This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/us/politics/sharp-exchanges-expected-in-hearing-on-hagel-nomination.html

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 7 Version 8
G.O.P. Senators Question Hagel Sharply on Iraq and U.S. Power Hagel’s Views Come Under Harsh Scrutiny by Republicans
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense, engaged in a sharp exchange with his old friend, Senator John McCain, at the opening of his confirmation hearing on Thursday when Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, pressed him on his opposition to the escalation, or surge, of American forces in Iraq in 2007. WASHINGTON — Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defense, came under sharp and sometimes angry questioning Thursday on a wide range of issues from fellow Republicans at his Senate confirmation hearing, including from his old friend, Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is still smoldering about their break over the Iraq war.
Mr. Hagel dodged a direct answer as Mr. McCain asked him repeatedly if history would judge whether Mr. Hagel was right or wrong to oppose the surge in forces when he was a Republican senator from Nebraska. The escalation, along with other major factors, is credited in helping quell the violence in Iraq at the time. When Mr. Hagel said he wanted to explain, Mr. McCain bore in. Mr. Hagel, 66, a former senator from Nebraska and a decorated Vietnam veteran who would be the first former enlisted soldier to be secretary of defense, often seemed tentative in his responses to the barrage from fellow Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who showed him little deference and frequently cut him off.
“Are you going to answer the question, Senator Hagel, the question is whether you were right or wrong,” Mr. McCain said. One of the most hostile questioners was Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told Mr. Hagel to “give me an example of where we’ve been intimidated by the Israel-Jewish lobby to do something dumb.'’ Mr. Hagel, who in 2006 said the “Jewish lobby” intimidates Congress, could not.
From Mr. Hagel's home state, Senator Deb Fischer told Mr. Hagel that he held "extreme views" that were "far to the left of this administration.'' Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, surprised the hearing with excerpts on a giant video screen from an interview Mr. Hagel gave to Al Jazeera in 2009. Although it was difficult to hear the short clips he provided, Mr. Cruz asserted that they showed Mr. Hagel agreeing with a caller who suggested that Israel had committed war crimes.
“Do you think the nation of Israel has committed war crimes?'’ Mr. Cruz demanded.
“No, I do not, Senator,'’ Mr. Hagel replied.
But his exchange with Mr. McCain was the most notable, given that the two former Vietnam veterans were close friends when they served in the Senate until Mr. Hagel’s views on the Iraq War caused a split. In 2008, Mr. Hagel did not endorse Mr. McCain for president and traveled with Mr. Obama, then a senator from Illinois, to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Hagel dodged a direct answer as Mr. McCain asked him repeatedly if history would judge whether Mr. Hagel was right or wrong in opposing the surge in American armed forces when he was in the Senate. The escalation, along with other major factors, is credited in helping to quell the violence in Iraq at the time. When Mr. Hagel said he wanted to explain, Mr. McCain bore in.
“Are you going to answer the question, Senator Hagel — the question is whether you were right or wrong?” Mr. McCain said.
“I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer,” Mr. Hagel replied.“I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer,” Mr. Hagel replied.
Mr. McCain did not let up.Mr. McCain did not let up.
"I think history has already made a judgment about the surge sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it,” Mr. McCain said, then seemed to threaten that he would not vote for Mr. Hagel if he did not answer the question. "I think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it,” Mr. McCain said, then seemed to threaten that he would not vote for Mr. Hagel if he did not answer the question.
It took the next questioner, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, to draw out Mr. Hagel out on the subject. “I did question the surge,” Mr. Hagel said. “I always asked the question, is this going to be worth the sacrifice?” He said 1,200 American men and women lost their lives in the surge. “I’m not certain it was required,” Mr. Hagel said. “Now, it doesn’t mean I was right.” It took the next questioner, Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, to draw Mr. Hagel out on the subject. “I did question the surge,” Mr. Hagel said. “I always asked the question, is this going to be worth the sacrifice?” He said 1,200 American men and women lost their lives in the surge. “I’m not certain it was required,” Mr. Hagel said. “Now, it doesn’t mean I was right.”
Mr. McCain, like many Republicans, was furious at Mr. Hagel’s skepticism about the Iraq War. It led to a falling-out between the two men, both Vietnam veterans, that appeared to have been patched up when the two met last week after Mr. Hagel was nominated for the Pentagon job. Mr. McCain described their discussion as a “frank and candid” exchange between two “old friends.” Despite the theatrics, it was unclear how the committee would vote on Mr. Hagel’s nomination. He needs a majority of the 26-member panel, which includes 14 Democrats, almost all of whom are likely to support his nomination. And there remained a possibility that perhaps one or two Republicans would join them. If Mr. Hagel advances out of the committee, he would have an easier time when the entire Senate votes on his confirmation.
