Add Chuck Hagel to the chorus of voices rising in opposition to the escalation of our military commitment to Afghanistan:

No country today has the power to impose its will and values on other nations. As the new world order takes shape, America must lead by building coalitions of common interests, as we did after World War II. Then, international organizations such as the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and GATT (now the World Trade Organization) — while flawed — established boundaries for human and government conduct and expectations that helped keep the world from drifting into World War III and generally made life better for most people worldwide during the second half of the 20th century.

Our greatest threats today come from the regions left behind after World War II. Addressing these threats will require a foreign policy underpinned by engagement — in other words, active diplomacy but not appeasement. We need a clearly defined strategy that accounts for the interconnectedness and the shared interests of all nations. Every great threat to the United States — whether economic, terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, health pandemics, environmental degradation, energy, or water and food shortages — also threatens our global partners and rivals. Accordingly, we cannot view U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan through a lens that sees only “winning” or “losing.” Iraq and Afghanistan are not America’s to win or lose. Win what? We can help them buy time or develop, but we cannot control their fates. There are too many cultural, ethnic and religious dynamics at play in these regions for any one nation to control. For example, the future of Afghanistan is linked directly to Pakistan and what happens in the mountains along their border. Political accommodation and reconciliation in this region will determine the outcome.

But what about the Al Qaeda leadership that were believed to be holed up in the ironically named Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan? There are now reports that at least some of the Al Qaeda remnants in Pakistan have fled to Somalia or Yemen. If your objective is truly to pursue the Al Qaeda leadership, we won’t be able to stop in Afghanistan or even in Pakistan.

The current strategy in Afghanistan appears to be one of pursuing counter-insurgency through a combination of increased troops on our part and building up the native Afghan military to make up the rest of the forces needed for a successful counter-insurgency operation. There are no prospects whatever for Afghanistan itself to support an Afghan Army of the size and abilities necessary to pursue such a strategy. That means that supporting a sizeable commitment of U. S. troops in Afghanistan for, perhaps, a decade and billions in support for the Afghan Army for the foreseeable future.

Are we prepared to make similar commitments in Somalia, Yemen, or anywhere else that harbors takfiri terrorists?

Update

The Washington Post editors come out in favor of a “stay the course” approach in Afghanistan:

The Democratic left and some conservatives have begun to argue that the Afghan war is unwinnable and that U.S. interests can be secured by a much smaller military campaign directed at preventing al-Qaeda from regaining a foothold in the country. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) has proposed a timetable for withdrawal — the same demand the left rallied around when the war in Iraq was going badly. Its most cogent argument is a negative one: that the weakness of the Afghan government and the general backwardness of the country mean that the counterinsurgency strategy, with its emphasis on political and economic development, can’t work.

That might prove true. But the problem with the critics’ argument is that, while the strategy they oppose has yet to be tried, the alternatives they suggest already have been — and they led to failure in both Afghanistan and Iraq. For years, U.S. commanders in both countries focused on killing insurgents and minimizing the numbers and exposure of U.S. troops rather than pacifying the country. The result was that violence in both countries steadily grew, until a counterinsurgency strategy was applied to Iraq in 2007. As for limiting U.S. intervention in Afghanistan to attacks by drones and Special Forces units, that was the strategy of the 1990s, which, as chronicled by the Sept. 11 commission, paved the way for al-Qaeda’s attacks on New York and Washington. Given that the Taliban and al-Qaeda now also aim to overturn the government of nuclear-armed Pakistan, the risks of a U.S. withdrawal far exceed those of continuing to fight the war — even were the result to be continued stalemate.

Unfortunately, Afghanistan is not Iraq. It’s a significantly larger, landlocked country without significant resources and in which we have no strategic interest absent Al Qaeda’s presence there and Al Qaeda has no presence there. It’s decamped. Today we’re fighting the Taliban, native Afghans who oppose the Kabul government.

We can’t legitimize the Kabul government and plow billions into it at the same time. The billions intrinsically delegitimize it. And I know of no precedent for our making this level of commitment to a country in which we have so little interest.

There are middle grounds between doubling down in Afghanistan with a significantly increased force and an essentially permanent commitment to fund its government and huge army on the one hand and complete withdrawal of our forces and support on the other. Imperfect as that may be it may well be the best that we can do.

Update 2

The Wall Street Journal urges President Obama to take a stand on Afghanistan:

President Obama may not want to spend any political capital on Afghanistan, but he has no choice. The main job of his generals should be to win the war, not also to have to sell it, especially when the main opposition so far is emerging from the President’s own left-flank. The opposition will also grow on the right if Americans conclude he isn’t providing the forces or personal leadership needed to win. Now is the time for Mr. Obama to give his generals everything they need to defeat the Taliban, or leave and explain why he’s concluded that Afghanistan is no longer worth the fight.

Although it has a somewhat more truculent tone, that’s not too different from what I wrote earlier this week.

I believe there’s a strong analogy between the way in which President Obama seems to have allowed his generals to define the Administration’s policy WRT Afghanistan and his handling so far of healthcare reform, the energy bill which appears stalled in Congress, and the handling of the financial crisis. I don’t know whether, as Michael Reynolds suggested, it’s an ingenious approach based on his background as a community organizer, it’s because he’s a technocrat strongly inclined to rely on the expertise of those who are supposed to know something, it’s because he’s inexperienced, it’s because he’s a weak manager, he’s trying to deflect political criticism from himself onto others, some combination of the above, or some other reason entirely. I genuinely don’t know.

