Senate confirms Hagel for defense secretary

WASHINGTON (AP) - A deeply divided Senate voted on Tuesday to confirm Republican Chuck Hagel to be the nation's next defense secretary, handing President Barack Obama's pick the top Pentagon job just days before billions of dollars in automatic, across-the-board budget cuts hit the military.
The vote was 58-41, with four Republicans joining the Democrats in backing the contentious choice. Hagel's only GOP support came from former colleagues Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Dick Shelby of Alabama and Mike Johanns of Nebraska - all three had announced their support earlier - and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
The vote came just hours after Republicans dropped their unprecedented delay of a Pentagon choice and allowed the nomination to move forward on a 71-27 vote.
Hagel, 66, a former two-term Nebraska senator and twice-wounded Vietnam combat veteran, succeeds Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Hagel is expected to be sworn in at the Pentagon on Wednesday.
Obama welcomed the bipartisan Senate vote, although 41 Republicans opposed his nominee, and said in a statement that "we will have the defense secretary our nation needs and the leader our troops deserve."
The looked past the divisions and said he was grateful to Hagel "for reminding us that when it comes to our national defense, we are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans, and our greatest responsibility is the security of the American people."
Republicans had opposed their onetime colleague, casting him as unqualified for the job, hostile toward Israel and soft on Iran. The objections remained strong well after the vote.
"I continue to have serious questions about whether Chuck Hagel is up to the job of being our secretary of defense," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement. "I hope, for the sake of our own national security, he exceeds expectations."
Hagel joins Obama's retooled second-term, national security team of Secretary of State John Kerry and CIA Director-designate John Brennan at a time of uncertainty for a military emerging from two wars and fighting worldwide terrorism with smaller, deficit-driven budgets.
Among his daunting challenges are deciding on troop levels in Afghanistan as the United States winds down its combat presence and dealing with $46 billion in budget cuts set to kick in on Friday. He also will have to work with lawmakers who spent weeks vilifying him.
Republicans insisted that Hagel was battered and bloodied after their repeated attacks during the protracted political fight.
"He will take office with the weakest support of any defense secretary in modern history, which will make him less effective on his job," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate GOP's No. 2 Republican.
Not so, said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, who pointed out that Hagel now has the title and the fight is history.
"All have to work together for the interest of the country," said Reed, D-R.I.
The vote ended one of the most bitter fights over a Cabinet choice and former senator since 1989 when the Democratic-led Senate defeated newly elected President George H.W. Bush's nomination of Republican John Tower to be defense secretary.
In the course of the rancorous, seven-week nomination fight, Republicans, led by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, insinuated that Hagel has a cozy relationship with Iran and received payments for speeches from extreme or radical groups. Those comments drew a rebuke from Democrats and some Republicans.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed the "unfair innuendoes" against Hagel and called him an "outstanding American patriot" whose background as an enlisted soldier would send a positive message to the nation's servicemen and women.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., questioned how the confirmation process devolved into a character assassination in which Hagel was accused of "having secret ties with our enemies."
"I sincerely hope that the practice of challenging nominations with innuendo and inference, rather than facts and figures, was an aberration and not a roadmap," she said in a statement after the vote.
Obama got no points with the GOP for tapping the former two-term Republican senator. GOP lawmakers excoriated Hagel and cast him as a radical far out of the mainstream.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., clashed with his onetime friend over his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 at a point when the war seemed in danger of being lost. Hagel, who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, later opposed the conflict, comparing it to Vietnam and arguing that it shifted the focus from Afghanistan.
McCain said several GOP lawmakers also had "a lot of ill will" toward the moderate Republican for his criticism of Bush and his backing for Democratic candidates.
Shortly after a White House meeting with Obama on immigration on Tuesday, McCain voted against his onetime friend and fellow Vietnam veteran.
Republicans also challenged Hagel about a May 2012 study that he co-authored for the advocacy group Global Zero, which called for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and the eventual elimination of all the world's nuclear arms.
In an echo of the 2012 presidential campaign, Hagel faced an onslaught of criticism by well-funded, Republican-leaning outside groups that labeled the former senator "anti-Israel" and pressured senators to oppose the nomination. The groups ran television and print ads criticizing Hagel.
