Chuck Hagel speaks out to the Omaha World Herald today, calling Palin's claims of foreign policy experience "insulting":
Palin has cited the proximity of Alaska to Russia as evidence of her international experience.
Hagel scoffed at that notion.
"I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, 'I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,'" he said. "That kind of thing is insulting to the American people."
"She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials," Hagel said in an interview. "You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything."
Thank you, Sen. Hagel, for telling it like it is.
The Emperor indeed has no clothes.
Sarah Palin is a national joke.
Here's more good stuff from Hagel - July, 2008 on Face the Nation:
SEN. McCAIN (From videotape.): Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a campaign.
MR. SCHIEFFER: He said this morning that Senator Obama's strategy was based, basically, on political expediency; that he chose, and these are Senator McCain's words, "a political path that would get him the nomination."
SEN. HAGEL: Well, let me begin by making this comment and answering your question. Both of these men are smart, capable, decent men who love their country. I think we as a nation are far better off for these two capable men. One will have to govern this country and bring the country together, as well as lead the world and bring the world together, and that's going to take a bipartisan consensus to govern. They're better off to focus on policy differences. I think John is treading on some very thin ground here when he impugns motives and when we start to get into, `You're less patriotic than me. I'm more patriotic.' I admire, respect John McCain very much, I have a good relationship -- to this day we do, we talk often. I talked to him right before I went to Iraq, matter of fact. John's better than that. And he's not asked for my advice on this, but since you've asked me the question, I think both he and Barack have got -- have to be very careful here, because it's just not responsible to be saying things like that. Again, if for no other reason, for the good of this country and the world, one of these two men, on January 20th next year, is going to have to bring this country together, and the world, to deal with huge problems. I think the next president is going to inherit an inventory of challenges as big as Franklin Roosevelt inherited on March 4, 1933
John McCain - I suspect your long friendship with Chuck Hagel is coming to an end.
And let's not forget this, while McCain is out and about today bleating about how he will support America's workers. McCain tried to derail the GI Bill - because it was too generous!
Title: Lautenberg, Webb, Hagel, Warner Statement on G.I. Bill
Location: Washington, DC
Lautenberg, Webb, Hagel, Warner Statement on G.I. Bill
The following is a statement from Sens. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jim Webb (D-VA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and John Warner (R-VA):
“Senators McCain, Graham and Burr today introduced legislation apparently designed to be an alternative to S. 22, the comprehensive GI Bill package introduced nearly 16 months ago and recently modified to reflect the collective view of a wide range of experts. S.22 now enjoys strong bipartisan support with 57 cosponsors in the Senate—including 44 Democrats, 11 Republicans and 2 Independents—a majority of the House, and most of our nation’s leading veterans’ organizations. In fact, it is important to note that the major pieces of this legislation were specifically endorsed in the recent Independent Budget submitted by a consortium of the top veterans’ organizations.
The proponents of this newly-introduced legislation maintain that S.22 is too generous to today’s veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, is too difficult to administer, and would unduly harm the retention of our active duty military people. Each of these assertions is wrong.
S. 22 is hardly too generous, unless these senators are prepared to say that the World War II GI Bill was too generous. To the contrary, during 15 months of daily cooperation with all of our major veterans groups and many members of Congress, we have refined this legislation in many important ways. It is our best collective, bipartisan effort to mirror the type of benefits given to those who served in World War II.
Nor would S. 22 be too difficult to administer. We have worked closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs and with committee staff on the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and have addressed every major concern. For these reasons, Chairman Akaka of the Veterans Affairs Committee and Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee have cosponsored this bill.
Nor would S. 22 unduly harm active duty retention. Recent statistics from the Army and Marine Corps show that 70 to 75 percent of soldiers and Marines who enlist return to civilian life at, or before, the end of their first enlistment. The military is already doing a very good job of managing its career force. It is not doing a very good job of assisting this large group of people as they attempt to readjust to civilian life, and this is the primary focus of S.22. With respect to active duty retention, a good GI Bill will increase the pool of people interested in serving and lower first-term attrition. Nor have we seen any credible evidence whatsoever that this legislation would affect retention.”