Redstate

I hope O'Reilly or Hannity reads RedState.

Has Ted Bettag, himself, had anything to say about this?

The media seems to think that Ms. Sheehan has the exact same 'absolute moral authority' that Ms. Dowd asserts she has.

So they ask her nothing that might embarrass her.

You have to feel sorry for the woman.  She is obviously very disturbed, but she is also very political.

I think she is going to be on with Anderson Cooper tonight.  I bet he will take a crack at it.  But I bet she will just the say the same thing as above, and he won't pursue it.

Nobody asks a follow up question any more.  It is as if they don't even listen to the answers.  They just ask their question, tick it off the list and move on to the next one without thinking about whether or not it was answered.

Sorry.  Mini-rant over.

I get the feeling you are taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable woman.  sure she has brought this on herself - sure she deserves this and more because of her insistence in coming into our house through all the liberal news outlets every night.  sure she is offering no ideas that make any sense but she gets airtime like she is ghandi - but at the bottom of it all is a woman who can not come to terms with her son's death.  she needs counseling - not media attention.

she needs counseling - not media attention.

Absolutely.  A thousand times yes.

But are we taking advantage of her?  A thousand times no.  The organizations co-opting her as a mascot and mouthpiece are doing that -- and when they lose interest, we can only hope that she will have someone to help her pick up the pieces.

except at the hospital with her 74 year old mother, Shirley Miller, who has had a stroke.  She has left her "post" at Crawford for others to carry on.  She has said she will be back in 24 + hours, if possible.  See  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-18-peace-mom_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

I hope Cindy gets some peace.  It will be good for her to get out of that situation and be restful for a while.

But thinking about this issue, I just went to the URL in the letter above and read it for the first time.  It is a longer rant than I expected.  I was wondering why it was that one line stuck out and got all the attention.  Is it just that Israel is such a hot-button issue?  That line is so rhetorical I guess I just don't understand why it would cause so much commotion.  There are so many other things in that letter.

And then for her, lying about its origin is just such a rediculous thing to do.  It seems so obvious, and I am sure that all of "those" involved would be happy to forgive her if she were to appologize for making a exaggerated and heated comment.  Heck, I could even see her trying to rationalize it by saying that she said that because Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism in Israel, not the US.

Chris Wallace on Special Report on FNC during the Grapevine segment said  the email was not edited.

E-mail Was Doctored?

Cindy Sheehan (search) has been attacked not only as unpatriotic but anti-Semitic, after an e-mail she sent to ABC News (search) was posted online. It included this statement: "... my first-born ... was killed for lies and for a ... neo-con agenda to benefit Israel." But Sheehan now says she never wrote that, insisting her e-mail was "doctored" by a "former friend who is anti-Israel and wants to use the spotlight on me to push his anti-Semitism." In fact, the man who sent Sheehan's letter to ABC, James Morris, has posted his own messages on-line, condemning the war in Iraq as "all about Israel." But Morris says Cindy Sheehan's letter was "in no way doctored."

There is also video of this segment.  

Go to FNC's home page.  See "Free Video" section on the right side of page.  Go to the bottom of this section and click on "Click Here for More Video"

Click on "Brit Hume's Grapevine"

I think the woman definitely would do better with a quiet place and a good counselor instead of being the center of a media storm.

But I think she is proving herself to be a liar.  Her story just seems very implausible and inconsistent.

Forgive me for saying so, but I think Mr. Bush should talk to Cindy Sheehan.  I know his father and mother would have.

Besides, he's already talked to her.

He's done his bit.

She's a loon.

Move on.

He already did. Period. He did as much as could be reasonably expected. She's not interested in talking, she's interested in grandstanding.

...to speak to the President.  It's your right, and it's mine.  This "he's already talked to her once" explanation doesn't hold water (as I understand it, he couldn't remember her poor son's name or hers during that visit).  He's an elected official, not a king, and a growing number of citizens want him to talk to her. So again, forgive me for saying so, but I think he should talk to her.

... speaks to her again. Then how about Mr and Mrs. Smith whose son died last year and met with him last August and Mrs. Jones whose husband dies and met with Bush lsat February and let's not forget a third or a fourth meeting with Cindy because she wants to and on and on ad nauseam.

