Special Report Online: 2/6/13
Trouble for Chuck Hagel confirmation?
- Duration 27:30
- Date Feb 6, 2013
Trouble for Chuck Hagel confirmation?
Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Welcome to another edition of special for online I'm Steve -- in for Chris Wallace in for Bret -- It's my first time in the anchor chair here online so go easy on me there will probably -- to be lots of awkward pauses.
Stop when somebody trips in my ear misread things.
If it's your first time here you can vote -- online polls and add comments keep in mind that our producers are getting thousands of them so -- -- doesn't appear right away please be patient.
With that said let's get started senator Carl Levin chairman of the armed services committee.
Had hoped to vote on the nomination chuck Qaeda -- Defense Secretary on Thursday.
The late today eleven issued a statement saying no vote would occur this week.
Does this mean trouble for hagel let's bring in part of the panel.
Mara Liasson national political correspondent of national public radio and syndicated child columnist.
Charles Krauthammer and Steve case and knee but I'm not going to be I'm not -- -- be -- -- I style and I kind of hiding this time you you do look different.
From this angle and from over here.
Do we think that that this delay in the hearing morrow will actually affect the outcome of the -- nomination.
I think not I think Chuck Hagel is OK I think he'd had a much rougher hearing than he expected he got a bloody nose.
But as long as Democrats hang together and as long as Republicans are not -- filibuster him and we have not heard yet that they will.
I think he should be okay if they do decide on a filibuster they're gonna have to be five Republicans that joined the Democrats to confirm them.
Right and so some of the reason the reason cited for the delay was that.
He was not being forthcoming in providing this information that had been requested back at the hearing.
Particularly by senator Ted Cruz.
Republicans still they get more of a -- phone -- they decide to fight willing.
Filibuster because he hasn't been forthcoming.
Well once John McCain said he would they McCain was one of the most.
Animated in questioning any of I think that's not gonna happen and I think he'll be a bad precedent.
The president did does have.
The choice particularly for a member of the cabinet and different for -- Supreme Court because that's a lifetime appointment that lives on long after him.
But I think generally for a cabinet member there's going to be a high threshold.
And will be quite unusual into -- filibuster.
I do think however there right now there are only two Republicans.
I suspect but the did America Asia and try to -- to try to calculate.
Had to get to 51.
And allows some of their red state members who are running for reelection.
Or perhaps some from places like New York who might be -- vulnerable.
To vote two and two to construct the 51.
And -- a couple to have a pass -- you don't have to win by 57.
That's what I would guess but.
It's rough it's hard right now to see how he'd be denied the nomination.
Although you've got to say I don't -- the Democrats on the committee.
And in the congress who -- gonna have to vote yes that was the most embarrassing hearing for our administration official I have ever seen.
This is a man who once around the Department of Defense.
In wartime but all these things for another world he was clueless.
And I think it's humiliating.
For somebody in the senate who knows that they have to vote yes could you were Democrats.
You don't want a -- embarrass the president but you know produces real estate.
Yeah I mean it wasn't good that he didn't know what the United States policy towards Iran was that wasn't containment but just.
Historically only nine -- cabinet nominees have ever been.
Defeated them only one former senator nominated for Canada post has ever been defeated that was -- -- -- so it's pretty rare.
-- -- the history -- -- it is it what's the precedent for a cabinet nominee not providing this kind of information and what what Republicans are seeking.
Particularly in in this case is they want more information not paid speeches that he's given over the past several years.
He said that he doesn't he didn't speak from a manuscript that he doesn't actually -- speeches.
That his contract keeps him from sharing this information even if he did have this.
And also they want information about -- other sources in common and whether any foreign income had come into some of the groups that he was associated.
Dobbs president isn't part of his standard disclosures and that wouldn't be part of the standard disclosure.
-- and I remember when -- duke crews asked him about it.
In the hearings he -- wait for response orally.
And I think he was confident he would get a written response.
You know it isn't as if these were secret speeches.
I think it is you know quite remarkable that he hasn't turned it over and I think it could be.
Grounds if they were wavering Democrat.
Who are looking for I was looking for a way to vote no this would give them some cover.
To say look good record isn't complete I can make a judgment without her memory of that was the -- under -- Harriet Miers.
Her -- her -- Nomination was withdrawn the reason was this is the ostensible reason was.
That she had been the counsel to the president so her advice.
Was confidential and since she had no history.
Before that and constitutional law there was no basis.
