WASHINGTON – The supporting cast for Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel has a notable Georgia twang.
Behind the scenes, former Georgia Democratic U.S. Sen. Max Cleland is working to build support for his fellow Vietnam War veteran and former Senate colleague. Cleland, who lost his seat in 2002 to Saxby Chambliss, was in the front row for Thursday morning’s confirmation hearing before the Armed Services Committee but declined to comment as Hagel’s nomination is still pending.
Seated next to Hagel was former Georgia Democratic U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, who once chaired the committee. Nunn and former Armed Services chair John Warner, a Virginia Republican, introduced Hagel and lent bipartisan and powerful backing for the nominee. Senators tend to respect powerful former senators.
Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, has been a controversial pick on the left and the right – his alleged sins include insufficient backing of Israel and insensitivity toward gays. The committee’s top Republican, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, used his opening statement to declare that he will not vote for Hagel.
That made the most important word in Nunn’s nine-minute speech “mainstream.”
“From our service together on the Defense Policy Board, I know that Chuck has a very clear worldview, and that it aligns with the mainstream of U.S. foreign and defense policy,” Nunn said. “Chuck Hagel believes that we must build and preserve American strength as a force for good in the world. He realizes that protecting our interests requires strong allies and friends and strong American leadership.”
Nunn spoke extensively about his chief Senate legacy and post-Senate occupation, nuclear proliferation. He called Hagel a “balanced and responsible voice on nuclear weapons policy.” Then Nunn added a quote from a GOP favorite: “President Reagan said it often and said it well – a nuclear war cannot be won, and must not be fought.”
Combined with Chambliss, who serves on on the committee, there were about 40 years of Senatorial service to Georgia in the hearing room this morning.
Update: 12:08 p.m.
Chambliss appeared skeptical of Hagel, noting their friendship on the Senate Intelligence Committee as Republican colleagues but saying “you cast some votes I questioned.”
One of those votes was against designating the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. It was a controversial 2007 vote that cleared the Senate without Hagel’s support – among 22 Democrats and Republicans, including now-President Barack Obama and now-Secretary of State John Kerry.
Hagel said calling an official arm of a United Nations country a terrorist organization was unprecedented and he felt it would also have authorized President George W. Bush to attack Iran.
More broadly, Chambliss wanted to explore Hagel’s views on Iran, which are controversial among Republicans. He read passages from Hagel’s book in which the former senator signaled more willingness for diplomacy than force.
“If your position is truly prevention and not containment [of a nuclear Iran], what is the red line?” Chambliss asked. “We know there are some things happening right now that are serious, so how far do we go? Do you still advocate direct negotiations with Iran?”
Hagel said he did not want to publicly discuss “red lines,” and that he would defer to the president on that subject. On engaging diplomatically with Iran, Hagel said:
“I think we’re always on higher ground in every way – international law, domestic law, people in the world, people in region to be with us on this if we’ve tried and we’ve gone through every possibility to resolve this in a responsible peaceful way rather than going to war.”
- By Daniel Malloy, Political Insider
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.
68 comments Add your comment
Retired Soldier
January 31st, 2013
5:12 pm
Cherokee-
Fine, we don’t need a Constitution if we don’t adhere to it. Please show me in the document where roads and bridges are a FEDERAL responsibility.
janet
January 31st, 2013
5:14 pm
Universal service and I volunteer to sit on the review board for deferments. War over by Spring.
Retired Soldier
January 31st, 2013
5:16 pm
Curious-
While roads are not in the constitution I grant you the interstate system is as close as you get and I will concede that point. But Obama et al want to fix any and all roads and bridges to “stimulate”. Not the job of the federal government.
If you were drafted that wasn’t universial service, it was selective service.
Retired Soldier
January 31st, 2013
5:17 pm
Janet-
Nice try, you get the infantry according to Obama.
Cherokee
January 31st, 2013
5:34 pm
Retired Soldier:
Section 8: The Congress shall have the authority to … provide for the common defense and welfare of the United States…
Obviously it’s up to your interpretation, but I would argue that roads and bridges clearly add to the welfare of the country…. and thus the federal government is perfectly within its rights to contribute money toward infrastructure projects.
