Sen. Jack Reed: Hadley Should Be Fired
Sen. Jack Reed: Hadley Should Be Fired
According to President Bush, incoming war czar Gen. Doug Lute “will be the full-time manager for the implementation and execution of our strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan.”
During his confirmation hearing this morning, Lute clarified that his new authority means that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley’s portfolio will no longer include Iraq and Afghanistan. Shocked by the revelation, Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) argued Hadley should be fired if he’s taken a hands-off approach to the most important national security issues:
REED: That I find interesting. I mean, frankly, Afghanistan, Iraq, and, related to that, Iran, are the most critical foreign policy problems we face. And the national security adviser to the United States has taken his hands off that and given it to you? Is that your understanding?
LUTE: Sir, that’s the design, yes.
REED: Well, then he should be fired, because, frankly, if he’s not capable of being the individual responsible for those duties and they pass it on to someone else, then why is he there? Well, that’s my view.
Watch it:
The Senate then took a short recess in the middle of the hearing. When the committee meeting resumed, Lute had a prepared statement — likely communicated to him by the White House — that he offered to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) in which he backpedaled from his earlier claim that Hadley is irrelevant on Iraq and Afghanistan. Hadley’s “role is not diminished by this appointment,” Lute clarified.
An early architect of the Iraq war, Hadley has proven to be more of a spin artist than a policy adviser. Some examples:
– He falsely claimed that Iraq was not in a civil war
– He claimed that the Iraq Study Group supported Bush’s escalation
– He defended Dick Cheney’s claim that the insurgency was in its “last throes”
(HT: Mahler3)
Transcript:
REED: I’m certainly going to support you. Couldn’t do otherwise. But I don’t think I’m doing you a big favor, to be blunt. My sense if, you step back, your appointment represents a devastating critique of the national security apparatus of this White House, because all you’re being asked to do was what Mr. Hadley and Dr. Rice were supposed to be doing for the last several years: identify problems, coordinate resources, bring them to the attention of the president, get presidential direction. And that has been abysmal.
And I think also, too, I’m afraid that your position will be someone who’s there to take the blame, but to not really have the kind of access to the president and the resources you need to do the job. I presume you will be reporting to Mr. Hadley?
LUTE: No, sir. I’ll be reporting to the president and coordinating with Mr. Hadley.
REED: And Mr. Hadley will be reporting to the president independently?
LUTE: On matters outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, yes, sir.
REED: That I find interesting. I mean, frankly, Afghanistan, Iraq, and, related to that, Iran, are the most critical foreign policy problems we face. And the national security adviser to the United States has taken his hands off that and given it to you? Is that your understanding?
LUTE: Sir, that’s the design, yes.
REED: Well, then he should be fired, because, frankly, if he’s not capable of being the individual responsible for those duties and they pass it on to someone else, then why is he there? Well, that’s my view.
In fact, I think if the president was really serious, he should replace Mr. Hadley, appoint you as a civilian, not as an Army officer. And also if he didn’t choose to do that, replace General Pace with you, because we do need direction and a change in direction of policy. I just fear that you’re going to be placed in an impossible situation.
And I know why you’re doing this job: It’s because at the core, you’re a soldier, because you understand what those young men and women are doing out there, and you can’t do anything less. But I am very concerned that this is not going to work. It’s just another political, public relations ploy rather than a significant change of strategy. But my respect to you is such that certainly I’ll support you. And I wish you well. And if anything that you think I can do to assist you, please call upon me.
LUTE: Thank you, Senator.
REED: Thank you.
LEVIN: Thank you, Senator Reed.
LEVIN: Let me just clarify one thing — and your answer is so critically important here: Is there a written description of your job which states what you have just said to Senator Reed, that you are going to report to the president on Afghanistan, on Iraq, and that Hadley does not have that any longer in his portfolio? Is that in your written description?
LUTE: It is, sir. The best written description is perhaps the response to the first policy question, which is an extract of the job description itself.
