You're watching...
Basil Smikle Jr. and Brad Dayspring discuss whether leaders on the hill any wiser after speaking to Susan Rice.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
Of all let's get to the political panel -- in the studio and he a New York is battles Michael junior.
Found -- battles Michael associates you can tweet them at battles Michael did a good to see -- -- be here.
And -- joining us from DC -- -- spring who is a senior advisor with YG action fund.
Which I believe is the young guns action fund is it opera.
You got it.
-- Republican group very good to see you probably is I always enjoy brats tweets of the team in particular he's -- -- day spring.
He's one of those Republicans who.
Seems to happen by a an idea of how to get the Republican Party.
Back into power -- has some very interesting ideas.
I everyone's got a lot of ideas these days don't but you seem to be assumed to be quite sensible most of time not all of them are -- that.
-- -- like let me get to you first -- -- Ghazi Susan Rice meeting with that.
Some leaders on the hill today.
Detention they didn't appear to me Brad to come I must still -- from what she said along with her CI a counterparts.
No they sure didn't -- -- this was a charm offensive on her part and on the administration's part it sure seemed to have failed.
You know it was interesting I can do agree with President Obama on this one during his press conference he looked into the camera and he said.
John McCain and Lindsey Graham should look at him and not Susan Rice.
And today they spoke to Susan Rice in the -- more questions and they went in with so I think it's time for President Obama to step to the microphone answer these questions about this -- and I mean -- the whole point did this I guess.
Is really if you look behind the curtain -- -- all maneuvering.
To see from the white has point of you whether they can get Susan Rice nominated.
As secular state that appears to be -- mr.
Obama wants otherwise why the charm offensive on the hill.
Right -- you've seen that even Senator McCain is allegedly softening his position here on the could be very large PR tactic but.
You know actually I really do believe that.
There can be some actual good answers include dialogue that comes from this because we will have an opportunity for the president to clear the of White -- to clear the air.
And if the Republicans are gonna make a stand against here that they just need to come out of state that like was that win.
Oh and what things which O'Connell said you know he wants to meet the president one term president if they warrant Susan Rice cannot be nominee and -- defeated just -- they don't like her who.
They can could just come on and say that I think we'd appreciate that more than the circus of it but clearly I do think there is a bit of a PR.
Tactic that's involved here -- we we haven't seen any.
Hobby evidence that the talking points on weight she Susan Rice relied when she went on the Sunday told chosen said the big Gaza attack.
I was a result of a spontaneous demonstration.
Anti.
An anti movie demonstration -- eight inning in a sense.
We haven't seen to the talking points that would change.
To sort of push that view when the CIA had already identified as a terrorist attack.
Was dumb politically it appears to be -- done be happy being done by the intelligence agencies themselves.
So a Republican is in any position.
To criticize anybody for relying on flawed intelligence given 2003 in the into.
Our Iraq War.
Well I think -- a line between -- criticizing someone in trying to get to the bottom and find out what went wrong.
We have four dead Americans in Libya we have a -- ambassador for the first time in decades and are serious questions to be answered.
The president said that Susan Rice was just acting as a spokesperson several days after the attack on the Sunday shows.
OK that's fine you don't hold the spokesperson accountable they're talking points were handed to them -- incorrect.
But who wish to be held account is -- the intelligence agencies that that could be.
Is that the president the president during his debate with Mitt Romney said that he said it was a terror attack the day after the attack which we all know was a bit misleading at best.
So I think there's some questions to be answered I agree I don't think they should be a partisan war but we do have some serious questions that are out there and I think the president needs to answer them Clinton.
That battle you -- -- serious questions silk.
Absolutely it as as -- stated that ambassador has died people died so -- question should be answered but I agree it's it's it's tough to hold the messenger.
Accountable for something that she was given by somebody else and remember -- whatever it is that she's given there are agencies -- people.
Poring through records and in rejecting -- -- because that that's just what happens in government resolute very very particular.
