Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Interview With Sen. Chuck Hagel (R)
Aired October 01, 2002 - 07:03 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: As the Senate gets ready to consider a resolution that would authorize the use of military force in Iraq, a key Republican is urging the White House to consider the consequences of acting alone to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, joins us now from Washington.
Welcome back -- good to have you with us this morning.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Thank you, Paula.
ZAHN: There are hints coming from the administration that they will be willing to compromise, maybe, the part of that resolution that had once left open the possibility of bringing in military action and perhaps delaying that. Would that satisfy your concerns?
HAGEL: I think the progress that we're making here with the White House -- Democrats, Republicans on Capitol Hill -- is significant. It's moving in the right direction.
There is no question that Congress is going to give the president a resolution. But we need to work our way through it, and especially focus on a coalition. We need allies. We need friends. We need partners here.
It would be very unwise for the United States to -- or even with one other nation -- attack Iraq, because not only the military dynamic would have to play out, but then the big question comes of what happens next? Who stays? How long do we stay? At what cost? At what risk? How many years are we there? How do we rebuild Iraq? We need friends and allies there.
So, I think the time we're taking here is well-spent, and we're getting close to a resolution that I believe is going to be overwhelmingly supported by the Congress.
ZAHN: So, when you say you think "things are moving in the right direction," you have been highly critical of the notion of the U.S. going alone. What would suggest to you that the compromise is going to be great enough for you to support it?
HAGEL: Paula, if you begin with the second draft resolution that was distributed on Capitol Hill last Thursday, four new dynamics that came into play there that had not been in the first resolution -- timetables, war power, act authorization, definition of various clauses, taking out some of the clauses that were in the first resolution. Also, giving the Congress some additional ability to be a partner, a constitutional partner in what say we have in when troops are put in, and when they are taken out, and what stages. Also, another reporting element is put into that resolution that was not there before: the president reporting to the Congress.
I think we're close. I don't think we're there yet. My understanding is with the leaderships' meeting last night, maybe we will or maybe we won't get started today. But if we could more clearly define this resolution, and I think we will, then we probably would be ready for a debate tomorrow on the Senate floor.
ZAHN: When you talk about the reporting clause, the administration wanted to meet at a certain time interval, or make announcements to Congress, you want that time interval shortened, right?
HAGEL: I think that it would be in the president's best interest, quite honestly, as well as of Congress, to shorten it from 90 to 30 days. There is a new clause in the second draft; it's a determination clause. The president determines when we would use force.
So, again, it's in the interest of the president. The president surely does not want to take a nation to war without the support -- strong, strong support of the American people, of Congress and our allies. And we are moving in that direction with the allies and with the Congress.
ZAHN: You had taken some heat, even from members or your own party, for asking some very pointed questions about potential military action, and they say without offering an opinion of yourself.
I want to give you the opportunity this morning in a 30-second period to lay out your prescribed timetable. If this resolution passes in Congress, and assuming a U.N. resolution passes to your liking -- or two resolutions to your liking, then what?
HAGEL: Well, then we put into force the consequences of those resolutions. There is no question here, Paula, that Saddam Hussein is a threat. He is a threat to the region. Ultimately, he will be a threat to the United States.
The urgency of the threat is part of the equation that we must factor in, but we must think it through all the way -- the day-after scenarios. And what role does the United States play in that?
I think, too, the consequences of what could occur here in Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestinian issue. India and Pakistan have to be thought through. We can't guarantee anything. I understand that. War is uncertain, but we need to think it through more carefully than we have so far, I think, and that's what we are pushing for up here.
And the allies are critical here. We can't go fight terrorism alone in the world. This new scourge of mankind is going to require new tools -- integration of intelligence gathering and sharing, and certainly diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, law enforcement cooperation. Sure, the military is a big part of this, but it is now more comprehensive than that.
ZAHN: So, if you were to make a prediction -- I know this is very tough for you to do -- do you have confidence that if inspectors are allowed back in, they're going to be able to see what they want to see?
HAGEL: Well, if inspectors are allowed back in -- and I hope they are -- and if they are not given unfettered, unconditional access to all locations in Iraq, then we know that Saddam Hussein is not very serious. Then, we know that there will have to be an alternative played out to that.
At that point, then that's why we want the force of the resolutions and the strong support of allies, the U.N. if we can get it, certainly the Congress, that then military force may well indeed be necessary to open Iraq up and do, in fact, what Saddam Hussein committed to do back in 1991.
ZAHN: Senator Chuck Hagel, good to have your perspective -- thanks so much for joining us this morning.