Opponents were particularly incensed by Hagel's use of the term "Jewish lobby" to refer to pro-Israel groups. He apologized, saying he should have used another term and should not have said those groups have intimidated members of the Senate into favoring actions contrary to U.S. interests.
The nominee spent weeks reaching out to members of the Senate, meeting individually with lawmakers to address their concerns and seeking to reassure them about his policies.
Hagel's inconsistent performance during some eight hours of testimony during his confirmation hearing last month undercut his cause.
On Feb. 12, the Armed Services Committee approved the nomination on a party-line vote of 14-11. Two days later, a Democratic move to vote on the nomination fell a few votes short as Republicans insisted they needed more time to consider the pick.
Hagel's nomination also became entangled in Republican demands for more information about the deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last September. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in that attack.
Republicans allowed the nomination to move forward, with 18 Republicans joining the Democrats. Many had warned against the precedent of denying a president his Cabinet choices.
Paul's vote for Hagel came as something of a surprise. Moira Bagley, a spokeswoman for the senator, said that while he disagrees with Hagel on a number of issues, Paul believes a president should have some leeway in his political appointments.
Missing the vote was Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
The vote was 58-41, with four Republicans joining the Democrats in backing the contentious choice. Hagel's only GOP support came from former colleagues Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Dick Shelby of Alabama and Mike Johanns of Nebraska - all three had announced their support earlier - and Rand Paul of Kentucky.
The vote came just hours after Republicans dropped their unprecedented delay of a Pentagon choice and allowed the nomination to move forward on a 71-27 vote.
Hagel, 66, a former two-term Nebraska senator and twice-wounded Vietnam combat veteran, succeeds Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Hagel is expected to be sworn in at the Pentagon on Wednesday.
Obama welcomed the bipartisan Senate vote, although 41 Republicans opposed his nominee, and said in a statement that "we will have the defense secretary our nation needs and the leader our troops deserve."
The looked past the divisions and said he was grateful to Hagel "for reminding us that when it comes to our national defense, we are not Democrats or Republicans, we are Americans, and our greatest responsibility is the security of the American people."
Republicans had opposed their onetime colleague, casting him as unqualified for the job, hostile toward Israel and soft on Iran. The objections remained strong well after the vote.
"I continue to have serious questions about whether Chuck Hagel is up to the job of being our secretary of defense," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a statement. "I hope, for the sake of our own national security, he exceeds expectations."
Hagel joins Obama's retooled second-term, national security team of Secretary of State John Kerry and CIA Director-designate John Brennan at a time of uncertainty for a military emerging from two wars and fighting worldwide terrorism with smaller, deficit-driven budgets.
Among his daunting challenges are deciding on troop levels in Afghanistan as the United States winds down its combat presence and dealing with $46 billion in budget cuts set to kick in on Friday. He also will have to work with lawmakers who spent weeks vilifying him.
Republicans insisted that Hagel was battered and bloodied after their repeated attacks during the protracted political fight.
"He will take office with the weakest support of any defense secretary in modern history, which will make him less effective on his job," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, the Senate GOP's No. 2 Republican.
Not so, said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed, who pointed out that Hagel now has the title and the fight is history.
"All have to work together for the interest of the country," said Reed, D-R.I.
The vote ended one of the most bitter fights over a Cabinet choice and former senator since 1989 when the Democratic-led Senate defeated newly elected President George H.W. Bush's nomination of Republican John Tower to be defense secretary.
In the course of the rancorous, seven-week nomination fight, Republicans, led by freshman Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, insinuated that Hagel has a cozy relationship with Iran and received payments for speeches from extreme or radical groups. Those comments drew a rebuke from Democrats and some Republicans.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, dismissed the "unfair innuendoes" against Hagel and called him an "outstanding American patriot" whose background as an enlisted soldier would send a positive message to the nation's servicemen and women.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., questioned how the confirmation process devolved into a character assassination in which Hagel was accused of "having secret ties with our enemies."
"I sincerely hope that the practice of challenging nominations with innuendo and inference, rather than facts and figures, was an aberration and not a roadmap," she said in a statement after the vote.