LEVIN: But it excludes Hadley reporting?
LUTE: No, sir.
LEVIN: You have the exclusive — you got that chunk of his portfolio.
LUTE: I believe that’s right. It does not exclude him from also advising, but the responsibilities for advising for Iraq and Afghanistan, if confirmed, will be mine.
LEVIN: I agree with Senator Reed. I view that as an astounding indictment and a bifurcation of the national security job. Now there’s two national security advisers to the president — one on Iraq and Afghanistan, and one on everything else.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
hadley was the person responsible for recruiting, interviewing and hiring the person he calls the “implementation and execution manager…” the nyt did an extensive article at the end of april in which they said this..
hiring someone to look out for the horses after the barn door has been left open and all the horses have been gone for several years didn’t seem to me to be a good use of mr. hadley’s time back then, but, hey…! what do i know…
June 7th, 2007 at 4:20 pmAnd, yes, I DO take it personally
i find hadley to be a real toothache of a man (with apologies to jim hightower). kinda like jake and patrick1….
June 7th, 2007 at 4:24 pmDeny confirmation.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pmIf he says one thing before lunch, and changes the story afterwards, then he is not standing on his own actions as a potential advisor and director of policy.
He is simply a puppet, and does not deserve confirmation to a newly created, and obviously superficial post.
We can only guess what hadley is busy with.
-Iran
-Syria
-The new Russian-US mega missle base ……………..
What’s the big deal?
Isn’t this just like the job of the President, which is split between Bush and Cheney?
Sure looks like it–with Bush running around and thumping his chest, yelling “I’m the President!”, and Cheney running this country into the ground.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:25 pmTough talk Reed. Do something if you don’t like it.
Lute is just to be the next in the long line patsies that the President can pin the failure of the war on. As long as it’s not his fault, he can keep it going.
At some point you have to fire the head coach. If he keeps calling for a QB sneak on a fourth down and fifty, then it’s time for new leadership overall.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pmI think Hadley should go, and then just about the rest of this government. Was this war “mismanaged” or not? Who cares.
I doubt hundreds of thousands dead don’t care. Their families don’t care. Why? Because they’re dead and their country is in ruins.
All this squabbling is political distraction. This war needs to end now.
Then, we need a new path for this country. A foreign policy where aggression is no longer a tool to be used….ever.
Some thoughts:
June 7th, 2007 at 4:30 pm“A Foreign Policy for America”
http://www.populistamerica.com/a_foreign_policy_for_america
War Czar’ Was Skeptical of Troop Surge
Bush nominee worries Iraq can’t do more
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_War_Adviser.html
Lute’s grim words cast fresh doubt on prospects of an easy U.S. withdrawal at a time Americans are increasingly impatient. In an AP-Ipsos poll released Thursday, just 28 percent said they are satisfied with Bush’s handling of the war – numbers that are affecting Republicans as well as Democrats on Capitol Hill.
“Wake up,” said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., in response to Lute’s suggestion that Americans should be mindful that democracy in Baghdad in still in an embryonic stage. “We’re paying a heavy price for them to establish this government.”
June 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pmIn a NYT article about the search for a war czar some months agao, a critic of the idea rightly asked:
“If Hadley doesn’t have time for the war [which is what was being said by the White House] then what does he have time for? Nicaragua?”
Can you imagine if such steps had been taken during the Clinton administration if we were at war? The Republican Congress would be baying like a pack of wolves.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pmNATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran’s proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pmIf Lute is assuming the role of the national security advisor by managing the war in the middle east, isn’t he also assuming the role reserved for the commander in chief guy? So why not fire both hadley and bush? You’ll have no arguments from this forum.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pmAmerica, is your propaganda diet still providing you the sustenance you desire?
http://www.filecabi.net/video/propa34678.html
June 7th, 2007 at 4:44 pmStephen Hardley
Hardley working, hardley American, hardley worth the time.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm#9,
SO? What’s the big deal if Iran participates? Are not most of the weapons used (small arms, grenade launchers, etc) supplied by arms sales from China, Russia, and a host of other countries? Should we gather our carriers around China and conduct training?