And make -- judgment so on the grounds that she would have been you'll -- candidate for there was no way that the senate would have been provided with the information.
That she could be denied and knowing that the administration of book.
The Bush Administration withdrew her nomination.
Saving face all around them so that can be used.
As any excuse insufficient information.
Charles thing too modest since he designed that entire exit for Harriet Miers -- himself has daughters and yet.
Thought -- -- -- admire I think definitely.
-- that big picture question what was this the right fight for Republicans have to have.
In your -- -- something mean they they clearly that we looked at that the potential nominees.
After Susan Rice had been withdrawn or maybe she was never going to be offered anyway.
And they clearly focused their energy on fighting Chuck Hagel do you think that was the right strategic move for Republican.
Well I think for strategic error.
Was -- in the very early on.
On the question -- be secretary of state.
Some Republicans came out and said they would oppose.
I think just purely from a tactical.
Republicans would have been better served.
To allow her nomination -- -- -- -- -- forward.
Not to say they would oppose her from the beginning.
Because that would have raised have been guys the issue in a way that has not been -- and won't be raising anymore.
And it also would not have put Obama in a position.
When he was good for sacred defense where he didn't want to be humiliated.
Twice into withdrawing a nominee he wanted so he would -- rice out there and then I don't think he would have had to go to angle angle is not a very strong choice.
As we saw and I think -- -- the pressure.
Preceding his hearings would have been enough for a president.
To get the council of his own advisors saying do we really want this fight.
So I think the original tactical -- was at the beginning and and but it was I think it was a well done.
Ask him -- hard questions but don't filibuster you don't want to look.
Obstructionist but you have truly embarrass the Democrats because this is a man who ought not be secretary of defense.
-- one of the things that was interesting at least to me watching the Sunday shows over the weekend.
Was you had a former spokesman for President Obama and Robert Gibbs.
Calling chuck Hale's performance I think he said unimpressive I don't remember the exact -- -- think he was very critical the only I think the.
Or is only one senators Carl Levin who said that he helped himself I don't think there was that you could find a single other.
-- person senator of either party who said that that testimony was helpful to him.
I was bathroom and have him yeah yeah.
And he's the chairman of the armed services committee so it yes it was not an auspicious beginning but I still think he's gonna get through but he comes out of it.
Weaker and starting his tenure.
In a weaker position -- it would have otherwise I think announcer tomorrow.
Because remember all the signatures on the petitions.
Hey go -- -- him as a man you know well trained well practice well ready.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- And then he shows up and he's an embarrassment so.
I think is sort of undermined the whole narrative I remember all of -- was being called and Eisenhower Republican.
If you sort of Lone Ranger in -- view of intervention he turned out to be a clueless Republican.
-- they scored a difference.
They're directed me so well as we've come to expect something go our way lots of people Tony wanted to know Charles if that is the -- -- Then you chose it for a reason to know why I start showing off I think I wouldn't know -- ravens at times from a afforded to me look the -- -- Football is in my -- But based on ways that I was pure black.
But you're but you're right even on things you don't know as much about and I think that's that's the take away I threw -- -- you know I don't really -- -- -- guard forward and I got it right.
-- -- very sad understand that this has been discussed both on Monday night and Tuesday night at constant but I haven't had to own up for the fact that that I'm supposed to be the football guy and I actually.
Didn't get it right I got those -- it's worse than that.
Because if you watch and so on Friday after I did my prediction -- can view you can only to contradict.
You -- was set to do.
These games -- You based on guys I mean how -- guessing.
So I'd probably take that gift profit how it as sort of pushing it a little bit I think that's fair.
I'm trying to read comments but I'm not doing very good job in keeping up Brett.
-- -- so does this help if I do nothing else tonight will make Brett look that much better in his absence.
Because there's a lot of stuff going on.
Is Brett going to be a lot of people asking about where Brett is.
Brett is at the AT&T pro am I think he talked about that last week he's going to be playing golf.
In a pairing with Todd Hamilton won the 2004 British Open.
It's something of a surprise win back in 2004 he hasn't had as much success since he's a good golfer when he won the 2004 British Open he gave.
Confidence to a lot of senior golfers because he used a hybrid.
A lot and not a lot of professional golfers use -- so this year tidbit about Brett I think Brett tees off tomorrow -- wrote this down.
I think it's 9:28.
Pacific time at Spyglass Hill I think it's on the Golf Channel C can catch him.
If you wanna see -- over there and if he wins he's not coming back.