How many times did Bill Clinton meet with the families of the 17 sailors from the USS Cole? Or how many times did Jimmy Carter meet with the families of the troops who died in the failed Iranian rescue mission? Or ...

Get off it.

He already has.

But that is perhaps the worst idea I have ever heard.  Seriously.  Do you really want to establish the precedent that any bereaving parent who has a temper tantrum, spews lies and vitriol, and camps out on the Crawford steps will now get a meeting with the President of the United States (if enough of the media tunes in)? I agree with those above in hoping that Ms. Sheehan does not become the villain here, but rather the liberal organizations who are hijacking her life.  However, this is the real world, and it is not made a more pleasant place when we cast reason aside and start making major decisions based on which direction the heart strings are being pulled.  

desordre remplir,

You need to find different sources!  She has said she will not pay her 2004 taxes!

her vow to refuse to pay taxes to a government waging an 'illegal' war

Here is Cindy's Hometown newspaper report on their first meeting

Cindy's Tax Liens

FYI, We DO NOT have a right to speak to the President.  Unless you can show me in the constitution or the Bill of Rights!  

Bush, Sheehans share moments

I got the links and sentences backwards!

Do you meet with people who've called you a mass murderer and a terrorist? What good would it do? She needs an appointment with a board-certified psychiatrist. Not a meeting with the Leader of the Free World so she can spit in his face.

....nope, don't see any right to an audience with the president.  And I thought she said she wasn't going to be "tax-paying".  As a citizen, she has the right to vote for her preferred representatives, and has a sworn duty to defend and uphold the Constitution.  Talking to Sheehan her could possibly validate her crackpot political views and help them gain traction.  The absolutely worst thing would be to meet with an extremist like Sheehan who puts her quacky writings on Michael Moore's website.

What is this, Powerline?  Talk about a meaningless exercise.  Did she or didn't she write make the statement?  Who cares?  She obviously disavows the anti-semitic sentiment being attributed to her.  Whether she wrote something she wishes she didn't or whether someone did change her email seems to be of rather minor import.

Most people realize that the important question is whether Cindy Sheehan's son died for a reason.  Bush could have taken the opportunity to meet with her in order to clarify his Iraqi policy and to comfort all Americans who are concerned about the level of violence in Iraq.  

Instead we are subjected to the nonsensical argument that Bush already met with Sheehan once.  So what?  Bush meets with people more than once all the time.  This is an argument that might resonate with the die-hard Republicans, but for average Americans, they're thinking, "Dude, you're on a 5 week vacation.  Stop the pickup already."

Indeed, Bush seems to be throwing all political common sense out the window in order to score inside-baseball political points by refusing to give a "victory" to someone allied with his political opponents.  This is nuts.  Most people don't spend hours every day seeking to champion a political party.  They expect leaders to do the right thing even if it might hurt them politically.  That may be a naive expectation, but there you are.  Most people do not want to hear "I can't meet with Cindy Sheehan because it would help the Democrats."

> as I understand it, he couldn't remember

> her poor son's name or hers during that visit

You don't actually believe that, do you? Hardly anything this woman says survives scrutiny. The only truthful thing she says is, her son died in Iraq last year. That's about it.

if the President talks to Mrs. Sheehan, certainly the left will attack this.  After all, they've established that by going to Crawford for five weeks in the middle of a war he's ignoring his duties as Commander-in-Chief.  We can't have him wasting his time any further by having an unproductive meeting with a civilian during a time of war.  Unless of course Mrs. Sheehan has some suggestions on how to win the peace.  Does she (besides getting Israel out of Palestine)?

Ms. Sheehan gets to pound and pound and pound on the President all she wants, and spew anti-Semitism, and those of us who support him are supposed to stand here and say nothing?

Sorry.  Last time I checked, she was an adult.  She could have kept her mourning private.  But she didn't.

She chose to use her son's coffin as a podium.  She chose to figuratively take the flag that covered his casket and wrap it around herself, as a shield against criticism.  How callow of her.

She deserves to be criticized for that.

She called President Bush every name in the book.  When National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley came out to talk to her at Crawford, she called him a liar.

I'm sorry, but the job of President of the United States does not demand that those who hold the office come out and open themselves up to abuse.  They deserve a certain level of respect--a level which Cindy Sheehan has refused to give.

