 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Nebraska Republican was worked up about President Bush's State of the Union speech, specifically its most memorable line: "States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil." Hagel regarded this as "name-calling." In May, he went a bit further: "Our potential to lead the world at such a critical time in history calls for creativity, boldness, and vision rather than nostalgia and dividing the world into simplistic categories." Tom Daschle's own criticism of Bush's "axis of evil" phrase was much gentler: "We've got to be very careful with rhetoric of that kind." Yet those words practically got Daschle accused of treachery, and he took them back almost at once. As a Republican, however, Hagel is immune to charges of partisanship. His assessment of Bush is therefore more interesting. He's become a fixture on the political talk shows, urging "caution" on the president — especially if the subject is an invasion of Iraq. Today Hagel is the Bush administration's most outspoken war critic in Congress. Which isn't to say he's its sharpest critic. His speeches are littered with what might be called Hagelian dialect: declamations that may sound weighty when spoken but become insubstantial on the printed page. "We cannot shrink from the reality before us," Hagel told the Council on Foreign Relations in April. "We have no option but to lead," he said in a speech to the Senate a few days earlier. When he actually talks substance, he's prone to self-contradiction. On Fox News in March, he said that Saddam Hussein "is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. He represents a threat to the United States. That issue, I think, we can all agree on." Two months later, however, Hagel himself seemed to disagree. Asked by Time magazine whether anything should be done about Iraq, he replied, "How urgent is the threat?" Unlike most of his colleagues, the 55-year-old Hagel does know something about war firsthand. He volunteered for service in Vietnam, where he earned two Purple Hearts. Later he worked as a radio newsman, an aide to Republican congressman John McCollister of Nebraska, and a lobbyist for Firestone. He held a few jobs in government during the Reagan years, and also co-founded Vanguard Cellular, a telecommunications company that made him a millionaire. In 1996, Hagel won election to the Senate by beating Ben Nelson, a popular governor who had been considered the favorite. On most domestic issues, Hagel is a reliable conservative: pro-life, pro-gun, pro-tax relief. He even voted against this year's bloated farm bill. But his primary interests lie elsewhere: On joining the Senate, Hagel sought out and secured a spot on the Foreign Relations Committee — not exactly a hot property at the time. He started speaking on international issues and quickly earned a reputation for thoughtfulness. "That was partly because nobody else was saying much," comments Gary Schmitt of the Project for the New American Century. "He spoke into a vacuum." Hagel is often compared to John McCain, the man he supported in the 2000 primaries. McCain, however, has been a strong advocate of American power around the globe, including regime change in Iraq. Hagel is much more apprehensive. "He reacts to everything like a European," says a Senate colleague. In other words, Hagel is a skeptic on U.S. force. "America must be about enhancing its relationships in the world, not just its power," he said in April. It's not that he isn't willing to unleash the military (he was an early backer of action against Serbia, for instance), but he believes everything must be done in consultation with other countries and with the approval of international organizations. "We are the greatest power that the world has ever known," he said on the Senate floor in April. "But we have limits, too. And these coalitions for peace, coalitions for change will be our future, the world's future." This type of thinking puts Hagel within a long Republican tradition of internationalism that stretches back to Arthur Vandenberg. It has also encouraged him to break with conservatives on a variety of national-security issues. He has joined with Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy in pushing for a ban on land mines — something the Pentagon fiercely opposes and that even the Clinton administration wouldn't stomach. In 1997, he helped move the treaty banning chemical weapons to passage. When Republican leader Trent Lott came under fire from conservatives on the issue, Hagel jotted him a short note: "Don't let the ankle-biters get you down." Lott said these communications helped sway him to support the treaty. In 1999, Hagel technically did oppose the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty — but not before trying to scuttle a vote on it. Just prior to the roll call, he signed a letter to table the treaty — a ploy that supporters were advocating as a last-ditch measure to keep the treaty alive for a more amenable Senate. For a time, Hagel was one of Lott's favorites. The honeymoon ended abruptly in 1998, however, after Hagel lit into Lott and the Senate leadership for approving the enormous spending increases in budget negotiations that fall. They felt that Hagel might at least have acknowledged his own role in driving costs upward, because he had pressed successfully for an $18 billion bailout package for the International Monetary Fund. The Nebraskan spoke of challenging Lott for the majority-leader post, but wound up instead taking on Mitch McConnell for chairmanship of the Senate GOP's election committee. He lost that race badly, 39-13, dashing what once looked like a bright future as a party leader inside the Senate. There's nothing Hagel likes less than talking about right and wrong in the context of foreign policy. Pro-Israeli groups view him almost uniformly as a problem. "He doesn't always cast bad votes, but he always says the wrong thing," comments an Israel supporter who watches Congress. An April speech is a case in point. "We will need a wider lens to grasp the complex nature and consequences of terrorism," said Hagel. He went on to cite a few examples of terrorism: FARC in Colombia, Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, and the Palestinian suicide bombers. Then he continued, "Arabs and Palestinians view the civilian casualties resulting from Israeli military occupation as terrorism." He didn't exactly say he shares this view — but he also failed to reject it. "Foreign policy is not some theoretical, esoteric, Kissinger-esque thing hanging out there. It's foreign trade," Hagel said in 1998. Like a few other farm-state senators, he hasn't met a country he won't trade with. Last year, Hagel was one of just two senators who voted against extending the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. He's strongly opposed to the trade embargo against Cuba — so much so, in fact, that he was the single lawmaker Jimmy Carter invited to accompany him to Havana this year. Hagel considered going, but ultimately didn't because he wanted to participate in the Senate debate over Trade Promotion Authority. He nevertheless hailed Carter's trip: "What Jimmy Carter's saying . . . is exactly right: Our 40-year policy toward Cuba is senseless." Hagel so staunchly advocates trade with China that he's willing to sell out a traditional U.S. ally. "When we say we're going to defend Taiwan, what are we saying there?" he asked a New York Times reporter three years ago. "Are we saying that if the Chinese send a missile over, we're at war with China? It's a big thing to say. I think we're rather careless." Hagel certainly knows something about carelessness. In 1998, when the Lewinsky scandal was smashing Bill Clinton's credibility, Hagel gave a speech on global conflict. It was vintage Hagel, full of high-minded apprehension, and it earned the rookie senator plaudits from the likes of the Washington Post's David Broder, the embodiment of the capital's liberal establishment. "Congress must be very careful in what we say and what we do as we proceed along a very dangerous path. We must be careful not to weaken or neuter the president in front of the world," said Hagel. "America must speak to the world with some sense and some semblance of unity. We cannot allow our foreign policy to unravel before the eyes of the world during a very dangerous time." It's the exact reverse of Hagel's behavior toward President Bush. Some one might remind him that words have meaning. |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
epublicans
wouldn't have let a Democrat get away with the finger-wagging lecture
Sen. Chuck Hagel delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell last February.
"Words have meaning. Symbols have meaning," warned Hagel at
a Foreign Relations Committee hearing. He accused the Bush administration
of harboring "a cavalier attitude" toward the rest of the world.
The "folly in the conduct" of the Vietnam War had "destroyed"
the presidency of Lyndon Johnson — and the same sorry fate could
befall Bush. "This is serious business," Hagel told Powell.
"We have to be very careful here what we're doing."