If you can't hear it is behind John -- and -- -- can't I think Brett handicap now is a five but I played with Brett.
-- he plays better under five is very good but he plays better than a five about the only thing I can do was hit the ball.
A mile off the -- and Brett hits it past me every single time sort of embarrassing.
What else -- we talk about anything else that we have.
Can we go back a second to the drone -- Because I mean it'll be nice to have a discussion about this because I think I'm really sort of stuck on this idea that people or so upset.
That the idea of the government.
An American who's taken up arms against United States that's not a new idea that if Jason knew that it's a new kind of war and who qualifies.
But why on principle does the government have to show.
Do pride I think I'm missing something here and that's -- -- You know first from a couple things first -- people are not necessarily upset about this this -- this majority support.
If it's explained as these are terrorists.
Who happen to -- American citizens the headlines of the super that you see on TV are.
Drones killing Americans -- -- -- second is that American tourists in in in in you know -- Venice or something you know I mean this is I think when it's explained.
It has support among the public people want the war on terror prosecuted.
They certainly prefer drones to boots on the ground and I actually think that that's the reason why this isn't gonna become a major problem for the administration.
But what about and -- the question I have is are we ever gonna get and you probably know this.
I don't know I would.
Since 9/11 we've never had sort of a general agreement laws passed in congress.
We've got to rethink the new kind of -- this is not traditional book.
You know we don't declare war anymore that's old fashioned these guys aren't you know the winning -- uniform.
There's no home base.
The music and we we we haven't touched that even on Guantanamo.
It was all -- case law why can't we sort of have and they should be nonpartisan.
Just as because obviously the the left is now enforcing laws.
-- -- the drones killing Americans is miss an opportunity we could work out a new.
Regime we have real criteria because -- any life.
Let me well why not and why shouldn't -- work with with senator once -- confirmed Britain with some senators from both parties especially John McCain would have to be John McCain.
And Lindsey Graham and others to work something out I think up until now it's been -- ad hoc case by case basis and that's been developed on the fly but yes for it to be codified would make a lot of sense he's.
Is there anybody who wants do.
-- President Clinton.
Four years from now she would have the appetite but I didn't know which -- -- Look she you have to check the I think -- -- have around take for this but you know you have to want to do this.
And I think it would be a helpful thing to do and it would certainly put an end to a lot of these controversy -- Here's what's interesting here is the courts aren't American staff and particularly on this issue there's no court -- -- say you can't kill an American who might be a threat.
But this isn't it a place where we could -- have been their political friends.
But anyway that's just what -- my own so Roy from Michigan if I got that as -- scroll by very quickly.
On the screen for me wanted to know why.
Isn't drone killing being discussed as a war crime in this was the outcry during the Bush Administration had people accusing Dick Cheney.
I've been a war criminal I mean is there any basis for that kind of a discussion.
Well -- we're not hearing that I think that it's you know for the for the opponents of this it is different when it's a democratic president prosecuting this kind of strategy.
But we're not hearing that and certainly you're not gonna hear from Republicans unless Rand Paul wants to take this -- as -- as an.
I think it's just out about hypocrisy.
And I think liberals ought to be ashamed.
I mean here we have an administration that is killing people I -- move in their beds.
Judge jury executioner now I'm in favor.
But they were screaming about the war crimes of the Bush Administration.
When it had a terrorist in the hands of who might have had information.
At a time when we didn't know anything about -- kind of scared to death expecting a second attack within six months remember everybody in Washington -- stuff.
And he had little harsh interrogation okay up to waterboarding.
And they were screaming war crimes war criminal and all of a sudden there's -- -- only because.
It's a Democrat can you imagine if the Bush Administration.
It was leaked as it was on Monday night NBC that there was -- the secret memoranda with these secret criteria which I think are appallingly.
And and and including the killing of Americans.
So there's still a bit of that town would stop.
And we would be having impeachment hearings right.
Do you think.
If you go back and you look at the way that the administration handled Umar Farouk Abdul -- the the airplane bomber I mean.
There was such a focused suction and eagerness to put him into the law enforcement system when they read him his rights shortly after his capture and that's a difficult thing to it to two.
Reconcile what they did with him and what they're talking about doing here without any real.
Acknowledgment of -- -- potential.
Rights of the people they're killing is that.
Is that -- -- handed.
I mean there's a big difference between -- you know apprehending someone and targeting someone who you're not gonna you don't have a chance of apprehending -- funny or rip them.