If we were being occupied by Canada (yeah, it’s possible if they use the jedi-mind trick on our stupid asses), would we not seek weapons from Mexico or Colombia? Surely Brazil could offer some amazonian anaconda snakes with friggen lazer beams attached to their heads so we could use them to defend ourselves.
Remember, this war is NOT ONLY ILLEGAL TO US, it’s illegal to them too. Getting help from whatever neighbors is hardly a cause for concern or new. If we’re going to pursue Iran for helping their neighbors (with whom they have a rigteous interest), then we must pursue all those who supply weapons used against our forces.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pmYet another completely incompetent part of this administration. Yet again, Bush and his inept, impotent, ingrates cannot bring themselves to take responsibility for their inability to do their job, and fire the guy. Watching these guys dismantle our Republic is almost humorous, except that it is going to be very painful when the adults have to clean up the mess.
Well, I’ll raise a beer to Lute this afternoon and pray that he can do a much, much better job than his boss. Of course, given the record of unmitigated failure of the administration, I’m not going to hold my glass in the air for too long.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm#9 don’t forget that by destroying Iran enemy Iraq and Saddam, and increasing the price of oil by 40-60% YOUR president has made Iran the hegemonic (go look it up) power in the area and given them trillions of dollars in oil wealth with his ill-concieved, poorly executed, failure of a war.
You want to whine about Iran’s power or the meddling in Iraq? Write the White House and Pentagon.
June 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pmFlaco – watch this
Insurgents Use Thermal Bombs on Humvees
The grenades used by the insurgents are russian-made thermal bombs made especially for armored vehicles as they can penetrate steel shields.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8a_1180675064
what you gonna do start a war with Russia , good luck with 22,000 nuclear warheads poited at America …… Actually more than the USA have
June 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pmLute had a prepared statement — likely communicated to him by the White House — that he offered to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)
also likely “communicated to him by the white house”…
don’t they know that WE know that joe is a CON and not a dem…
June 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pmnot even an i…
…
Think of it this way. Lute’s the Thinker Guy. Chimp’s the Decider Guy and yes, the job descriptions ARE mutually exclusive.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:04 pmCan we now make fun of how Reed looks in the TP photo like we always do with the Repubs? I mean, seriously, he looks like he should be peering out from under a mushroom.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:17 pmThe Sunni shieks in Anbar province, are turning AGAINST Al Qaeda. They may be sick of the civilian carnage that Al Qaeda produced. They may be worried that America is on its way out of Iraq, and fears the shiite militias. Whatever the reason….we need someone in charge to take advantage of this development. The shieks want water,electricity, sewage treatment, and jobs for their people.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:21 pmOnly Iraqis KNOW where Al Qaeda is. Bush better not blow this chance too.
If our goal is to defeat Al Qaeda, and not to set up permanent bases in Iraq …then we have a chance to PROVE it in Anbar Province.
“Can we now make fun of how Reed looks in the TP photo like we always do with the Repubs? I mean, seriously, he looks like he should be peering out from under a mushroom.
Comment by gummitch — June 7, 2007″
that’s his ‘time to make the donuts’ pose.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:21 pmI have to say, he does look like he’s got a little pot o’ gold hidden under his desk. Leprechauns don’t give you three wishes, do they? ‘Cause that’s what he looks like he’s doing.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:28 pmHadley took the blame for forgetting to take out the Niger uranium claim in the State of the Union in 2003 speech. And was then promoted, of course. He’s an incompetent tool of this disasterous administration!
National Security Official Takes Blame for Iraqi Claim in Bush Speech.