About what you're gonna say and how -- said so even if you're getting.
A singular statement in the heat of the moment.
You have to be able to understand that there's a lot that goes into that and hopefully this will we will get to the bottom of it I think well -- good process.
It's gone right what would get just one quick thing if I might I mean yes government tends to be big and people are -- papers but this was the single most important issue facing the country at the time.
And you had the White House sending her out to act as their main phase in their main voice.
On the Sunday -- she didn't just end up there because some bureaucrat.
At the State Department or at the UN put -- there she ended up there because the top officials at the White House the president himself.
Send her out to act as his as his voice OK so they gave her the wrong information in that sense and seems to be what they're claiming now why.
What was behind that.
President look at Mitt Romney and said he knew was a terror attack the day after a pullback clearly wasn't the case so I think the president couldn't is the one who can clear this up the best out of everybody.
Do you think Brad all -- go all.
We held Colin Powell responsibly and in in a similar way.
Back in 2003 when he made his speech in front of the United Nations.
Sure and and look I think that history showed Colin Powell spoke to the evidence he thought he had at the time.
I think many congressmen and senators on both sides of the aisle agree that there is evidence -- that Iran Iraq had met with weapons of mass destruction.
You had leading members of the senate John Kerry at the time said there were weapons of mass destruction -- so look.
There was a lot of information some of that right some of the wrong and history went on to decide who is writing who was wrong and Colin Powell was held accountable.
And the administration was certainly held accountable for those mistakes and I -- you know George Bush had some very tough years and in navigating Iraq especially politically in the last several years of his administration.
I would I would disagree because I think I think -- under estimating.
The the well I think we're just wrong I think what this statement is wrong because I think.
The president was was not really held accountable for the fact that we were in two wars.
And it.
The information that we got particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction we've just -- with just was not the case and we.
Probably will never really know me how much.
Was left out how much information was misleading we will never really know.
If indeed.
We went to war for quote unquote legitimate reasons there's going to be quick tremendous amount of question circulating about this for decades to come.
And but but I don't think any of the administration officials would ever truly held accountable.
For.
Taking the country into war based on and cooperate what we -- -- -- -- you know it's as well as fassel says four people died the attack on the consulate in -- Ghazi.
The families of those full certainly does but on says.
The families of every soldier every contract.
Who died in Iraq.
Deserves ounces but is -- is them.
Reality.
Of the case that when it comes to intelligence.
It's an inexact science and we can't always have all the ounces.
Of course you you would have to go with what he didn't get -- -- -- that you have at the time.
And in the case of Iraq.
And Colin Powell testifying at the time that was the best intelligence they had at the time you had Democrats supporting -- -- Democrats saying that Republicans saying it.
And it turned out that some was right some was wrong.
In this case we don't know where we are yet this is -- balding situation.
You had the -- the White House sending out their top spokesperson.
Saying that.
This was you know a spontaneous eruption in response to a video.
Four days after the attack and yet you had the president trying to have it both ways saying why set it was a terror attack in the Rose Garden the day after.
But then sending my top spokesperson out that weekend to say it was a spontaneous eruption.
It couldn't have been ball.
And all President Obama has to do we say what they knew what they knew -- and and how.
There's a factual answer to this and we'll get there I would tend to agree we shouldn't politicize these things intelligence is an inexact science and that's how decisions are made but someone has to be held accountable the end of the day.
All right okay let's move along to the F fiscal cliff out battle.
I had I hear a lot of the word compromise.
-- -- news but I see precious little compromise -- being acted upon only.
All we didn't get any different a place now than we -- -- the election.
Not a practically speaking though knowing you know actually -- adjusting because I actually thought after the election.
I don't want to say the president had a mandate.
But there was some conversation that he was in a far stronger position after the election -- before.
In order to get a deal done.
What's interesting to me is that actually never thought that that was really the case I'd still thought we would see a tremendous amount of gridlock.
And the reality is that the president frankly only has two years.
