"We cannot stay as an occupying force in the Middle East"

Sen. Chuck Hagel talks about his presidential ambitions and why he sided with Democrats on Iraq.

Editor's note: Some quotes from this interview also appear in this article.

By Myra MacPherson

Read more: Al Gore, Politics, Joseph Lieberman, News, Iraq, Global Warming, Chuck Hagel, Voting Machines, diebold, 2008 election

April 30, 2007 | Nebraska Republican Chuck Hagel, who is otherwise a rock-ribbed red state conservative, has been called a "defector" and "defeatist" for clashing with President Bush on the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretaps and the war in Iraq. Most recently, he has inspired GOP ire by siding with Senate Democrats who want to set a timetable for redeploying troops from Iraq. On Thursday, Hagel again voted with Senate Democrats when they passed the final version of a bill that tied funding for the war with bringing soldiers home. Nebraska's Republican attorney general has said he is seriously considering challenging Hagel in the 2008 Senate primary because many Nebraskans were unhappy with the senator's criticism of the president.

In March, the decorated Vietnam veteran took abuse from another quarter, the miffed media, when he called a press conference to make his "non-announcement announcement" that he hadn't made up his mind whether he would run for the White House, seek Senate reelection or just quit politics in '08. The actions of the leading Republican war critic were called "bizarre" by one pundit and bordering on "flakiness" by another who was clearly unfamiliar with Hagel, who seldom makes a non-calibrated move.

Those who know Hagel best won't be surprised if he jumps into the 2008 presidential race after all. The people who grew up with him have no doubt that the White House has been his lifelong goal. His brother Tom, who fought alongside Chuck in Vietnam, feels it's a natural trajectory. "Chuck is one of the most focused human beings I have ever met ... It was like he had a game plan from the time he was 15 years old." Asked if Chuck plans to run, his other brother, Mike, says, "I know he wants to." According to Mike, Chuck Hagel said, "Why jump in so soon? People are going to be so sick and tired of everyone beating each other up."

During a recent interview in his Senate office, Salon asked Sen. Hagel about his presidential ambition, or lack of it, his position on the war in Iraq, global warming, and his feelings about the "defector" on the other side of the aisle, Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Why did you vote for the resolution giving the president the authority to use force in Iraq in 2002? Bob Graham [then a Democratic senator from Florida], read all the intelligence available, had doubts about the threat Saddam's alleged WMD posed and voted against the resolution.

That was not the reason I voted for the resolution. I wasn't convinced [of WMD] or in any way connected Saddam Hussein with 9/11. Before we even had the vote I said that. Some get the resolution wrong. It wasn't a resolution to go to war ... Ultimately it was giving the president authority to use force if all the diplomatic efforts fail. If there was no other recourse it would allow the president to use force. I believed the president and others who said they would exhaust all diplomatic efforts. Which they did not. They told us they would and they did not.

Do you feel like you were sandbagged?

Let me finish my answer. The president is the commander in chief and I think it's smart to give him that if all the other pieces add up.

Why did you change your mind and vote for the Democratic-sponsored Senate bill that calls for a withdrawal timetable?

The Senate bill establishes goals for withdrawal. I felt after four years it has gotten worse by every measure. Our reasons for going in -- and they depended on the moment -- we changed the reasons many times. But we cannot stay as an occupying force in the Middle East, which is essentially what we are. All polls show that that's what the people of Iraq think ... The future of Iraq will be determined by the Iraqi people. It is a violent sectarian conflict fully complicated by an intrasectarian conflict. That's a civil war. To put American troops in the middle of that is wrong and to further escalate our military involvement is wrong.

What do you say to people who say you're withholding funds for the troops?

That's not true. That's just not true.

Senator Lieberman said that a vote for this measure would be viewed as a vote for defeat.

It cannot be viewed in a simplistic defeat or victory concept. That's totally irresponsible. There is not one member of Congress who is advocating defeat. We have a war in Afghanistan that's not going well, we're undermining our own interests in the Middle East, we've destroyed our credibility in the Middle East and around the world. We've destroyed military infrastructure that took 30 years to build, and it's getting worse in Iraq. To question the policy or go in a different direction is anything but unpatriotic. That's what we must do in a democracy.

I saw your angry verbal tangle with Lieberman on "Meet the Press" in January.

[Laughs] Joe and I are actually good friends. You can never take anything personally up here. I never have ... If there is someone up here I don't like, well, I won't tell you. You don't take your colleagues home every night for dinner or go on long vacations, but you take what you have here and make it work because every day is a new day. The person who opposes you today may be your greatest ally tomorrow.

How do you feel about being called "flaky" or a "defector"?

I've been called a lot of things in this business. You just do what you think is the right thing to do.

The media took you to task for what it called your "non-announcement announcement" in Omaha in March about whether to seek the presidency.

I don't see it that way. I made an announcement as to what I was going to do. I was surprised at the response. We didn't try to get anybody there, my family was not there, we didn't make calls to the Republican Party. We didn't tell anyone to come. In fact, there was only one network reporter there ... It was an announcement I owed the people of Nebraska -- that I would make an announcement of what I was going to do after the first of the year.

But I've got to do it my way and on my time frame. I was not ready to make an announcement on what I was going to do about my political future. Now, what expectations were built up was not my problem. I was astounded by some of the network garbage I heard a few days before my announcement. I heard that I was going to be running as an independent for president, that they knew "for sure" I was establishing an exploratory committee ... We never misrepresented. That's all I can do.

Next page: "It's all about destruction ... It's all about destroy, destroy, destroy, bring the person down"