Obama got no points with the GOP for tapping the former two-term Republican senator. GOP lawmakers excoriated Hagel and cast him as a radical far out of the mainstream.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., clashed with his onetime friend over his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to send an extra 30,000 troops to Iraq in 2007 at a point when the war seemed in danger of being lost. Hagel, who voted to authorize military force in Iraq, later opposed the conflict, comparing it to Vietnam and arguing that it shifted the focus from Afghanistan.
McCain said several GOP lawmakers also had "a lot of ill will" toward the moderate Republican for his criticism of Bush and his backing for Democratic candidates.
Shortly after a White House meeting with Obama on immigration on Tuesday, McCain voted against his onetime friend and fellow Vietnam veteran.
Republicans also challenged Hagel about a May 2012 study that he co-authored for the advocacy group Global Zero, which called for an 80 percent reduction of U.S. nuclear weapons and the eventual elimination of all the world's nuclear arms.
In an echo of the 2012 presidential campaign, Hagel faced an onslaught of criticism by well-funded, Republican-leaning outside groups that labeled the former senator "anti-Israel" and pressured senators to oppose the nomination. The groups ran television and print ads criticizing Hagel.
Opponents were particularly incensed by Hagel's use of the term "Jewish lobby" to refer to pro-Israel groups. He apologized, saying he should have used another term and should not have said those groups have intimidated members of the Senate into favoring actions contrary to U.S. interests.
The nominee spent weeks reaching out to members of the Senate, meeting individually with lawmakers to address their concerns and seeking to reassure them about his policies.
Hagel's inconsistent performance during some eight hours of testimony during his confirmation hearing last month undercut his cause.
On Feb. 12, the Armed Services Committee approved the nomination on a party-line vote of 14-11. Two days later, a Democratic move to vote on the nomination fell a few votes short as Republicans insisted they needed more time to consider the pick.
Hagel's nomination also became entangled in Republican demands for more information about the deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last September. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in that attack.
Republicans allowed the nomination to move forward, with 18 Republicans joining the Democrats. Many had warned against the precedent of denying a president his Cabinet choices.
Paul's vote for Hagel came as something of a surprise. Moira Bagley, a spokeswoman for the senator, said that while he disagrees with Hagel on a number of issues, Paul believes a president should have some leeway in his political appointments.
Missing the vote was Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
Maybe we have been coddling Israel for too long. The Israeli's behavior would indicate that they are free from restraint so long as the United States has their back. Perhaps Israel could become a better Middle East neighbor if the United States would adopt a hands-off policy.
And I do believe that the United States has the nuclear arsenal to deal with threats from the Iranians.
Israel may be our friends and a close ally, but most of our allies do not pick fights with neighboring countries, then turn-tail a run away leaving the United State's finish the fight and then pick up the pieces.Â
In support of our allegiance to Israel we have had to place troops in Turkey, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Afghanistan, Somalia, Algeria, Sudan, Libya, and many more surrounding countries. Some Middle Eastern countries invited us in and others we had to force ourselves in; yet there is one country that has yet to request we send in our troops for support and that is Israel. It is okay we keep the nation's surrounding Israel in-check, but we must never interfere inside Israel.
So now we have a SecDef who thinks Iran--a self-avowed enemy--is legitimate and Israel--an ally--is not. John Kerry does a world wide tour and avoids both Eastern Europe and Israel while visiting Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Obama certainly has a national security team that matches his own abilities.
@Iconoclast Compared to the last crew, they look like the employees of the Manhattan Project.
@Sutekh Appointing Louis Farrakhan wouldn't have worked for Barry--even the quislings in the GOP would have blocked that appointment. But at least Barry got a SecDef that both Iran and Louis Farrakhan approved.
@Gaikokujin @Sutekh @Iconoclast So now you've added "mind reader" to your list of many talents. Will wonders never cease.
@Sutekh @IconoclastIt's funny when you try to pretend you don't know what he's talking about.  Not very convincing acting on your part
@Iconoclast @Sutekh I'm scratching my head at your repeated mentions of Louis Farrakhan. Enlighten me as to his relevance either to Obama or to Iran.
good - fight your own damn wars Israel.
@unobtanium If the UN would leave them alone this BS would be over
@unobtaniumYou realize Israel is our ally by treay and they aren't fighting "their wars" they are fighting people who hate the US so we don't have to. You do realize that it was the US the installed the Shah of Iran and was responsible for how things turned out there right? Â You obviously need to retake history class.Â
@NW-Economist Ask the survivors of the USS Liberty if Israel is our ally. I never forgot that attack.
