Hagel: U.S. Must Accept Iraqi Sovereignty

Home · News · Weather · Sports · Grand Island · HDTV · My TV · Community · Program Schedule · Calendar · 2008 Election

Agriculture/Business · As Seen On TV · CarSoup · CBS · Classifieds · Contests · Jobs · Lottery · Restaurants · School Closings · Find A Page

Nebraska Weather
7 Day Forecast
Lincoln Currents
Grand Island Currents

On Demand

Click to Enlarge

Powerball jackpot* for 1/10/2009 is

$120 Million

Hagel: U.S. Must Accept Iraqi Sovereignty

Save

Lincoln, Neb.
Posted: 1:12 PM Jul 22, 2008
Last Updated: 2:56 PM Jul 22, 2008
Reporter: 10/11 News and AP
Email Address: desk@kolnkgin.com

11 comments

A | A | A

U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel is repeating calls for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, saying at a news conference in Jordan Tuesday that even the Iraqi government wants U.S. combat forces out by 2010.

The Nebraska Republican is accompanying Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on an overseas trip.

Hagel said Iraqi leadership understands that the Iraqi people will determine the nation's future. He says it's time for the United States to start accepting the nation's sovereignty.

“We have interests in Iraq. We will have interests in Iraq. But, listening to the Iraqi people and their leadership, and where they think they can go and want to go, and need to go, to build a nation that is not only sovereign and independent, but a nation that can govern itself, defend itself, and support itself,” Hagel said.

“In Iraq, it is my opinion that it is now particularly important for the Iraqis to take advantage of the momentum that has been produced over the last 12 months for both a short-term and long-term political reconciliation that is then able to address some of the most deep-seated problems in Iraq, like Afghanistan, certainly one being unemployment: lack of a future for young people, development.”

“And it is now time for the United States to start accepting the sovereignty of that country in ways that are real. And that means for us to responsibly start unwinding our military presence,” Hagel said.

Hagel's opposition to the Iraq war -- and Obama's decision to invite him on the trip -- has stirred speculation that Obama may consider the Republican as a running mate.

More Stories
Property Tax Shift Proposed

Lethal Injection Bill Outlined

Business Owner Arrested for Theft

Buffet's Boots to Raise Funds for Research

70 Laid Off at Nebraska Trailer Plant

Charge Refiled Against Mom of Suffocated Baby

New Year's Resolutions: Volunteering

Historic Day For Nebraska Legislature

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jul 26, 2008 at 06:11 PM
Re: watching TV: one cannot trust Fox commentators -- Bush's former Press Sec. has admitted that Wh. House staff fed "talking points" (that Bush-aides wanted commentators to make) to the Fox commentators (meaning SH and B O'R, I presume). This is probably a violation of U. S. law -- using a private media outlet as a propaganda outlet for the government. But can you imagine the Bush Justice Department investigating? Not likely! Also, the Associated Press Wash. DC news bureau apparently has a top reporter, named Fournier (sp) who is a pal of Karl Rove, and who is slanting news in favor of John McCain. The AP sends out stories to all sorts of news outlets, even KOLN, so when an AP story is from Washington, and does not have the name of the author, one should not necessarily accept the story as accurate. It is also wise to question "war stories" - look at the lies that were told about how Tillmam died. Some think US soldiers killed him (on orders from whom?), for opposing the war.

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jul 25, 2008 at 03:52 PM
wow! it may not be safe to disagree with Andrew, either. I never watch CNN. I prefer CSpan, where there is full discussion of policy -- with people representing differing views. T think Lou Dobbs would be amused to know he had been called a Communist!

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jul 25, 2008 at 11:18 AM
in reply to Don: you certainly sound like someone a person should be careful about disagreeing with!

Posted by: Andrew Location: Lincoln on Jul 25, 2008 at 08:28 AM
To Lynnette, I use the word "we" because I HAVE been on the streets of Iraq fighting house to house and have seen the progress made first hand not just watching from a couch believing everything I see on biased CNN (Communist News Network). Have you?....didn't think so. As for your disrespectful remarks about John McCain, he WAS horribly wounded and spent years as a POW yet you seem to think that you know more about war then people who have been there? Don, thank you for serving in the first gulf war and thank you for making your voice heard.