Update 3

Raymond Pritchett at New Atlanticist articulates the case that COIN isn’t appropriate for Afghanistan very succinctly:

Counterinsurgency theory applies a population centric military strategy for promoting an existing credible governing body in a weak state where the government is facing an armed rebellion or occupation. Counterinsurgency is not the establishment of credible governing authority in a failed state where no credible governance exists. How does a counterinsurgency approach work in a failed state? I thought COIN was for weak states?

We are being told that Afghanistan is a weak state because there is an elected government in power today. How much control does that government have over the people even without the Taliban influence? The Taliban has not been the only problem in Afghanistan over the last eight years, and the governments authority didn’t exist over much of the country even when the Taliban wasn’t the main problem. I am having trouble digesting the suggestion that what we see in Afghanistan is a classic insurgency. Show me the evidence. Can someone please explain why the conditions are that of a classic insurgency, and not the chaotic soup one finds in a country suffering from 30 consecutive years of war caused primarily by foreign power influence compounded by centuries of tribal conflict and mistrust.

I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t a case of when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem begins to look like a nail.

As of this morning, Senator Chuck Hagel is the chairman of Atlantic Council of the United States.

Hagel, who served two terms representing Nebraska from 1997 to 2009, received the Atlantic Council’s Distinguished International Leadership Award in 2004. His breadth of experience, knowledge of foreign policy, and commitment to transatlantic relations provide the basis for strong and productive leadership of the Council. Moreover, he is deeply respected on both sides of the political aisle and on both ends of the Atlantic.

Hagel succeeds General James L. Jones, who stepped down to serve as National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama.     In addition to Jones, several other Atlantic Council board members have joined the Obama administration:  Susan Rice as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Richard Holbrooke as Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, General Eric K. Shinseki as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.

He’ll make his first public appearance in his new capacity at approximately 7 Eastern on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

The big political news this morning is the buzz surrounding speculation that Hillary Clinton could be tabbed as Secretary of State.

Politico’s Mike Allen:

Several Obama transition advisers are strongly advocating Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for secretary of state, a move that would create the ultimate “Team of Rivals” Cabinet, according to officials involved in the discussions.

President-elect Obama has narrowed the possibilities for secretary of state, and Clinton is among those being strongly considered, the officials said. Some even call her the favorite.

It is not known what Obama himself thinks of the idea. But the fact that it is being entertained within his camp shows how much things have changed in the months since he defeated her for the Democratic nomination in a protracted primary marathon.

Al Kamen and Philip Rucker, WaPo:

There’s increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia.

There’s talk, indeed, that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) may now be under consideration for the post. Her office referred any questions to the Obama transition; Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to comment.

The pick of the former presidential contender and Senate Armed Services Committee member would go a long way toward healing any remaining divisions within the Democratic Party after the divisive primaries. Also, Clinton has long been known for her work on international women’s issues and human rights. The former first lady could also enhance Obama’s efforts to restore U.S. standing amongst allies worldwide.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell:

Two Obama advisers have told NBC News that Hillary Clinton is under consideration to be secretary of state. Would she be interested? Those who know Clinton say possibly.  But her office says that any decisions about the transition are up to the president-elect and his team.

Clinton was seen taking a flight to Chicago today, but an adviser says it was on personal business.  It is unknown whether she had any meeting or conversation with Obama while there.

Other Democrats known to want the State Department post are Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Bill Richardson. A possible compromise choice would be former Sen. Tom Daschle.

Clinton is from the Chicago area, so I wouldn’t read much into the trip.

While a “Team of Rivals” concept is a good one, Clinton for State isn’t.  She’s simply not qualified.  Aside from some dog-and-pony show trips as First Lady and Senator, she’s got no foreign policy credentials whatsoever.  Her training, experience, and demonstrated interests are in domestic issues.

Nunn would be the most interesting of the above picks, followed by Richardson and Hagel.  Only Daschle makes less sense than Clinton.

In terms of a fence mending make-nice move, she’s too old for a Supreme Court appointment, which would otherwise be attractive.  I’m not sure there are any other Cabinet jobs that would be particularly attractive, given her stature and presumptive competitiveness for Majority Leader once Harry Reid steps down.

UPDATE: Slate’s Emily Yoffe has a brilliant and amusing observation:

I wonder if the Obama administration would waive the 63-item questionnaire all potential administration officials are required to fill out before naming Hillary secretary of state. There are so many questions that might be troublesome, from No. 6, concerning “whether you or your spouse” ever received money from any foreign entities (See Bill’s amazing Kazakhstan adventure), to No. 8, asking for a description of the “most controversial matters you have ever been involved in,” to No. 12, “Please identify all speeches you have given” to my favorite, No. 13, in which the candidate is asked to describe any electronic communication they have ever sent that might be “a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect.” There isn’t enough bandwith in the world for Hillary to attach all the documents that answer these questions.

Heh.

The gang behind Newsweek’s Ruckus blog is asking its contributors to answer the following question: “What would be the boldest vice presidential choice John McCain and Barack Obama could make?”

If we leave aside the silly and absurd, for McCain, the answer seems obvious:  Joe Lieberman.

This would double down on his foreign policy experience as well as reinforcing his cultivated image as a maverick who’s not bound by party lines.  It would reach out to moderates, strengthen his appeal to Jewish voters, and conceivably pull in some Hillary Clinton dead-enders and DLC Democrats.   It would also risk further alienating conservatives, which probably means he won’t do it.

For Obama, I’ll go in a similar direction:  Chuck Hagel or Colin Powell.

