TONIGHT

• Home
• Video
• Podcasts/RSS 
• Local Showtimes
• Past Shows
• Blogs
• About the Show
• Tell Tavis
• Features
• Mobile

RELATED LINKS

• Sen. Hagel's official site
• Sen. Hagel on 21st century challenges

E-mail a friend

Tavis: Let me start by getting your thoughts on Ronald Reagan. Back in 1980, you worked for the Republican National Committee, when Reagan won the White House back in 1980. Did you have much interaction with him at the time?

Sen. Hagel: I took a leave of absence, Tavis, from my job to work with the RNC and with the Reagan campaign. I saw him fairly often, had a couple of opportunities to spend some time with him during that campaign. And then I was vice-chairman of his inaugural committee in '81. I did a couple other things with him. So, I was not of course close to him. Didn't know him that well, but had spent some time with him and, like I think everyone who knew him, had one evaluation and that was he was a very unique, remarkable individual.

Tavis: I recall either reading or hearing a story about a conversation while you were at the RNC that you had with him, specifically about Vietnam. Can you share some of that conversation?

Sen. Hagel: Tavis, at a dinner party in September of 1980, a party that he and Mrs. Reagan had thrown for a number of our senior campaign workers and officials, he asked to see me after dinner. And I went up to the house, it was at Ruxford outside of Washington around Middleburg where they were staying during the campaign, and we spent about a half hour, just the two of us, talking about Vietnam. He wanted to hear my thoughts as to what went wrong. Why? I think he wanted the perspective from someone who had been at the bottom like I was, a rifleman in Vietnam in 1968. Was it not a noble purpose? Why didn't we win? And he was genuinely interested in trying to get underneath the policy to the common dynamics of the people. What happened? And that was a remarkable conversation.

Tavis: Did you think that conversation in part led to your being nominated to be the number two guy at the--the number one guy rather in terms of the administration? What you did with the Veterans Affairs department?

Sen. Hagel: Tavis, it may have. I don't know. I think what he was doing was, he was preparing himself for the presidential debates. Then, the first one was just a couple of weeks away. He would have then been involved with--I think foreign policy was the first issue in that debate with President Carter. I think he wanted to broaden and widen his horizon a little bit on foreign affairs, specifically Vietnam, but maybe he saw something in me that he liked. I don't know, but I was honored to be in his administration.

Tavis: I think we can both agree on this--We'll find out here in about 30 seconds--like him or loathe him, love him or hate him, I think all of the media coverage we're seeing of Ronald Reagan over the last 48 hours, in fact--speaks to the fact that he definitely made a mark. But it seems to me also, respectfully, that a great president has to be judged on more than just his popularity, on just his likability. Tell me why you think Ronald Reagan is a great president, was a great president.

Sen. Hagel: Well, you're right, Tavis, and history will take some time to really reflect on and judge his presidency. It's too early. But I think the great accomplishment that he had, among significant accomplishments--I think defining the Cold War in a way that--he brought it to an end sooner than maybe otherwise would've been the case. But his real contribution, I believe, to the country and to the world, was he uplifted a nation, Tavis, at a time we were down pretty low as Americans. He got us to believe in ourselves again, believe in our country, believe in our system, because he believed in it himself. And just as you say, you can agree with him or not agree with him, but I think that will be his greatest contribution and what history will remember him for more than anything else.

Tavis: Before I move on to other issues, let me ask you--because I am obviously an African American, and inside of black America it's no secret here Ronald Reagan was not altogether revered, as he is in other parts of the country--in other communities in the country, I should say. Tell me how it is that one ends up being revered in the way that Ronald Reagan is when his policies really divided the country very significantly and indeed along race and class lines.

Sen. Hagel: Well, I think you always begin with the common denominator of the individual, Tavis. Aside from party labels or philosophical differences, it's the individual. People are attracted to leaders, to politicians as much as a result of their personality, of their character, of their human fiber, as they are their policies. And you're right: There were various policies in the Reagan administration that did not reach beyond certain segments of our country. I don't think that was him, though. For whatever reason, and I can't answer for his policies, he was limited partly, I suspect, because of the confinements of a party process. I don't know, but it's the individual that in the end--that I think is the defining factor as to how people are judged in a larger sense. Not a great president or a good president or even a mediocre president, but what kind of person they were.

Tavis: You may very well be right about that. I suspect you are. Michael Deaver, of course, Ronald Reagan's longtime advisor and friend, wrote in one of his books that he didn't think Reagan had a racist bone in his body but he might've been naive about certain race issues. That from Michael Deaver, but we'll leave that where it is and move on to some other issues. Let me move--

Sen. Hagel: Tavis, by the way, I happen to agree with Deaver's analysis on that. I think that's exactly right, and it takes me right back to your question as to why did he want to talk to me about Vietnam. I don't think Reagan ever understood well enough the depth of the problems of the minority community in the country and some of the other things, and therefore was disconnected from a lot of it. But I think Deaver was right. This was in no way racist.

Tavis: OK. You are not disconnected, certainly of late, from these matters of international importance, namely the issue in Iraq. Before I get specifically into the Iraq issue, though, let me start with George Tenet's resignation, a story that seemed to have gotten lost a little bit over the last 48 hours, given the news of Mr. Reagan's passing, but a serious issue nonetheless. And somewhere down the road, we're gonna have to get back to how we're gonna fix what's wrong with our intelligence community. And when we get back to that conversation, what are you gonna have to say about how we fix that problem?