But Mr. McCain was only one of the Republicans who pressed Mr. Hagel at hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The onslaught by Republicans, however, began even before Mr. Hagel made his opening statement.
Before he even made his opening statement, Mr. Hagel faced a blast of objections from the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, who told Mr. Hagel that he would not vote for him because of his position of “appeasing” America’s adversaries. The ranking Republican on the committee, Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, told Mr. Hagel that he would not vote for him because of his position of “appeasing” America’s adversaries.
“His record demonstrates what I view as a lack of steadfast opposition to policies that diminish U.S. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals that seem based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs,” Mr. Inhofe said.“His record demonstrates what I view as a lack of steadfast opposition to policies that diminish U.S. power and influence throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy reversals that seem based on political expediency rather than on core beliefs,” Mr. Inhofe said.
But even a reliable yes vote, Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who serves as the committee’s chairman, said in his opening statement that Mr. Hagel had made “troubling” statements about Israel and had expressed a willingness to negotiate on Iran on issues that Mr. Levin viewed as nonnegotiable. Mr. Levin said he expected Mr. Hagel to address those issues during the hearing. Even a reliable “yes” vote, Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who serves as the committee’s chairman, said in his opening statement that Mr. Hagel had made “troubling” statements about Israel and had expressed a willingness to negotiate on Iran on issues that Mr. Levin viewed as nonnegotiable. Mr. Levin said he expected Mr. Hagel to address those issues during the hearing.
Under aggressive but at times disjointed questioning from Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hagel was asked why he thought the Iranian Foreign Ministry so strongly supported his nomination as defense secretary. Mr. Hagel swiftly replied, “I have a difficult time enough with American politics.” He then said, “I have no idea.”Under aggressive but at times disjointed questioning from Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Hagel was asked why he thought the Iranian Foreign Ministry so strongly supported his nomination as defense secretary. Mr. Hagel swiftly replied, “I have a difficult time enough with American politics.” He then said, “I have no idea.”
Under more gentle but persistent questioning from Mr. Levin, Mr. Hagel said that he had voted against some unilateral American sanctions against Iran in 2001 and 2002 because it was a different era. “We were at a different place with Iran at that time,” he said.Under more gentle but persistent questioning from Mr. Levin, Mr. Hagel said that he had voted against some unilateral American sanctions against Iran in 2001 and 2002 because it was a different era. “We were at a different place with Iran at that time,” he said.
Mr. Hagel faltered at one point, saying shortly before noon that he strongly supported the president’s policy on “containment” of Iran. He was quickly handed a note, which he read and then said to correct himself, “Obviously, we don’t have a position on containment.” Mr. Hagel faltered at one point, saying shortly before noon that he strongly supported the president’s policy on “containment” of Iran. He was quickly handed a note, which he read and then corrected himself, “Obviously, we don’t have a position on containment.”
At that point Mr. Levin interjected, “We do have a position on containment, which is we do not favor containment.” The Obama administration’s policy on Iran remains prevention of its efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. At that point Mr. Levin interjected, “We do have a position on containment, which is we do not favor containment.” The Obama administration’s policy remains prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
In his opening statement, Mr. Hagel said that the United States must lead other nations in confronting threats, use all tools of American power in protecting its people and “maintain the strongest military in the world.” In his opening statement, Mr. Hagel said that he was fully committed to the president’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. He also said that the United States must lead other nations in confronting threats, use all tools of American power to protect its people and “maintain the strongest military in the world.”
Mr. Hagel presented a broad, forceful endorsement of American military power aimed at answering critics who say he would weaken the United States. He offered strong support for Israel, said he was fully committed to the president’s goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and said he would keep up pressure — through Special Operations forces and drones — on terrorist groups in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa. Mr. Hagel presented a broad, forceful endorsement of American military power aimed at answering critics who say he would weaken the United States. He offered strong support for Israel, and said he would keep up pressure — through Special Operations forces and drones — on terrorist groups in Yemen, Somalia and North Africa.
“I believe, and always have, that America must engage — not retreat — in the world,” Mr. Hagel told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I believe, and always have, that America must engage — not retreat — in the world,” Mr. Hagel said.
On Afghanistan, which Mr. Hagel called “the longest war, as we all know, in America’s history,” Mr. Hagel, said he agreed with the president that there would only be two functions for the small number of American forces in Afghanistan after 2014: hunting down Al Qaeda and its affiliates and training and advising Afghan security forces. On Afghanistan, which Mr. Hagel called “the longest war, as we all know, in America’s history,” he said he agreed with the president that there would be only two functions for the small number of American forces left in Afghanistan after 2014: hunting down Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and training and advising Afghan security forces.