Picking a moderate Republican with serious foreign policy credentials would seriously undercut McCain’s chief argument, that Obama is too unseasoned to be commander-in-chief.  Powell would be especially intriguing in that you’d have two African Americans, neither of whom have familial ties to the traditional civil rights/legacy of slavery heritage of the community.  That might be more risk than Obama can bear, however, and I rather doubt Powell would take the offer.  Hagel, though, just might.

Update (Dave Schuler)

Right picks, wrong tickets.

First off, Sen. Obama doesn’t need to make a “bold choice” and IMO would be imprudent if he did. His candidacy is already a bold choice. What he needs to do is make a choice that’s viewed as safe by moderates and independents. Who better for that than Joe Lieberman? Yes, it would aggravate the progressive wing of his own party And that would be bad how?

Sen. McCain could do a lot worse than talking Colin Powell into being his running mate. Downside: he’s too old. That overrules him as a running mate for Sen. Obama, too. I think McCain really needs to pick a woman as a running mate.

Photo credit: AP Photo/CBS Face the Nation, Karin Cooper

Pat Lang, a retired Green Beret colonel, is somewhat bemused at how much is being made of John McCain’s military experience.

John McCain is an admirable man. There are many such who wore the uniform of the United States in adverse circumstance. Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, Daniel Inouye, Bob Dole… Shall I go on? How many names would there be? How many million names? In their new found love of soldiers Americans ascribe something almost sacramental to the experience of military service. This is unexpected. There has emerged a kind of reverence for those who have served which is unfamiliar to the veterans of earlier generations. I am old enough to remember the aftermath of World War II. Veterans of that war were treated with respect, but not with veneration. Perhaps there were too many of them for that.

McCain’s brief experience as a junior naval aviator and his extended suffering in North Vietnamese hands seem to be thought by many to be serious qualifications for the ultimate job of making national level policy decisions about the country’s security. Television newsies gush about his empathy with soldiers and understanding for the horrors of war. Sentimentality abounds in these discussions. Sentimentality is good in Valentine’s Day cards. It is bad in picking a president for the country and a commander in chief for the armed forces.

He notes, too, that we have had presidents who made excellent wartime presidents despite little or no military experience.

I’ve argued for quite some time that it’s a mistake for candidates to tout their wartime heroism as a major factor in selling their qualifications for higher office. First, as Lang notes, being a heroic junior officer doesn’t have much bearing on being commander-in-chief. Second, to the extent that military prowess is an asset with the voters, others will make sure that they know about it. Third, and perhaps most importantly, its simply unseemly to toot your own horn in that way. Real heroes don’t shout, and all that.

Moreover, it’s far from clear that it works. If did, George H.W. Bush would have been a two-termer and his son would have been a no-termer. Indeed, it’s rarer that the candidate with the most military experience wins. The match-ups over the last forty years:

2004: Bush re-elected over John Kerry, Silver Star recipient

2000: George W. Bush, National Guard bare minimum stateside flyboy beats Al Gore, Vietnam vet

1996: Clinton re-elected over Bob Dole, massively wounded WWII vet

1992: Bush loses to Bill Clinton, dope smoking draft dodger

1988: George H.W. Bush, Distinguished Flying Cross winner, beats Mike Dukakis, peacetime Army vet

1984: Reagan beats Walter Mondale, peacetime Army vet

1980: Ronald Reagan, wartime Army movie star beat Carter

1976: Jimmy Carter, distinguished peacetime Navy career, beats Gerald Ford, WWII Navy officer

1972: Nixon beats George McGovern, WWII hero

1968: Richard Nixon, WWII non-line Navy service beats Hubert Humphrey, no military service

Only twice did the candidate with the more impressive military record win and, really, only 1988 is a true example. Nixon was a Quaker whose Navy career was most distinguished for his skill as a poker player; he wins this by default to a man who “tried twice to join the armed forces [during WWII], but was rejected both times due to a hernia.”

McCain’s military service was distinguished and what he endured at the hands of the Viet Cong is unimaginable to most of us. Presumably, we can draw some conclusions about his character from how he conducted himself during those times. And, certainly, 27 years in the Navy (counting his time at Annapolis) should be factored in as important experience in weighing him for the presidency.

But banging us over the head constantly with the fact that he went to Vietnam won’t get him elected president. Citing experience and contrasting with his opponent’s relative dearth of same is fine. But he’s still got to sell us on his vision for the future. The election is about 2009 and beyond, not 1967.

Wes Clark and Jon Soltz take to the op-ed pages of the LAT to urge John McCain to support a massive increase in educational benefits for our veterans.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, sponsored by Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), will restore the promise of a cost-free education to those who serve in the military. The original GI Bill transformed American history, providing education for returning soldiers. The GI Bill not only recognized our nation’s moral duty for the enormous sacrifices of our World War II veterans, but it helped create America’s middle class and spurred decades of economic growth for our country. Economists estimate that the original bill returned anywhere between $5 and $13 for every dollar we spent on it. But the original GI Bill has become woefully outdated, to the point where the average benefit doesn’t even cover half the cost of an in-state student’s education at a public college.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Act, which has an estimated cost between $2.5 billion and $4 billion, is common-sense legislation. With 51 cosponsors, including nine Republicans, the three other Vietnam War veterans in the Senate and former Secretary of the Navy John Warner, the bill simply updates what the late historian Stephen Ambrose called “the best piece of legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress.” Yet, faced with unprecedented filibusters, it needs 60 cosponsors. As de facto leader of the party, McCain could signal to other Republicans to sign on to the bill and assure passage.

