One of the main themes senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee committed themselves to today during Chuck Hagel’s confirmation hearing to be the next Secretary of Defense was — not wondering whether Hagel fully supports a diplomatic approach to Iran’s nuclear program, as most Americans do — but rather, whether the former Republican senator is willing to take this nation into another war in the Middle East if necessary.

Senator after senator, both Republican and Democrat, repeatedly sought Hagel’s reassurance that he is committed to starting a war with Iran — as if the last 10 years of a disastrous war in Iraq had never happened.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) was one of those senators. During one series of questions in which Ayotte wondered if Iran was “responsible” enough to deal with, Hagel explained that his priority is diplomacy. “I think it’s always wise to try to talk to people before you get into war,” he said:

AYOTTE: Because here we have a regime that doesn’t respond to in a responsible or sane behavior as a state-sponsor of terrorism and why that would be an appropriate manner for us to address them?

HAGEL: Well first I said engagement and I think we should talk, we actually are indirectly in the P5 plus one, we have been. I think that’s responsible. I think it’s always responsible to try to talk first. North Korea. I don’t consider North Korea a responsible, sane administration but we’re talking to North Korea. We’ve been talking bilaterally to North Korea. We are talking with the party of six to North Korea. I think that’s wise. I think it’s always wise to try to talk to people before you get into war.

Ayotte continued to badger Hagel about his past support for talks with Iran. “I’ve always thought that that’s smarter and wiser” to push countries into international organizations, Hagel said, adding:

HAGEL: Because when they go in to world bodies they have to comply with some semblance of international behavior it doesn’t mean they always will, they won’t, they cheat. But I think we’re smarter to do that. I’ve never thought engagement is weakness. I’ve never thought it was surrender. I never thought it was appeasement. I think it’s clearly in our interests. If that doesn’t work then I think the President’s position and his strategy has been exactly right. Get the United Nations behind you. Get the international sanctions behind you. Keep military options on the table. If the military option is the only option, it’s the only option.

Watch the clip:

“At Hagel hearing,” the Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran observed on Twitter, “136 mentions of Israel and 135 of Iran. Only 27 refs to Afghanistan. 2 for Al Qaida. 1 for Mali.” Indeed, the neocons aren’t dead, yet — at least not in the Senate.

(Photo: Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), today called the premise of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict “deeply disturbing,” showing himself and his allies to be extremely out of the mainstream.

The vast majority of the questions that came up throughout the first round of questioning Chuck Hagel in his bid for Secretary of Defense related to Hagel’s stances on Israel and Iran, and his past statements on those issues. Many of those questions involved deliberate distortions of Hagel’s record. Inhofe started off the second round of questioning during the hearing with more of the same, but with the added twist of spurning the past decade of U.S. policy in solving the conflict.

“You made a statement that I strongly disagree with. You said that President Obama has been ‘the strongest Israel supporter since 1948′,” Inhofe said in the lead-off, continuing to criticize Obama for promoting the two-state solution:

INHOFE: But when you see statements coming out of the administration like “the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,” and they’ve come out with statements saying they believe that the borders with Israel and Palestine should be based on a 1967 border lines, these are statements that I think are very damaging. I can assure you that the leadership in Israel feels those statements are damaging.

Watch:

As Hagel attempted to tell Inhofe, the statements that the Ranking Member read off weren’t new or unique to the Obama administration, nor were they at all controversial. The U.S.’ adoption of the principle of two neighboring states as the final outcome of the conflict dates back to the first term of President George W. Bush. In a 2002 speech, Bush embraced the concept of an Israel and Palestine living peacefully side by side. The resulting “Road Map to Peace,” and several statements of support by the Quartet — composed of the European Union, Russia, United Nations, and U.S. — have been the basis for negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians since.

The concept of “Land for Peace” goes back even further. As part of the end of the Six-Day War in 1967, in which Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the United Nations passed Resolution 242 calling for a withdrawal of Israel to its previous borders. In exchange for this, Israel’s neighbors would declare end their hostility towards the state. That arrangement has yet to come into being but remain a crucial part of the negotiations between the parties. Complicating matters have been the increase of Israeli settlements, particularly under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the inability of the competing Palestinian factions to resolve their differences, causing a halt in talks.

All of this highlights just how far outside of the mainstream Hagel’s attackers are when it comes to Israel. Hagel, who has himself proven to be pro-Israel, would carry out the policies of President Obama once confirmed. Those policies have the backing of the international community and have been endorsed by such conservative stalwarts as the Heritage Foundation.