The President met with her once.  She threw it back in his face.  Let her pound sand.

She chose to use her son's coffin as a podium.  She chose to figuratively take the flag that covered his casket and wrap it around herself, as a shield against criticism.

Absolutely the perfect way to describe this whole sad situation.

Your opinions are those of a fool.  Forgive me for saying so, but I'll bet many of those who post on Redstate will agree with me.  And, I'll bet that anyone who reads your reasoning for why you feel the way you do, will agree with my assessment of you.

on President Bush's Iraq policy, and I've never once met the man.  Does Mrs. Sheehan not read the newspaper, read  blogs, watch TV news, or watch or read about any speeches that Bush has made in the last two years?

It's quite clear that President Bush has given the public a reason for the Iraq War, and they now have to right to agree or disagree as they see fit.  I'm sure that Mrs. Sheehan has also heard the president's reasons and has chosen not to agree.  Fine, that's her right as an American citizen.  But it's completely disingenuous to argue that Mrs. Sheehan just needs some clarification about the issue.  Indeed anything short of President Bush "admitting" that he knowingly went to war under false pretenses because of a thirst for oil and a desire to protect Israel will fail to satisfy Mrs. Sheehan.

The President met with her once.  She was satisfied with that meeting until she decided that maybe she wasn't so satisfied.  Fine, that's her right as well.  But she has no right to demand a subsequent meeting because of the noble choices that her son made of his own free will.

She obviously disavows the anti-semitic sentiment being attributed to her.

Then,why are there so many examples of her saying nasty things about Israel, and US relations with Israel?

Most people realize that the important question is whether Cindy Sheehan's son died for a reason.  Bush could have taken the opportunity to meet with her in order to clarify his Iraqi policy and to comfort all Americans who are concerned about the level of violence in Iraq.

Who are you calling "most", Kemo Moonbat Sabe?

This is an argument that might resonate with the die-hard Republicans, but for average Americans, they're thinking, "Dude, you're on a 5 week vacation.  Stop the pickup already."

Again, who are you calling "average," Child of Kos?

Please tell me you're not a product of the public school system.  If you are, I might have to rejigger my finances so I can send my kids to private school.

you are on a roll tonite.  I don't know when I've ever seen you so passionate.  

Mother Sheehan must have hit a cord with you.

FWIW-I pretty much agree with ya, you just said it better.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

  We the People--that's us. And our First Citizen has the same responsibility to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility," and "promote the general Welfare" as we do. If he can calm 60% of "We the People's" growing skepticism about him, his administration, and this war by talking to Cindy Sheehan, he should do so.

Remember, George Washington did not want the office of President to resemble that of a sovereign--with good reason. POTUS is the CEO and we are the shareholders, and we have a right to expect progress and accountability.

Concerning her tax history--her statement certainly implies that she has paid taxes in the past, so I consider her a taxpayer.

to meet with her would set a horrible precedent and encourage countless wackos with time on their hands to follow her example.

If she had really wanted just a second meeting, it probably could have been arranged  through her Congressman, if she had foregone all the publicity.

It's clear she doesn't want a meeting, she wants a forum.

"POTUS is the CEO and we are the shareholders, and we have a right to expect progress and accountability."

And he was held accountable on November 2, 2004 and was re-elected by the first majority in over a dozen years.

Next?

King meet Dictator

In one of your post you wrote: He's an elected official, not a king  True but Cindy is a citizen not a dictator.  She can't dictate anything to any other adult.

Pot meet Kettle

Cindy has said this is an illegal war (which it is not because Congress authorized it).  Now she says she is not going to pay her 2004 taxes.  

Excuse me, but Last time I check it was illegal not to pay your taxes.

...I've changed my mind.  It's far better for this stand-off to drag on through August and into September if the protest follows President Bush back to Washington, as it very likely will.

No it's not.  He should talk to her.

Yes, I am on a tear tonight.

I am sick and tired of moonbats like Cindy Sheehan, and the Air America braintrust, and the Kos Kidz, living in their fantasy world.

When I was a child, I spake as a child.  I thought as a child.  But when I became an adult, I put aside childish ways.

Then I became a liberal moonbat.  I realized that I could live in a fantasy world, because adults would do what was necessary to protect me.