[...]

The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service. This is as offensive as it is absurd.

First, it is morally reprehensible to fix the system so that civilian life is unappealing to service members, in an attempt to force them to re-up. Education assistance is not a handout, it is a sacred promise that we have made for generations in return for service.

Second, falling military recruitment numbers are just as serious as retention problems. To send the message that this nation will not help you make the most of your life will dissuade a large number of our best and brightest from choosing military service over other career options.

McCain has not committed himself one way or the other on this legislation, claiming he hasn’t had time to read it. Certainly, it’s time to make time.

Kevin Drum is right: “Updating the GI Bill seems like a political no-brainer. Even if it were a bad idea on the merits, it seems like the kind of thing that would get huge bipartisan support. After all, who’s opposed to a college education for returning Iraq vets?”

One could reasonably argue that this particular bill is too expensive or larded with poison pills but, surely, McCain is in an ideal position to take the lead in proposing whatever changes might need to be made to fix it.

An NPR story on this issue this morning noted that the original G.I. Bill was sufficiently generous that vets could attend even the most elite private institutions. Given how much tuition has soared compared to inflation, that’s probably not feasible. Certainly, though, a year of military service ought earn a year’s in-state tuition and books at a public institution. And it would be awfully nice, indeed, if the elite private schools considered a G.I. Bill voucher payment in full.

Image: The History Cooperative

Media Matters has again successfully embroiled the blogosphere in a controversy with a press release. The latest, entitled “Limbaugh: Service members who support U.S. withdrawal are ‘phony soldiers,’” has gained wide circulation on the left. The lede:

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.”

This got even the likes of Steve Benen going. He begins his post, “Limbaugh calls service members who support withdrawal ‘phony soldiers’”,

Rush Limbaugh smeared countless U.S. service members — ranging in rank from private to general — who dare to believe that withdrawal from Iraq is a good idea. As Limbaugh described it, those in uniform who disagree with him are “phony soldiers.”

Matt Yglesias, though, comes within an inch of getting it right:

Rush Limbaugh calls anti-war troops “phony soldiers.” One wonders if he’s literally doubting the existence of such people, and thus proving himself to be an idiot, or metaphorically doubting their authenticity as soldiers, thus proving himself to be morally contemptible. Both are, obviously, plausible end-states for Rush.

If one looks at the transcript, it’s rather clear that it’s the former. Limbaugh is no idiot but one of his favorite rhetorical devices is defining a group in a very narrow way and then claiming anyone who doesn’t fit that definition but nonetheless identifies himself that way is either a liar, a plant, misguided, or the like. Indeed, there are several instances of this in the exchange in question (highlights mine):

RUSH: Mike, you can’t possibly be a Republican.

CALLER: I am.

RUSH: You can’t be Republican.

CALLER: Oh, I am definitely Republican.

RUSH: You sound just like a Democrat.

CALLER: No, but seriously, Rush, how long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: As long as it takes.

CALLER: How long?

RUSH: As long as it takes. It is very serious. This is the United States of America at war with Islamofascists. Just like your job, you do everything you have to do, whatever it takes to get it done, if you take it seriously.

CALLER: So then you say we need to stay there forever?

RUSH: No, Bill — (Laughing) or Mike. I’m sorry. I’m confusing you with the guy from Texas.

CALLER: I used to be military, okay, and I am a Republican.

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: And I do listen to you, but –

RUSH: Right, I know. And I, by the way, used to walk on the moon.

CALLER: How long do we have to stay there?

RUSH: You’re not listening to what I say. You can’t possibly be a Republican. I’m answering every question; it’s not what you want to hear, and so it’s not even penetrating your little wall of armor you’ve got built up. I said we stay to get the job done, as long as it takes. I didn’t say forever. Nothing takes forever. That’s not possible, Bill. Mike. Whatever. Nobody lives forever, no situation lasts forever, everything ends. We determine how do we want it to end, in our favor or in our defeat? With people like you in charge, who want to put a timeline on everything — do you ever get anything done in your life? Or do you say, “Well, I wanted to have this done by now, and it’s not, so screw it”? You don’t live your life that way. Well, hell, you might, I don’t know. But the limitations that you want to impose here are senseless, and they, frankly, portray no evidence that you are a Republican.

Another Mike. This one in Olympia, Washington. Welcome to the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. Thanks for taking my call.

RUSH: You bet.

CALLER: I have a retort to Mike in Chicago, because I am serving in the American military, in the Army. I’ve been serving for 14 years, very proudly.

RUSH: Thank you, sir.

CALLER: I’m one of the few that joined the Army to serve my country, I’m proud to say, not for the money or anything like that. What I would like to retort to is that, what these people don’t understand, is if we pull out of Iraq right now, which is not possible because of all the stuff that’s over there, it would take us at least a year to pull everything back out of Iraq, then Iraq itself would collapse and we’d have to go right back over there within a year or so.

RUSH: There’s a lot more than that that they don’t understand. The next guy that calls here I’m going to ask them, “What is the imperative of pulling out? What’s in it for the United States to pull out?” I don’t think they have an answer for that other than, “When’s he going to bring the troops home? Keep the troops safe,” whatever.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: It’s not possible intellectually to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it’s not. And what’s really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.

RUSH: The phony soldiers.

CALLER: Phony soldiers. If you talk to any real soldier and they’re proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq, they understand their sacrifice and they’re willing to sacrifice for the country.

RUSH: They joined to be in Iraq.

CALLER: A lot of people.

