2008 Polls National Iowa New Hampshire General Election GOP | Dem GOP | Dem GOP | Dem Head-to-Head

---

March 27, 2007

Special Report Roundtable - March 27

FOX News Special Report With Brit Hume

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN CHUCK HAGEL (R), NEBRASKA: Mr. President, we have misunderstood, misread, misplanned, and mismanaged our honorable intentions in Iraq with an arrogant self-delusion reminiscent of Vietnam.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: And with that, Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- Republican of Nebraska, reversed the position that he took just 12 day ago on a timeline or timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, and voted not to strip that provision from the bill being considered by the U.S. Senate - - a bill which Senator John McCain labels the "date certain for surrender act" and about which the White House said when the measure was retained in the bill, the title was -- remained in the bill:

"The president is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law...the Senate, which unanimously confirmed," speaking of General Petraeus, "for this mission, needs to support him by providing our troops the funding they need -- not by mandating failure."

Some thoughts on all of this from Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard; Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and Nina Easton, Washington bureau chief for Fortune magazine -- FOX NEWS contributors, all three.

It seems pretty clear now that this language will stay in this bill. The bill carries funding for the war, funding for a whole lot of other things including, it now turns out, the political conventions in the next time around. But, it also seems likely that it won't be lost, so where are we in all of this? Does this really matter if the Senate passes a bill that can't become law or does it not matter -- Bill.

BILL KRISTOL, WEEKLY STANDARD: I'm afraid it might matter. I mean it will embolden our enemies abroad, I think there's no question about that. They may not know the intricacies of the American political process and know that the president can veto and, I think, prevail. So, I'm -- it's a very bad day, but I think the president will veto this bill when it comes out of conference and I think he will prevail and will fund the troops and General Petraeus will still have a chance to win this war despite the efforts of the Democrats in Congress.

HUME: Well, the Democrats now joined by a few Republicans to include Chuck Hagel. What to make of his reversal -- Mort.

MORT KONDRACKE, ROLL CALL: Well, you know, the reversal was in fact by two Nebraska senators, but Hagel...

HUME: I know, but -- now hold on, just let me explain something.

Yes, it's true that if Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, had not also switched that the vote tally -- then the vote -- he also switched -- but if he had switched alone and Hagel hadn't, it would get an 49-49, Cheney would have broken the tie and -- in favor of the -- of stripping that language with the timeline out of the bill. So, Hagel's reversal was crucial.

KONDRACKE: OK, but the fact is that Nebraska is a state that went 66 percent for Bush and both of its senators flipped on this thing, which indicates that out there in the heartland, in strong Bush country, this war is very unpopular...

HUME: More unpopular than it was 12 days ago?

KONDRACKE: Well, it -- you know, I have to say that in both cases, the rationale is unintelligible. And Hagel has been a consistent opponent of the war. I don't understand why he voted against the binding resolution on March 15. His reasoning today has been the same as his reasoning has always been. There's no explanation.

In Nelson's case -- Nelson said that he -- "I do not support a calendar date for withdrawal," and yet he voted for this thing on the grounds that also the language was taken out that refers to a civil war. Well you know, there's civil wary, you could put it anywhere in the bill. But that was the crucial difference in this bill, was a date certain, that's why the president's going to veto it.

NINA EASTON, FORTUNE: Well I think, yeah, politically the star of this one vote and the thing that's going to be a political story down the road is Chuck Hagel. I mean, he not only -- it's not only his vote, but he also -- some of his language. He said, "Mr. President, we tried a monarchy once and it didn't work." In addition to calling this the -- "an arrogant self-delusional reminiscent of Vietnam." Chuck Hagel, of course, is -- may run for president, he's up for reelection next year.

HUME: (INAUDIBLE) let me stop you right there. If he runs for president as a Republican, does he have a hope in hell of getting anywhere near the nomination in the Republican Party?

EASTON: I don't think he does. Based on polls, he doesn't.

HUME: Does anybody have any idea what he's thinking or perhaps if he's thinking?

EASTON: We'll he's -- and then the real question too, for him, is in 2008 if he ends up -- he does run for reelection...

HUME: He's up in `08?

EASTON: He's up in '08. Is he going to become a Lieberman? Are Republicans going to turn against him the same way that Democrats turned against Lieberman?

