit, or the Decoration of the Purple Heart. The legislation supporting a “National Purple Heart Recognition Day” requests that the President issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to conduct appropriate ceremonies, activities and programs to demonstrate support for people who have been awarded the Purple Heart medal.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH) was founded in 1932 to protect and promote the mutual interests of Purple Heart recipients. MOPH is made up exclusively of Purple Heart recipients and is the only veterans’ service organization that is comprised strictly of combat veterans. The resolution both honors the courageous veterans who have been awarded the Purple Heart and encourages the American people to learn more about the Purple Heart and the duty, honor and courage that it symbolizes.

The Order of the Purple Heart for Military Merit, commonly known as the Purple Heart, is the oldest military decoration in the world in present use. The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to members of the Armed Forces who are wounded in conflict with an enemy force, or while held by an enemy force as a prisoner of war, and posthumously to the next of kin of members of the Armed Forces who are killed in conflict with an enemy force, or who die of a wound received in conflict with an enemy force. There are over 1,535,000 recipients of the Purple Heart Medal approximately 550,000 of whom are still living.

Hagel, Sestak to Travel to Iraq

2007-04-17T19:55:00.000-07:00

Hagel, Sestak to Travel to Iraq

April 12th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) will travel to Iraq this week to examine security, political and economic conditions during a 2-day tour of the country. Senator Hagel and Congressman Sestak will leave on Thursday, April 12th and return on Monday, April 16th. Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran, serves on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Sestak, a retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral, serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

“This trip will allow us an opportunity to assess our progress in Iraq and the Middle East and meet with the key leaders of this region. I also look forward to meeting with Nebraska troops serving in Iraq,” Hagel said.

“I appreciate the opportunity to talk with our commanders and the troops that are forward in a continuing assessment of our involvement in Iraq," stated Congressman Joe Sestak. “I am confident that I will be able to use this experience in my work on the House Armed Services Committee and in Congress.”

Hagel and Sestak are scheduled to meet with top U.S. and Iraqi military, government, and diplomatic officials. Hagel will also meet with Nebraska troops serving in the country.

Hagel last traveled to Iraq and the Middle East in December 2005. This will be his fifth visit to Iraq.

Hagel Statement on Secretary Gates’ Announcement Extending Army Deployments from 12 to 15 Months

2007-04-17T19:54:00.000-07:00

Hagel Statement on Secretary Gates’ Announcement Extending Army Deployments from 12 to 15 Months

April 11th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ announcement that U.S. Army deployments will be extended from 12 to 15 months:

“Secretary Gates is right to bring greater predictability and clarity regarding the deployment of our military overseas rather than allowing creeping deployment extensions. However, the Secretary’s announcement extending the deployments of active duty Army units is a stark admission that the Administration’s policies in Iraq are doing permanent damage to our military and a clear acknowledgment that the U.S. military is being forced to ignore its own deployment standards. Maintaining this tempo of operations will have drastic and lasting consequences for our nation’s military readiness and unnecessarily endangers our ability to react to any other crisis in the world. We are on a very dangerous course. That is why Senator Webb and I have called for legislatively-mandated readiness and deployment standards to protect our U.S. military.”

Where We Stand On Iraq

2007-04-13T15:27:00.000-07:00

Where We Stand On Iraq
Senators Chuck Hagel and Ben Nelson

March 29th, 2007 - This week the Senate is engaged in an important and historic debate about America’s policy in Iraq. Today, we will vote to pass a responsible Iraq War Supplemental spending bill that provides our troops with the support they need and presents a clearly defined U.S. policy in Iraq.

Our troops deserve the continued support of the American people and the support from Congress necessary to see they have the right equipment, training and other resources to carry out their mission. We both appreciate and honor the sacrifices made by more than 40 Nebraskans and 3200 American men and women in Iraq.

We believe the status quo in Iraq is unacceptable and this bill, while not perfect, represents a desperately needed adjustment in our policy. Our most important criteria for supporting this legislation is creating an Iraq war policy that is worthy of the sacrifice of the men and women in the U.S. military.

There has been an enormous amount of disinformation, some of it intentional, on all sides about what the bill we will vote on today does. It is important that Nebraskans understand the facts about what the common sense legislation passed by the Senate does and does not do.

First, the legislation does not:

• cut funding for our troops in the field; or
• require a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq or set mandatory withdrawal timelines.

The legislation does the following:

• requires the President to limit the U.S. military mission to protecting U.S. and coalition personnel and infrastructure, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations;
• requires, within 120 days of enactment, the beginning of the redeployment of U.S. forces not involved in the military mission;
• establishes the goal that, by March 31, 2008, the redeployment of all U.S. forces not involved in the military mission would be complete;
• sets seven political, economic and military benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet “expeditiously and pursuant to a schedule established by the Government of Iraq”;
• requires a report from the President to Congress on the U.S. military’s plan for Iraq, “including strategic and operational benchmarks and projected redeployment dates of U.S. forces from Iraq”; and
• requires a report from the U.S. military commander in Iraq to Congress on Iraqi progress on meeting the seven benchmarks.

Previously, we had both voted against similar legislation because we felt, while an adjustment in our Iraq policy was needed, there were better ways to adjust our policy. We are voting for this legislation today because, given the choices we have between this legislation and the status quo, we believe this legislation is the most responsible course for the U.S. military and our nation’s security.

In addition, during negotiations over this legislation at the Senate Appropriations Committee last week, Senator Nelson was successful in securing an agreement to include provisions that establish measurable benchmarks for the Iraqis to meet and a requirement that the U.S. Commander in Iraq present regular reports to Congress on the Iraqis progress on those benchmarks. Establishing benchmarks is an approach endorsed by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

Our military is under enormous strain from multiple, extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In February, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, reported to Congress that there is now a “significant” risk that the United States military will not be able to respond to an emerging crisis. Both of us spend an enormous amount of our time as senators on issues related to concerns that have arisen from the damage that is being done to our military. This legislation begins to ease the crushing burden we are placing on our military.

The President has said he will veto this bill. That would be unfortunate. Our troops deserve a policy that is worthy of their sacrifice and the American people deserve a policy they can support. We believe it is possible to create an Iraq war policy that can gain bi-partisan support and this legislation is a responsible starting point.

Ultimately, the future of Iraq will be determined by Iraqis—not Americans. As General Petraeus has said, there will be no military solution in Iraq. That reality must guide our thinking. The status quo is unacceptable. Today, we are voting for change.

Hagel-Webb Introduce Amendment to Protect Readiness of U.S. Troops and Limit Deployments

2007-04-13T15:25:00.000-07:00

Hagel-Webb Introduce Amendment to Protect Readiness of U.S. Troops and Limit Deployments

March 27th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Jim Webb (D-VA) introduced a bipartisan amendment today to the Iraq War supplemental spending bill. The amendment:

• ensures that units and individuals in the Armed Forces be certified as “fully mission capable” 15 days prior to deployment;

• limits the length of overseas deployments of the Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard;

• establishes a minimum time between deployments for the Army, Marine Corps and National Guard;

• provides additional appropriations totaling approximately $3.1 billion to reset Army National Guard and Reserve equipment and to address funding shortfalls for Army National Guard training, operations and maintenance; and to fund the acquisition of additional Mine Resistant Ambush Protection vehicles for the Marine Corps;

• and requires the President to report to Congress on the comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic strategy of the U.S. regarding Iraq.

“This amendment puts the focus where it should be: on the men and women of our military. No American wants to allow a single soldier or Marine to be deployed without meeting the military’s standard of readiness. Yet that is what we are doing. We are breaking our military and this amendment will help put a stop to it. This amendment is about taking care of our troops,” Hagel said.

“I have long advocated that the U.S. strategy in Iraq should embrace concerted regional and international diplomacy,” said Senator Webb. “This bipartisan amendment will advance efforts to achieve that goal. Moreover, we will take critical and necessary steps to strengthen congressional oversight regarding military readiness and the administration’s policies for deploying and redeploying personnel and units to Iraq. The amendment’s increased appropriations for military readiness and force-protection vehicles reflect a determination to assist our ground forces reverse their worrisome decline in readiness–especially the National Guard in both its domestic and federal missions.”

Hagel to make fifth trip to Iraq

2007-04-12T10:05:00.000-07:00

Senator Hagel will be traveling to Iraq for the fifth time. The full details are in this press release that his Senate office issued today.

Hagel, Sestak to Travel to Iraq

April 12th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Congressman Joe Sestak (D-PA) will travel to Iraq this week to examine security, political and economic conditions during a 2-day tour of the country. Senator Hagel and Congressman Sestak will leave on Thursday, April 12th and return on Monday, April 16th. Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran, serves on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees. Sestak, a retired U.S. Navy Vice Admiral, serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

“This trip will allow us an opportunity to assess our progress in Iraq and the Middle East and meet with the key leaders of this region. I also look forward to meeting with Nebraska troops serving in Iraq,” Hagel said.

“I appreciate the opportunity to talk with our commanders and the troops that are forward in a continuing assessment of our involvement in Iraq," stated Congressman Joe Sestak. “I am confident that I will be able to use this experience in my work on the House Armed Services Committee and in Congress.”

Hagel and Sestak are scheduled to meet with top U.S. and Iraqi military, government, and diplomatic officials. Hagel will also meet with Nebraska troops serving in the country.

Hagel last traveled to Iraq and the Middle East in December 2005. This will be his fifth visit to Iraq.

Campus Coordinators

2007-03-31T09:08:00.000-07:00

We are taking the Draft Hagel movement to colleges and universities around the nation.

We are recruiting Campus Coordinators to take the lead in organizing the grassroots movement on campuses across the country. If you are a college student interested in helping with the Draft Hagel movement on your campus, please let us know (email me or post a comment).

Today we are happy to announce the first of the new Campus Coordinators.

Steven Place at Catholic University (Washington D.C.)

John McNamara at Hillsdale College (Michigan)

Is Hagel a "Conservative Turned Liberal?"

2007-03-24T21:45:00.000-07:00

Here's a comment I got via e-mail on my Michigan for Hagel blog from Mike earlier today:

I'm sure in the beginning Mr. Hagel was a nice man.
But come on, a candidate for REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
I see in many polls that Hagel hasn't even reached 1%, now boy that is funny. Sorry, but conservative, turned liberal won't make it with the middle class informed Americans.

OK - so in response to this I'd like to direct you to some statistics that Senator Hagel points out on his website:

Conservative Voting Records . . .