RUSH: You know where you’re going these days, the last four years, if you sign up. The odds are you’re going there or Afghanistan, or somewhere.

To Limbaugh — at least Limbaugh the radio persona — if you disagree with his views, you’re not a Republican. If you say you’re a huge fan of his show but you disagree with him on this one issue, you’re a Democratic plant sent in with talking points, posing as a loyal listener to get past the call screener. If you claim to be a veteran or currently in the military and differ with him on military issues, you’re not really a soldier. Similarly, anonymous soldiers quoted in the press criticizing the war are fictitious. Liberal journalists fabricate them to spice up their stories.

He’s an exceedingly bright fellow — you don’t make yourself into a household name, basically invent a new medium, and last two decades doing three hours a day doing radio call-in otherwise — so my guess is this schtick is just an act used to bait the opposition and score points with his loyal listeners. I don’t think he actually believes this nonsense.

Regardless, it’s an infuriating and dishonest stance. Still, it’s not the same as what he’s being accused of here, though: Saying that soldiers who want to leave Iraq are therefore “phony soldiers.”

That said, as Media Matters, Benen, and others document, Limbaugh has a history of throwing around language suggesting that war opponents are un-American, un-patriotic, or worse.

As Media Matters for America has documented, Limbaugh denounced as “contemptible” and “indecent” MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement — titled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” — critical of Gen. David Petraeus, but has repeatedly attacked the patriotism of those with whom he disagrees. For instance, on the January 25 broadcast of his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran: “Senator Betrayus.” A day earlier, Hagel had sided
with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that President Bush's escalation in Iraq was against “the national
interest.” Additionally, on August 21, 2006, Limbaugh said: “I want to respectfully disagree with the president on the last part of what he said. I am going to challenge the patriotism of people who disagree with him because the people that disagree with him want to
lose.”

As Media Matters has also documented, on the August 2, 2005, program, Limbaugh repeatedly referred to Iraq war veteran and then-Democratic congressional candidate Paul Hackett as “another liberal Democrat trying to hide behind a military uniform” and accused him of going to Iraq “to pad the resumé.” On the day of Limbaugh's comments, Hackett narrowly lost a special election to Republican Jean Schmidt for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat.

This tactic is deplorable, if effective. It’s not solely a tactic of the Right, however: our debates on everything from abortion to affirmative action to welfare reform to Social Security is tinged with hateful language designed to put opponents on the defensive rather than focus on the merits of the policies under discussion.

There, is, however a not unimportant distinction in the Petraeus ad and Limbaugh’s outrageous attacks on Kerry, Hackett, and Hagel: The latter are/were politicians engaged in partisan contests to win political office while the former is a serving military officer constrained by his office from fighting back in kind.

Once one has taken off the uniform and entered the political fray, the gloves come off. Being a war hero doesn’t and shouldn’t give one a free pass in the political arena — although those who haven’t served should tread carefully, lest the attacks backfire. The attacks on the patriotism and military service of the likes of John Murtha, Max Cleland, Kerry, and Hagel are despicable; no more so, though, than other smear tactics (push polling, gay baiting, the race card) that have become routine in our campaigns.

Former Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns (R) will reportedly be resigning from the Cabinet in order to run for the Nebraska Senate seat being vacated by Chuck Hagel. Johanns resigned as Nebraska’s Governor at the start of the second Bush Adminstration (Jan 2005), after being reelected in 2002 with 69% of the vote.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns is resigning to run for the U.S. Senate in Nebraska. The White House scheduled an announcement for this morning by President Bush, who will be joined by Johanns, a senior administration official said Wednesday evening.

After news broke about Johanns’ plans, some critics quickly went on the attack.

Johanns would be leaving the U.S. Department of Agriculture before Congress approves a new farm bill, which happens every five years, said state Democratic Party spokesman Eric Fought.

“It’s interesting this was supposed to be his dream job, and he’s looking to leave it before he’s done,” Fought said.

Resignation would free Johanns from the Hatch Act’s prohibition on federal employees being candidates for partisan public office. He then could formally enter the race to succeed Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, who is retiring at the end of 2008.

No Democrat has yet announced a bid for the seat, although Bob Kerrey, a former two-term senator and former governor, is close to deciding whether he will run.

As a former Nebraska resident, I’d say Johanns has the Republican nomination. His competition is the State Attorney General Jon Bruning, and a former Congressman and Omaha mayor, Hal Daub. The probable Democrat opponent is former Senator Bob Kerry (no relation to Mass Senator Kerry), who has been living in New York City for the past seven years, a big negative strike against him.

The contest for Nebraska’s open Senate seat is shaping up to be a potential clash of two statewide titans. Democrats view the race as a prime pickup opportunity if former Sen. Bob Kerrey jumps in the race. Kerrey met last week with Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to discuss a potential candidacy.

Kerrey, now president of the New School in New York City, remains a popular figure in Nebraska and has the name identification and fundraising capability to mount a serious campaign.
[…]
The Nebraska Senate seat is also one of a growing number of seats in traditionally conservative states that Democrats are ever-optimistic they can pick up in 2008. Already the party is bullish about picking up Republican-leaning seats that have been in GOP hands for the last decade.

Not exactly. Nebraska has been a Populist state since the Depression. It is a religious state, but not so much Evangelical as Catholic. It is part of the West, not the South.

While Republicans hold a substantial registration advantage in Nebraska, the state has not elected a Republican senator other than Hagel, an iconoclastic moderate, since 1972.

Johanns is another moderate. If Bob Kerry runs, this could be an interesting race. If Kerry doesn’t run, there is no contest.

