Washington, D.C. – Americans for a Strong Defense (ASD) today issued the following statement on the U.S. Senate’s vote to confirm the nomination of former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense:

“We opposed the nomination of Chuck Hagel because it was the right thing to do.  Mr. Hagel was and remains the wrong choice to serve as defense secretary – despite his heroic military service – because of his lack of management experience and accomplishments, his extreme views on national security policy, and his refusal to fully disclose his speeches, sources of income, and other records,” said Ryan Williams, spokesman for Americans for a Strong Defense.

“However, the United States Senate has exercised its constitutional prerogative to advise and consent to Mr. Hagel’s nomination, and we respect the Senate’s decision.

“We wish incoming Secretary Hagel well, and hope he proves us wrong and does an outstanding job at the Pentagon.  Our nation needs and deserves the best Secretary of Defense possible, and so do the millions of Americans who defend our nation by serving in the U.S. military.”

Of filibusters and Chuck Hagel
By The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
This article was published February 17, 2013.

LITTLE ROCK — NOT SINCE the eminently forgettable and now justly forgotten Louis A. Johnson was chosen to dismantle the country’s military budget after the Second World War-just in time to leave this country woefully unprepared for the Korean one-has a nominee for secretary of defense represented so clear and present a danger to the national security.

This time his name is Chuck Hagel, a former senator of shifting convictions about the country’s defense, much of whose political career has been devoted to undermining that defense-when he wasn’t using high office to peddle low prejudices. Like the dangers of “ostentatious” homosexuals in the Foreign Service or a Jewish conspiracy dominating American politics. Such is the man this president has chosen to protect the nation’s security, God help us all.

Thanks to those far-sighted statesmen who gave us the Constitution of the United States-“the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man,” to quote Gladstone-the American system is replete with protections for the political minority, which certainly needs all the protection it can get. There are numberless such safeguards, from the Bill of Rights in the Constitution itself to unlimited debate in the Senate of the United States, also known as the filibuster. No doubt many of those protections have been abused to thwart the will of the majority. But there is a time when the will of a heedless, party-line majority rushing toward a dangerous decision very much needs thwarting. A time like now.

FOR A HANDY summation of good reasons to block the nomination of Charles Hagel as the country’s next secretary of defense, nothing can beat the transcript of his confirmation hearings, which amounted to one embarrassing debacle after another for the nominee. There were so many it is impossible to detail them all in a single editorial.

To cite only one: This is a senator who supported going to war in Iraq, complete with beating drums and blaring bugles. But when the outlook turned bleak there, and our troops needed all the support they could get on the home front, Senator Hagel sounded retreat-indeed, surrender.

At that decisive point, Senator Hagel not only opposed but denounced the Surge that would save the day, not to mention a war, a country, and the prospects for freedom in the most turbulent and dangerous part of the globe. The moral of this story: On him you shouldn’t count. Especially as secretary of defense.

Other examples of Chuck Hagel’s comprehensive lack of qualifications for any position of responsibility in the Department of Defense, let alone head of it, abound. The man even voted against designating the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s terrorist spearhead, as a terrorist organization. That was in 2007, when the Guards were still flooding Iraq with the IEDs used to kill American GIs.

Of all the former senator’s grave misjudgments and petty prejudices on display during his day-long disaster called confirmation hearings, two exchanges stand out.

The first came when John McCain, still defending freedom after all these years, pressed the nominee to admit an obvious fact: The Surge had worked. And he’d been wrong, dead wrong, to predict it wouldn’t. After a game try at evading Senator McCain’s question, Mr. Hagel finally said he would “defer that judgment to history”-an elevated way of dodging the issue.

To which Senator McCain, in a revealing moment and decisive verdict, responded: “I think history has already made a judgment about the Surge, sir, and you’re on the wrong side of it.” Q.E.D.

THE OTHER revelatory passage of the hearings came during Mr. Hagel’s colloquy with Lindsey Graham, the senator from South Carolina, who with John McCain and Joe Lieberman, has never wavered in his support of our troops and their cause. That interchange deserves quoting in full:

Senator Graham: Let us talk a little bit about statements you’ve made. You’ve explained this a bit. You said, ‘The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. I’m not an Israeli senator, I’m a United States senator. This pressure makes us do dumb things at times.’ . . . Name one person in your opinion who’s intimidated by the Israeli lobby in the United States Senate.