Senator Hagel has one of the most solid conservative voting records in the U.S. Senate. The following are his lifetime ratings from some important organizations:

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) 94% (1997 - 2006)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce 96% (1997 - 2005)
American Conservative Union (ACU) 85.2% (1997 - 2006)
National Taxpayers Union 75% (1997 - 2005)
National Right to Life Committee 96.4% (2000 - 2006)
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) 100% (1999-2006)
Club for Growth 99% (2005)

Hagel's Support of President Bush's Priorities in the Senate

2006 95.5% (highest of GOP Members in Senate)
2005 89%
2004 94%
2003 98%
2002 98%
2001 96%

Source: Congressional Quarterly, January 2007

Hagel Statement on Vote Against the Budget

2007-03-24T21:44:00.000-07:00

Hagel Statement on Vote Against the Budget

March 23rd, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding his vote against the budget passed by the Senate:

“This is an irresponsible budget. It increases taxes by more than $700 billion on families and businesses over the next five years and increases the debt by $2.4 trillion over the next five years. The federal government’s problem is not that it has too little money, but that it spends too much money. This budget would put America in a deeper financial hole.”

Hagel to be on This Week (ABC)

2007-03-23T16:24:00.000-07:00

Just to let everybody know, Senator Hagel will be on This Week (on ABC) this Sunday.

Hagel Reintroduces Bill to Aid Military Families

2007-03-23T16:22:00.000-07:00

Hagel Reintroduces Bill to Aid Military Families

March 20th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) joined Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) today in reintroducing the “Military Retiree Survivor Benefit Equity Act.” This legislation would allow qualifying surviving spouses of military service members to receive survivor annuities—without being offset—from both the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and the Department of Defense.

“America owes a great debt of gratitude to our professional service members. It is important to remember that years of devoted service also affects not only service members, but their families. This legislation will ensure that surviving military spouses are guaranteed access to the benefits that were earned and purchased by the service of their loved one,” Hagel said.

Currently, when a retired service member passes away from a service-related disability, the surviving spouse may be eligible to receive 1) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) paid by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and 2) Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) which is paid by the Department of Defense. Under current law, DIC payments to surviving spouses are deducted from their SBP payments. Therefore, most surviving spouses of disabled military retirees find that their DIC payments cancel out their SBP benefits. This legislation would allow surviving spouses who qualify for both to receive full DIC and SBP payments. Hagel and Bill Nelson introduced similar legislation in the 109th Congress.

Q & A Time

2007-03-22T12:31:00.001-07:00

OK - well there seems to be a lull in postable material, so I am opening this up to a Q & A "time." Ask me what you want to know about Hagel and I will do my best to help answer it.

Hagel Praises Plan to Establish an Immigration Court in Omaha

2007-03-22T12:30:00.000-07:00

Hagel Praises Plan to Establish an Immigration Court in Omaha

March 16th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) plan to establish an Immigration Court in Omaha, Nebraska:

“This is important news for Nebraska. The establishment of this court will provide better access to due process for those who have come to the U.S. legally and improve efficiency in the enforcement of our immigration laws,” Hagel said.

Senator Hagel has strongly supported this effort and worked with the Department of Justice to help establish an immigration court in Omaha.

Editorial: Hagel Will Sell Well In the Heartland

2007-03-21T15:04:00.001-07:00

Editorial: Hagel Will Sell Well In the Heartland

In every presidential primary, Republican or Democrat, each party's dominant wing (right for Republicans, left for Democrats) are courted heavily.

Take the Republicans. Even if the vast majority of Republican voters are not strongly conservative in the Republican primaries, those conservatives are highly prized because they always vote and are passionate enough to get others to vote.

So every Republican who wants to have a chance of victory is talking conservatives' language on social issues and foreign policy in anticipation of next year's primary contests. Even former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani is trying to convince wary conservatives that his liberal advocacy on issues ranging from abortion to gun control to gay rights is behind him now.

What a relief for supporters of U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) that their man doesn't have to try so hard to convince conservatives that he is one of them. On abortion issues, Hagel has a sterling pro-life record in the U.S. Senate. The same is true on issues involving family values like marriage to a defense of the Second Amendment.

Moreover, Hagel is a strong anti-tax Republican who wants a balanced budget. And as for his stand against some of the strategy leading up to the Iraq war and the blunders caused in it, Hagel always comes in the name of the soldiers themselves--and a more sensible, effective foreign policy to fight terrorism worldwide.

This is the kind of common-sense conservatism that appeals to both the social conservatives and the traditional, anti-tax conservatives in the Republican Party. More importantly for the GOP as it looks for a winner nationally in what will be a very close election in 2008, Hagel's common sense will resonate with the general voting public in both parties.

Rural states similar to Nebraska, like West Virginia, are as much traditional as they are conservative. Their voters want someone who understands rural issues. Given West Virginia's rise to prominence in the electoral college tally in 2000, putting George W. Bush over the top, look for candidates like Hagel to put in some time in states like West Virginia where they have natural common ground.

Hagel can do well nationally, both in the primaries and the general election, in rural states like West Virginia. Hagel's straight-talking yet always-respectful style will be appreciated here.

The American people may be ready for a "Steady Eddie," a fresh face with a solid record of achievement in the U.S. Senate, and a seasoned leader with an intimate understanding of our nation's military, foreign policy, and what makes the private sector hum. If so, the Republicans would be wise to put forward a midwestern statesman this time around for President: U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel.

Why not Hagel or Thompson, GOP needs something new

2007-03-21T15:03:00.001-07:00

Why not Hagel or Thompson, GOP needs something new
By E.J. Dionne Jr

WHY NOT Chuck Hagel? For that matter, why not Fred Thompson? For Republicans, 2008 promises to be a disconcerting if exciting year because for the first time since the 1964 Goldwater insurgency, the party is struggling over its philosophical direction.

The old conservatism is in crisis, Bush Republicanism (of the son's variety but not the father's) is a tainted brand, and no candidate has emerged as the Next New Thing that the party wants or needs.

That's why Hagel, the Nebraska senator and Iraq war critic, suggested Monday that he might seek the presidency.

Read the rest at... http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/states/california/16908022.htm

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing Statement

2007-03-21T15:02:00.000-07:00

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing Statement by U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel on the Nomination of Ambassador Zalmay Kahlizad to be the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations

March 15th, 2007 -
“Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege today to introduce Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad for a third time to this Committee. In October 2003, I introduced Ambassador Khalilzad as the President's nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. In June 2005, I introduced him as the President's nominee to be the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. Today, following his distinguished service in Kabul and Baghdad, Ambassador Khalilzad returns to this Committee as the President's nominee to be the next U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

It is not surprising that the President has chosen Ambassador Khalilzad to lead our efforts at the United Nations at this critical time. In recent years, he has filled two of the most difficult diplomatic posts in our nation's history. As Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan, Khalilzad served under conditions that could have easily overwhelmed even the most gifted diplomat. Instead, he has earned a reputation as an agile and credible mediator in a region complicated by tribal, religious, and sectarian divisions. His deep understanding of the Middle East has been a vital asset, and we are grateful for his service.

Though the challenges of Iraq today are daunting and its future still deeply uncertain, Ambassador Khalilzad’s tenure in Iraq was marked by important milestones. After arriving in Baghdad in June 2005, Ambassador Khalilzad led our efforts to help the fledgling Iraqi government move forward in the political reconciliation process. He was central in facilitating the tough compromises that led to the ratification of Iraq’s Constitution in October 2005 and a successful national election in December 2005. At the end of his tenure, Iraq’s Council of Ministers approved a national oil law that, if adopted by the Iraqi Council of Representatives, will play a key role for Iraq’s future. Ambassador Khalilzad’s accomplishments in Afghanistan were equally impressive. During his tenure, Afghanistan held its first national free and fair elections in the nation's history and established a new government. He led U.S. efforts to help establish Afghan security forces and oversaw U.S. reconstruction assistance, allowing the Afghan people hope for new economic opportunities.

Ambassador Khalilzad will now fill a critical role as Ambassador to the United Nations. As members of this Committee are aware, the United Nations has its limitations and is imperfect. Over the past year, some improvements, such as stronger internal oversight capacity and the establishment of a UN ethics office, have been made... but further reform is needed. Institutional reform – with the goal of making the UN more effective and credible – should be one of the top priorities of our new Ambassador. It will require building durable consensus among member states. This is difficult and takes time. But it will not be accomplished without strong, wise and respected U.S. leadership.

Ambassador Khalilzad will find a partner in this effort in the new Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, who has already signaled his commitment to greater transparency, accountability, and effectiveness at the United Nations. The world needs an effective and engaged UN today as much as any time since its creation.

I want to also recognize Ambassador Khalilzad's son, Alexander. Alexander was an intern in my office a few years ago, and now attends Stanford Law School. Ambassador Khalilzad's wife, Cheryl Benard, and their other son, Maximilian, are unfortunately not able to join us today.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly endorse Ambassador Khalilzad's nomination to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and enthusiastically recommend him to this Committee.

Thank you.”

Wineke: Hagel would make the best president

2007-03-18T20:13:00.001-07:00

Wineke: Hagel would make the best president
BILL WINEKE

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel may announce his candidacy for president today, and I hope he's successful.

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Hagel is the best person to run this country for the next few years.

Read more at... http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/column/index.php?ntid=122930&ntpid=2.

Senator Hagel's Brother, Tom, says, "I would expect him...to throw his hat in the ring"

2007-03-18T20:09:00.000-07:00

Sen. Hagel’s brother: ‘It’s just a matter of time’
Tom Hagel served with his brother in Vietnam; says Chuck will likely run

Earlier Monday, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) announced that he would make a decision about his political future later in the year. Later, Tom Hagel, who served in Vietnam with his brother, told Hardball whether he thinks his brother will end up running for president.

Read more at... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17584840/.

Contribute today

2007-03-13T13:52:00.000-07:00

The new official Hagel campaign website is up and running and can accept donations on-line. The donations go to his Senate campaign war chest, which can be directly transferred to a presidential campaign fund. Let’s build some momentum and get some money into Chuck Hagel’s campaign coffers. Please donate today at www.hagel08.com , even if it is just a little (though of course more is always better). Let's show America what kind of grassroots support Senator Hagel has.

New Official Hagel Site Launched

2007-03-12T14:51:00.000-07:00

Chuck Hagel has launched a new campaign website today, www.hagel08.com.

Head over there and sign up, and perhaps even contribute. Senator Hagel left his options open today in his annoucement and said that he plans to do some fundraising, which will help should he decide to run for President or reelection to the Senate.

Hagel to focus on issues now rather than campaign

2007-03-12T08:13:00.000-07:00

Senator Hagel DID NOT announce that he's running for President today. He said that he wants to focus on the important issues that confront the nation today without being distracted by a campaign.

However, he did keep open the option of running for President by entering the race later in the year.

