Jake Tapper DC Roundup: Immigration, Hagel, Taxes

Monday, February 04, 2013

CNN anchor Jake Tapper (@CNNPR on Twitter/Twitter)

It's another busy week in DC, with continuing efforts to reach immigration reform, the confirmation of Chuck Hagel in the balance, and another set of negotiations over taxes and "sequester" cuts on the horizon. Jake Tapper, CNN anchor and chief Washington correspondent and author of The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor, discusses the latest.


Jake Tapper

Comments [47]

Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

Where are the "anti-war" activists demonstrating across the street from the Syrian embassy/consulate/mission, against the deaths of 60,000+ people in Syria?

Why does Socialist Russia back the Syrian family, father to son, dictatorship?

Feb. 05 2013 03:07 PM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

Soldier's Father from Pelham, NY,

Do you think that the Islamist Regime of Iran is threatening the US, or as he calls the US, the "Great Satan"?

Do you think that Islamist Irans "peaceful" nuclear program, spread throughout Iran, buried deep underground, is a peaceful program or a nuclear weapons program?

Do you think that an Islamist theocratic apocalyptic 12th Imam regime should be trusted with WMDs?

Feb. 05 2013 03:03 PM
Soldier's Father from Pelham, NY

@ Edward from Washington Heights Thanks for the comment. No, I didn't forget those recent presidents, actually they illustrate precisely the point I was trying to make -- that it is a good thing for civilians who don't have combat experience to have some advisers who do (to advise, not to make the decisions unilaterally). I am thinking of the first Iraq war, where the elder President Bush and Colin Powell had the experience and wisdom (in my opinion) to stop the fighting after 100 hours without the need for triumphal parades and imposition of American ideals, contrasted with the second Iraq war and the 8+ years of carnage with little to show for it that followed. It's really a business concept - be clear on your objective, focus on your core competencies, and have an exit strategy established ahead of time that allows you to move on when the objective is accomplished -- all of which are helped if some of the leaders have been through the actual experience before. For those reasons, I think Chuck Hagel is a good addition to this administration.

Feb. 05 2013 11:43 AM

[[We've removed a few comments - please remember the WNYC posting policy, which asks that you refrain from personal attacks. Please try to keep the conversation civil, even regarding difficult topics. Thank you.
-BL Moderator-

Feb. 05 2013 11:36 AM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

Soldier's Father from Pelham, NY,

In case you forgot, neither Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack H. Obama served in the military, yet they sent Americans to fight evil people.

Feb. 05 2013 09:44 AM
Soldier's Father from Pelham, NY

@ jgarbuz: I don't have a clue what you are talking about, other than I obviously hit a sore spot. So let me end the discussion for today by paraphrasing a Jack Nicholson character: If you want us to go to war, then put on a uniform, pick up a weapon and man a post yourself (or at least volunteer at a VA hospital -- no club foot restrictions there). Otherwise, just say thank you to the people who are providing the protection that allows you to ramble on all day with a unique blend of historical fact and fantasy. Either way, I'm signing off til next time.

Feb. 04 2013 04:34 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Robert Bennet, again

Regarding the concept of "you broke it you, you own it" it was indeed a foreign concept, and what it once meant was that if you conquered it, you owned it literally. You could take booty and slaves and lands, etc. But once the United States had sated itself by taking all the lands from the early 13 colonies hugging the east coast, all the way to the West Coast and beyond - well into the Pacific Ocean after taking Hawaii and a few colonies from the defeated Spaniards such as the Philippines, we suddenly began to become rather preachy towards how others should conduct war.
We pushed the idea of a League of Nations, and later a United Nations, and suddenly "you broke it, you own it" actually came to mean "nation building." Saddam had no intention of "nation building" in Kuwait.

Our problem in Iraq was that we did not take oil booty. We chose NOT to "own it." We chose to try to rebuild a new nation once again in our supposedly holier-than-thou image. WE sought to get them to love us. It never works. The message should have been, if you mess with us, you will pay a heavy price. We will take war booty to pay for the war. So don't ever mess with us again. That would have been MY message if I were in charge of running that war. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than ours.