Mr. Hagel: Well, first-

Graham: Name one.

Hagel: I don’t know.

Graham: Well, why would you say it?

Hagel: I didn’t have in mind a specific-

Graham: Do you agree it’s a provocative statement? That I can’t think of a more provocative thing to say about the relationship between the United States and Israel and the Senate or the Congress than what you said? Name one dumb thing we’ve been goaded into doing because of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby.

Hagel: I have already stated that I regret the terminology I used.

Graham: But you said back then, ‘it makes us do dumb things.’ You can’t name one senator intimidated. Now give me one example of the dumb things that we are pressured to do up here.

Hagel: We were talking in that interview about the Middle East, about positions, about Israel, that’s what I was referring to.

Graham: So give me an example of where we have been intimidated by the Israeli/Jewish lobby to do something dumb regarding the Mideast, Israel or anywhere else.

Hagel: Well, I can’t give you an example.

Graham: Thank you.

Case closed.

Nothing his critics can say about having Chuck Hagel as the next American secretary of defense can be as damning as his own baseless words. Or his silence when asked to back them up. A silence that speaks volumes.

Chuck Hagel’s qualifications for the post he so ardently seeks begin with his sterling war record. Unfortunately, that’s where they end.

The man is a disaster waiting to happen at Defense-think Benghazis galore. Happily, the Senate voted Thursday to delay Mr. Hagel’s nomination by a vote of 58 to 40, a couple of votes short of the 60 required to end a filibuster.

Having won at least a week’s reprieve from this nominee’s confirmation, senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham and the rest of this political minority need to keep fightin’. And keep talking.

But declining by the day. No, that hearing last week didn’t reflect well on the U.S. Senate. But he didn’t do well in it, either. He didn’t appear that interested in the job.

He has the votes, but not much else. His big problem is that no one much wants him running the Pentagon. Congressional Republicans consider him a traitor. Congressional Democrats see him as anti-gay and anti-abortion, undercutting their support for him. And Northeastern Democrats (and some others) worry about his stance on Israel. Democratic support in the Senate appears more dutiful than passionate.

That said, I don’t think that a Hagel exit would hurt President Obama much. SecDef nominees have blown up on the launch pad before: Remember John Tower (picked by the first President Bush) and Bobby Inman (picked by President Clinton to replace Les Aspin)?

Read the rest of the article here.

The writer, a Republican, is Nebraska’s junior U.S. senator.

The decision to oppose a president’s nominee is not one I take lightly.

I acknowledge that the president will nominate individuals with policy views distinct from my own; indeed, such differences do not automatically disqualify nominees. While Sen. John Kerry and I do not agree on much, I nonetheless supported his nomination for secretary of state because his positions are within the mainstream of American foreign policy.

It is my constitutional duty to provide rigorous scrutiny of all nominees, particularly for secretary of defense. As then-Sen. Bob Kerrey once noted, “the defense secretary has to be considered differently than other Cabinet officers because he has the authority to move troops.” I agree with this heightened standard.

I appreciate Chuck Hagel’s service, both as an infantryman in Vietnam and as a United States senator representing Nebraska. However, after meeting with him privately and witnessing his confusing and contradictory testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I cannot support his nomination.

Nebraskans are familiar with some of Sen. Hagel’s controversial views, ranging from his curious opposition to sanctions against Iran to his inconsistent views toward Hezbollah and Hamas — terrorist organizations responsible for violence across the Middle East. Sen. Hagel has changed these positions and argued before the committee that he now supports U.S. efforts to actively prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capabilities.

While some have voiced concern that he altered long-held views, I am more troubled by Hagel’s insistence on positions that history has proven wrong.

During our one-on-one meeting, I asked Sen. Hagel if, in hindsight, he would have voted differently regarding unilateral sanctions on Iran. Despite the pressure these sanctions have exerted on the Iranian regime, Sen. Hagel stood by his lonely votes. Similarly, when pressed by Sen. John McCain about his opposition to the surge of troops in Iraq, which helped to turn around an unsuccessful war, Sen. Hagel refused to acknowledge his incorrect judgment.