Example:  On the Matthews show, Cindy Sheehan said that we were wrong to devastate Afghanistan.  (BTW, we didn't). When Matthews pointed out that al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan, Sheehan essentially observed that we should have attacked al Qaeda without damaging anything else in Afghanistan.

Ummm...how?  By airlanding Vulcans, who could have subdued al Qaeda with neck pinches?  By sending in the Sioux, to count coup?

Being an adult nowadays is hard work.  People who aren't crazy, but neverthless decide to embrace fanciful versions of life, are shirking their duties as adults.  They make the rest of us work harder as a result.

I resent that.  I hate freeloaders.

So YOU'RE the one who cancels out my vote every November!

Again, show me where it says that Sheehan has the right to demand and get an audience with the president of the United States.  Wait, I got it!  It must be next to that clause which gives every American a right to health care.

That have been repeatedly:

• Anti-Semitic, repeatedly, on numerous occasions




• Anti-American, expressing hatred for America




• Holding to the conspiracy theory that Osama was not responsible for 9/11




• Said we must run away from Afghanistan and Iraq, turning the countries over to Osama




• Has opposed ALL military action, even in Afghanistan, and holds no right of self-defense for the US militarily




• Has stated the US is waging Nuclear War in Iraq




• Believes Iraqis were better off under Saddam




• Has effectively accused US troops of mass killing of Iraqis, a War Crime under UN definitions

I view that it would be ENTIRELY inappropriate given those stated views, to meet with Sheehan at all.

Leaving alone the anti-Semitic statements, the repeated hatred for America, praise for Lynne Stewart (convicted of aiding Blind Sheik Abdul Rahman in terror activities); accusations against US troops of committing various war crimes such as "nuclear war" (I assume she is incoherently referring to depleted uranium ammo for armor piercing use) and war crimes ...

It would DISHONOR the memory of the brave US military people who died or were wounded, and those currently serving, to meet with someone who has said "This country is not worth fighting for. This country is not worth dying for."

Given that US forces are in service BECAUSE the believe the exact opposite, I would urge NO MEMBER of the Congress, various state legislatures, indeed even a dog catcher to meet with Cindy Sherman, because to do so would be like meeting with Tokyo Rose or Lord Haw Haw.

POTUS is the CEO and we are the shareholders, and we have a right to expect progress and accountability.

Was there an election rather recently? Yes. So that's accountability covered.

Was there an State of the Union address given by the President even more recently? Why, yes. That's a progress report covered.

You truly are an idiot.

I did the math on this. It's kind of a dumb idea.

There are roughly 200 million adults in the United States. If we each get a five-minute meeting with the President, that's one billion minutes the President has to spend in these meetings.

Dividing by 60, we get 16.6 million hours. Figuring 12-hour days, that's 1.3 million workdays that the President has to spend in these meetings.

If he does that 365 days a year, it will take a President 3,800 years to hold a 5-minute meeting with each adult.

Assuming that only 1% of the people would actually want these meetings, we're down to a mere 38 years of non-stop 12-hour days of meetings.

Leaving aside the question of the two-term limit, this still seems impractical.

It's a wonderful appeal to Stupid People™ though, so I can see why certain partisans would advocate such meetings. To those who can't or won't think, it probably sounds totally reasonable that the President should meet with anyone who wants a meeting.

she's only going to stay with her mother for 24 hours? I just don't get that. This is her mother. I would spend every moment I could with her (I'm presuming they were close, since she's flying back to see her) in case something happened. She lost her son and now she is only going to spend 24 hours with her mother?

I hope Mrs. Sheehan changes her mind. Crawford will always be there. Her mother will not.

"as I understand it, he couldn't remember her poor son's name or hers during that visit."

This sounds like "My Pet Goat" all over again.

are two concepts Leftists have trouble with, especially concerning population and the environment. Good lesson, but it will probsably fall on deaf ears.

disgusts me.  The woman needs help, not media coverage as someone else said.