Mr. Hagel’s statement frequently echoed the policies of the departing defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, and at several points used identical phrasing. Like Mr. Panetta, Mr. Hagel said that the United States “always will be a Pacific power” and that the Defense Department was “rebalancing its resources toward the Asia-Pacific region.”Mr. Hagel’s statement frequently echoed the policies of the departing defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta, and at several points used identical phrasing. Like Mr. Panetta, Mr. Hagel said that the United States “always will be a Pacific power” and that the Defense Department was “rebalancing its resources toward the Asia-Pacific region.”
But although he said he shared Mr. Panetta’s “serious concern” about impending defense budget cuts, called sequestration, he did not sound the same cataclysmic alarm that Mr. Panetta has at times in the past. But although he said he shared Mr. Panetta’s “serious concern” about impending defense budget cuts, called sequestration, he did not sound the same cataclysmic alarm that Mr. Panetta has at times.
Mr. Hagel also said he would do “everything possible under current law” to provide equal benefits to gay service members and would work with the service chiefs to open combat positions to women, a decision he said he strongly supported.Mr. Hagel also said he would do “everything possible under current law” to provide equal benefits to gay service members and would work with the service chiefs to open combat positions to women, a decision he said he strongly supported.
The hearing occurred in a packed room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, where a protester shouted that Mr. Hagel had to provide equal military benefits to gay couples while the men of America’s defense establishment, including former Senator Sam Nunn and James Jones, a former national security adviser, turned up to lend support. Mr. Nunn, who has been considered over the years for defense secretary, introduced Mr. Hagel to the committee. The hearing occurred in a packed room in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, where a protester shouted that Mr. Hagel had to provide equal military benefits to gay couples while the several veterans of America’s defense establishment, including former Senator Sam Nunn and James Jones, a former national security adviser, turned up to lend support. Mr. Nunn, who has been considered over the years for defense secretary, introduced Mr. Hagel to the committee.
Mr. Hagel, who has gone through three “murder boards,” or mock hearings, in preparation for the real one, has met with nearly 60 members of the Senate. He has spent the past three weeks working out of a modest transition office down the hall from the office of Mr. Panetta, in the Pentagon E-ring, the corridor with sweeping views of the Potomac River and Washington.Mr. Hagel, who has gone through three “murder boards,” or mock hearings, in preparation for the real one, has met with nearly 60 members of the Senate. He has spent the past three weeks working out of a modest transition office down the hall from the office of Mr. Panetta, in the Pentagon E-ring, the corridor with sweeping views of the Potomac River and Washington.
With the help of a transition staff led by Marcel J. Lettre, Mr. Panetta’s deputy chief of staff, Mr. Hagel has received voluminous Pentagon briefings, met with Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and spoken with the deputy defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter, who will remain in the job.With the help of a transition staff led by Marcel J. Lettre, Mr. Panetta’s deputy chief of staff, Mr. Hagel has received voluminous Pentagon briefings, met with Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and spoken with the deputy defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter, who will remain in the job.
Mr. Hagel, 66, a decorated Vietnam veteran and a senator from Nebraska, has also worked closely with Mr. Obama’s aides on what has become a major White House offensive to counter criticism from Jewish and conservative groups and some Democrats that Mr. Hagel is too hard on Israel and too soft on Iran. Mr. Hagel has also worked closely with Mr. Obama’s aides on what has become a major White House offensive to counter criticism from Jewish and conservative groups and some Democrats that Mr. Hagel is too hard on Israel and too soft on Iran.
White House officials said they expected support from some of the 12 Republicans on the 26-member Armed Services Committee, including potentially from Senator John McCain of Arizona, who was once a close friend of Mr. Hagel’s but broke with him on the Iraq war. Both men initially supported the American invasion in 2003, but Mr. Hagel became an early critic of the George W. Bush administration’s handling of the war. Mr. Hagel has, like Mr. Obama, been wary of American military involvement overseas. Last year, recalling his service in Vietnam, where he and his brother Tom were serving in the same infantry squad when both were severely wounded, he said: “I’m not a pacifist — I believe in using force, but only after following a very careful decision-making process. The night Tom and I were medevaced out of that village in April 1968, I told myself: If I ever get out of this and I’m ever in a position to influence policy, I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war.”
Mr. Hagel, who would be the first former enlisted soldier to become secretary of defense, has, like Mr. Obama, been wary of American military involvement overseas. Last year, recalling his service in Vietnam, where he and his brother Tom were serving in the same infantry squad when both were severely wounded, he said: “I’m not a pacifist — I believe in using force, but only after following a very careful decision-making process. The night Tom and I were medevaced out of that village in April 1968, I told myself: If I ever get out of this and I’m ever in a position to influence policy, I will do everything I can to avoid needless, senseless war.”