If we needed confirmation that silly season is in full swing, we need look no further than David Broder’s wistful column this morning about a possible independent bid by a Michael Bloomberg-Chuck Hagel ticket. Aside from the standard “Washington is gridlocked in partisan battle between two equally spent parties” and people are tired of it mantra, there’s no argument presented as to why these guys would be particularly attractive candidates. Nor is there any scenario offered, plausible or otherwise, as to how they could get anywhere close to 270 Electoral votes.

Basically, Bloomberg has money and both of them have, in their non-ideological, non-partisan way, demonstrated “leadership.” But Mitt Romney fits that bill. And one would think John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Mike Huckabee, and perhaps some other candidates already in the race have had more opportunity to demonstrate leadership than either Bloomberg or Hegel.

But, hey, the punditocracy is already bored with the current crop of candidates, so we have to construct fantasies scenarios that would shake up the race. A fellow can dream, I guess.

UPDATE: Well, Broder has managed to achieve bipartisan consensus, if not in quite the way he had intended.

From the right: Steven Taylor – “Broder Prompts a Question: Does it Get Less Important than the VP Nominee on a Third Party Ticket?”

From the left: Steve Benen – “When silly meets predictable.”

Former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn is thinking about a White House bid, the AJC’s Jim Galloway reports.

Sam Nunn left the U.S. Senate more than 10 years ago. Since then, the Georgia Democrat, who made his name nationally as a defense-minded hawk, has watched what’s happened to the country, and he’s more than a bit ticked — at the “fiasco” in Iraq, a federal budget spinning out of control, the lack of an honest energy policy, and a presidential contest that, he says, seems designed to thwart serious discussion of the looming crises.

In an hourlong interview, in his small office on Marietta Street on the edge of the Georgia Tech campus, Nunn acknowledged that he — like former Georgia congressman Newt Gingrich — is considering a run for the White House next year.

But unlike Gingrich, Nunn would run outside the traditional two-party structure. “It’s a possibility, not a probability,” said Nunn, now the head of a nonprofit organization out to reduce the threat posed by nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry. “My own thinking is, it may be a time for the country to say, ‘Timeout. The two-party system has served us well, historically, but it’s not serving us now.’”

The 68-year-old former senator, still considered one of the foremost experts on national security, confirmed that he’s discussed a presidential run as part of several conversations with Michael Bloomberg, the New York mayor. More important, Nunn said he’s been in touch with Unity ‘08, a group with a goal of fielding a bipartisan or independent ticket for president. Initial talks began with Hamilton Jordan, a co-founder of Unity ‘08 and former chief of staff to President Jimmy Carter. Doug Bailey, a Republican strategist and another co-founder, said Nunn was given “a more detailed briefing” from the group this summer.

Nunn said he’s not likely to make up his mind until next year, probably after the early rush of presidential primaries have produced de facto nominees for both parties. He said the decision will depend largely on what he hears from the current candidates. The only certainty, he said, is that he won’t be anybody’s candidate for vice president.

Were Nunn the Democratic nominee, he would win the general election in a landslide against any Republican. Indeed, a substantial number of Republicans, myself included, would give serious consideration to voting for him.

Alas, there is no way Nunn could get the Democratic nomination. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are quite popular with the base and, frankly, Nunn is far too conservative for the nominating electorate. Indeed, he’d have a better chance as a Republican but he’s likely not quite conservative enough to be competitive in the GOP primaries, either.

Nunn’s nomination on the Unity08 ticket would be much more interesting than the other alternatives I’ve seen bandied about, Chuck Hagel and Bloomberg. Still, given the mechanics of our presidential election system, it’s inconceivable to me that he’d do anything more than act as a spoiler, quite possibly throwing the election into the House of Representatives.

Jonathan Singer laments the possibility that a Nunn candidacy arguing, “the time really isn’t now for a former Democrat to work to make it more difficult for a Democrat to win the White House next fall.” It seems to me though, for reasons I’ve already alluded to, that Nunn would be far more likely to hurt the Republicans than the Democrats.

(I also second Greg Wythe’s surprise that Nunn is only 68 years old. He retired from the Senate a decade ago and had been a fixture as long as I could remember before that.)

via Memeorandum

After staying up all night to make a point, Senate Democrats allowed a cloture vote on the troop withdrawal bill. As expected, it easily failed.

Senate Republicans scuttled a Democratic proposal ordering troop withdrawals from Iraq in a showdown Wednesday that capped an all-night debate on the war. The 52-47 vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to cut off debate under Senate rules. It was a sound defeat for Democrats who say the U.S. military campaign, in its fifth year and requiring 158,000 troops, cannot tame the sectarian violence in Iraq.

[...]

The Democratic proposal, by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., would have required President Bush to start bringing home troops within 120 days and complete the pullout by April 30, 2008. Under the bill, an unspecified number of troops could remain behind to conduct a narrow set of missions: counterterrorism, protecting U.S. assets and training Iraqi security forces.

Republicans were mostly unified in their opposition to sidetrack the legislation, with four exceptions. Three Republicans — Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska — announced previously they support setting a deadline on the war. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, who is up for re-election next year, also voted to advance the bill. Spokesman Kevin Kelley said Collins believes the measure should be subject to a simple majority vote and not the 60 votes needed to end a filibuster. She opposes the legislation, however, Kelley said.

But voting to end debate is essentially a vote for the legislation, given the numbers. Even if Collins had voted the other way on an up-and-down vote, it would still have been 51-48.