@NW-Economist Israel is our ally? Really?  How many bases do we have there?  Military exercises with them?  All of our dealings with them seem to be a one-way street...
Before we invaded Iraq most of the hatred of America by the Arab world was due to our blind allegiance to those Zionist pricks and their policies concerning the Palestinians. Â Israel is a nation of 6 million people, with nuclear weapons - they do not need nor deserve our help anymore.
@NW-Economist
wow. Â $38 million... of which we paid 30 million. Â Which probably means 4 actual missiles shot.
The "Reforger"s of old snort with derision.
and bases?Â
@unobtanium @NW-EconomistWow, you must live inside a cave and never come out. This took less than 10 seconds:
http://www.france24.com/en/20121021-usa-israel-begin-largest-ever-joint-missile-defence-exercise-austere-challenge-12
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/strattoc.html
then if they are going to act all obnoxious over there, then maybe the do not need to be our ally, and they can fight their own wars without our tax payer subsidies.
Yeah, well I heard we invaded a country over there because of weapons that didn't exist.Â
All the more reason for us to not be involved over there. And that doesn't excuse Israel from war mongering.
@T H I SYou flunked history too I guess. It's not "their war." Do you know who overthrew the government of Iran and put in a dictator that they had to violently overthrow? I'll give you a hint, it's the same country that runs the CIA.Â
Wow, we now have a Secretary of Defense who is sympathetic to a nation that calls us the "great Satan." They are loving his appointment in Tehran.Â
or there are facts
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/friends-hamas-rumor-started-article-1.1268284
Do you honestly beleive all the right ring rumors? Let me guess, you are still a birther too, right?
@T H I SHow does that respond to Hagel's quotes about Iran? Was someone moving his mouth and forcing air over his windpipe?Â
@NW-Economist I saw that on Fox News too.Â
@lakeview @NW-EconomistYeah, they showed footage of him stating it, so did CBS and ABC, what's your point?
@NW-Economist @Sutekh @lakeview I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
Because Leon Panetta publicly called Iran a dictatorship, Chuck Hagel has to also, or he's no good? This seems like a pretty petty basis on which to make a recommendation.
Again, it could be that Hagel is more cautious (read:Â intelligent) than Leon Panetta.
@Sutekh @NW-Economist @lakeviewBS, the previous SecDef said that Iran was a dictatorship. Care to BS more?Â
@NW-Economist@Sutekh@lakeview "How come Hagel can't do that?"
Perhaps because the position he was applying for is a military position rather than a political one. You don't want the military leaders making policy unless you live in a military dictatorship.
@T H I SÂ Yea yea spew the same stuff, even though I have stated over and over that I do not hate Muslims.
@gaikokujin.
Hey look everyone, the guy who hates muslims, and thinks our president is one is calling someone else a partisan hack.
Oh the irony.
@Sutekh @NW-Economist @lakeviewOur Secretary of State had no qualms about calling the government a dictatorship after the Green Revolution and saying they were illegitimate. How come Hagel can't do that?Â
@NW-Economist @lakeview Lakeview just continues to show that he is just a partisan hack. Â
@NW-Economist @Sutekh @lakeview For a Defense Secretary to publicly state that a particular country's government is "illegitimate" could easily be interpreted as showing hostile intentions toward that country. Hagel might have misspoken, or he might simply have been cautious.
Regardless, the US government regularly does business with countries whose governments could accurately be termed illegitimate.
If this one single word is what you're hanging your anti-Hagel "Great Satan" hat on, I'm afraid you're wasting your time.
@Sutekh @lakeviewApparently Chuck completely ignored the Green Revolution, weird for someone who wants to be involved in Foreign Affairs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests
@Sutekh @NW-Economist @lakeviewIn addressing Iran, Hagel said that the country was "a member of the United Nations. Almost all of our allies have embassies in Iran ... [It is] an elected, legitimate government, whether we agree or not."
Read more:Â http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/chuck-hagel-stumbles-on-iran-question-87001.html#ixzz2M33sSyWN
@NW-Economist@lakeview "they showed footage of him stating it"
Stating what, exactly?
Suck on it "The Iraq War was the right decision" McCain.Â