Here is the text of his statement:

"America stands at an historic crossroads in its history. It is against this backdrop that I find myself at my own crossroads on my political future. Burdened by two wars, faced with dangerous new threats and global uncertainty, beset by serious long-term domestic problems and divided by raw political partisanship—America now reaches for a national consensus of purpose. America’s response to the challenges and opportunities that confront us today will define our future. Finding solutions to these challenges and capitalizing on these opportunities will not wait until the next election.

I have worked hard over the last ten years on foreign policy and national security issues, climate change and energy, education, entitlement reform, especially Social Security reform, health care, veterans benefits, GSE reform, and immigration reform. This year will be an important year for these critical issues– and I intend to offer new initiatives on each of them. I want to give these and other subjects my full attention over the next few months. I believe it is in the interests of my Nebraska constituents and this country that I continue to work full time on these challenges.

America is facing its most divisive and difficult issue since Vietnam—the war in Iraq, an issue that I have been deeply involved in. I want to keep my focus on helping find a responsible way out of this tragedy, and not divert my energy, efforts and judgment with competing political considerations.

I am here today to announce that my family and I will make a decision on my political future later this year.

In making this announcement, I believe there will still be political options open to me at a later date. But that will depend on the people of Nebraska and this country. I cannot control that and I do not worry about it. I will continue to participate in events across this country, raising money for my Political Action Committee to assist Republican candidates, and raising funds for a Senate re-election campaign.

In conclusion, I would first like to commend my colleagues who are currently seeking their Party’s presidential nomination. I admire each of them for their willingness to put themselves on the line and pursue their strong beliefs and ideals.

I believe the political currents in America are more unpredictable today than at any time in modern history. We are experiencing a political re-orientation, a redefining and moving toward a new political center of gravity. This movement is bigger than both parties. The need to solve problems and meet challenges is overtaking the ideological debates of the last three decades—as it should. America is demanding honest, competent and accountable governance.

A global political readjustment is also in play today...and will respond to America’s leadership. What is at stake for the future of America is larger than just American politics. Politics is simply the mechanism democracies use to affect responsible change. The world is not static, it is dynamic.

At the beginning of my remarks I said that America is reaching for a national consensus of purpose. We will find it because Americans expect it and will demand it. I do not believe America’s greatness is lost to the 20^th Century. There are chapters of America’s greatness yet to be written. I intend to continue being part of America’s story."

Watch Chuck Make His Announcement Live!

2007-03-10T20:02:00.000-08:00

The Leavenworth Street blog has the details on how to catch Chuck Hagel's annoucement live on Monday:

For those of you who can’t wait for the online news updates to Chuck Hagel’s 10:00 AM CDT Monday “announcement”, three of the local Omaha TV stations will provide streaming video of the event live on their websites.
They are:
WOWT.com
Action3news.com
KETV.com
In addition, you can listen to the announcement on your computer as well
via radio stations KFAB or KKAR’s websites.

The wait is (almost) over

2007-03-07T15:19:00.000-08:00

Chuck Hagel will annouce his future plans on Monday morning. Now if we only knew what that was....

Hagel to Hold News Conference Regarding His Future Plans
U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel will hold a news conference Monday, March 12, 2007 at 10:00 a.m. CST. The news conference will be held in Bootstrapper Memorial Hall at the University of Nebraska at Omaha’s William H. and Dorothy Thompson Alumni Center.

You can read about it in the Omaha World-Herald as well.

Is Hagel The Credible Conservative Candidate?

2007-03-06T19:50:00.000-08:00

Here is a GREAT article from the Cyclone Conservatives:
Is Hagel The Credible Conservative Candidate?

There seems to be a lot of media discussion lately claiming that the GOP has not yet found a top tier conservative candidate to rally around yet. Personally, I think that discussion would fold away if Newt Gingrich got into the race, but that is either unlikely to happen until this fall or not at all ever.

The candidate that everyone thought would have that mantle was George Allen from Virginia. But the now former Senator nearly completely killed his political career by making one major gaffe last summer.

Now, we've got Mayor Rudy Giuliani who seems to have a tough hawkish stance on foreign policy which many red blooded conservatives really like but he's got a plethora of social issue problems which red blooded conservatives really don't like.

John McCain actually has a pretty conservative record on social and fiscal issues, but it is his tendency towards being a maverick and his 'moderate' media created tag that has scared off many. Joining with Ted Kennedy on immigration, Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, and leading judicially comprimising 'Gang of 14' has a lot of conservatives uneasy. However, he's also probably the toughest hawk on terrorism in the race and that is where he is gaining a lot of traction.

Mitt Romney could be the guy and then again many conservatives still don't know who he is and if the Mitt from the debate footage from 1994 and 2002 is still the Mitt of 2007. He claims that he was wrong then, but that hasn't settled a lot of fears and for right now, his campaign hasn't been picking up as much momentum as it could be as a result. Additionally, the Mormonism is likely to still be dogging him.

Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Sam Brownback of Kansas are still relatively unknown to a lot of people nationwide and therefore they just have not been getting the kind of media coverage that the others have been. Brownback tends to be one of the more conservative members of the United States Senate, though he has now become a lot more of a dove on foreign policy and that is causing him problems. Huckabee could by dynamic but he's got some immigration problems and there are plenty of questions about whether or not he'll be able to raise the kind of money it takes to win.

Tommy Thompson is perhaps as thorough of a campaigner as anybody but he just hasn't gotten that 'buzz' yet. There's no doubt that Thompson could be the most all around conservative candidate in the race but he, like Brownback and Huckabee, has not yet captured the national attention. I am convinced that Thompson is going to do well in Iowa because he's very folksy, looks like a common Iowan, and is extraordinarily intelligent. Thompson is still just 2nd tier for right now though he is moving up the ranks faster than anyone.

Tom Tancredo is definitely conservative but he has yet to fully introduce himself to Iowans and there are many who wonder if he is just getting into the race in order to force a more aggressive debate about our immigration policies.

Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are both well respected members of Congress but are they just don't have the buzz nor have they been to Iowa much. For now, they are back in the pack a little bit.

John Cox and Jim Gilmore are definitely very conservative guys but they are constantly surrounded by question marks as to whether they have the name recognition to win.

So, there is definitely no ideal candidate out there...YET.

And so that brings into the equation Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. If conservatives can be calmed about his dovish tendencies toward Iraq, then Hagel might be the most well-known conservative in the race.

Recently, the National Journal released their 2006 liberal/conservative scores for Senators and Congressmen. After taking into account votes based on economic, social, and foreign policy; a formula is created and the votes are plugged in.

The Result? Of the 2008 Presidential aspirants already in the race or names that are floated, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is the most conservative U.S. Senator. He just outflanks Brownback by a little bit.

Sure, Hagel bucks the President on foreign policy; but on most other issues, he totes the party line better than any of the other Senators in the race.

I, for one, would like to see Hagel get into the race. I've met Senator Hagel and heard him lecture at Iowa State in 2005. He's a very intelligent man who would bring a lot to the foreign policy debate and future of the party.

Back in December, I wrote about the Nebraska Senate Race should Hagel retire or run for President and I am confident that seat would be very safe for the GOP no matter who is running on the Republican ticket so that is not a worry for the Republicans.

I hope Hagel makes a decision soon because he quite possibly could be the credible credentialed conservative candidate to watch.
Publisher's Note: Check out those lists and see where members of the Iowa Delegation fall.

Hagel Statement on Announcement that the U.S., Iran and Syria will Attend Talks in Baghdad

2007-03-06T19:49:00.001-08:00

Hagel Statement on Announcement that the U.S., Iran and Syria will Attend Talks in Baghdad

February 27th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Iraqi Foreign Minister announced today that Iran and Syria will join U.S. and British envoys at a meeting in Baghdad next month to seek ways to stabilize Iraq. U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has repeatedly called for regional talks to address the situation in Iraq. Hagel released the following statement today in reaction to the announcement:

“This is an important diplomatic initiative taken by the Iraqi government. We will not achieve peace and stability in Iraq without a regional framework that includes Iran and Syria. This conference can be an important first step towards creating that framework,” Hagel said.

Hagel Statement on Congressional Commission on National Guard and Reserve’s Report that 90 Percent of Army National Guard Units are rated “not ready”

March 1st, 2007 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released the following statement today regarding a report published by the Congressional Commission on the National Guard and Reserve’s Report that concluded 90 percent of Army National Guard Units are rated “not ready.” The report details the Guard’s struggles with equipment, recruitment and retention, training and funding. The Commission estimates that the National Guard would require $38 billion for equipment to restore domestic Army and Air units to full readiness:

“This report serves as a clear indication of the damage we have done to the National Guard over the last four years. As I have said, we are stretching the National Guard beyond the breaking point. It is unacceptable to ask the National Guard to take on missions for which we have not prepared or equipped them. The report’s recommendations should be seriously considered and the Administration and Congress must act now to fix these problems,” Hagel said.

Hagel's Introduction of Two New Resolutions

2007-03-04T19:18:00.000-08:00

Senators Hagel and Clinton Re-Introduce Lung Cancer Resolution

February 27th, 2007 - WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) re-introduced a resolution today calling on the President to declare lung cancer a national public health priority by increasing funding for lung cancer research, developing early detection lung cancer screening programs and appointing an advisory committee to oversee and coordinate efforts to reduce lung cancer mortality rates. Hagel and Clinton introduced a similar resolution in the 109th Congress.

“Lung cancer is the most lethal form of cancer for men and women in the United States. The American Cancer Society estimates that over 900 Nebraskans will die of lung cancer in 2007. We have made great advancements in prostate and breast cancer survival rates; we must commit ourselves to making the same progress in lung cancer survival rates,” Hagel said.

Nebraska last year was the first state in the nation to initiate a state-wide screening program for lung cancer through the Nebraska Early Detection and Information Technology [NEED-IT] program at the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC).

“Lung cancer touches millions of families across America and more than 12,000 new cases are diagnosed in New York State every year. We must do our part to increase awareness of this disease and support ongoing early detection and treatment research,” Senator Clinton said.

The Hagel-Clinton legislation lays out a multi-agency action blueprint for reducing lung cancer’s high mortality rate by at least 50 percent by 2015. Both senators’ emphasized the need for a carefully coordinated approach among the federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs, in focusing on earlier detection and more effective treatments.

“Research in the prevention, early detection, and treatment of lung cancer is critically important in order to improve the survival from lung cancer. The Lung Cancer Resolution introduced today will help to make lung cancer research a priority and provide hope for patients who develop this disease,” said Ken Cowan, M.D., Ph.D., director of the UNMC Eppley Cancer Center.

