MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned Ronald Reagan. Vice President Cheney invoked Ronald Reagan about you in Newsweek magazine. “I believe firmly in Ronald Reagan’s 11^th Commandment: Thou shall not speak ill of a fellow Republican. But it’s very hard sometimes to adhere to that where Chuck Hagel is involved.”

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I can’t answer for the vice president’s comments, but I do find that a bit puzzling, because I noted two weeks ago, Congressional Quarterly rated the 100 United States senators on their support of the Bush administration’s policies in the Senate last year, 30 votes. The senior senator from Nebraska was the number one supporter of George Bush’s policies in the Senate last year. Now, my friend Jack Reed will move further away from me hearing that. But I can’t answer to the vice president. I certainly never said anything about him or anyone else, I don’t get personal and that’s the way I leave it. ~Meet The Press

It’s true about his voting with the White House more than anyone else in the Senate.  So let me see if I understand the supposedly bold, “maverick,” wild-eyed “antiwar” hero Chuck Hagel here.  He wants to have a debate, he resents the claims that he doesn’t support the war effort or that he is “less than enthusiastic” about the war, and he now boasts that he was the Numero Uno Bush lackey in the Senate in 2006.  You can hear him saying, “I’m not some anti-Bush wacko…like all those people who have been saying nice things about me are wackos!  Please, Dobleve, take me back!  We can pass amnesty together!”  Can someone explain to me how things have reached such a sorry state that anyone mistakes this man for some champion of the antiwar cause?  How about boosting real antiwar candidates, whether Democratic or Republican?  It’s easy to spot who they are: they’re the ones who are saying that they are against the war.  Just to be clear, these antiwar candidates do not include those who say they are for the war.   

In case anyone thinks I am giving Chuck too much grief based on ambiguous evidence, consider this:

MR. RUSSERT: Is there room for an anti-war candidate in the Republican primary field?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I don’t, and wouldn’t, consider myself an anti-war candidate if I sought the nomination for president in the Republican Party [bold mine-DL]. It’s bigger than just the war. We’ve got entitlement issues, we’ve got tax issues, we’ve got environmental issues, health care issues.  

Apparently, on all these other “issues,” Hagel was a more reliable vote for Mr. Bush than anyone else, so what exactly would be the rationale for his candidacy?  He could rip off Hillary’s slogan and say, “Let the debate begin!” 

So, straight from the horse’s mouth: Chuck Hagel is not antiwar.  Can we conservatives and libertarians who are against the war in Iraq stop chasing wills o’ the wisp?  Can we stop valorising every two-bit politician or retired general who occasionally says something vaguely critical of the administration?  Are we interested in biting the bullet and backing actual antiwar candidates (Ron Paul is such a one) or are we going to let ourselves be held captive to media hype about absolutely conventional politicians whose independence from this administration is essentially non-existent?