Unless Collins opposes the filibuster as an institution — a defensible position, certainly — it’s hard to make a case for not filibustering this piece of legislation. This is, after all, the most crucial issue of our day. If anything should be subject to the veto of a vehement minority, it’s a change in war policy.

Chuck Hagel was on “Face the Nation” yesterday and left open the option of an independent big for the White House, perhaps sharing a ticket with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. He’s been flirting with that possibility for a while, and is a perfect match for the Unity08 concept, so it’s not that newsworthy (despite substantial blogger commentary for a Sunday).

This, however, stood out:

“I am not happy with the Republican Party today,” Hagel said. “It’s been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors.”

Now, I’m not particularly happy with the Republican Party these days, either. And, with notable exceptions like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani, and Bloomberg, one could reasonably argue that it is single-minded in a lot of ways. It is not, however, definitionally possible for it to be simultaneously isolationist and power-projecting.

Aside from the virtually non-existent Pat Buchanan wing, which seems to have no sway over our foreign affairs, there isn’t much isolationism in the modern Republican Party. Indeed, the strongest advocates for pulling inward on matters of trade and military policy are Democrats. None of the plausible presidential candidates of either party, though, fit the isolationist mold.

Regardless, isolationism and a belief in power projection are diametrically opposite. Isolationists believe in staying to ourselves rather than interjecting ourselves in matters abroad that aren’t an immediate and direct threat to our national security. Power projectionists believe that, as the Lone Remaining Superpower, little that happens in the world is outside our concern and that a proactive approach is more desirable than a reactionary one.

I’m not sure what an “insulationist” is, exactly, since it’s not a term of art. Perhaps it’s just another word for “isolationist” and a redundancy used for purposes of alliteration. Or maybe he’s talking about the radical closed border types. If the latter, it’s only true among the voting base, not among the serious candidates.

I caught perhaps half an hour of last night’s so-called debate between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and eight other guys. I don’t feel deprived at not having seen the rest. The format was awful and the not unreasonable decision to include people whose candidacy has no shot (Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, at a minimum) made the time to valuable information ratio even lower than usual for these things. The Politico’s Mike Murphy writes that, “Despite the 100 laptops urgently typing away here in the press room, it’s hard to say much really happened tonight at the first Republican presidential primary debate.” And his fledgling paper was a co-sponsor!

My wife, who has lived in Virginia the last twelve-plus years, was surprised that Jim Gilmore, the state’s former governor, was running. Despite the fact that we’re both longtime political junkies who vote Republican, neither of us recognized Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul on sight. That’s probably not good news for those guys.

According to the experts, either McCain, Giuliani, or Mitt Romney won; the most interesting person was Fred Thompson, who wasn’t there; and none of the also-rans did anything to change their status.

Erick Erickson: “John McCain won. Let’s not dance around this. Mitt Romney shined, he stood out, he did well. Rudy Giuliani imploded. Rudy totally and utterly self-destructed tonight. He had many chances to get in good with the core base of Republican voters and ignored every moment.”

Peggy Noonan: “It was an incomplete field that made its debut, but not an unimpressive one. For the first time, as I watched, I thought: Fred Thompson shouldn’t take forever to get in. History moves.”

Ed Morrissey: “Mitt Romney won this debate. He looked relaxed, answered clearly, showed real warmth and a sense of humor, and actually answered the questions asked of him — even the stupid ones.” As to the Thompson Boys, “Fred helped himself tremendously by staying out of this debate” while Tommy “mumbled, stumbled, and vacillated his way through this debate.”

John Hawkins: “Winners: 1) Mike Huckabee 1) Mitt Romney — Both were very charismatic.”

Paul Mirengoff: “John McCain had the best night. He seemed a bit nervous at first, but soon found his stride. He managed more ably than his chief rivals, McCain and Romney, to give answers that will appeal to a reasonably full spectrum of Republican voters without seeming to pander to anyone.”

Kim Priestap: “On the whole, I was impressed with Mitt Romney. ”

Roger Simon: “I think Mitt Romney won. And I think John McCain came in second and Rudy Giuliani came in third.”

Marc Ambinder: “Rudy Giuliani’s answers on Iraq, terrorism and national security were spot on and crisp. His body language showed confidence. For nearly every question about domestic policy, he was able to pivot to his experiences in New York City.” And: “Mitt Romney is great with first impressions, and it’s hard to say whether the spit-polish of his answers dripped off the stage… or whether Romney appeared natural and comfortable. He certainly seemed presidential.” And: “At least five guys on that stage were presidential. If [Fred Thompson] gets in too late, will Republicans be comfortable enough with the field by then?”

Rich Lowry: “This might be … the night when Rudy stopped being solely the hero of 9/11 and started being a presidential candidate like everyone else. It was inevitable at some point.”

Mike Murphy: “None of the dark horse candidates broke through, although several performed credibly and probably increased interest in their campaigns.”

Pollster.com reports that 13% surveyed in California immediately afterwards said they watched the debate and that, “Of those who both watched and are likely to vote in the California Republican primary, 30% thought former Mayor Rudy Giuliani won, 17% thought Sen. John McCain won, and 13% though former Gov. Mitt Romney won.”

Emails from the McCain (5 6 of them so far!) and Romney (just 1) camps assured me that their candidates won. No word yet from the other eight participants.

Live blogs: Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins, Jim Addison, N.Z. Bear (there in person), Stephen Green (drunk)

Other roundups: Matt Sheffield, Glenn Reynolds

Hotline has full transcripts: Part 1, Part 2.

