Hagel grilled by angry Republicans
By Richard McGregor in Washington
Last updated: January 31, 2013 11:34 pm
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/55990e4a-6bb4-11e2-8c62-00144feab49a.html
 ©Reuters
Chuck Hagel was subjected to a gruelling day-long interrogation by Republicans antagonistic to his nomination to head the Pentagon, with the former senator struggling at times to mount a forceful defence of his national security credentials.
Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr Hagel was pressed on his positions on Israel, Iran, the designation of terrorist groups and reductions to the US nuclear arsenal.
In oral and written testimony, Mr Hagel offered strong support for Israel, saying he had never voted against the US ally in the Senate, and backed tough sanctions against Iran, while keeping possible military action in reserve.
He walked back his comment that “the Jewish lobby intimidates” many in Congress, saying he should have used the terms “pro-Israel” and “influence”.
Senate confirmation hearings are staged not unlike grand trials, in high-ceiling, wood-panelled rooms with an arc of imperious senators bearing down on the nominee like judges in a courtroom.
Mr Hagel, a decorated Vietnam veteran and two-term Republican senator from Nebraska, must have felt like the defendant on Thursday, as he faced a committee populated with former colleagues arrayed in scepticism and sometimes hostility against him.
“Are you going to answer the question: yes or no?” Senator John McCain, a one-time close friend, snapped at one point, pushing Mr Hagel on whether he was wrong to oppose the 2006 “surge” of troops into Iraq.
“I am not going to give a ‘yes or no’ answer because things are more complicated than that,” replied Mr Hagel, prompting Mr McCain, the Republican 2008 presidential candidate, to suggest he would vote against the nomination.
Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, peppered Mr Hagel with rapid-fire questions on his statement about the “Jewish lobby” forcing Congress to do “dumb” things, with the nominee admitting he could cite no examples.
Ted Cruz, of Texas, wheeled a television into the chamber to play excerpts of Mr Hagel’s appearance on the Al Jazeera network that suggested the nominee had criticised Israel for “committing war crimes” and labelled the US “the world’s bully.”
The hearings underlined how Mr Hagel is more than just Barack Obama’s nominee to be secretary of defence. He also represents the continued schism in US defence and foreign policy which opened in the wake of George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.
The war has haunted the Republicans ever since, and many in the party like Mr McCain, who represents Arizona in the Senate, have not forgiven Mr Hagel for breaking ranks to oppose America’s role.
For the most part, Mr Hagel sought to deflect questions about his past statements by asserting they did not reflect his overall record when taken out of context. “It is not a matter of differing objectives. It was a matter of how best to do things,” he said.
“My overall worldview has never changed: that America has and must maintain the strongest military in the world; that we must lead the international community to confront threats and challenges together; and that we must use all tools of American power to protect our citizens and our interests.”
The run-up to the hearing has been one of the most controversial in recent memory, with a number of anti-Hagel campaign groups spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in television advertisements against him.
Like Thursday’s hearing, the groups, funded by anonymous donors, have focused on Iran and Israel, and the issue of gay rights in the military. Joe Biden, the vice-president, told CNN the notion that Mr Hagel was insufficiently hawkish was “ridiculous”.
Republican senators also peppered Mr Hagel about his co-authoring of a report from the “Global Zero” movement, which they suggested backed unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Mr Hagel denied this, saying he had only supported negotiated drawdowns, in line with US presidents from both parties for decades. “A strong, agile, safe secure, effective, nuclear arsenal for the United States is not debatable,” he said.
The administration will be worried that far from shoring up support, Mr Hagel’s defensiveness might have lost him a number of votes and see him confirmed with weakened authority. |