Monorailcat
January 31st, 2013
5:41 pm
Hagel, is in favor of negotiating mutual reductions in useless nuclear weapons and he’s the antichrist. Reagan did this several times and he’s a saint.
Retired Soldier
January 31st, 2013
5:41 pm
I disagree Cherokee what follows that is…but all duties imposts and excises shall be uniform… It refers to the ability of the government to tax in those areas, but it must be “uniform” The general welfare is to collect the funds and expend them in the areas the Constitution allows..
Cherokee
January 31st, 2013
5:48 pm
“I disagree”… Kinda figured you would.
And I guess that if you feel that you’ve been wronged by the illegal use of federal tax dollars taken from you, that you should take them to court. If you won, you’d be a hero to the tea party crowd.
(But you would lose… sorry….)
Retired Soldier
January 31st, 2013
5:53 pm
Cherokee-
I disagree with your position, but I appreciate your humor. Take the country to court? Interesting idea, but it might be one of the few times the Attorney General does his job.
RCB
January 31st, 2013
5:59 pm
If you build or repair a bridge, that helps the locale, not the country, and only interstate highways help the country. State infrastructure is a state responsibility.
Cherokee
January 31st, 2013
6:04 pm
That’s just silly, RCB, imho. By your logic, the federal government should not dispense any money to help the expansion of the Savannah port. That’s a Georgia project after all. Only Georgia taxpayers should foot the bill!
That’s nonsense – every American will benefit from increased economic activity – just like we all benefit from improvements to highways and bridges, in say, Seattle.
Curious
January 31st, 2013
6:22 pm
It may have been selective service, but the entire male population over 18 had to register. In theory everybody was equally eligible to be drafted.
RCB
January 31st, 2013
7:22 pm
Cherokee–the Savannah port serves the whole Eastern Seaboard, as well as the country. I respect your opinion, but I don’t see how a local bridge in Seattle helps Georgia’s economy. IMO, I don’t think they should be federally funded. If Georgia foots the bill entirely, then all the proceeds should stay here, but that’s not the purpose of a port. I agree that some things are a dual responsibility.
bob knapp
February 1st, 2013
7:57 am
Netanyahu did very POORLY in the recent election
Netanyahu’s party only won 31 seats out of 120
Crazy people think all people in Israel think the same way
bob knapp
February 1st, 2013
8:03 am
Crazy neo cons want everyone to think Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were success stories
Crazy Neo Cons think the war of choice on Iraq was a success. So Iraq had NO WMD, cost over 4 trillion borrowed dollars, 4000 troops killed, thousands more wounded, and Bush’s boy Maliki is in power, The US did not get 1 oil contract. Maliki is pro Iranian and currently Iran is sending weapons to Assad using Iraqi air space
McCain said there were WMD and there would be NO house to house fighting. Bill Kristol and the neo cons said the USA would be in and out of Iraq in months
bob knapp
February 1st, 2013
8:07 am
If Mc Cain and Graham are so worried about 4 people being killed in Benghazi why don’t they address the 1040 reported cases of rape in the military last year
Why don’t Mc Cain and Graham investigate the number of US soldiers KILLED by the very people they were training in Iraq and Afghanistan
When Mc Cain was running for President, Mc Cain, Graham and Lieberman walked around Bagdad in order to prove it is safe.
Graham and Mc Cain act like irrational folks
Retired Soldier
February 1st, 2013
9:15 am
Cherokee-
Let’s put aside the constitution for a minute and speak practical. The bridge in Portland will have 25 million of federal funds. Where does the money come from? Add to the debt? Do you reduce spending elsewhere to pay for the 25 million? We are long past spending money because it is “needed”.
We are on the verge of becoming Greece, is that bridge worth it?
Retired Soldier
February 1st, 2013
9:28 am
Bob-
1. Who is still Prime Minister?
2. Who is the only President in recent history that won a second term with a lower vote percentage? (Hint: He is in the White House now)
3. McCain and Graham can only investigate what the democrats allow. Friendly deaths have increased largely in the last four years. Maybe that question should be asked to Obama on 60 Minutes, you know that hard hitting news show.