So everything he does everything that he needs to do and and to get this deal done and be able to sort of move on and change the talking points -- -- he can he can actually.
Maybe -- didn't do what everyone's doing and -- two -- -- he's gonna have to act very very quickly I don't see a compromise coming anytime soon I think there's going to be more rhetoric.
And I think there's going to be more.
-- -- quite frankly around this issue in the next coming weeks and months.
And dumb and and that's going to be really unfortunate because I think we could have learned a lesson from this election -- tried.
The Democrats could.
Been at a position where they can work Republicans Republicans could come and say.
You know clearly the country is is a little more support review right now so let's let's work out this compromise that's about it.
Brad -- DC Republicans unwilling to.
At practically speaking rather than in -- woods to make any kind of compromise for instance if President Obama.
Came to them and said all right let's talk about the tax rates for those making over 500000.
Although as over 750000.
Instead of over 250 do you think that that would be a starting point.
Well if you if you step back for a moment if you look at where we were last summer on the debt ceiling.
The big talking point at the time coming -- Democrats is that Republicans are unwilling to do anything on revenue they're unwilling to put revenue on the table there unwilling unwilling and will run well.
-- -- the election happen and what do Republicans say okay we're willing to talk about revenue revenue is on the table the speaker put it on the table.
What happens Democrats.
Didn't take the offer instead you have Democrats doubling down you have half -- -- running out saying entitlements are off the table which -- the biggest drivers of this debt problem.
And Republicans standing there of negotiating with nobody there's an empty table as usual.
Where's the president where's the leadership all he has to do is have speaker Boehner come down to the White House and they would be able to work this out.
Republicans but revenue on the table there are ways to get to the present president's revenue target without directly raising rates on anyone you can close loopholes.
Effective tax rate would certainly be a little different for those on the wealthiest.
But revenue is there and that was a big compromise they were looking for last summer seems they don't want to take yes for an answer here so and so it's -- still holding this up.
Kraft who believe not the president needs to get this done we all -- to this leads -- to happen the president the arm under his watch and our you know losses.
Under his watch.
The United States had had a -- in its credit rating that's something that the president wants to.
You know he he doesn't want to go into these last two years if you let typically last for years he doesn't want his legacy to be.
That the critic of president that that the country lost its credit rating that we're not a good fiscal shape.
That we are having trouble with our trade partners and we're losing -- globally -- our economic situation that's not what he wants -- Democrats don't want that.
But the reality is that the Republicans need to abandon.
A lot of the hard edged the -- -- that they've had over these last four years eight years with respect to.
Tax increases you cannot.
Fix this situation without that and they have to come to -- toward the realization that that has to be that has -- on the table.
-- we'll let let me ask what what revenue was enough is 800 billion enough is a trillion enough is one point to train enough what's the number of revenue that you're looking for.
You know I think that I think the one point two trillion or even above is sufficient.
But the reality is older than what -- the Republicans have put forth -- are talking about ways to put between 800 billion in one trillion in revenue on the table.
And what's happening to Democrats are saying no but does it involved but -- -- the cuts that that that are necessary.
That the police that the -- -- the cuts the increases.
The tax increases and -- make that happen.
-- -- and so it's not it's always so it's not the type of revenue -- that's what you're here it's the type of revenue not the amount of revenue.
So in other words this is just a political scalp that the Democrats are trying to you know I don't pay higher taxes or I don't think it's political -- would also -- is there -- one point Petraeus revenue one point two -- in revenue no matter what source that comes from.
I think it is reasonable and and I think a lot of people would agree with me including Warren -- that a lot of this has -- -- from the wealthiest -- it.
All right -- let's what -- -- tell.
The Grover Norquist role in all of this brat.
Democrats finding him an easy figure perhaps to attack right now does it is it.
Tough for the Republicans.
Having somebody who is on the right of the political spectrum sort of being -- -- central figure for them -- in the country just say.
And I you know we don't want that sort of extremism we won't be able to come to the middle -- compromise.