Jul 23, 2003 Hadley said he should have remembered the CIA’s earlier objections when he reviewed the State of the Union Speech as it was being crafted. “had I done so, …
Aide takes blame for uranium claim – BBC News
June 7th, 2007 at 5:38 pmBush security adviser takes blame for uranium… – Guardian Unlimited
Mr. Hadley has lost credibility with these statements. He should step down because we need a national security adviser who will do his or her job effectively and will be honest with the American people. He can’t do his job effectively if he has no credibility on these critical issues. There is no need for a war czar. That is the job of the national security adviser. The problem here is not the layers of bureaucracy but that we have a failed policy in Iraq. The policy needs to change. If Gen. Lute believes that the troop surge in Iraq was a bad idea how can he be an effective war czar? How can he defend a policy he doesn’t agree with? What does it say about this position if other 4 star generals have rejected this post?
If Mr. Hadley would do his job effectively then there would be no need for a war czar. It is time for the administration to acknowledge that this policy needs to change and democrats must now take bold steps to change the president’s policy in Iraq. Sen. Reed is right Mr. Hadley should step down if he is not able to properly do his job. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tensions between the administration and Iran are critical national security issues that any national security adviser must not shy away to address. Adding a new post more than 4 years after the Iraq war began will do nothing to change the situation on the ground. Gen. Lute will not be effective in doing his duties when he will have to defend a policy he essentially disagrees with. Incompetence has been a serious concern with this administration and hiring one more individual will do nothing to bring progress in this war that we can no longer win militarily.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:50 pmHadley should resign like the rest of the membership of the Bush Regime.
June 7th, 2007 at 5:59 pmCan’t fire Hadley…he’s Bush’s step brother.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:14 pmHadley looks more like a Bush than Dubya does.
Dubya’s looks come from the evil Pierce bloodlines of his mother, Ma Barker Bush.
Every thug in the Bush Crime Family should be fired, tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail…next.
June 7th, 2007 at 6:49 pm#19 gummitch – LOL!! – too funny – i can’t look at that picture and not laugh now!!
June 8th, 2007 at 2:12 amDoes America have a reasonably accurate picture of the conditions in Iraq? Most likely not. Not with the Bush team talking to the press. Not with the generals, beholden to the Bush team, talking to the press.
It is likely that America and most of the world do not know what the conditions are like in iraq. The mainstream press waits for a cue from the Bush team to do too much of its “picture painting” of Iraq.
Now whatif there was someone who got his Iraqi information first hand. He was there in 2003 when the victorious Allies marched into Baghdad. He certainly ought to be able to give his perception of Baghdad in 2003 and beyond.
This gentleman was a British Diplomat so his observations ought to “hold water” and he was not under military constraints to ask “MAY I SPEAK FREELY, SIR”?
But Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s book, ” The Cost of War” had some in Britian looking at it “crosseyed”. Some did not want it published.
Now why is that?
The Motherland of the World’s Greatest Democracy was hesitant about publishing a book? Something seems BAD WRONG here.
So, what is it about Iraq that some folks don’t want published? What kind of answers might the book provide that some British government officials did not want provided. Should the comments on the conditions in Iraq come only from the Government?
One of the early things I recall about Sir Jeremy’s comments concerned the lack of an Allied government to replace the government deposed by the Allies. He looked for, but could not find, any American general whose job it was to start a new government(to replace the old government deposed by the Bush team).
You will not hear that information from the Bush team. You will not hear that information from any “appointee” of the Bush team.
The Red Cross and the United Nations speak of significant numbers of Iraqi refugees seeking refuge in nearby countries. A U.S. Vice President and a U.S. Senator just came back from Iraq. Refugees? What Refugees?
It is HARD, but the Bush team keeps trying to fool all of the people all of the time.
Would the Bush team and the Motherland want that ose ideas kept in someone’s head?
June 8th, 2007 at 11:18 amReed is right: Hadley needs to go.
June 8th, 2007 at 4:46 pm