This whole spectacle reminds me of the "Emperor's New Clothes" - the great many of us are pointing and while we aren't laughing, the media is feeding the spectacle like the emperor parading around town did.  There have been those trying to poker her into waking up, but she's so far gone atm surrounded by those wonderful tailors of Moveon.org, and Michael Moore, that she's convinced she's clothed in more than air and doesn't even notice the crowd pointing and laughing at her (calling her a media whore, etc)  Once the media and the moonbats abandon her as the Roberts Hearings start hopefully she will wake up and seek professional help for her grief, but I don't think so.  

cheer, cheer for math. (that's 3 cheers)

...cancels my vote, too. ;)

where Sheehan has spouted claims about Israel?



2) The text and themes of the e-mail are, to my knowledge, consistent with Ms Sheehan's other public statements.

Because talking about the Downing Street Memo and saying that Israel was behind the war in Iraq are two completely different things.  "Consistent," sure, but different.

There's no stand off.  Ms. Sheehan and her nutty friends are sitting in Crawford waiting for the President to speak to her.

The President is quite busy doing his job and getting in some warranted vacation.  The myth of his '5-week vacation' is quite easily dispelled when you see that he is still having national security briefings every day, is still having intelligence briefings every day, is travelling to bill signings and other official events, and talks with the press on occassion.  The Presidency is always with whoever is President.

The Lunatic Left and the MSM never seemed to object to vacations by Clinton (wherever the polls told him to go), Carter, LBJ, or even FDR (he took several weeks off during WII, bet ya didn't know that).  They just complain whenever a Republican takes time out of DC.

As has been so ably demonstrated by Nick and others, the President has already met with Ms. Sheehan.  Just because she drastically changed her mind about the war, or decided she no longer wanted to respect what the family thought Casey would want them to do when meeting with the POTUS, doesn't give her an unfettered right to have another meeting with the President.  She has the right to ask, sure.  But he has the freedom to say no.

He has responded to her concerns, both generally in speeches, press conferences, and actions.  He has also responded directly to her in the same way that she is communicating to him, through the press.

Her 15 minutes has overstayed its welcome.

...I might have to rejigger my finances so I can send my kids to private school.

A word to the wise --- do this anyway.

Not attempting to be cruel - I'm sure she will be with her mother if things not going well - she said she hoped to be back in 24 hours - brevity sometimes leads to misunderstanding.

and this thread is SO WAY getting out of hand... but ill add more uslessness to it anyway...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I did not want to sound cruel because I was commenting on her personal life. I hope she stays with her mother for more time, a stroke is a terrible thing, it shouldn't happen to anyone.

and, after they use her, the left will discard her, much like a used beercan in the stinking mud field of Woodstock, after "the show".

A good idea.

...visits this site because I need to consider all sides before committing myself to an opinion. I post comments to gain more insight.  I'm surprised by the tone of some of the responses I've received.  Is this site only for registered Republicans?

the mission statement.

The purpose here is for Republicans/conservatives to converse on Republican/conservative issues. We're not here to help people decide what they think.

You're welcome to hang around but you really need to read the mission statement.

Yea, he's just mopin' around doing nothing?

Here's what really makes people sick:

Can't we just get along?

Can't we just ask the French to help us?

Can't he just meet with Cindy one more time?

Can't he just apologise?

Can't he just admit he lied?

Can i have a glass of water?

specific objections? Because her letter to Nightline clearly hits those high points.

I probably just haven't seen this as I get the sense that a lot of other people have seen or heard her make comments to this effect, but where was Cindy Sheehan expressing anti-semitic views?

Did she explicity denigrate Jews? Or did she criticize US policy towards Israel or something?

Anyone have a link?

Ignore my post. I tracked back to her disputed letter. See what the ruckus is about.

So I take it we disagree with Senator George Allen (VA) when he said yesterday that he thinks the President to meet with Sheehan?

Sounds like Allen has strayed off the reservation.

Wonder if that position will come back to haunt him in the 2008 GOP primaries.

Are people here bothered by Allen's statement? And will some of us hold that against him when he runs in '08?

Desordre Remplir probably doesn't cancel my vote.  Some dead person probaly does that... or some beer swillin' robot.

She's met with him once. She says she only wants to know why her son died ... but, he's explained that many, many times. She may not like the answer, but actually her queston has been answered plenty of times by the President.

The only reason to meet with the president to just ask him why her son died ... is so that her leftist buddies can stage a media event.