HUME: What do you make -- Hagel's a puzzling guy. He was once a John McCain's closest friend and ally in the Senate. He now, obviously, is very much on the opposite side of this issue from Senator McCain. What about Hagel? What's up with him?

KRISTOL: I (INAUDIBLE)personally, he's against the war, he has been from the beginning and he feels vindicated because he predicted bad things and we did make mistakes and some bad things...

HUME: Did he vote against authorizing the war?

KRISTOL: He voted for authorizing the war, tough he felt bad about it at the time, he subsequently said, and probably should have voted against it.

But look, I mean this is -- well, what's most striking about his statement, and I think most of the others on the floor in the Senate, today, by those who voted for this bill -- for these timetable for withdrawal, is there's no argument about what's going to happen if these timetables become law. It's all, we didn't like this war, it's been botched, it's much tougher than we thought, we hate the fact, obviously, that Americans are dying or being wounded, so we're voting for this.

It was almost -- I dare anyone to go to the congressional record and find real argument about why the world would be better off in January of 2009 if this legislation is passed instead of just the funding for the troops and leaving it to the president and General Petraeus to try to take a shot at stabilizing the situation in Iraq, which they're having some success in doing.

So, I think it was a, you know, they cast this irresponsible vote. I think it was irresponsible on the part of Hagel and of the, what, 48 Democrats who voted for it. Bush will veto it, the funding will be sustained.

KONDRACKE: Well, the problem is that Bush vetoes it, the veto cannot be overridden, but we still have a situation where the bill has not passed. Secretary Gates said that we need the money by April 15, the money will not be approved by April 15. The question is will it be approved by May 15 or June 15 or when? And there's going to be a mighty confrontation between Congress and the executive branch over this with the president saying the troops need the money and the Congress saying -- the Democrats, especially in the House saying: we want a deadline.

HUME: Well, I know, but let's assume, Mort, that he vetoes. The veto will not be overridden, it may -- there may be no attempt to override it, that takes what, two-thirds in both houses...

KONDRACKE: But the bill has got to be passed in one form or the other.

HUME: I understand that. I understand it. What do you think will happen, then?

KONDRACKE: Well, you know, I honestly am afraid that this thing is going to drag on and the troops are going to suffer as a result of it.

HUME: Isn't it more likely that the Democrats will go -- will then pass a bill with all of the pork in it without the timetables and dare the president to veto -- $24 billion worth of extra spending in this bill.

KONDRACKE: What Nancy Pelosi's people say is that they want to have a conversation with Bush, but they're not willing to back down. Now, maybe they can -- maybe he'll be forced to sign a soft deadline or a goal or something like that, like the Senate bill, as opposed to a hard deadline like the House bill, if he wants his money.

HUME: When we come back with our panel, Philip Thompson pleads not guilty, but the real story about the loaded gun he tried to bring into a Senate building appears to be about Senator Jim Webb, though we're not sure what that all is, so stay tuned.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN JIM WEBB (D), VIRGINIA: I look at the number of people who are defending the president, and other members of the executive branch. There is not that kind of protection available to members of the legislative branch, we are required to defend ourselves and I choose to do so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUME: And, said Senator Webb, he chooses to do so by being licensed to carry a loaded weapon when he is in the state of Virginia, which is where he hails from. He says, however, that has never carried or had and loaded gun in the halls of Congress. And he did not acknowledge, although his aide, the one who was arrested for bringing a Webb gun into the capital, yesterday, or trying to, he did not acknowledge that it was his gun, although the aide says it was.

He says however, that he did not tell the aide to bring the weapon to the Capitol, so how all this exactly came about remains something of a mystery. Although the senator said that there was some changing around of things in automobiles on the day in questions because he was traveling, that resulted in that and gave rise to this inadvertent - which he -- what are we to make of this? First of all, this young -- this aide, I don't want to say young, he's a longtime friend and ally of Webb, and now he aide -- spent the night in jail.

KONDRACKE: That's terrible. That is...

Phillip Thompson, spent the night in jail and was arraigned like, YOU KNOW, anyone else would be. Maybe that's the way Senate aide should be treated, but if this was -- it appears to be an accident. What about all this?

