Bush has too much leeway
According to Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NB).
"When the security of this nation is threatened, Congress and the American people give the president great latitude," he said. "We probably have given this president more flexibility, more latitude, more range, unquestioned, than any president since Franklin Roosevelt -- probably too much. The Congress, in my opinion, really abrogated much of its responsibility."
Pessimistic Response:
You're absolutely right, Senator. So why did you vote FOR the Patriot Act, FOR the Iraq War, and FOR the $87 billion? You chose the party line over the national interest. Of course, you don't have to worry, since you OWN the voting machines!
Optimistic Response:
When Republicans turn against Bush, it's the beginning of the end for him.
Pessimistic Counter-response:
Yeah, but Hagel has been criticizing Bush for over a year now. For example, in August 2002 Hagel was among [the]earliest voices to question Bush's approach to Iraq, [and] claim[ed that the] CIA has 'absolutely no evidence' that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons, and suggested to leading neocon Richard Perle that "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad." (NY Times) He also has been critical about the 9/11 investigation. But nothing serious has resulted from his comments. When it comes to votes in the Senate, he might as well be Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell, no matter how much he talks like Robert Byrd.
According to Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NB).
"When the security of this nation is threatened, Congress and the American people give the president great latitude," he said. "We probably have given this president more flexibility, more latitude, more range, unquestioned, than any president since Franklin Roosevelt -- probably too much. The Congress, in my opinion, really abrogated much of its responsibility."
Pessimistic Response:
You're absolutely right, Senator. So why did you vote FOR the Patriot Act, FOR the Iraq War, and FOR the $87 billion? You chose the party line over the national interest. Of course, you don't have to worry, since you OWN the voting machines!
Optimistic Response:
When Republicans turn against Bush, it's the beginning of the end for him.
Pessimistic Counter-response:
Yeah, but Hagel has been criticizing Bush for over a year now. For example, in August 2002 Hagel was among [the]earliest voices to question Bush's approach to Iraq, [and] claim[ed that the] CIA has 'absolutely no evidence' that Iraq possesses or will soon possess nuclear weapons, and suggested to leading neocon Richard Perle that "Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad." (NY Times) He also has been critical about the 9/11 investigation. But nothing serious has resulted from his comments. When it comes to votes in the Senate, he might as well be Trent Lott or Mitch McConnell, no matter how much he talks like Robert Byrd.
<< Home