The confirmation hearing of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to take on the role of Secretary of Defense — already sure to be testy — heated up with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) pointedly asking Hagel to justify his stance on the Iraq War.

McCain, an ardent supporter of the Iraq War from the start, began his questioning of Hagel by asking about the latter’s past statements regarding the so-called “surge” of forces into Iraq in 2007. Hagel, by then a vocal critic of the war, came out strongly against adding additional troops to the conflict soon after the policy’s announcement — just like President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had — calling it “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

Hagel didn’t back away from previous statements, saying “Senator, I stand by them, because I made them.” When McCain continued to push Hagel, refusing to allow him to offer a nuanced response to the question of the surge, the Nebraska Republican shot back, noting that the surge tactic took place in the wider context of the most “dangerous decision since Vietnam”:

MCCAIN: Are you going to answer the question? Were you right or wrong? That’s a straightforward question. Answer whether you are right or wrong and then you are free to elaborate.

HAGEL: I’m not going to give you a yes or no answer.

MCCAIN: Let the record show he refuses to answer the question. Please go ahead.

[...]

HAGEL: I’m not going to give you a yes or no. It’s far more complicated than that. I will defer that judgment to history. As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign policy decision since Vietnam, that was about not just the surge, but the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular decision made on the surge, but more to the point, our war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamentally bad, dangerous decision since Vietnam.

Watch their exchange here:

“Aside from the cost that occurred to blood and treasure, what that did to take our focus off of Afghanistan, which in fact was the original and real focus of the national threat to this country. Iraq was not. I always tried to frame all of the different issues before I made a decision on anything,” Hagel continued. Hagel’s response is a continuation of his previous assertions that the war in Iraq is one of the “great blunders” of American history.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) picked up on Hagel’s critique in his questioning, referring to Iraq as a war that never should have taken place. “I always ask the question is this going to be worth the sacrifice, because there will be sacrifice,” Hagel said in response. “In the surge in Iraq, we lost almost 1200 dead Americans and thousands of wounded. Was it required? Was it necessary?” Over four thousand Americans total lost their lives during the Iraq War.
Read more

Chuck Hagel dismissed Sen. James Inhofe’s (R-OK) question today during Hagel’s confirmation hearing that Iran supposedly supports the former Republican senator’s bid to become the next Secretary of Defense.

“Why do you think that the Iranian foreign ministry so strongly supports your nomination for Secretary of Defense?” Inhofe asked. “I have a difficult enough time with American politics and Senator I have no idea but thank you,” Hagel said:

INHOFE: I have one last question I would like to ask and that is given that Iran, the people, I’m quoting right now from Iran, people of the Middle East, the Muslim region and the Northern region — North Africa, people of these regions hate America from the bottom of their heart. It further said, Israel is a cancerous tumor in the heart of the Islamic world. It further said, Iran’s warriors are ready and willing to wipe Israel off the map. The question I’d like to ask you and you can answer for the record if you’d like is, why do you think that the Iranian foreign ministry so strongly supports your nomination for Secretary of Defense?

HAGEL: I have a difficult enough time with American politics and Senator I have no idea but thank you. But I’ll be glad to respond further for the record.

Watch the clip:

Why would Inhofe ask such a question? As part of their smear campaign to try to derail Hagel’s nomination, the neocons promoted a report with a headline “Hagel nomination cheers Iran,” with the seeming implication that if Iran likes it, it must be bad. But in their statement, the Iranians in fact chastised the U.S., saying they hope “Washington becomes respectful of the rights of nations” if Hagel becomes Defense Secretary.

So it shows then that the neocons will stoop to any level — including promoting Iranian propaganda — to attack Hagel and Inhofe appeared happy to validate that tactic today.

Fox News host Sean Hannity is so adamant that waterboarding is not torture that he once offered to be waterboarded at a charity event and donate the proceeds to soldiers’ families. Four years later, a yet-to-be-waterboarded Hannity did not take kindly to being called out about it on his own radio show.

On April 22, 2009, Charles Grodin appeared on Hannity’s Fox News show and asked Hannity, if he doesn’t believe waterboarding is torture, would he agree to be waterboarded. “Sure,” Hannity said. “I’ll do it for charity. I’ll let you do it. I’ll do it for the troops’ families.” But four years later, Hannity has yet to follow through on his offer.

When ThinkProgress brought up the matter at the beginning of an appearance on his radio show on Wednesday, Hannity’s displeasure was palpable. “I’m not getting into your five-year-old issue,” Hannity grumbled. We pressed on when he was planning to hold the event, the Fox host lost it. “Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I get to ask the questions on the program,” Hannity said:

SCOTT KEYES: Before we get started I wanted to say one quick thing. Back in April 2009, you’d made a very generous offer. To prove that it’s not torture, you agreed on your television show to be waterboarded for charity and to donate the proceeds to the troops’ families.