You you know like Grover Norquist said yesterday -- like reporter heroin -- -- You hear his name more in green rooms then they -- they -- -- and cloak rooms and caucus rooms on capitol pelican assure you.
Look it's pretty simple Grover works -- ATR Grover represents the no tax wing of the party which is all of the party.
Republicans don't believe in higher taxes for a reason and it's not an ideological purity reason.
We believe that the higher the taxes it's more money out of the individual's pocket that goes to government which tends to waste the money hence our sixteen trillion dollar debt.
So in order to fix the debt problem you have to turn off that funding and fix the problem now we're willing to put revenue on the table were willing to negotiate in good faith.
But what we'll simply raising someone's taxes in order of throw good money after bad waste more money in and what -- the -- -- The real way to solve our debt problem is to look at these entitlements that's where the runaway spending is.
That's what we have to get out of control people on both sides know it and -- helping -- every one -- washing -- recognize that reality.
They can raise taxes much and they want they could raise -- taxes 200% and it wouldn't solve our debt crisis.
Did.
Democrats playing politics with the Grover Norquist role here.
-- Grover Norquist.
I don't think represents the ideology of a party so much I think what's driving.
What's happening Grover Norquist and Republicans not ideology it's fear.
They want to be reelected and he he controls a lot of the narrative that is discussed women and their members are getting elected.
Deliberately lit up Dick Lugar expert in -- Himself fairly let's let me ask you know what -- -- indirectly attacking -- just -- -- metal -- but I I don't -- -- I don't think politics is really driving -- as much as folks would -- to -- to believe -- the reality is that no one warrants.
Very few people -- -- really willing to talk about.
Reform of the root of the entitlement program that's Democrats and that's Republicans and I had I acknowledge that to some extent.
Even if I disagree with Paul Ryan.
He actually is trying at least to make some.
Academic if you will approach to this but that's a conversation and nobody else has really happened.
-- he wanted to land it well yeah I would like to say be neat if I mean if you think at the end of the day it is all political reason and now Republicans are just afraid of not being able to get reelected.
If raising taxes was such a popular thing among the American people shouldn't they all just won a race tax.
It's not why would forget about but -- but but but I think that misses the point because.
I think people are reasonable enough voters a reason -- believe that if a little more money needs to come out of their pocket.
To actually solve some of our problems they're willing to do that -- only they can trust the people that are.
-- -- -- and I think you're exactly right and I -- you're exactly right.
The problem the problem is that in the past whether -- 86 deficit reduction deal the ninety deficit reduction deal for any other deficit reduction deal that's ever been reached.
Cut the White House is ass in the congress is out for more money Washington has asked for more money the people of given it to them in the -- paying down our debt they just throw it throw good money after -- -- -- But but who's doing that right now it is the Republican majority so vaguely knows what -- -- -- the good money for us.
-- -- -- -- -- They -- trust.
They wanna trust somebody to be able to spend money appropriately and the fact that congress has had traditionally very bet that's usually the last few years judicially.
Low readings that means to me that they don't actually trust congress ought to do the right thing I tell -- everything is across.
But let's put the -- The good of the good money after bad is going towards entitlements.
What the problem that we have and the reason debt is skyrocketing even President Obama admits this is health care entitlements.
So when you're advocating is that we take more money from taxpayers but do nothing on the entitlement side which is just throwing good money after bad if you want to fix the problem.
You have to fix those health care entitlements I agree taxpayers are willing to do a little bit more if they have to do is always -- money goes to solve the problem and fix the -- Unfortunately Democrats are willing to solve the problem they just want more money.
All right the breaking news here is that we have a -- -- a a smock.
And convivial debate.
On the fiscal Clinton -- male politicians could do the same thing we might actually get somewhere Brad based sprint senior advisor would like.
YouTube thank Travis and battles Michael Janeiro without battles Michael associates thank you so much -- -- -- to have you as always if you -- right I.