Feb. 04 2013 02:13 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Robert Bennet

It is true that we finally pulled out of the Barbary wars in 1805 before the job was completely finished, I don't think we paid any more tribute. The European powers finished off the Barbary States around 1815.

I prefer that our decision to go to war be indeed in the hands of the elected civilian leadership, and while the cost of war in the form of human sacrifice and monetary treasure must be weighed heavily in the calculation regarding our involvement, I don't think that traumatized or disillusioned combat soldiers necessarily make the best decisions into what is ultimately in our best national interests. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. The combat soldier is trained to fight and carry out his or her mission, and unfortunately sometimes lose life or limb in the process. But that alone cannot be the overriding consideration. We have alliances and responsibilities and allies that depend on our keeping our word as well.

Feb. 04 2013 01:55 PM
Robert Bennett from Pelham, NY

@ jgarbuz: I hear you, but think you need to look at history more closely. It was Washington who advised against entangling alliances, not Jefferson. The military actions Jefferson instituted against the Barbary pirates failed to accomplish the mission of protecting American ships; that was accomplished only by annual tribute/bribes paid by the U.S. government to the local warlords.
Since you asked, in my opinion Iraq was the wrong battle, planned by amateurs with little experience, no plan to govern("you broke it you, you own it" should have been common sense, not a foreign concept), and no exit strategy - the situation "stabilized" only after we paid/bribed the Sunni militias to change sides. (Sound familiar? See Barbary Pirates, above). Meanwhile, Bush admin ignored Afghanistan (no good photo ops of armored columns driving hard and American technology overwhelming the enemy like in a WWII movie), and we end up fighting there for longer than any other war in U.S. history. Hagel recognized this (belatedly, I admit), and had the courage to say it on the record.
And for the record: yes, my son volunteered to serve his country, but that doesn't mean his life, or those of his comrades, are expendable and should be risked without good reason after careful deliberation. No offense, but I'll take Chuck Hagel's judgment over yours any day, precisely because he has seen ground war first hand and does NOT think "War is Hell. What else is new?" is the appropriate standard for determining whether or not to take military action.

Feb. 04 2013 01:39 PM
condo from vermont

i watched it all; hagel was simply not prepared; or half asleep. the latter more likely, Obama was not happy by that performance; but mcain and cruz were excuses going forward for hagel.

Feb. 04 2013 12:50 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Soldier's Father

I mostly agree with you, but the question, what are the "important battles?" Yes, the Founding Fathers admonished against "entangling alliances," but even before the ink was dry on our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, we were at war with Muslim pirates in 1801 off the coast of North Africa! And Jefferson was the president who strongly urged and lead us into that war.
We learned after Pearl Harbor that the US is too big to hide from the world. WE can try to hide our heads in the sand, but foes will kick us the butt anyway. WE are too big to hide, but not too big to fail. The day we officially become an impoverished third world country hiding from our responsibilities, nobody will care about us anymore. It's only because we are still fairly wealthy and powerful that we have foes at all. Poor people have nobody looking to rob them.

Feb. 04 2013 12:22 PM

"you and I just talked about Super Bowl ads" --yes sir, that's what I call far-ranging, outside the box media coverage.

Feb. 04 2013 12:09 PM
Soldier's Father from Pelham, NY

@ jgarbuz: Maybe I misunderstood you. I support the appointment of Mr. Hagel by the recently re-elected civilian President, and would like to see him confirmed by the elected Senate.
Yes, combat it dangerous; that's why we should elect/appoint people who understand that, and who don't commit American troops without real thought to the consequences for them and the civilians who will be caught up in the battle. The Bush administration often gave the impression that war was a game of Risk, fought by replaceable tokens instead of people and no civilians in the way. I like the fact that the Obama administration recognizes that real people are affected, and also realizes the importance of conserving military resources for use in important battles. As a tool of American policy the military is a superb hammer, but it's good to have elected and appointed people in authority who recognize that not every problem is a nail to be hammered into submission, and sometimes other tools may be more effective.