HAGEL: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: Appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
Aired October 1, 2002 - 07:03 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: As the Senate gets ready to consider a resolution that would authorize the use of military force in Iraq, a key Republican is urging the White House to consider the consequences of acting alone to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, joins us now from Washington.
Welcome back -- good to have you with us this morning.
SEN. CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Thank you, Paula.
ZAHN: There are hints coming from the administration that they will be willing to compromise, maybe, the part of that resolution that had once left open the possibility of bringing in military action and perhaps delaying that. Would that satisfy your concerns?
HAGEL: I think the progress that we're making here with the White House -- Democrats, Republicans on Capitol Hill -- is significant. It's moving in the right direction.
There is no question that Congress is going to give the president a resolution. But we need to work our way through it, and especially focus on a coalition. We need allies. We need friends. We need partners here.
It would be very unwise for the United States to -- or even with one other nation -- attack Iraq, because not only the military dynamic would have to play out, but then the big question comes of what happens next? Who stays? How long do we stay? At what cost? At what risk? How many years are we there? How do we rebuild Iraq? We need friends and allies there.
So, I think the time we're taking here is well-spent, and we're getting close to a resolution that I believe is going to be overwhelmingly supported by the Congress.
ZAHN: So, when you say you think "things are moving in the right direction," you have been highly critical of the notion of the U.S. going alone. What would suggest to you that the compromise is going to be great enough for you to support it?
HAGEL: Paula, if you begin with the second draft resolution that was distributed on Capitol Hill last Thursday, four new dynamics that came into play there that had not been in the first resolution -- timetables, war power, act authorization, definition of various clauses, taking out some of the clauses that were in the first resolution. Also, giving the Congress some additional ability to be a partner, a constitutional partner in what say we have in when troops are put in, and when they are taken out, and what stages. Also, another reporting element is put into that resolution that was not there before: the president reporting to the Congress.
I think we're close. I don't think we're there yet. My understanding is with the leaderships' meeting last night, maybe we will or maybe we won't get started today. But if we could more clearly define this resolution, and I think we will, then we probably would be ready for a debate tomorrow on the Senate floor.
ZAHN: When you talk about the reporting clause, the administration wanted to meet at a certain time interval, or make announcements to Congress, you want that time interval shortened, right?
HAGEL: I think that it would be in the president's best interest, quite honestly, as well as of Congress, to shorten it from 90 to 30 days. There is a new clause in the second draft; it's a determination clause. The president determines when we would use force.
So, again, it's in the interest of the president. The president surely does not want to take a nation to war without the support -- strong, strong support of the American people, of Congress and our allies. And we are moving in that direction with the allies and with the Congress.
ZAHN: You had taken some heat, even from members or your own party, for asking some very pointed questions about potential military action, and they say without offering an opinion of yourself.
I want to give you the opportunity this morning in a 30-second period to lay out your prescribed timetable. If this resolution passes in Congress, and assuming a U.N. resolution passes to your liking -- or two resolutions to your liking, then what?
HAGEL: Well, then we put into force the consequences of those resolutions. There is no question here, Paula, that Saddam Hussein is a threat. He is a threat to the region. Ultimately, he will be a threat to the United States.
The urgency of the threat is part of the equation that we must factor in, but we must think it through all the way -- the day-after scenarios. And what role does the United States play in that?
I think, too, the consequences of what could occur here in Afghanistan and the Israel-Palestinian issue. India and Pakistan have to be thought through. We can't guarantee anything. I understand that. War is uncertain, but we need to think it through more carefully than we have so far, I think, and that's what we are pushing for up here.
And the allies are critical here. We can't go fight terrorism alone in the world. This new scourge of mankind is going to require new tools -- integration of intelligence gathering and sharing, and certainly diplomatic, humanitarian, economic, law enforcement cooperation. Sure, the military is a big part of this, but it is now more comprehensive than that.
ZAHN: So, if you were to make a prediction -- I know this is very tough for you to do -- do you have confidence that if inspectors are allowed back in, they're going to be able to see what they want to see?
HAGEL: Well, if inspectors are allowed back in -- and I hope they are -- and if they are not given unfettered, unconditional access to all locations in Iraq, then we know that Saddam Hussein is not very serious. Then, we know that there will have to be an alternative played out to that.
At that point, then that's why we want the force of the resolutions and the strong support of allies, the U.N. if we can get it, certainly the Congress, that then military force may well indeed be necessary to open Iraq up and do, in fact, what Saddam Hussein committed to do back in 1991.
ZAHN: Senator Chuck Hagel, good to have your perspective -- thanks so much for joining us this morning.
HAGEL: Thank you very much.
ZAHN: Appreciate it.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com.