Hagel Re-Introduces GI Enhancement Legislation

March 1st, 2007 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) today re-introduced legislation that would eliminate the current Montgomery GI Bill’s $1,200 enrollment fee for active duty members of the military, including Reserve and National Guard members. Hagel introduced similar legislation in the 108th and 109th Congresses.

“The demands on America’s service members and their families have been significantly increased with the threats of the 21st century. The Montgomery GI Bill must be updated to ensure that it is relevant to the sacrifices our service members are making. There can be no higher priority for America than our soldiers and their families,” Hagel said.

The Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act of 2007 covers any member of the United States military, including Reserve and National Guard members, serving on active duty during the period after President Bush’s November 2001 Executive Order that placed the military on a wartime footing. Hagel’s bill would:

• Waive the GI Bill enrollment fee until President Bush’s November 2001 Executive Order is rescinded;

• Allow all servicemen and women who have served or are serving on active duty since November 2001 to opt into the GI Bill with no penalty or enrollment fee; and

• Reimburse those servicemen and women who entered service after President Bush’s November 2001 Executive Order and paid the $1,200 enrollment fee.

Will Hagel Run as an Independent?

2007-03-04T19:17:00.001-08:00

The Real Clear Politics Blog has posted the following quote from Senator Hagel:

Q: Would you give any consideration to running as an Independent?
HAGEL:
Well, if I seek the Presidency, I would seek it as a Republican. Where all this
is going to go and how it ends up next year, whether that's possible for an
Independent to be elected President, maybe. Maybe it would be. But, right now,
I'd be focused on seeking the Republican nomination.

Hagel Talks Up Third-Party '08 Bid

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska is keeping his options open as he considers a run for the presidency.

As a Republican, he would be primarily interested in the GOP nomination. But if that isn't a realistic possibility, he'd be open to running on a hybrid ticket with a Democrat.

"If I decide to get into this, I would run not just to make a statement," Hagel, 60, said in a recent interview, according to USA Today.

The third-party option is known as Unity08, in which bipartisan political operatives use the Internet to craft a Republican-Democratic presidential ticket.

"I think it's a very intriguing enterprise," Hagel told USA Today, adding that he thinks most Americans are unhappy with the GOP and Democrats.

Hagel has become a critic of President Bush's foreign policy, although he voted in October 2002 for the authorization to go to war in Iraq.

Hagel says a troop surge in Iraq will result in "a vat of chaos." He also says America is letting its chance of winning over a "pro-American generation" of young Iranians slip away.

Such outspokenness has angered the administration. Vice President Dick Cheney told Newsweek magazine: "I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan's '11th Commandment': Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it's very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved."

© NewsMax 2007. All rights reserved.

Putting Off Getting into the '08 Race Could Pay off for Hagel

2007-03-04T16:25:00.000-08:00

Putting off getting into the '08 race could pay off for Hagel
BY JAKE THOMPSON AND TIM ELFRINK
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

WASHINGTON - While Chuck Hagel has been contemplating whether to seek the presidency, 18 other politicians started running.

Two opted out of the race.

Two launched campaign efforts, then quit.

Still, Hagel ponders.

Last week, on a four-day swing through Nebraska, the Republican senator put it off again.

"We'll make that decision one of these days," he said. "And I'll let you know."

Among established politicians flirting with the 2008 race, Hagel and former New York Gov. George Pataki are the most notable prospects who have yet to reveal their plans.

Political analysts say the delay could hurt - or help.

Starting late puts Hagel at a disadvantage in raising funds, identifying supporters and putting forth a campaign message, said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Washington-based Rothenberg Political Report.

But if Hagel were to run, he could occupy an unusual niche, such as the anti-Iraq war Republican, Rothenberg said.

"It's getting too late, but he's a quirky candidate, so they are allowed to run quirkier campaigns," Rothenberg said.

Republican consultant Scott Reed, who was campaign manager for former Sen. Bob Dole's 1996 presidential bid, agreed that if Hagel runs, it will be a different kind of campaign.

Hagel's views on the Iraq war - he supports beginning to withdraw U.S. forces this year - puts him in line with 66 percent of Americans who, polls show, oppose the war. That could be potent fuel for a campaign, Reed said.

"He'll have a lone voice on a hot issue, and that'll be the strategy," Reed said.

Hagel has waited so long now, he's reaching a point where it might make sense to hold off, perhaps until fall, said Chuck Todd, editor of the Hotline, an electronic newsletter that tracks American politics.

That would let the other candidates spend their money, knock one another around and, perhaps, wear out their welcome, Todd suggested.

"If he waits, he becomes the new flavor."

That's the strategy adopted by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato.

"Hagel could say, 'My friend Newt Gingrich has the right idea. Let's see what this thing looks like in September,'" Sabato said.

Hagel seems to be genuinely wrestling with the decision.

Those who have spoken with him say a big concern is the potential impact a presidential campaign would have on his wife, Lilibet, and their two teenage children.

Meanwhile, rumors in Nebraska and Washington have run wild: Hagel's about to announce; he's setting up an exploratory committee; he's setting up a committee and quitting the Senate; he's sidestepping the presidential race; he's running for re-election to the Senate.

Often people ask him directly, but they don't get far. Even kids are getting into the act.

Speaking to about 90 fourth- and fifth-graders at a Kearney elementary school on Thursday, Hagel tested the waters for his presidential bid.

"Should I run?" he asked.

"Yes!" the kids screamed in unison.

"Well, maybe I'll just announce right now," he said.

"We'd like that," a teacher said.

But Hagel declined their invitation, just as he has during persistent questioning from reporters.

On a flight from Kearney to Omaha, Hagel acknowledged that his family is the biggest consideration. Specifically, he worries about a loss of privacy for his daughter, 16-year-old Allyn, and his son, Ziller, 14.

"When you commit yourself to something this big and throw yourself onto the national stage, that strips them of all privacy. I would never do this unless I had the full support of my family," he said.

He expressed confidence they could handle the challenge because, for most of their lives, he's been in politics.

"But I have to consider what this does to them as individuals. . . . Suddenly they're not Allyn and Ziller, they're just the presidential candidate's kids."

He's working through other issues, too, such as weighing his ability to raise enough money for a campaign. He says he has been encouraged by what he's heard so far.

He said he won't run unless he's confident he could win, but it's even more important to him that he feels passionately about the race.

"You have to believe in something strongly enough to commit yourself to it," he said.

As for when he'll make a move, Hagel said he's done his best not to set a specific deadline.

"I've said I'll make a decision in the next few weeks, and that's still the case."

After he first disclosed an interest in the presidential contest in August 2004, Hagel said he would decide after the 2006 elections. He repeated that through 2005 and 2006.

Interviewed the day after the Nov. 7 election, Hagel pushed the timetable back, saying: "I will announce what I intend to do regarding my political future sometime early next year."

In a Nov. 29, 2006, column, Washington Post writer David Ignatius said Hagel had indicated a formal decision would be made within two months.

After the first of the year, Hagel and his spokesman, Mike Buttry, began repeatedly saying it would come within "the next couple of weeks."

That's now seven weeks and counting.

Last Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Hagel told host Tim Russert, "I'll make a decision within a couple of weeks and make it public."

And asked Thursday whether an announcement would come before or after a trip he's planning to Iraq next month, he said it depends on when exactly the trip is scheduled.

Omaha World-Herald: Hagel Cheers Word of Middle East Diplomatic Plans

2007-02-24T15:05:00.000-08:00

Here's a Omaha World-Herald Article:

Published Sunday February 18, 2007

Hagel cheers word of Middle East diplomatic plans

BY JAKE THOMPSON
WORLD-HERALD BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is poised to start new diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, including encouraging a regional security conference that might include Syria and Iran, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska said Saturday.

If so, the outreach could add a new element of diplomacy to the region and to ongoing military efforts to quell violence in Iraq, Hagel said in an interview.

Hagel said he and Stephen Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser, discussed Iraq, Iran, North Korea and the Middle East on Saturday.

"I believe the administration is moving in a new positive direction to help and start initiating some new diplomatic efforts in the Middle East," Hagel said. "They can count on my support on this if they start to do some things."

A senior Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hagel said he believes the administration may be thawing a bit in its hard-line stance against Iran and Syria.

"Yes, absolutely," Hagel said.

The administration has argued against reaching out diplomatically to the two countries because of their ties to terrorist organizations.

In addition, Iran has apparently been moving toward possible development of nuclear weapons, despite strong condemnation by the Bush administration and U.S. allies.

Hagel has long advocated a U.S. role in trying to organize a regional security conference to try to bring stability to Iraq and to move the Middle East peace process forward.

If they meet, the various nations could consider playing roles in promoting jobs, security, deterring terrorism and resolution of the ethnic and religious differences now plaguing Iraq, Hagel said.

The United States shouldn't be in charge of the conference but should try orchestrating a meeting among the other nations, he said.

Such a conference might help defuse growing tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in the Middle East outside Iraq, he said.

"It takes a lot of pressure off the administration if they can start some of these initiatives," Hagel said, adding he told Hadley, "Tell the president I'll be right with him on it as I have been on India, as I have on trade and so many of his diplomatic initiatives."

Senator Hagel's book deal is underway

2007-02-24T15:03:00.000-08:00

Senator Hagel's book deal is underway

(2/17/2007)By Corinne Hautala Senator Chuck Hagel has reached an agreement on a book deal. Hagel's spokesman, Mike Buttry, says the senator will write a book this year about the United States' future.

It is expected to hit bookshelves during the 2008 presidential primary season.

But Buttry says the book deal has nothing to do with Hagel's possible presidential campaign.

Hagel has said he will decide early this year whether or not to run. As of now, no decision has been announced.

Hagel Introduces Bill to Aid

2007-02-21T09:44:00.001-08:00

Hagel Introduces Bill to Aid

February 16th, 2007 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) introduced legislation today that would amend the eligibility for the military death gratuity paid to the next of kin of military personnel killed while on active duty. By law, the death gratuity benefit goes first to a spouse or a child. This legislation would provide, in cases where a minor child is the next of kin, the ability for the service member to designate the grandparents, siblings, or guardian to receive part or all of the benefit to care for the child.

“As we face the challenges of the 21st Century, servicemen and women sacrificing for their country in a time of war should be assured that their families will be taken care of. The loss of a loved one is a tremendous emotional hardship for families. This is common sense legislation that will ensure that when the next of kin is a child, the death gratuity may be immediately available to the child’s guardian, if so designated,” Hagel said.

Under current law, when the next of kin is a child, the death gratuity is not accessible until the child turns 18, unless a state court decides to allocate the death gratuity to a guardian. Often, if the state probate court does grant access to a guardian, it can take a great deal of time and cost additional money to gain such access.