I understand no one has all the answers or is correct 100 percent of the time. But as an elected official, I also believe leadership requires the humility to admit being wrong.

By refusing to acknowledge previous miscalculations on fundamental national security questions, Sen. Hagel has failed to instill confidence that he is the right leader for this position.

Read the rest of the article here.

FILIBUSTER, ANYONE? That single word, uttered by the right person, could end Chuck Hagel’s chances of becoming the next SecDef. So far, though, Hagel’s GOP foes have largely sidestepped the question of whether they’ll move in an organized fashion to block Hagel, who picked up a second Republican supporter over the weekend: Nebraska Sen. Mike Johanns, who endorsed him in an interview with the Omaha World-Herald. (Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi also supports Hagel.)

‘UNIMPRESSIVE AND UNPREPARED’ — In the wake of Hagel’s poor performance on Thursday, several Republicans have voiced opposition to the former Nebraska senator — including HASC Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.). Several Democrats, meanwhile, have added their names to his list of backers while privately acknowledging he struggled through his eight-hour confirmation hearing. And former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called Hagel’s performance “unimpressive and unprepared” in an interview yesterday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“The disconcerting thing, obviously, for anybody that watched it was he seemed unimpressive and unprepared on the questions that, quite frankly, he knew [were] coming,” Gibbs said.  http://politi.co/11iinUe

WHEN’S THE VOTE? SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the committee could vote on Hagel’s nomination as early as Thursday. But SASC already has plans that day: Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey are scheduled to testify on the September attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. And even if the committee does vote on Thursday, the full Senate could drag its feet bringing Hagel’s nomination to the floor, given that the vote could be contentious.

“A filibuster threat now is more likely than not, particularly from some smart new Armed Services Committee members like Ted Cruz, who are looking to draw clear lines with the administration on issues such as Iran and Israel,” said John Ullyot, a Republican strategist and former SASC spokesman under longtime committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican. “If Sen. Hagel’s goal was to inspire confidence and project an aura of inevitability, last week’s hearing did exactly the opposite,” Ullyot told Morning D.

Read more: Morning Defense

Hagel Rewrote His Record On Defense And Nuclear Issues While Testifying Before The Senate Armed Services Committee

The Wall Street Journal: “The Biggest Question Hanging Over Chuck Hagel’s Nomination To Lead The Pentagon Is Whether He Has The Conviction And Knowledge To Protect U.S. Security.” “The biggest question hanging over Chuck Hagel’s nomination to lead the Pentagon is whether he has the conviction and knowledge to protect U.S. security amid growing world turmoil and with a White House bent on cutting U.S. defenses.  His confirmation hearing on Thursday was hardly reassuring.” (Editorial Board, “The Hagelian Method,” The Wall Street Journal, 1/31/13)

Hagel’s Record On Sequestration

Asked About The Potentially Devastating National Security Effects Should Sequestration Defense Cuts Occur, Hagel Said The Defense Budget Was “Bloated,” Adding “The Pentagon Needs To Be Pared Down.” QUESTION: “On this Joint Committee that’s being created, Leon Panetta, our Defense Secretary, has warned of really dire consequences to U.S. national security if this so-called trigger gets pulled, in which case we would see $600 billion in automatic cuts to the Defense Department.  Do you agree with his assessment that that would be very harmful to national security.”  CHUCK HAGEL: “Defense Department, I think, in many ways, has been bloated.  So I think the Pentagon needs to be pared down.  I don’t think that our military has really looked at themselves strategically, critically, in a long, long time.” (Chuck Hagel, Interview With The Financial Times, 9/1/11)

• Defense Secretary Leon Panetta Testified In 2012 That Sequestration “Guarantees That We Are Going To Hollow The Force And Devastate Our National Security.” SECRETARY PANETTA: “And let me tell you something if sequester goes into effect, you can throw all of this out the window.  Sequester doubles the numbers of cuts, does it through that crazy formula, and guarantees that we are going to hollow the force and devastate our national security.” (Secretary Leon Panetta, Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee On Defense, U.S. House Of Representatives, Testimony, 2/16/12)
• Panetta: “It’s Not Something, Frankly, That Anybody Who Is Responsible Ought To Put Into Effect.”  “It’s a nutty formula, and it’s goofy to begin with, and it’s not something, frankly, that anybody who is responsible ought to put into effect.” (Committee On The Budget, U.S. Senate, Hearing On The FY 2013 Budget Request For The Defense Department, 2/28/12)