Sen. Hagel: Well, Tavis, as you know, the Senate Intelligence Committee, House Intelligence Committee, the 9/11 Commission have all been working toward finalizing a very in-depth substantive reports on what went wrong. How did we miss this? What do we need to do to fix the gaps in our intelligence community? And there are many. Once those reports are out--and our Intelligence Committee report in the Senate will be out publicly soon--once the reports are all out, then we must take those reports and make recommendations from those, and I think essentially reconstruct the intelligence community network infrastructure in this country. What we've got here is a 20th century infrastructure trying to deal with 21st century threats. It will not work.

Tavis: Let me ask a question that really is Monday morning quarterbacking, and I admit that up front, but I think your answer, Senator, might be instructive on some level, so let me ask anyway. Do you buy Mr. Tenet's suggestion to America and the world that he was resigning purely for personal reasons, or do you think it might be an admission on the part of the Bush administration that they really did make a major, major mistake here on intelligence gathering, et cetera?

Sen. Hagel: Oh, I think George Tenet's reasons for resignation are exactly as he stated them.

Tavis: Nothing more? Do you really believe that?

Sen. Hagel: I do believe that, and the reason--among many reasons--I do believe that is last year he wanted to leave, he wanted to resign. Now remember, Tavis, this is the second longest serving CIA director in the history of the CIA. He was director almost 8 years. That's a long time in a very tough business. He made no secret of the fact over the last few months he wanted to get out. Was he unaware of the very critical reports coming down that I mentioned? Of course not. He knew what was ahead. I suspect he just didn't want to, as he said, take his family through that. Himself, he wanted to get out anyway. His time was up, and he wanted to just clear the boards and give the president a freer hand. And I think it was just exactly as he said and for the reasons he said.

Tavis: Let me move on to Iraq. We are awaiting a U.N. resolution that is now in its fourth or fifth draft. As we talk it may be into the sixth draft tonight in New York. But the U.N. is trying to coming up with a resolution to officially endorse, for lack of a better phrase, this June 30th pullout from Iraq. Your thoughts on whether or not this June 30th deadline is the right deadline and are we going about this the right way?

Sen. Hagel: I think we are going about it the right way now, Tavis, and when I say 'now' I mean a few months ago we started to finally engage the international community in bringing them in to help us, finally engage the United Nations in a meaningful way to help us, as we did with Ambassador Brahimi, the Secretary-General's personal envoy, who essentially framed much of this new transitional government that will take over July 1st. So I think we have now moved in the right direction.

We are going to have to internationalize this effort in Iraq far deeper and wider than we've seen in the past. We must get the U.S. brand name off of this effort. If we don't do that, then America's purpose will continue to be questioned. We will not be trusted not only in the Arab world but in the Muslim world, and even among many of our allies we are questioned as to our motives and our purpose. But we're moving in the right direction. The U.N. is the only international legitimate body that can bring that kind of international legitimacy to the effort. It's not perfect, the U.N. It can't do many things, but there are many things it can do and do very well that we're going to need to sustain a policy in Iraq.

Tavis: June 30th may come or go, and I suspect it will come and go, obviously, at some point, but let me ask you what you make of the conversations already kicked up about the need perhaps for tour extensions. That is to say the troops staying longer than we thought they might be necessary in Iraq.

Sen. Hagel: Tavis, I think the deadline of June 30th is a critical deadline. It's important we stay with that because the definition of victory in Iraq is when the Iraqi people are able to govern themselves and defend themselves. The sooner we can move them into those positions, the sooner they will feel that they are in control of their own destiny, the sooner the United States can leave Iraq. That won't be tomorrow, it won't be next month. So that's why these deadlines are important.

This is a very complicated, dangerous process. We're in a part of the world that we do not understand, have never understood. And partly that's a result of us not listening as clearly and closely as we should have before we went into Iraq. But nonetheless, we are where we are, and we certainly do not want to leave Iraq in a mess. We can't do that. It's in the interest of all nations, and in our interest, solely. But we continue to work through the issue with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people will define their own destiny, and we don't want to lose the Iraqi people.

Tavis: Let me close with this. I got about 45 seconds left, and I want to read a quick quote to you from a guy you have met once or twice in your life. His name is Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska. He said on May 9th, and I quote, 'What we didn't plan for was an occupation. We failed. We are in a mess. I think we are right on the edge now in Iraq.' With June 30th looming ever closer, are we still right on the edge in Iraq?

Sen. Hagel: I think we are still on the edge in Iraq. It will depend on whether we are able to bring the United Nations, our allies, other Arab countries into this soon enough, and if we are able to define this in a way that the Iraqi people will trust our leadership, have confidence in our leadership, and trust our purpose. If we do that, we'll win. If we don't, we will not win.

Tavis: Well, you can trust that you're always welcome back on this program, Senator Hagel. Nice to have you on, sir.

Sen. Hagel: Thank you very much, Tavis.

Tavis: I appreciate your time. Up next on this program, actor Jon Cryer from the CBS series 'Two and a Half Men.' Stay with us.

 

Back to June 7, 2004