GOP roasts Hagel's bid for Defense secretary
WASHINGTON — Republican senators tore into Chuck Hagel on Thursday for not being tough enough on Iran, too tough on Israel and too willing to abandon Iraq.
Whether their criticism is enough to derail his nomination to become the next Defense secretary looks to be a long shot. Hagel appears to have the backing of Senate Democrats and at least six Republicans, said Thomas Mann, a congressional scholar at The Brookings Institution.
That would be enough to win confirmation and take the top spot at the Pentagon, succeeding Leon Panetta.
On Thursday, many Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee who caucused with Hagel four years ago gave him an icy reception. Their sharp questioning earned a rebuke from the White House.
The toughest questioning came from one of Hagel's erstwhile allies, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., about the 2007 decision to send extra troops to Iraq.
McCain pressed Hagel, who had opposed the surge, if he thought his judgment was mistaken because the surge was successful.
“That's a direct question; I expect a direct answer,” McCain said.
History would be the ultimate judge, Hagel said.
“I think history has already made a judgment on the surge, and you were on the wrong side of it,” McCain said.
“I did question a surge,” Hagel later said. “I always ask the question: Is this going to be worth the sacrifice?”
McCain, a former Navy pilot and fellow Vietnam War veteran who spent years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, said he had “fundamental” disagreements about Hagel's judgment.
Violence decline after the surge of forces, though analysts attribute some of that trend to a tribal revolt against al-Qaida in western Iraq. That was taking place before the surge.
President Obama also questioned the surge while he served as a senator from Illinois. He defeated McCain in the 2008 presidential election.
Hagel and McCain were among 77 senators who voted in 2002 to approve the use of U.S. troops in Iraq.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said it's appropriate that senators ask “tough questions” of nominees, but some of the queries to Hagel have lurched into “political posturing.” Carney did not cite any specific senators, but he criticized questions about “the wisdom of the Iraq War,” saying they “shed more light on the past than they do on the future.”
The hearings were Hagel's first public opportunity since being nominated to publicly defend his record and respond to critics who have questioned his support for Israel and the need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Hagel said he's proud of his public record, but that no “individual vote, quote or statement defines me.
“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,” Hagel said.
Hagel, a former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska, came under sharp questioning on his commitment to Israel, whether he was tough enough on Iran and his views on nuclear disarmament.
Accompanied by retired Sens. Sam Nunn and John Warner, Hagel opened his comments by responding directly to his critics, saying he is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
As secretary of Defense, Hagel said, he would ensure Israel maintains its military edge in the region.
“I'm a strong supporter of Israel,” Hagel said during questioning.
He repeated that sentiment numerous times during the hearing.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Strong rip currents kill 2 men in Ocean City
- Dog gone for 4 months found 3,000 miles from home
- Artificial sweeteners possible contributors to diabetes, obesity
- FBI, federal marshals join manhunt for survivalist accused of ambushing troopers
- House panel OKs move to split Amtrak, focus on profitable Northeast Corridor
- ‘God’ made optional in Air Force oath
- Alaskans get dividend of nearly $1,900 from state’s oil wealth account
- 2 orbiters about to arrive at Mars to hunt for clues to climate change
- Again, Arizona looks to plentiful rain
- Flows from Hawaiian volcano being monitored
- Damage assessed from wildfire in Weed, Calif.