The military death gratuity is money provided within 72 hours to families of service members who are killed while on active duty. In 2004, Senator Hagel introduced legislation to raise the death gratuity to $100k. This provision was included in the FY05 National Defense Authorization Act, which became law on January 6, 2006.

Hagel and Lautenberg Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Cap Healthcare Costs for Active Duty Military, Guard, Reserves, Retirees and Their Families

2007-02-21T09:42:00.000-08:00

Hagel and Lautenberg Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Cap Healthcare Costs for Active Duty Military, Guard, Reserves, Retirees and Their Families

February 15th, 2007 -
WASHINGTON, D.C. – United States Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced today the Military Health Care Protection Act, a bill to place reasonable and affordable caps on enrollment fees, deductibles and pharmacy co-payments for more than an estimated six million active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves, retirees and their families.

The fiscal year 2007 Pentagon budget would triple health fees for nearly two million military retirees under age 65 and their dependents. The Hagel-Lautenberg bill will block the following proposed increases in military health care costs:

• Raising the $230 single/$460 family TRICARE Prime enrollment fee to as high as $700 and $1,400, respectively.

• Raising the annual $150 single/$300 family TRICARE Standard fees to as high as $560 and $1,120, respectively.

In addition, under the Pentagon’s proposed budget, retail pharmacy co-pays would be raised 67 percent for all active duty military personnel, National Guard, Reserves, retirees and their families.

“America’s career military service members make tremendous sacrifices in service to our country. We cannot burden our military retirees and their families with dramatic increases in out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. It is wrong to increase healthcare fees on the men and women who have already contributed greatly to our nation before addressing current inefficiencies in the TRICARE system,” Senator Chuck Hagel said.

“We need to provide our troops with the best equipment money can buy. But we also must provide them and their families, as well as those who have retired, the best quality healthcare at the most affordable price,” Senator Frank R. Lautenberg said. “If we tell our soldiers and sailors it is their duty to protect America, it is our duty to provide for them when they return and retire.”

The Hagel-Lautenberg legislation also establishes that the percentage of increase in retirees’ health fees in any given year should not exceed the percentage of increase in their compensation.

Vice Admiral Norb Ryan, President of the Military Officers Association of America, and Joe Barnes, National Exec Secretary of the Fleet Reserve Association, joined Hagel and Lautenberg to introduce the Military Health Care Protection Act.

“We’re extremely grateful to Senators Hagel and Lautenberg for sponsoring this legislation to protect military beneficiaries,” said Vice Admiral Norb Ryan, Jr. (USN-Ret), President of the Military Officers Association of America. “Their bill offers an important reminder that active duty, Guard, Reserve, and retired servicemembers have paid far greater premiums for their health coverage than any other segment of our society—and prepaid them up front, through decades of arduous service and sacrifice.”

A coalition of 35 military associations have pledged their support for the bill.

Run Chuck, Run

2007-02-15T09:37:00.000-08:00

The following is an article from OpEdNews.com published on February 10th.

Run Chuck, Run
by Jon Harrison

As we go from bad to worse in the Middle East, one senator stands out as an alternative to the Bush administration and its policy of escalating violence and death. That senator is Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska).

Hagel served in combat during the Vietnam War. He knows very well the cost -- in blood, fear, and anguish -- that war imposes on our soldiers. As a presidential hopeful he would be the candidate not just of the peace party, but of his fellow grunts as well.

Despite misgivings, Hagel voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002. Like many others in Congress, he has come to oppose the war. Unlike many of his fellow legislators, however, Hagel went into opposition well before the war became unpopular with the country at large.

His principled stand on this and other issues has left him with few friends among the conservative base of the Republican Party. The race for the Republican nomination for president would, clearly, be an uphill one for Hagel. But the dynamic may be changing. Peggy Noonan recently came out in praise of Hagel on the pages of the Wall Street Journal. Unquestionably, there is a growing hunger in the country for truth-telling about Iraq. No Republican has been speaking the truth about Iraq longer than Chuck Hagel has.

Does history repeat itself? Well, the election of 2000 sure looked a lot like that of 1876, did it not? Today, Iraq looks more and more like Vietnam. If President Bush's "surge" in Iraq goes sour, and we find ourselves spiraling into disaster in the Middle East, 2008 may look a lot like 1968 -- the country in chaos as a result of an unpopular and unwinnable war. The prospects for an anti-war Republican with Hagel's credentials might then be very different.

I mentioned a changing dynamic. I haven't voted in a presidential election in twenty years, but I've already sent in my name as a volunteer for the Hagel campaign, should the Senator decide to run. It takes an awful lot to make a cynic like me get up and volunteer for anything.

We're fed up with this war, and with Bush. Run Chuck, run.

Jon Harrison is a freelance writer living in Vermont.

Great CBSNews.com Article

2007-02-15T09:36:00.000-08:00

10 Questions: Chuck Hagel and the Surge is a great article on the CBS News website. I'd encourage everybody to check this link out.

Draft Hagel 08 website launched!

2007-02-09T17:13:00.000-08:00

Today the Draft Hagel 08 website was launched. Go and visit it today!

The Fix - The Case for Chuck Hagel

2007-01-31T06:41:00.001-08:00

The Fix, a blog by Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post, today gives "The Case for Chuck Hagel." This is a MUST READ.

Florida...It's Your Turn

2007-01-29T16:52:00.000-08:00

Well, I have some more good news. All you Floridians have 2 options of places to discuss Senator Hagel as he pertains to your state: the Florida for Hagel Yahoo! Group and the Florida for Chuck Hagel blog

Some More Hagel Supporters

2007-01-28T14:38:00.000-08:00

Hey all you Marylanders, here's a Yahoo!Group supporting Senator Hagel that was made just for you: Maryland for Hagel.

We also stumbled across the following post supporting the Senator: Chuck Hagel.

So, what are you waiting for? Go check them out!

CATO: "The Chuck Hagel Surge"

2007-01-28T14:30:00.000-08:00

There's a post over at CATO @ Liberty, the official blog of the CATO Institute regarding Chuck Hagel and a 2008 run.

Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel burst onto the national scene this week as the leading critic of President Bush’s “surge” plan for Iraq. After his widely reported speech at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, he’s become a hot topic in the blogosphere.

His possible presidential candidacy made the front page of the Washington Post today, and he got a love note from Peggy Noonan at opinionjournal.com (probably to be printed in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal). The Post says, “He is reviled by his party’s conservative base.”

Yes, right now the only thing conservatives know about him is his opposition to George W. Bush’s war plans, and conservatives are still inexplicably in thrall to the big-government Bush. But I’ll predict that over, say, the next 12 months leading up to the Iowa caucuses, Hagel is going to look increasingly wise and prescient to Republican voters. And as they come to discover that he’s a commonsense Midwestern conservative who opposed many of the Bush administration’s worst ideas, he’s going to look more attractive.

The author is quite right. Given time for Republicans to get to know more about Senator Hagel, they will come around as the Senator puts forth his message.

Detroit Free Press Highlights Hagel's Recent Comments on Iraq

2007-01-27T20:52:00.000-08:00

Senate panel strikes first blow to block Bush's Iraq plan
January 24, 2007
By JOHN YAUKEY
Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON — Democrats began what they promised would be a prolonged push to stop President George W. Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq today granting initial approval of a resolution condemning the move and potentially opening the door to debate on funding cuts for the war.

“This not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It’s an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq,” said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, which adopted the resolution. "This is our first, most immediate and most practical way to affect the president."

The 12-9 committee vote, which fell mainly along party lines, came a day after Bush asked Americans in his State of the Union speech to give his Iraq plan time to work.

The nonbinding resolution said Bush’s plan to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq mainly to quell the sectarian violence ripping apart Baghdad is ”not in the national interest.“

It was coauthored by Biden, fellow Democrat Carl Levin of Michigan, and Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel.

The full Senate is expected to take up the measure as soon as next week, setting up a forum for what promises to be hours of impassioned debate on the war if today was an indication of how deeply concerned lawmakers are about events in Iraq.

”We’d better be damn sure we know what we’re doing — all of us — before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder,” said Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran. “I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.”

The resolution also sets up a framework for lawmakers to confront Bush on larger questions about the future of the war and his authority to wage it against growing pessimism among the public and Congress. Some of the leading Democrats on the committee made it clear they want to go beyond stopping the troop surge and start withdrawing U.S. troops.

“My intention from the outset was to send the first of many messages to the president,” Biden said.

Some Democrats on the panel called for tougher measures including caps on troops levels and funding cuts for the war, which lawmakers used to get American forces out of Vietnam.

“I fear this is slow walking,” said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who wants funding cuts. “This is not the time for legislative nuancing.”

Biden said a nonbinding resolution was the fastest way to get the debate over Bush’s war policy moving, and other measures can be added later. He said his committee would soon begin hearings on some of those tougher measures, which could force Bush’s hand, although he stopped short of endorsing any sort of funding cuts.

“We have a number of constitutionally legitimate alternatives,” he said.

Some Republicans, while uneasy with the resolution’s language, were also deeply bothered by the course of the war and what they saw as the president’s refusal to listen to Congress.

“They have got to understand how concerned we are about this,” said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio.

Some Republicans back a resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that opposed the troop increase but with language less confrontational with the White House.

Senate takes only swipe it can on Iraq
January 25, 2007

So much for the time President George W. Bush requested in his State of the Union address. A day later, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution, cosponsored by Sen. Carl Levin, telling him not to send more troops to Iraq.

A public rebuke of a commander in chief's war strategy is rare and risky. But it's hard to argue with the sentiment, best articulated by cosponsor and Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

"This is a ping-pong game with American lives," said Hagel, the lone Republican joining Democrats in the 12-9 vote. "These young men and women that we put in Anbar Province, in Iraq, in Baghdad, are not beans. They're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."

The resolution is one of two, supported by at least eight Republicans, objecting to the troop increase. They reflect the will of the people expressed at the ballot box.

Presidents, of course, have to make the best strategic decisions they can, irrespective of the polls, but public sentiment, reinforced by Congress, has impact. "No president of the United States can sustain a foreign policy or a war policy without the sustained support of the American people," Hagel said.

The resolution will not cut off funding for the troops -- that would be foolhardy. Nor is it a cut-and-run strategy, rather a call for phased withdrawal and a political solution. Perhaps there should have been a better way to reach the president, but so far he has been unswayed by voters, senators' calls and letters and visits, and the Iraq Study Group.

"We can't be silent on an issue like this," Levin, D-Detroit, told the Free Press. "Troops want us to be expressing the truth. We owe them that -- we owe our troops everything. We owe them equipment; we owe them support for their families. We also owe them the best accounting of what we think the facts are."