Sure but they could -- put they could have questioned him and make -- and interrogated him.
The law enforcement that and there I think that that time they were probably -- if they can do it.
Under regular -- yeah yeah -- would let's we're gonna move to another topic in just a second but I wanted to ask.
Do you -- from Texas wrote in and wanted to know about the role of congress and all of this they haven't been briefed on this they certainly haven't been kept much -- -- -- do you think they ought to have -- Yes I think they are -- great and I'm afraid of them main complaint is going to be.
We weren't told the main complaint ought to be why don't you come to us and propose a -- set -- rules but I think it'll be a sort of territorial thing.
You know that we should've known you you can't do -- -- that is true and I think that's an issue but I don't like to see somebody stand up and say.
It's -- got a new code because it's a new kind of a war would just add one thing about apprehending people.
The irony is -- one of the reasons that we killing everybody.
And that capturing -- -- there's no way military.
So what he's doing and if you capture.
Interrogated for maybe a day or two and -- -- somewhere I don't know when a ship somewhere.
Or in country but then under the new regime the Obama.
Rules what do you do you gotta release Indian and knowing anybody is entering in Guantanamo anymore right that was over there -- no more right.
You know moved to gauge of clothes no more admission so you can't get the information in my road kill to be cynical about it.
I think -- be we'd be better off in the long run because we are losing.
Mean these people are dying and I have no sympathy for their -- Qaeda operatives.
But they're dying with a lot of information out I think in the older days.
Before this -- -- about the enhanced interrogation.
And the blacks I think Guantanamo.
We might have interrogated I'm not saying it -- -- an enhancement at least.
Interrogated him and learn -- -- can.
You know there the other issue is.
When you do these assassinations you do have collateral damage you do kill civilians and you do and gender.
-- well and you possibly as has been suggested create more replacements for the guy you just assassinated.
Them if you had not done it.
And that's another -- you know -- the liberal.
Battle cry and and in the last decade was you have to shackle on time in the business of recruiting tool.
Lots of data recruiting tool.
Drones in your neighborhood killing people.
What looks like indiscriminately on those who or you know far -- prison who cares about that but this was a -- of the Democrats -- absolutely right.
It is effective in taking out people but it sure -- in general are there well there's no question.
-- we just have a handful of minutes left let's switch.
Back to the discussion about Obama care entitlements Medicare Medicaid.
-- you didn't agree with from the point that I made on the panel when I was critical of conservative governors.
And being willing to take this this free federal money -- what was I wrong about what I.
I don't know I mean it's really a judgment call but I would do far on the side of giving him -- -- governors have to represent their states and chief executive of the states.
And I think their first duty is to secure the -- -- the state if a governor.
Makes a calculation that there's a lot of money coming out of Washington that could help the poor.
With -- in his state he could be ideologically opposed -- could have opposed obamacare in the first place.
But obamacare is now law of the land so you have to face realities.
And it do you do you refuse the money because on principle you're more in a moment here in the first place or do you accept it.
Because can help your state I would give -- governor complete capacity except for money and understanding governor who refused it.
Though I suspect if I -- the governor state I would take the money.
Well there's evidence of that opens -- -- Along here -- the law of the land -- it wasn't repealed Mitt Romney wasn't elected none of that happened but you still have conservatives who want to do everything we can to sort of slow down the process of implementation.
The process is already having.
A number of problems anyway as we saw from two angles -- It is is it a political Packers -- he does it give the president much political cover to have all of these Republican governors.
So you know at least participating NASA.
-- -- it does give -- political cover on the other hand it's kind of a philosophical did dilemma for Republican governor you want the federal government to come in and run your exchange.
When you could it although you certainly didn't want it in the first place where you could have control over -- you know Mike Leavitt who was the former governor of Utah.
Who advises Republican governors now hey you know you should be running this yourself.
And you know put it put a conservative stamp on this process as opposed to just ceding it to the federal government.
Which is -- -- the bedrock Republican beliefs the state control is is sure one of them.
So I think that's pretty interesting to see where people come down it's the law of the land do you want to act.
You know she created in the in a conservative model or do you want to let the feds just decide just.
It could you make an argument that it's a short term decision by these governors don't mean they're gonna get other -- -- 100 they're gonna get many hundred yes 100% and Tony.
Then they're getting -- ninety for an undetermined amount of time needs -- 20/20 two.
I mean they're not going to be an office after that -- so if they're if they're successor.