Videos of moments that people are talking about:

Giuliani defends public funding for abortion in New York:

Jim VandeHei asks Mitt Romney, “What do you dislike most about America?” (courtesy Brent Baker)

“Do you believe in evolution?”

(Crooks and Liars has a longer version and notes that “Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee” raised their hands who the group was asked, “Who does NOT believe in evolution?”)

A highlight reel

To McCain: “if you would be comfortable with tom tancredo, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration as head of the immigration naturalization service?” To Romney: “What Do You Dislike Most About America?” To Romney: “Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?” To Romney: “What do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?” To Rep. Paul: “Do you trust the mainstream media?” To All: “Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned?” To All: “Does anyone want to pardon him? I want to see .. does any Gentlemen want to raise his hand and say pardon him?” To all: “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?” Romney: “You have got to be kidding.”

There has long been frustration among the party’s social conservative wing that there were no “real conservatives” in the race, despite guys like Tom Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, Jim Gilmore, and Duncan Hunter being in the race. I guess they mean “real conservatives who have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning.”

Enter Fred Thompson. The former Tennessee Senator and current “Law and Order” actor has debuted in third place among Republican contenders in a new Gallup poll.

Ron Paul, Tancredo, and Huckabee poll at 1% and Gilmore, George Pataki, Chuck Hagel, and Hunter get less than that.

This is a survey of adults, not subjected to a likely voter screen, and the margin of sampling error for the Republican sub-sample is +/-5%. Thus, technically, you or I might be ahead of Mitt Romney and Sam Brownback. Call it CPAC karma.

CQ’s Greg Giroux examined Thompson’s voting record on a dozen or so key votes during his eight years in the Senate and constructed a chart [PDF format] comparing his votes to those of his rivals who also served in that body, McCain, Hagel, and Brownback.

Thompson and McCain voted together on 83/102 votes, or 81.4 percent of the time; Thompson and Brownback 57/70 (81.4%) and Thompson and Hagel 57/71 (80.3%).

Thompson joined McCain, Brownback and Hagel in voting to authorize the current war in Iraq, to cut taxes for married couples, to ban an abortion procedure opponents call “partial birth” abortion, to approve tax-sheltered education savings accounts, and to enact a balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

Among the instances in which Thompson and McCain differed were votes in 2002 to effectively extend a repeal of the estate tax beyond 2010, to authorize oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and to postpone tougher automobile fuel efficiency standards. Thompson voted “aye” and McCain voted “no” in all three cases.

Also in 2002, Thompson agreed with McCain but opposed Hagel and Brownback — and most Senate Republicans — in backing a rewrite of campaign finance laws that barred the national party committees and federal officeholders from raising the unlimited “soft money” dollars upon which the parties had come to rely. McCain was a chief sponsor of that law.

In 2001, Thompson opposed and McCain supported a Democratic bill to bolster the rights of patients in managed care plans. Hagel and Brownback joined Thompson in opposition.

So, Thompson supported McCain-Feingold, the bill most often cited by Republicans as to why they distrust McCain’s conservative credentials. Thompson was more conservative on environmental issues. A glance through the chart reveals that most of the other differences were on spending matters, with no obvious pattern emerging painting either as more fiscally conservative.

It’s not therefore clear in what sense Thompson is more “conservative” than McCain. Mostly, I think, it’s that Thompson hasn’t gone around grandstanding on issues that would win him media acclaim at the expense of his party.

It’s clear, though, that Thompson would be an instant contender for the nomination were he to enter the race. That he’s already got four times the support of Romney, long considered one of the “Big 3″ in the Republican field, is impressive indeed.

Steven Thomma of McClatchy Newspapers has gone through the National Journal 2006 Congressional Vote Ratings and discovered that, “The most liberal member of Congress running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination isn’t Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. It’s Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.”

The lifetime liberal scores (maximum 99) for the Democrats:

-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, 84.3
-Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, 79.4
-Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, 79.2
-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, 78.8
-Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, 76.8

The lifetime conservative scores (maximum 99) for the Republicans:

-Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, 82.5
-Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, 81
-Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, 75.9
-Sen. John McCain of Arizona, 71.8
-Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, 71.5
-Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, 51.7

UPDATE: Going through the numbers myself, I see a major flaw in this analysis: These are percentile scores which, so far as I can tell looking at the non-subscriber data, are broken down by House. Obama is more liberal than 84.3 percent of all his Senate colleagues and Hunter is more conservative than 82.5 percent. There is no basis, though, for comparing Obama with Kucinich, since the latter is in the House and is scored against only other House Members. For more on the methodology, see here.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey is right to note that “these candidates have the disadvantage of actually having voting records, while other contenders like Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney do not have that track record. That’s why Americans have traditionally not elected Presidents from Congress.”

Others blogging on this thus far (Ace, AllahPundit, and Karol Sheinin) are focusing on Thomma’s finding that John McCain has actually gotten more liberal over time, especially on the social issues. Given that these are percentile scores, though, they’re not necessarily comparable over time.

UPDATE: Thomma has modified his article with this disclaimer:

Editors at the National Journal note that they don’t compare Senate voting records directly to that of House members because the votes often differ. Nevertheless, the ratings show that Obama’s Senate record is more liberal than Kucinich’s in the House.

I would instead say that “the ratings show that Obama is more liberal compared to other Senators than Kucinich compared to others in the House.” My guess is that being one of the more liberal/conservative members of the House means more than in the Senate, given that Senators are elected statewide and Representatives by district. The former lends itself to more moderate winners while latter tends to yield more polarization.