The fact is people fear sending their soldiers into what increasingly looks like a no-win proposition. The question is not whether Bush gets more time, but whether there's still time to change his mind.

Washington Post Discusses Hagel's Criticsm of the War and His Possible Run for President

2007-01-27T20:51:00.000-08:00

Check out this article by the Washington Post: Hagel Ponders White House Run As War Criticism Raises His Profile

"He's Got Guts"

2007-01-27T20:50:00.000-08:00

PEGGY NOONAN

He's Got Guts
In praise of Chuck Hagel.

Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

We all complain, and with justice, about the falseness of much that is said in Washington, and the cowardice that leaves a great deal unsaid. But I found myself impressed and grateful for the words of Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator from Nebraska, in a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee on Wednesday. Because his message was not one Republicans or Democrats would find congenial, it may be accidentally dropped down the memory hole, so I'll quote at some length.

The committee was nearing a vote on what was, essentially, an announcement of no confidence in the administration's leadership in Iraq. Specifically it was a nonbinding resolution opposing the increase in troops the president has requested. This was not significant in a concrete way: The president has the power to send more troops, and they are already arriving. But as symbols go, it packed a punch. You couldn't watch it on television or on the Internet and not see that Mr. Hagel was letting it rip. He did not speak from notes or a text but while looking at his fellow senators. There seemed no time lag between thought and word. He was barreling, he was giving it to you straight, and he'd pick up the pieces later.

This is what he said: Congress has duties; in the case of the war, meeting those duties was not convenient; Congress did not meet them.

And so: "The Congress has stood in the shadow of this issue, Iraq, for four years. As [John] Warner noted . . . we have a constitutional responsibility as well as a moral responsibility to this country, to the young men and women we ask to go fight and die and their families. . . . This is not a defeatist resolution, this is not a cut-and-run resolution, we're not talking about cutting off funds, not supporting the troops. This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam.

"Sure it's tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why are you elected? If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.

"This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves . . . than what we're asking our young men and women to do? I don't think so."

Later: "I don't question the president's sincerity, his motivations in this. I never have. . . . Part of the problem that we have, I think, is because we didn't--we didn't involve the Congress in this when we should have. And I'm to blame. Every senator who's been here the last four years has to take some responsibility for that.

"But I will not sit here in this Congress of the United States at this important time for our country and in the world and not have something to say about this. . . . I don't ever want to look back and have the regret that I didn't have the courage and I didn't do what I could. . . .

"I would go back to where I began, and pick up on a point that Chairman [Richard] Lugar mentioned: coherence of strategy. I don't know how many United States senators believe we have a coherent strategy in Iraq. I don't think we've ever had a coherent strategy. In fact, I would even challenge the administration today to show us the plan that the president talked about the other night. There is no plan. I happen to know Pentagon planners were on their way to the Central Com over the weekend. They haven't even Team B'd this plan. . . . And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators, to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don't hide anymore; none of us.

"That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we're not willing to do it, we're not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don't debate this . . . we are not worthy of our country."

Whenever the camera shot broadened to show the other senators, I wondered what they were thinking. For a few it might have been, Well done, Chuck. For others, Hey, righteous indignation is my act. And some would have been thinking, That's good, ol' buddy, and no matter how long I have to wait, I'll get you for putting me on the spot, for making us look bad, for getting on your high horse and charging.

But Mr. Hagel said the most serious thing that has been said in Congress in a long time. This is what we're here for. This is why we're here, to decide, to think it through and take a stand, and if we can't do that, why don't we just leave and give someone else a chance?

Mr. Hagel has shown courage for a long time. He voted for the war resolution in 2002 but soon after began to question how it was being waged. This was before everyone did. He also stood against the war when that was a lonely place to be. Senate Democrats sat back and watched: If the war worked, they'd change the subject; and if it didn't, they'd hang it on President Bush. Republicans did their version of inaction; they supported the president until he was unpopular, and then peeled off. This is almost not to be criticized. It's what politicians do. But it's not what Mr. Hagel did. He had guts.

A note too on John Kerry, who, on the floor of the Senate, also talked about Iraq this week, and said he would not run for president. Clearly he saw the lipstick writing on the wall: This is the year of the woman. He also might have been acting on the sense that this is a time of ongoing and incipient political flux. The major parties seem as played out as they are ruthless, and the arc of political fame is truncated: nobodies become somebodies become has-beens before half the country knows their name. The Democrats have no idea what they stand for, the Republicans only remember what they stood for.

But there was Mr. Kerry, liberated by the death of a dream and for once quite human as he tried to tell it the way he actually saw it. Took the mock right out of me. Good for him, and for Mr. Hagel. I wonder if we are seeing the start of a new seriousness.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.

Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Hagel's comments at a Senate Foreign Relations Committe Hearing.

2007-01-25T20:32:00.002-08:00

The following is an excerpt from a USA Today online story:

Hagel to colleagues: 'Go sell shoes' if you want an easy job

Vietnam veteran Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has issued an emotional appeal to his colleagues this morning to challenge President Bush and the administration over plans to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq, USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely reports from Capitol Hill.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on a non-binding resolution that opposes Bush's plan, Hagel said:
• "We owe it to those men and women we continue to send into that grinder."
• "I think all 100 senators should be on the line on this. ... If you want a safe job, go sell shoes."
• "If we don't debate this, we're not worthy of our country."
The panel's chairman, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., said the measure is "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq."

Hagel's Response to the President's State of the Union Address

2007-01-25T20:32:00.001-08:00

January 23rd, 2007 - U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) released this statement tonight following President Bush’s State of the Union address:

“I appreciate what the President said tonight about dramatically increasing renewable fuel standards, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, addressing the challenge of climate change, reforming our entitlement programs and fixing our broken immigration system. These are all issues of critical importance to Nebraska. I look forward to continuing to work with the President on these issues.”

USA Today: A First Step in Iraq

2007-01-25T20:30:00.000-08:00

The following was published in USA Today this morning:

A First Step in Iraq

Today, Congress takes an important step in what we believe is our constitutional responsibility to actively engage and debate the war in Iraq. We agree with the president that our previous strategy in Iraq was failing. Equally, we are convinced that to succeed in Iraq, America's objective and strategy must enjoy the support of the American people and a bipartisan support in Congress.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on a resolution we introduced with our colleagues Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The resolution says what we and many of our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, believe: America should not deepen its military involvement in Iraq by sending more U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war. More troops in Baghdad will increase the likelihood of more American casualties and will not end the sectarian Iraqi massacres that are occurring every day.

Just as important, our resolution proposes an alternative. The primary objective of America's strategy should be to help Iraqis achieve a political settlement in Iraq, secure support for that settlement from Iraq's neighbors and refocus the mission of our remaining troops on achievable objectives. That is the only way to stop Shiites and Sunnis from killing each other and allow our troops to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.

Here are the main elements of our plan:

•Redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq's cities with a more limited mission focused on defending Iraq's territorial integrity, counterterrorism, border control, and accelerated training of Iraqi forces;

•Transfer responsibility for internal security and halting sectarian violence to Iraqi forces under an appropriately expedited timeline;

•Continue to support Iraq's political process while making it clear that Iraqi leaders must make the political compromises necessary to help Iraq move forward;

•Engage Iraq's neighbors and the international community to build a regional framework to help support and sustain a political solution and national reconciliation.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice presented the president's plan to the Foreign Relations Committee. The reaction from Democrats and Republicans alike ranged from profound skepticism to outright opposition.

A strong majority of the American people opposes sending more American troops into Iraq. So does a broad cross section of this country's leaders, military and civilian, as we have heard this month in hearings in Congress. In December, the Baker-Hamilton Commission issued a valuable report, suggesting a comprehensive strategy "to enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly" based on "new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region."

Our fundamental objective is to build a bipartisan majority in Congress to support a U.S. policy on Iraq that stands the best chance of succeeding and bringing our men and women in uniform home.

We welcome debate of our resolution and proposed alternatives. The resolution by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., contributes to this debate. As we have made clear publicly and privately, we are prepared to adjust our resolution to help broaden bipartisan support. Ultimately, this debate will give every senator a chance to say where he or she stands.

We believe that the single most effective way for Congress to engage the president in developing a way forward in Iraq is to demonstrate the depth and breadth of bipartisan concern regarding his policy. The power of our resolution rests in its bipartisan foundation.

Iraq is not a partisan issue. It is a challenge that we must meet as Americans. No one in Congress and no one in America wants to see America defeated. We believe our nation is stronger when Congress fulfills its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government.

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., is a member of the committee.

Hagel in GQ

2007-01-23T20:54:00.001-08:00

THE ANGRY ONE

Republican senator Chuck Hagel sounds off on the sorry state of Congress, the president’s lies, and the vote for war that he now regrets

