Advertisement

Hagel: McCain Resolution Is ‘Disingenuous’ And ‘Intellectually Dishonest’

This morning on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) blasted the Iraq war resolution introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), which calls for benchmarks, but says nothing about what will occur if the benchmarks aren’t met.

“I think if you want to go to a disingenuous resolution, this idea about putting benchmarks on the Iraqi government…and then having no consequences, now that’s intellectually dishonest,” he said. “So what are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out? If the benchmarks are not met by the Maliki government, are we then going to walk out? Are we then going to bring our troops home? Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category.”

Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/02/hagel.320.240.flv]

Advertisement

Asked about the resolution this morning on ABC’s This Week, McCain declared, “Well, the consequences are obvious.” But, he said, “I can’t tell you what the other options are, because there are no good options to this.”

Transcript:

There’s a difference. The other position that Senator Warner — and I think there are now 12 bipartisan members of the Senate on that resolution — that resolution states very clearly we disagree with adding more troops into Iraq. Very simply put, we disagree with escalating our military involvement in Iraq.

That is totally different, George, then saying let’s get out, let’s cut the funds. This notion that somehow we’re not supporting our troops, that’s not true. In fact, I think if you want to go to a disingenuous resolution, this idea about putting benchmarks on the Iraqi government…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator McCain’s idea.

HAGEL: Yes, and then having no consequences, now that’s intellectually dishonest. So what are the consequences? Are we then going to pull out? If the benchmarks are not met by the Maliki government, are we then going to walk out? Are we then going to bring our troops home? Are we going to cut funding? Now, that falls more in the intellectually dishonest category.