KONDRACKE: That is truly ridiculous, that somebody, and under those circumstances, carrying a senator's gun, not meaning any harm, would have to spend the night in jail, is ridiculous and the police ought to be ashamed of themselves. The, you know, I think this was a mistake, it sounds like it was a mistake where -- because there was a mix-up of cars, and the aide picked up the -- a bag that turned out to have the gun in it, and so on, and...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: He clearly was bring -- it would seem -- it would make sense that he was trying to bring the bag into the Senate office building believing that Webb, when he got back from his trip, would need things in it, right?

KONDRACKE: Yeah, but he probably didn't know that the gun was in the bag, you know...

HUME: Or if he did, he forgot.

KONDRACKE: So, it was a big accident. What's really weird...

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Yeah, I mean, he obviously wouldn't have done it on purpose when he run it through the x-ray machine he would have known that there was a heater in there with a couple of clips.

KONDRACKE: What's really weird is this statement from Webb that we just played: People in the executive branch have guards, armed guards surrounding them, we in the legislative branch have to defend themselves, well, I carry my -- my microphone is off.

(LAUGHTER)

HUME: Your microphone.

KONDRACKE: I'm carrying my own heat, you know, I mean, that is just strange.

HUME: Well, he says he didn't do it in the Capitol, which is...

KONDRACKE: Well, I know, I know, but he carries around...

EASTON: But this says more about -- the incident was a mishap, it sounds like, but what it told us was something about Jim Webb who feels unsafe since 9/11, feels like he has the right to protect his family and his friends.

HUME: Well, he does have that right.

EASTON: And he has that right -- he has that right in Virginia, but - - and I'm sure he can solidify that base in southern Virginia. The interesting thing about this is that he is -- he's not just a Virginia senator, he is the Democrat's "great white hope" for appealing to red Republican states and I haven't heard a lot of Democrats commenting on his comments today.

KRISTOL: Nina's revealing her suburban Maryland condescension to Virginia.

(LAUGHTER)

I live in Virginia, I didn't vote for Jim Webb, but I am proud that our senator is packing heat.

(LAUGHTER)

And concealing it too. And he needs it when he goes to D.C. If he goes to Maryland...

HUME: But the problem is it is absolutely illegal until the Supreme Court or somebody verifies that -- upholds that decision by the circuit court here, that the gun ban is unconstitutional.

KRISTOL: That assumes that we Virginians should obey Washington D.C. law, which, you know, there's a long tradition in Virginia of scorning that effort by the federal government. No, I'm sort of amazed by Webb, but I think this is good for the Democratic Party. They've been suffering on the gun-control issue and now there can be an Obama/Webb ticket next year...

(LAUGHTER)

...nice year, nicely balanced with Webb packing heat and you know, he's apparently a really expert marksman. I guess he taught that when he was in the military, taught marksmanship. And no, I tell you, it made me proud to be a Virginian. I bet those Maryland senators never -- they wouldn't carry a concealed weapon.

EASTON: Not only that, but in Maryland you're not allowed to bring a concealed weapon into a building, but in Virginia and you are. And by the way, in the Virginia State House last year, a gun went off. One of the lawmakers' guns went off, it was loaded, and it went off accidentally and it hit a bulletproof vest, but you know, I mean...

KRISTOL: In Maryland they run around with little water pistols, probably.

KONDRACKE: I'm going to be careful arguing with Bill Kristol in Virginia. Not in the district, I know -- I feel safe in that the district, as long as the law sustains itself, but in Virginia, he may be packing.

HUME: You know, we do not have metal detectors downstairs, here, and I'm beginning to wonder whether somebody ought to pat you down when you come in here with your Virginia views on this. I live in Virginia, as well, may I add, I don't pack, even in Virginia.

KRISTOL: I don't, but I am a proud of my fellow citizens who do.

HUME: Well, presumably we'll find out before long what really happened here. But he says he didn't direct the aide to bring the weapon in, so what he really did and did not do, who knows. And whether he was in the habit of carrying the gun around in Washington, of course is another...

KONDRACKE: Well, if there's a trial, I think he'll have to appear and explain it.

---

Sponsored Links

About Us | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy         © RealClearPolitics 2006