Anyway, she said in her memo to Drudge et all that it's not about her. ("they're not going to stop me from speaking out about a war that needlessly killed my son.")

And, she's told Keith Olberman that she doesn't really care if she meets Bush again or not.

In summary, the point's no longer her grief, it's the anti-war moonbattery ... which has nothing to do with comforting her in her grief, or explaining why her son died. Which she already knows.

"Unless Sheehan is the victim of an elaborate Morris-Tersch conspiracy quietly put in motion on March 17, months before she became famous, those are her words." Link

I don't know about the "reservation," but I do know that anybody can be wrong.  Even me.  But I don't conduct my business as if I think every decision I make is likely to be wrong.  I leave the self-doubt for others until I get some data that indicates I might have made a mistake.

I suspect the same is true of Senator Allen.  

In any event, I don't know whom you mean by "we," but I obviously disagree with him about that.  I probably disagree with him about other things, too, but in general I think he's a pretty admirable person.

My evaluation of his comment is that it shows a lack of reflective thought, but it's not a major gaffe.

    * Anti-Semitic, repeatedly, on numerous occasions

--Not in the Nightline letter

    * Anti-American, expressing hatred for America

--Not in the Nightline letter

    * Holding to the conspiracy theory that Osama was not responsible for 9/11

--Not in the Nightline letter.

    * Said we must run away from Afghanistan and Iraq, turning the countries over to Osama

--Not in the Nightline letter

    * Has opposed ALL military action, even in Afghanistan, and holds no right of self-defense for the US militarily

--Not in the Nightline letter

    * Has stated the US is waging Nuclear War in Iraq

--Not in the Nightline letter

    * Believes Iraqis were better off under Saddam

--Not in the Nightline letter

    * Has effectively accused US troops of mass killing of Iraqis, a War Crime under UN definitions

--Not in the Nightline letter

Appreciate the straight answer. It's a clear and honest response.

I take it, then, that your response to Sen. Chuck Hagel's statement:

"I think the wise course of action, the compassionate course of action, the better course of action would have been to immediately invite her into the ranch."

would be the same?

Or is there a difference?

Do not go well together.

that I had a lot less respect for Hagel to begin with.

Just trying to understand and clarify though:

Is there a difference between Sen. Allen and Sen. Hagle's statements regarding the President meeting with Sheehan, and people's reaction to their statements?

Or are they saying the same thing, and engender the same response?

I haven't heard of either statement anywhere but from you, and you didn't quote Allen directly.  Nor do I know the context.

There could easily be a big difference, or they could denote and connote the same ideas.

I don't know how others responded.

She may not like the answer, but actually her queston has been answered plenty of times by the President.

Some blogger recently said that an answer you don't like is still an answer.

Wish I'd said that first. :-)

Here's Sen. Allen's statement:

http://allen.senate.gov/?c=story&t=press&story=2005081955621.984375

Here's some reaction from the Freep folks on Sen. Allen:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1466657/posts

And here's Sen. Hagel's statement (midway through article):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/18/AR200508180
1644_pf.html

but the two staements DO have a different tone to my ear.

Allen's statement seemed more matter-of-fact, constructive suggestion, "it might have been better to do otherwise."  He also seems to believe there was a time when it could have been done (the meeting) privately and she would have been satisfied.  I don't think that's true.  Ergo, a "lack of reflective thought."

Hagel, OTOH, sounds an awful lot like J. Kerry.  The tone of his statement is more accusatory and adversarial.  Telling phrases are that 'Bush would have been smarter to see Sheehan' (indirect quote), and "the wise course of action...."  That's worse than no thought at all; it sounds as if it is intended to undermine the President, not support him.

What do you think about it?

Looks like some people are very quick to make allegedly unchangeable judgments based on very minor events.

I don't know what they'll do when they realize that every other candidate has made some kind of boo-boo.  Vote Libertarian, I guess.

I didn't get down to the Hagel criticisms, if there were any.  My guess is that Allen is held in higher esteem to begin with, so it hurts more to hear him stumble.  As I said, it's no major gaffe, and I doubt it will hurt Allen in any way after a short while.  

I also think it's more likely that Hagel will continue to make the same kind of statements, because he seemed to make that one for his own reasons.  I think he's fishing for a VP spot under McCain.