Posted by: Don on Jul 23, 2008 at 03:52 PM
To Lynnette, Where are you during this war sitting at home watching TV. I was there during the first gulf war back in 1991 do you remember that. If we would have finished the job then we wouldn't be there now. So when you say we need to leave remember what happened last time we left before we finished the job. We need to stay and finish the job before we come home or we will be back again in anothe 10 years only it will be worse than it is now. The annoying people are the ones that yap without knowing why we are there. I'd rather fight more than come home for the fool Obama. Who did we take out of Iraq Saddam Hussien. Who do you want for president Barrack Hussien Obama. Think about it before you talk.

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jul 23, 2008 at 01:28 PM
I get annoyed at people who say "we" are in Iraq and "we" need to fishish the job and "we" need a victory, when they aren't there doing the patrolling or fighting or the risking of their own lives or getting horribly wounded themselves -- that includes everybody from the President, and Cheney, to Senator McCain, to an ordinary person making a comment from his hometown: safe city, USA. My thanks to Dave and Tim V. for their intelligent, patriotic comments. When the choice is between saving the lives and health of American soldiers, or saving "face" for Bush and McCain, the choice is clear. They are the ones who put macho posturing and ideology first, and do not know the facts of the situation (or numerous other situations, it appears!). To Tim: I was unaware of how great Hagel was (potentially) in 2002, also. He - not McCain - is the one who would rather tell the truth than win an election. He knew what he was letting himself in for when he "spoke truth to power", or Nebraska GOP.

Posted by: Tim V. Location: Lincoln on Jul 23, 2008 at 09:58 AM
Even though I didn't vote for REPUBLICAN Chuck Hagel,we all feel he's finally seeing what going on in Iraq.People that voted for him are turning there backs on him because he's telling the truth.John McCain says we need to be there 99 1/2 more years.And also would bring the draft back gaining nothing.Bring our brave troops home,the have been there WAY to long.

Posted by: N Location: Lincoln on Jul 23, 2008 at 09:48 AM
How can Hagel and Obama have anything to say about Iraq being a sovriegn nation? They were the one's earlier in the year that were "always" adimittly against the war. If the war never happened, Saddam would still be in power and Iraq would still be the way it was. They are now realizing that all the retoric they were pushing of how we need to end the war and bring the troops home because we are doing no good was wrong. There has been progress, they know they have stepped in it, so they are trying to save themselves by saying that we still need to get out but now it is because things are getting too good to justify us being there. First it was too bad, now its too good, which is it Obama? This is a man who is totally ignorant of foreign policy and the whole Iraq trip has been nothing but a huge photo op for him. I agree with Andrew NO OBAMA!

Posted by: Andrew Location: Lincoln on Jul 23, 2008 at 08:17 AM
Pandering to the public Lynnette? That is Obama's main game. His campaign is run on a slogan and nothing more. President Bush is the one who has stood firm and not pandered to the public. His approval rate is horrible due to the war in Iraq but he stands firm for victory. We are there now and need to finish the job. There is no ending a war, there is victory or defeet. Obama withdrawls troops just for the sake of popularity Iraq will fall apart and self destruct, we will be back and in a worse situation in a year or two. NOBAMA!!!

Posted by: Dave Location: Lincoln, NE on Jul 22, 2008 at 03:45 PM
On the night he was elected to the U.S. Senate I told my life long friend and Political Science Professor Bob Sittig, "Nebraska could do a lot worse than having Bob Kerry and Chuck Hagel representing us in Congress". They both lived up to my hopes for the State. I am only disappointed by the brevity of their service.

Posted by: lynnette Location: iowa on Jul 22, 2008 at 03:40 PM
Hagel is wise on foreign policy, as usual. Notice that when he talks, he includes details and complexities, instead of over-simplifying. He doesn't pander to public opinion, or say what he thinks people would want to hear, or what would make him popular politically. That is the behavior of a statesman. As for the VP part, Chris Matthews on Hardball (I don't like him personally, but he is savvy) said that Joe Biden is likely to be Obama's first choice for VP. I would support that. Biden is fully qualified to be President. He is much more intelligent that McCain, and has more expertise in foreign policy. He also was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and respects the Constitutional limits on Presidential powers, which Bush, Cheney, and McCain do not. His "fault" is that he is sometimes too candid about his opinions. He was once asked which Republicans he would be willing to have in his Administration if he were President, and he said: Hagel and Lugar. I completely agree.