Interview by Wil S. Hylton

GQ, January 2007

Chuck Hagel came home from Vietnam in 1968 with shrapnel in his chest, scars on his face, and an unyielding certainty that the freedom of men is theirs alone to win. As an infantryman, he had not bombed from above or commanded from behind; he had stood knee-deep in the muck, face-to-face with the enemy, firing on men and watching them die. It’s a hard memory to leave behind. Even after four decades and a lifetime of change—a fortune earned in the investment-banking business; a decade as a senator from Nebraska; and a position as one of the GOP’s conservative torchbearers with a shot at the White House—Hagel has put everything on the line to oppose the war in Iraq, refusing to send a “surge” of new troops into battle, or to forget the lessons he brought home from the killing fields long ago.
Sitting in his office on a recent afternoon, Hagel leaned back in his armchair to explain, in a voice reminiscent of sandpaper on rough oak, how he was deceived by the president, and won’t let it happen again.
*****
Why do you oppose the “surge”? For almost four years, this administration has been saying, “Just give us another six months. Give us more time. The Iraqis need more help. We need more troops. We need more money.” I am not willing to sacrifice more young men and women for a policy that isn’t working.
What do you think the real effect of the “surge” would be? More American lives lost. Billions of dollars going into this hole. It will erode our standing in the Middle East and the world. It will destroy our force structure. It will divide this country in a bitter way not seen since Vietnam. And what do we get in return? The administration likes to point to these benchmarks—the Iraqis wrote a constitution, they had an election, they elected a unity government. The administration takes great pride in saying, “It’s now a sovereign nation. They’re in charge of their own affairs.” It’s completely untrue, but they say it anyway.
What would it take to secure Baghdad? It’s not ours to secure. We have never understood that! We have framed this in a way that never made sense: “Win or lose in Iraq.” Wait a minute! There is no win or loss for us. The Iraqis will determine how this turns out. We can help them with our blood and our treasure and our standing, but in the end they have to deal with the sectarian problems. That is what’s consuming that country. It’s not Al Qaeda. It’s not the terrorists. That’s not the main problem over there. It’s a civil war!
The administration doesn’t call it that. They won’t call it civil war. Everybody calls it a civil war! Of course it’s a civil war. The generals call it a civil war. And it’s even worse than a civil war, because in addition to the sectarian violence, you’ve got Shia killing Shia. We have ethnic cleansing of major proportions going on in Baghdad. It’s reminiscent of Bosnia. A truck pulls up and Uncle Joe is put inside; his body is found in a dump two or three days later, arms bound, usually tortured—one of the favorite deals is to drill into their head a little bit while they’re still conscious and then shoot them. We can’t solve that!
If we can’t win and the public wants out, isn’t it the responsibility of Congress to check the power of the president? Sure.
But it seems Congress has been ineffective at that. Well, we have. We’ve abdicated our responsibilities. That has to do with the fact that the Republican Party controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate. When that happens, you get no probing, no questioning, no oversight. If Bill Clinton had invaded Iraq and after two years he was having the same problems, do you think the Republican Congress would have put up with that? I don’t think so.
Do you wish you’d voted differently in October of 2002, when Congress had a chance to authorize or not authorize the invasion? Have you read that resolution?
I have. It’s not quite the way it’s been framed by a lot of people, as a resolution to go to war. That’s not quite what the resolution said.
It said, “to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.” In the event that all other options failed. So it’s not as simple as “I voted for the war.” That wasn’t the resolution.
But there was a decision whether to grant the president that authority or not. Exactly right. And if you recall, the White House had announced that they didn’t need that authority from Congress.
Which they seem to say about a lot of things. That’s right. Mr. [Alberto] Gonzales was the president’s counsel at that time, and he wrote a memo to the president saying, “You have all the powers that you need.” So I called Andy Card, who was then the chief of staff, and said, “Andy, I don’t think you have a shred of ground to stand on, but more to the point, why would a president seriously consider taking a nation to war without Congress being with him?” So a few of us—Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I—were invited into discussions with the White House.
It’s incredible that you had to ask for that. It is incredible. That’s what I said to Andy Card. Said it to Powell, said it to Rice. Might have even said it to the president. And finally, begrudgingly, they sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.
It wasn’t specific to Iraq? Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. I mean, is Central Asia in the region? I suppose! 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.
They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere they wanted in the Middle East? Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up, and put our language in it.
But that should also have triggered alarm bells about what they really wanted to do. Well, it did. I’m not defending our votes; I’m just giving a little history of how this happened. You have to remember the context of when that resolution was passed. This was about a year after September 11. The country was still truly off balance. So the president comes out talking about “weapons of mass destruction” that this “madman dictator” Saddam Hussein has, and “our intelligence shows he’s got it,” and “he’s capable of weaponizing,” and so on.
And producing a National Intelligence Estimate that turned out to be doctored. Oh yeah. All this stuff was doctored. Absolutely. But that’s what we were presented with. And I’m not dismissing our responsibility to look into the thing, because there were senators who said, “I don’t believe them.” But I was told by the president—we all were—that he would exhaust every diplomatic effort.
You were told that personally? I remember specifically bringing it up with the president. I said, “This has to be like your father did it in 1991. We had every Middle East nation except one with us in 1991. The United Nations was with us.”
Did he give you that assurance, that he would do the same thing as his father? Yep. He said, “That’s what we’re going to do.” But the more I look back on this, the more I think that the administration knew there was some real hard question whether he really had any WMD. In January of 2003, if you recall, the inspectors at the IAEA, who knew more about what Saddam had than anybody, said, “Give us two more months before you go to war, because we don’t think there’s anything in there.” They were the only ones in Iraq. We hadn’t been in there. We didn’t know what the hell was in there. And the president wouldn’t do it! So to answer your question—Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.
And you feel like you were misled?I asked tough questions of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld before the war: How are you going to govern? Who’s going to govern? Where is the money coming from? What are you going to do with their army? How will you secure their borders? And I was assured every time I asked, “Senator, don’t worry, we’ve got task forces on that, they’ve been working, they’re coordinated,” and so on.
Do you think they knew that was false? Oh, I eventually was sure they knew. Even before we actually invaded, I had a pretty clear sense of it—that this administration was hell-bent on going to war in Iraq.
Even if it meant deceiving Congress? That’s right.
Congress has a lot less leverage to stop the war, now that it’s begun. Well, we still have power, starting with appropriations, oversight, the power of the people, the polls. We represent the voters.
It’s indirect, though. It is indirect, if you’re looking to stop the war. We’re already in it, we’re hugely invested, half a trillion dollars, over 3,000 dead…
And the decision to withhold funding is a tough one. That’s right, because it can be seen as political. It is touchy. Nobody ever wants to be accused of cutting a canteen from the troops, so you get into that murky area: Are you hurting the troops by cutting off funding?
Where are you on that? I think we need to exercise oversight of the funding. The president is going to come up with probably $100 billion in “emergency supplemental” funding for the war. That bill needs to get oversight. The last four years, we haven’t had any oversight over these “emergency” appropriations. Let’s examine it. Let’s pull it apart: “What’s this 40 million for?”
That seems so slow and bureaucratic. It’s frustrating. Especially when you’re losing young Americans every day. We just keep throwing them into the fire.
Does it seem like the president is basically daring you to cut funding? He is. He feels, as I think a number of Republicans do, that it would be a disastrous thing politically. These are bright people. They understand politics about as well as anyone. President Bush has been elected twice. Some might argue that he wasn’t elected the first time. With the popular vote, he actually wasn’t. But he’s very savvy politically. He’s never going to stand for election again, and he believes this is right for the country. The president is trying to do something very difficult: sustain a war without the support of the American people.
Are you especially sensitive about these wartime decisions because you’ve been to war? Certainly going through combat in Vietnam and seeing war up close, seeing friends wounded and killed in front of you, you cannot help but be framed by that experience. When I got to Vietnam, I was a rifleman. I was a private, about as low as you can get. So my frame of reference is very much geared toward the guy at the bottom who’s doing the fighting and dying. Jim Webb and I are the only ones in the Senate who had that experience. John McCain served his country differently—he spent five years as a prisoner of war. John Kerry was on a boat for about three months, maybe less. I don’t think my experience makes me any better, but it does make me very sober about committing our nation to war. We should never again get into a fiasco like we did in Vietnam. And if we are going to use force, we better make damn sure it is in the national interest.
Which is essentially the “Powell Doctrine.” Do you and Colin Powell still talk? We’re very good friends.
Do you think it’s hard for him to keep silent these days? I think it is very hard for him. I think he is greatly tormented by all of this.
Does it surprise you that so many people in the administration who supported this war, didn’t have any military experience? I have never doubted the motives of those who wanted to go to war so badly. I don’t question their moral standing.
But you might wonder if they really understand what war is. Look, it has not gone unnoticed that President Bush served a little time in the National Guard. Secretary Rice never served. Wolfowitz never served. Feith never served. Cheney had five deferments. Rumsfeld might have done something at one time. But the only guy that had any real experience was Colin Powell. And they cut him off. That’s just a fact. That’s not subjective. That’s the way it was.
Does being a veteran also make you sensitive to the administration’s approach to interrogation and the use of secret military prisons? It does, because that’s not who America is. We have always, certainly since World War II, had the moral high ground in the world. But these secret prisons and the treatment at Guantánamo destroy all of that. We ought to shut down Guantánamo. There shouldn’t be any secret prisons. Why do we need those? What are we afraid of? Here we are, the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Why can’t we let the Red Cross into our prisons? Why do we deny they exist? Why do we keep them locked up? What are we afraid of? Why aren’t we dealing with Iran and Syria?
What about civil liberties? Does it concern you that the administration has been searching bank records and personal mail, and listening to international phone calls, without warrants? Very much. We have always been able to protect national security without sacrificing the liberties of the individual. Once you lose those rights, it’s very hard to get them back. There have been arguments made that if we just give up a few rights, it will be easier to preserve our national security. That should never, ever happen. When you take office, you take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. That is your first responsibility.
Is it strange for you to be allied on these issues with the anti-war left, which is not exactly your constituency? I think these issues are starting to redefine the political landscape. You are going to see alliances and relationships develop that are based on this war. You are going to see a reorientation of political parties.
How conservative are you really? Tell me the truth: You don’t care whether or not gay people get married, do you? No. Personally, I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but that’s because I see it as a religious union. As a legal contract, marriage should be up to the states. If a state wants to change the rules, that’s up to them.
What about the drug war? You don’t really think it’s going any better than the Iraq war, do you? The drug war is different. Drugs are against the law.
But what do you think of the law? That’s part of having a society. You have to have standards, social mores that are acceptable. You can’t go around exempting the law.
But Congress writes the laws. Yes, and you can try to change the laws. If someone thinks marijuana ought to be legalized, go through the process. I would be opposed to it, by the way. Drugs are a devastating problem. Meth is creeping across the country. I know there are some who say you wouldn’t have near the problem if you just legalize drugs, but I disagree.
How about flag burning? I voted for a constitutional amendment to ban it.
Isn’t it a form of expression, if some schmuck wants to make a statement? I think you can defend your position both ways on that, but I am against it.
You don’t hear very many politicians say that both sides of an issue are reasonable these days. We are living through one of the most transformative periods in history. If we are going to make it, we need a far greater appreciation and respect for others, or we’re going to blow up mankind. Look at what zealotry can do. Religious zealotry has been responsible for killing more people than any other thing. Look at the Middle East today. It’s all about religion. We need to move past those divisions and learn to be tolerant and respectful. If we go out there full of intolerance and hatred, we’ll never make it.

