The Blog

RNC: 'Chuck Hagel Is The Wrong Choice For Secretary Of Defense'

10:47 AM, Jan 31, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
Widget tooltip
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

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 With The Anti-Nuclear Organization Global Zero And Has Advocated “Sharply Reducing The Number Of U.S. Nuclear Weapons, Possibly Without Equivalent Cuts By Russia.” “Chuck Hagel, the likely next secretary of defense, would be the first to enter the Pentagon having publicly advocated for sharply reducing the number of U.S. nuclear weapons, possibly without equivalent cuts by Russia. He supports an international movement called Global Zero that favors eliminating all nuclear weapons.” (Robert Burns, “Hagel Supports Nuclear Arms Cuts, Then Elimination,” The Associated Press , 1/30/13)

Hagel Co-Authored Global Zero’s 2012 Report Which Claimed “There Is No Conceivable Situation In The Contemporary World In Which It Would Be In Either Country's National Security Interest To Initiate A Nuclear Attack Against The Other Side.” “The authors, who also include former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, former ambassadors Richard Burt and Thomas Pickering and retired Gen. Jack Sheehan and Global Zero co-founder Bruce Blair, argue that the deterrent from enormous nuclear arsenals that were critical in the Cold War standoff between the United States and Russia add no strategic value to address current threats. ‘There is no conceivable situation in the contemporary world in which it would be in either country's national security interest to initiate a nuclear attack against the other side,’ the report says. At a time of tight defense spending, the authors also estimate that the cuts would save the U.S. $100 billion over a decade.” (Desmond Butler, “Panel Calls For Steep Cuts In US Nukes,” The Associated Press , 5/16/12)


A Long History Of Opposing Sanctions

In July 2008, The Senate Banking, Housing, And Urban Affairs Committee Approved A Bill That Would “Impose Sanctions On Independent Foreign Subsidiaries Of U.S. Companies That Do Business With Iran.” “A bill to impose sanctions on independent foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies that do business with Iran won strong bipartisan support from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee today in the wake of Iranian insistence on developing nuclear materials. … Approved 19-2, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act would add financial institutions and insurers to the list of entities subject to sanctions and would statutorily ban all U.S. exports to Iran except food, medicine and humanitarian items.” (Charlene Carter, “Senate Banking Committee Approves Sanctions Against Iran,” CongressNow, 7/17/08)

Hagel Voted Against The Bill And Said, “This Bill Does Not In Fact Sanction Iran; It Directly Sanctions Allies, Friends And Others.” “Sens. Michael B. Enzi, R-Wyo., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., cast the only ‘no’ votes against the new bill. ‘This bill does not in fact sanction Iran; it directly sanctions allies, friends and others,’ Hagel said.” (Adam Graham-Silverman, “Options Dwindling For Congress To Negotiate A Deal On Iran Sanctions,” Congressional Quarterly, 7/17/08)

In October 2008, Hagel Blocked Action On A Similar Bill That Had Passed by Voice Vote In The House. “‘Whether we like it or not, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East without Iran's participation,’ Hagel said. In early October, he prevented action on a bill, which had passed in the House, proposing economic sanctions against Iran. Hagel has long criticized unilateral sanctions as ineffective and counterproductive.” (Connie Bruck, “Odd Man Out; Chuck Hagel's Republican Exile,” The New Yorker, 11/3/08; H.R. 7112, Received In The Senate On 9/27/08)

Recent Blog Posts

The Weekly Standard Archives

Browse 19 Years of the Weekly Standard

Old covers