-- 50% of the federal money if there's not a broader reform before that I mean it seems to me just could be very.
Shortsighted self governor did on our run for reelection -- they -- they almost all I mean this is how pop make decisions not to be too cynical.
Yeah I think it's a risk because.
If you look at how the federal government is trying to save money stay with Medicare buy.
Reducing the payments to hospitals to doctors and providers resisted it killed assistant in the -- -- doctors -- American treat.
But it's under the pretense we're not hurting the Medicare recipients.
Because technically we're we're trying to money from the hospitals and providers.
In the same way I could see in the future when there's a -- it's crunch on Medicaid.
Which the new CC BO analysis of them double in cost about 600 billion a year.
From I think roughly 300.
I think I'm in the right ballpark the -- the federal government -- in and try to shave.
Its expenses and in part you'll just shifting under the State's so I think it's pretty inevitable that it's -- Let's.
We have just a couple minutes left let's do.
One quick round on the announcement today that Marco Rubio is going to be given the Republican response.
To the president it's not an enviable job and this is not something that people typically do very well.
When they've been asked to commend their most memorable memorable failures.
More people who have struggled with this do you think it was a good pick him and do you expect it -- -- you well and what do you.
Why do you say to do well I think Marco Rubio is having a really great run right now you'd have to say -- is first among equals for the 2016 nomination and that is a ridiculous thing to say four years out but.
You know he's taking the lead on immigration he's done a pretty good job -- he went around to conservative talk show hosts to sell.
Path for Republicans he's giving the Republican response although I thought it was pretty interest in a press release says the Republican address to the nation.
That's a -- fallen out of his young daughter have.
I'm Canadian thing it may be state of the union is now the democratic or remodeled the market getting more -- than it has been in the past right because it's never been actually responding to the president.
The high profile opportunity for him remember what Bobby Jindal gave his and it didn't work out so well.
Well Parker Romeo now this is chance and maybe he needs it to good advantage he's definitely gearing up for a possible run.
And you know I think that every opportunity that comes as ways and -- it.
Good thing for him and cherish our initial -- -- yourself.
Sort of paradoxical the response is prepared like three days in advance yet understated -- -- respond to anything but it isn't addressed.
No I think it is a good -- -- and I'm sure they're -- they're trying to from being a lot of it is just a staging.
-- problem I think -- he came out of Carter it was.
Mean it just to go to the staging haven't made him look of the deliberately buried -- -- -- -- -- I mean how do you compete with.
Standing in the well of the house and everybody and yes pretty.
He's pretty good I don't think that they've settled on the state and I think it's still a lot of questions for the reasons that you suggest trying -- desk.
When -- the pictures of the family all around -- -- just.
Like many Oval Office we have many oval you can put -- and president.
Plus but what it Obama have a VOA the convention.
Remember it does not follow CNN -- had a kind of -- seal.
That he yes that's kind of a -- ceilings and remember exactly like sessions and maybe the ought to get that -- -- storage.
Because I work for Obama but -- so -- last question.
Output wound up like Brett does.
Very quickly has rubio is.
Out front position on immigration do you think that helps him for -- him in the long term.
I think -- in the long term that's hard to say I think it's helping him now.
-- the party is following him that has to be helping him they're not rejecting him I think it does help -- in the long term.
If the Republican primary electorate is gonna rise up against Marco Rubio because of this immigration issue.
Then the Republican party's problems are so much deeper and graver than any of us could be put it.
-- -- -- Good to see him succeed I think.
If he can -- finessed the issue will help Republicans.
Immeasurable incoming campaigns.
But there's a problem with his proposal I don't know that it's been.
He's been challenged on this and any of the shows and that is that it looks as if legalization happens.
After enforcement and in fact.
Provisional legalization is given on day one of the signing of the bill and I'm not sure people really understand that Alan and that's never gonna be revoked.
Provisional is a word doesn't really apply here at the rear what is -- perpetual there's no question and I can revoke that illegals.
So when that happens.
Could put in my opinion clearly and -- -- it to do the Chris Wallace does this kind of -- a little bit his service.
For the maybe I'll hear the voice of which is progress -- And I think that's fairly.
Only I can.
We heard a long -- yes if only I could summon him -- I think he's I think he's he's financing that he -- he does will be OK you guys.
Excellent well thank you both for sticking around.
Thanks to all of you for for tuning in -- job is safe I think we can all say with some certainty thanks to everybody here and thanks to the control room.
A little wave perhaps.