According To A Study By George Mason University, The Defense Spending Cuts In Sequestration Would Result In Colorado Losing 18,442 Jobs. (Stephen S. Fuller, “The Economic Impact Of The Budget Control Act Of 2011 On DOD And Non-DOD Agencies,” Report, 7/17/12)

Under Sequestration, Colorado Businesses Could Lose More Than $1.22 Billion.  “With sequestration, or automatic cuts, to whittle the federal deficit, there would be 18 percent in defense cuts.  The group said annual Colorado business losses could be greater than $1.22 billion, and some businesses may have to shut down.” (Ann Schrader, “Colorado Defense Firms Could Lose Millions Of Dollars In Obama Budget Plan,” The Denver Post, 2/14/12)

The [Colorado Springs]Gazette Said Sequestration “Could Devastate Colorado Springs, As The Local Economy Relies On Defense Spending.” “Guilt-ridden politicians raised the limit on condition Congress and Obama would dramatically reduce the deficit in 2013.  To ensure deficit reduction, they tied the debt-limit increase to automatic tax hikes and spending cuts, effective in January 2013.  Known as ‘sequestration,’ automatic spending cuts could devastate Colorado Springs, as the local economy relies on defense spending.” (Opinion, “Our View: Wise Men Warned Us Of Fiscal Cliff,” The [Colorado Springs] Gazette, 12/5/12)

The Head Of The Air Force Space Command In Colorado Springs, Gen. William Shelton, Said The Sequester Poses A Major Threat To The Nation’s Space Programs. “The head of Air Force Space Command in Colorado Springs warned Wednesday that federal spending cuts scheduled to take place next month pose a major threat to the nation’s space programs because of the ‘meat-ax approach’ mandated under the automatic reductions.  Gen. William Shelton told 350 aerospace industry executives during a conference that military space programs will face tight budgets even if President Barack Obama and Congress find a way to avoid the ‘fiscal cliff’ of budget cuts and expiring tax cuts set to occur at year’s end.” (Wayne Heilman, “General Warns Of Budget Threat To Space Programs,” The [Colorado Springs] Gazette, 12/6/12)

Hagel’s Record On The U.S.’s Nuclear Arsenal

Hagel: “We Must Eventually Eliminate Nuclear Weapons.” HAGEL: “We must eventually eliminate nuclear weapons because if we do not, there is only one course that can possible come out of efforts by other nations besides the nine now nuclear weapons nations, to attain those weapons.” (Al-Jazeera’s “Riz Khan,” 3/21/09)

Hagel Has Worked On Behalf Of The Anti-Nuclear Organization Global Zero Which “Seeks To Eliminate The U.S.’s Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Force And Prevent America From Responding To A Nuclear Strike For At Least 24 To 72 Hours.” “He has worked on behalf of Global Zero, an anti-nuclear organization that seeks to eliminate the U.S.’s intercontinental ballistic missile force and prevent America from responding to a nuclear strike for at least 24 to 72 hours.” (Adam Kredo, “The Critique Of Hagel,” The Washington Free Beacon, 12/6/12)

Hagel Is A Signatory Of Global Zero’s Pledge That States, “We Must Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons Globally.” “WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, believe that to protect our children, our grandchildren and our civilization from the threat of nuclear catastrophe, we must eliminate all nuclear weapons globally.  We therefore commit to working for a legally binding verifiable agreement, including all nations, to eliminate nuclear weapons by a date certain.” (Hagel’s Signature, Global Zero Website, www.globalzero.org, Accessed 1/28/13; Global Zero’s Statement For The Complete Elimination Of Nuclear Weapons, www.globalzero.org, Accessed 1/28/13)

Global Zero’s Website States “Global Zero Is The International Movement For The Elimination Of All Nuclear Weapons.” (Global Zero Website, www.globalzero.org, Accessed 1/28/13)