Hagel Gaining Ground in the Polls

2007-01-20T11:51:00.000-08:00

A summary of 8 states courtesy of race42008.com:

Michigan:
Giuliani 34%
McCain 24%
Romney 10%
Gingrich 9%
Thompson 7%
Huckabee 2%
Brownback, Gilmore, Hagel, Hunter, Pataki 0%
Undecided 14%

Missouri:
McCain 31%
Giuliani 18%
Gingrich 14%
Brownback 5%
Hagel 3%
Romney 2%
Thompson 2%
Huckabee 1%
Gilmore, Hunter, Pataki 0%
Undecided 24%

Florida:
Giuliani 30%
Gingrich 16%
McCain 15%
Romney 2%
Hagel 2%
Brownback 1%
Huckabee 1%
Pataki 1%
Gilmore, Hunter, Thompson 0%
Undecided 32%

Pennsylvania:
Giuliani 35%
McCain 25%
Hagel 4%
Brownback 2%
Romney 1%
Gilmore 1%
Huckabee 1%
Hunter, Pataki, Thompson 0%
Undecided 21%

Illinois: Giuliani 33%
McCain 24%
Romney 12%
Gingrich 8%
Brownback 4%
Thompson 4%
Hagel 3%
Hunter 1%
Gilmore, Huckabee, Pataki 0%
Undecided 11%

New Mexico:
Giuliani 38%
McCain 20%
Gingrich 9%
Romney 7%
Hagel 6%
Brownback 4%
Pataki 1%
Gilmore, Huckabee, Hunter, Thompson 0%
Undecided 15%

California:
Giuliani 33%
Gingrich 19%
McCain 18%
Hagel 5%
Romney 3%
Hunter 1%
Brownback, Gilmore, Huckabee, Pataki, Thompson 0%
Undecided 22%

North Carolina:
Giuliani 34%
McCain 26%
Gingrich 11%
Huckabee 4%
Romney 2%
Hagel 2%
Gilmore 1%
Brownback, Hunter, Pataki, Thompson 0%
Undecided 19%

As you can see, Hagel is doing decently in 7 out of the 8 states listed, considering that he has not yet formally declared his candidacy. The state that he is not doing well in is Michigan--so I'm working on getting my Michigan Team to step it up a little and spread his name around. Senator Hagel's biggest problem is his name recognition, so keep talking about him whenever you can!

Hagel to Make a Decision Soon

2007-01-19T16:12:00.000-08:00

CNN reports that Chuck Hagel realizes that if he wants to get in the 2008 race he needs to do so soon.

Hagel to decide on White House bid 'soon'
WASHINGTON
(CNN) -- Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, an outspoken Republican critic of the war
in Iraq, told CNN Wednesday he will decide on whether to wage a presidential run
soon.
"I'll let you know, Wolf -- I've got to make a decision soon," Hagel told
CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "I will make that decision."

Hagel Statement on President Bush’s Plan to Increase U.S. Troops in Iraq

2007-01-12T10:32:00.000-08:00

Senator Chuck Hagel , a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees, released the following statement January 11th regarding President Bush’s address to the nation on a new way forward in Iraq: “I am opposed to the escalation of American involvement in Iraq, including more U.S. troops. This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. It is wrong to place American troops into the middle of Iraq’s civil war. It is not in America’s national interest to increase our troop presence in Iraq. The President’s strategy will cost more American lives; sink us deeper into the bog of Iraq making it more difficult to get out; cost billions of dollars more; further strain an American military that has already reached its breaking point; further diminish America’s standing in the Middle East; and continue to allow the Iraqis to walk away from their responsibilities. The fate of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqis—not the Americans. We have already given four years, thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Iraq. “We cannot escape the reality that there will be no military solution in Iraq. The Iraqis are the only ones who can stop the sectarian and inter-sectarian violence that is now consuming their country. Iraqi leaders must understand the stark choice that they face between widening anarchy and violence and a concerted Iraqi effort toward political reconciliation. We cannot want success for Iraq more than they want it for themselves. More American troops, treasure and casualties will not change this reality. It will make it worse. General Abizaid testified to this point in November before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Instead of increasing our troop presence in Iraq, we should be focused on helping the Iraqis find a political solution and creating a policy that allows us to leave Iraq honorably, has the sustained support of the American people and does not further destabilize the Middle East. This will require redefining our mission and our involvement in Iraq. A new American strategy for Iraq should include: • moving our troops out of the cities to Iraq’s border areas, allowing us to help secure the territorial integrity of Iraq which will be seriously threatened and is critical for the future of Iraq; • begin turning over internal security of Iraq to the Iraqis; • engaging all nations in the Middle East to develop a regional internationally sponsored peace process; • accelerating training of Iraqi troops. “We are all trying to find a workable strategy and policy to address the disaster in Iraq. This should not be a partisan political issue. Congress will now begin the serious work of examining the President’s plan through oversight hearings and debate. Ultimately, the Congress will have to make tough decisions about the President’s plan. However, it is the Iraqis who must reach a political accommodation and find a political resolution. It may take years, but it is not the responsibility of the U.S.”

Another Student for Hagel

2007-01-08T10:09:00.000-08:00

There is a new blog, Nebraska Republicans Rambling, that has posted in support of a Hagel run for President in 2008. Check out the blog and say hi.

Many rumors have spread about Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel running for the republican party's presidential nomination for 2008. As stated, they're only rumors. BUT, there are many bloggers and groups and even grass-root movements to encourage Hagel to run for the presidential nomination.
Being from Nebraska, I can back the support of Hagel. He has done great things for our state and I fell that he can take his experience and improve the state of our Nation. He has been described as a Bush backer/supporter, but is also pushing for a subtle pull-out of Iraq and discourages the sending of more troops into Iraq.
I really hope that Hagel gives it a shot in 2008! Americans could not ask for a better man. Check him out, and help out the Hagel movements!

Newsweek: McCain vs. Hagel

2007-01-07T17:26:00.000-08:00

There is an excellent piece from Newsweek about the differing views on the war between two close friends in the Senate: John McCain and Chuck Hagel. These are two men who are both thinking about running for President in 2008 and are two of the few combat veterans in Congress. They have long been close friends, but are nearly polar opposites on Iraq.

Hagel is "obsessed" with the war in Iraq, says his brother Tom, who served with him in Vietnam. "You can't have a conversation with him without this coming up." During Christmas, Hagel looked "markedly older and grayer than when I saw him this summer down at the beach," says Tom. In an interview with NEWSWEEK last week, Hagel teared up when he began talking about a Purple Heart ceremony he had attended in August in Lincoln, Neb. "You're sitting there thinking, Was this a waste?" said Hagel, who voted for the original congressional resolution backing the war despite raising serious doubts about whether the invasion made sense. He added, somewhat uncomfortably, that at times he wonders whether he has done enough to try to stop the war.

Hagel is not pushing for "Out Now." But he is almost angrily dismissive of the idea of sending an additional 10,000 to 20,000 troops to Iraq. "Are we going to pacify Baghdad?" he asks. "Are we going to break the militia's stronghold? Are we going to use these troops to propel or force a settlement between the Shias and the Sunnis? What's the objective of it? I will guarantee that there's going to be a lot more American casualties. And there's going to be a lot more animosity by the Iraqis." The idea that the Iraqis will respond only to more troops, he says, is "complete folly, unless you're going to kill all the Iraqis."

Read the full article here.

More Publicity of Blogs Supporting Senator Hagel

2007-01-05T13:42:00.000-08:00

On January 4, the North Platte Bulletin published an article also highlighting different blogs supporting Senator Hagel. That article is available at: Hagel for President bandwagon led by bloggers.

I would encourage everybody to check out this article, as well as the previous Omaha World-News article, and continue to show Senator Hagel your support as he is making his decision about his future.

Reassurance from Senator Hagel's Staff

2007-01-03T10:02:00.000-08:00

I have been told that the rumors reported yesterday are false; however, Senator Hagel has not made up his mind about the future of his career yet.

Draft Hagel Movement hits the MSM

2007-01-01T11:38:00.000-08:00

Today the Omaha World Herald mentioned this blog in its article on the Draft Hagel internet movement. Check out the article if you haven't already.

Chuck Hagel's plans for 2008?

2006-12-29T20:22:00.000-08:00

Senator Hagel has said that he won't announce his plans for 2008 until January, be that running for President, running for reelection in the Senate, or moving onto something else. The Leavenworth Street blog reported this today:

On Omaha KMTV Ch. 3's Thursday 6pm news, Joe Jordan reported that while Chuck Hagel won't reveal his Presidential plans until January 2007 at the earliest, two Hagel insiders said Hagel:
1) will NOT run for President
2) and will NOT run for re-election to the U.S. Senate.

Obviously, this is not good news for us; hopefully it is not accurate. Please email Chuck Hagel or contact his Senate office and encourage him to run.

Merry Christmas

2006-12-24T19:15:00.001-08:00

Merry Christmas, everyone!

Political Affiliation Poll

2006-12-18T22:11:00.000-08:00

Tell us a little bit about yourself. If we left out your political affiliation, leave a comment and it will be added.

Issues Poll

2006-12-16T09:26:00.001-08:00

Tell us what issue is most important to you, and if we left yours out, leave a comment here.

Help Needed!

2006-12-12T19:27:00.000-08:00

The Political Derby is about to do another one of its rankings. Their last email said:
"Now's your last chance to make your case for or against a candidate. Send your tips or dirty laundry to wire@politicalderby.com"
Well, let's send these same sorts of arguments to them and try to get Hagel raised in the rankings. The same goes for the Caucus Cooler (http://caucuscooler.blogspot.com/) and the Michigan Cooler (http://michigancooler.blogspot.com/) as well.

Why I support Senator Hagel

2006-12-08T18:15:00.000-08:00

At a time when Republicans have lost the Senate and the House, many see our chances of retaining the Presidency in 2008 as slim to none. I, however, remain confident, due to one man: Senator Chuck Hagel. When I say the name, "Senator Chuck Hagel," many people respond, "who?" And that is the biggest problem that we face. As of now, the front Republican runner is considered to be Senator McCain (AZ); however, I remain confident. Senator McCain lacks the support of a major portion of the Republican Party, the hard core social conservatives. With a mediocre (at best) conservative stance on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, Senator McCain will have a hard time winning the nomination from these voters. Senator Hagel, however, can get the support of the social conservatives, while still being supported by the centrist voters. Senator Hagel is a perfect mix: he is able to get religious and centrist Republicans, something Senator McCain will wish he would have been able to do. The only thing left to do is to spread the word about Senator Hagel. His problem as of now is recognition, as I indicated in my example. At a time when it is looking grim for Republicans, we cannot fail to do all that we can to get Senator Hagel the nomination, so that we can retain the Presidency to keep America a great country.

Be our friend!

2006-11-15T08:03:00.000-08:00

If you're on myspace, you can be our friend! Also be sure to check out the Chuck Hagel Myspace group.

Attention for Students for Hagel

2006-11-10T10:56:00.000-08:00

Students for Hagel has gotten the attention of a couple of other blogs: at Hagel 2008 and New Hampshire Presidential Watch.

Please let us know if you are interested in writing from time to time for this blog (or as a guest contributor).

Seeking Contributors

2006-10-05T09:01:00.000-07:00

Students for Hagel is now forming. If you are a student and would like to help out in the writing of this blog, or would just like to stay informed of what we are doing, email or post a comment. We are particularly interested in getting people from around the country involved that are already involved in college (or high school) Republican groups.

Also check out the Chuck Hagel groups on Facebook and at Myspace.