HANNITY: I said Charles Grodin could do it.

KEYES: Now I know you’re an honorable guy Sean, when are you planning to hold the event?

HANNITY: You’re obviously taping this. I’m not getting into your five-year-old issue. Here I am bringing you on the program and give you an opportunity to give your pretty radical left-wing point of view, that’s kind of the way you treat me. But that’s all right.

KEYES: Sean, I’m just curious because you don’t think this is torture.

HANNITY: Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me. I get to ask the questions on the program.

Listen to it:

Hannity gave no indication that he was planning to follow through on his promise to be waterboarded for charity.

Immediately following the show, Hannity was so incensed that he personally called ThinkProgress to complain. He accused ThinkProgress of being “fixated” on the matter, baffled that we brought up an issue that he said hasn’t been news for years. After we respectfully disagreed and explained that it was disingenuous for him to offer to be waterboarded in order to prove that it’s not torture, only not to follow through on the offer, Hannity sighed, “what you’re doing here is really stupid.” He insisted, though, that it wasn’t a sensitive subject.

Waterboarding is still an extremely important, and undercovered, story today. It still exists, it’s still torture, and the only American who’s been sentenced to prison over the matter is a former CIA agent and vocal torture opponent who spoke out about the practice. Waterboarding is now part of the mainstream with the help of defenders like Hannity who insist that it’s not actually torture.

NewsHounds and Reddit have kept a running tally of how long it’s been since Hannity first offered to be waterboarded for charity. January 30 marked 1,379 days since Hannity reneged on the promise.

Secretary of Defense nominee Chuck Hagel takes to the witness table shortly to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some of Hagel’s harshest detractors sit on the panel, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK), so it’s sure to be filled with several misleading statements that distort Hagel’s record. Here’s a few things to bear in mind while watching the hearings take place:

1. Hagel has been a strong supporter of Israel

One of the most frequent attacks against Hagel is that he is somehow “anti-Semitic” or hostile towards the state of Israel. In fact, Hagel has maintains a strong pro-Israel record. The smears against Hagel by neoconservatives have been heavily challenged and debunked over the past several weeks. Among Hagel’s supporters include a multitude of past military officials and bipartisan, as well as Israeli government officials and think tanks.

2. Hagel’s Iran policy lines up squarely with the President’s

Hagel has also taken heat for criticizing frantic drumbeats for war with Iran by neoconservatives, and his belief that unilateral sanctions against Iran are less effective than multilateral sanctions. Conservatives have also gleefully pointed to Iranian propaganda that welcomed Hagel’s nomination as a sign he should be disqualified. But Hagel has repeatedly stated that “all options remain on the table” when confronting Iran over its nuclear program, the same position as the current administration. In a lengthy set of pre-hearing questions, Hagel made clear his stance on the matter. “If confirmed, I will focus intently on ensuring that U.S. military is in fact prepared for any contingency,” he said his response.

3. Hagel backs recent changes to the make up of the Armed Services

Hagel has come out strongly in favor of the lifting of the ban on the service of gay and lesbian citizens in the military and has pledged to continue to implement the lift of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” While he drew scorn for his deeming a Clinton apointee “openly aggressively gay,” Hagel has since apologized and the apology has been accepted. Hagel also backs the recent shift signed into effect by current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta that lifts the ban on women serving in combat.

4. Hagel believes in a future nuclear-free world…just not today.

Chuck Hagel has also been attacked for his affiliation with a group known as Global Zero, which seeks a future free of nuclear weapons. Hagel has been attacked recently with claims that he favors fully scrapping the nuclear arsenal of the United States unilaterally. The truth is that Hagel shares the thought of President Obama that the United States can reduce its nuclear stockpile while still providing an effective deterrent, and co-authored legislation with then Sen. Obama to halt nuclear proliferation. Their vision for a world without nuclear weapons was also held by radical peacenik President Ronald Reagan.

5. Hagel would be the first Vietnam veteran to serve as Secretary of Defense

Should he be confirmed, Hagel would be the first veteran of the Vietnam-era to lead the civilian side of the armed forces. His views towards the use of force were molded during that conflict, along with recently confirmed Secretary of State John Kerry. As such, he has proved hesitant to commit United States forces into conflicts where American goals and interests are unclear. This view was a strong part of his vocal criticism of the Iraq War launched under the Bush administration.