Feb. 04 2013 12:08 PM
Noach from Brooklyn

@jgarbuz from Queens:

You completely ignore the reality that we have what is effectively, at least in large part, an _economic_ draft.

The numbers show this.

Feb. 04 2013 12:07 PM
jgarbuz from Queens

Well Bob,

That's what fathers and mothers are for, to explain to their offspring the risks in life. We gave 18 year-olds the right to vote many decades ago PRECISELY over the argument that if they were old enough to be drafted and fight, they should be allowed to vote. Now 18 year old can vote, but don't have to fight if they don't want to. That's Liberalism: hand out rights, but take away individual responsibilities.

Feb. 04 2013 11:37 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

Oh yeah, an 18 or 21 year old really understands what war is really about. Sure, right. Military recruiters are the most honest salesmen you'll ever meet.

rolling my eyes over your nonsense comments - jgar

Feb. 04 2013 11:30 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To soldier's father

Was your son drafted or did he volunteer? I thought that since Vietnam we have had a volunteer military here in the US. Don't people who sign up to serve know that combat is very dangerous to one's health? I could understand opposition to the draft during Vietnam war, but there is no draft right now. I don't understand the opposition? Does a combat soldier know better than our ELECTED civilian leadership what America's interests are in the world? Yes, War is Hell. What else is new?

Feb. 04 2013 11:17 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Robert

I was drafted for Vietnam, but got out because of my club feet, which would have made me a very useless and dead soldier. My son was in the Navy. I have no grandchildren that I know of. My father fought in the Red Army from the siege of Leningrad to the siege of Berlin, after which he deserted to the West. The rest of my family was murdered in the Holocaust.

Feb. 04 2013 11:11 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Bob

Loss of rights? Which loss of what rights? I don't see any loss of rights, and I've been here since 1949! I have not experienced the loss of any rights, and only the radical expansion of them! The right to abortion did not exist in the 1950s. Most of the rights we have today didn't exist in the 1950s. I have seen only an expansion of rights, not any loss of them.

Feb. 04 2013 11:07 AM
Soldier's Father from Pelham NY

@ jgarbuz: Just curious - did you serve, or are any of your children or grandchildren serving now? Or do you just thank the one-third of one percent who do for their service, and then go back to your life while they go off for a third/fourth/fifth tour?

Feb. 04 2013 11:02 AM
Pro-Hagel Orthodox Jew (Noach) from Bklyn

@Robert from NYC:

But weren't you disappointed in the way Hagel ran from his completely valid past statements about the undue influence of the Israel lobby and committed himself to the administration's position on Iran?

Sadly, he probably could not have avoided doing so without effectively ending his nomination.

Feb. 04 2013 11:01 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

The America you believe in is not what the 'left' is tearing down. They are trying to preserve freedoms. People are universally upset about the lost of rights, and some of us care about human beings who are being killed indiscriminately and sent to prison indefinitely. You solution is no solution at all -- it's actually the problem.

Feb. 04 2013 10:59 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

To Bob

America brought me from the DP camps of post-WWII Germany to the freedom and hope that is America. I support America. I do not fear America. I fear the rabid Left that keeps trying to tear it down.

Feb. 04 2013 10:50 AM
Robert from NYC

So journalism is passing from being crappy to being pure crap!!

Feb. 04 2013 10:45 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

jgar - armchair general and chickenhawk. Love how people like you promote war at all costs while people like myself and Hagel, people who served, generally believe war is a bad idea.

Are you seriously going to defend the deaths, wounds, PTSD, debt and insane domestic spying program and violations of civil rights and rights to liberty and the general fear mongering of politicians and defense company lobbyists?

Feb. 04 2013 10:42 AM
Robert from NYC

This guy's gonna have a tv show?! Another Blitzer? Oh goodness, one of those is too much.

Feb. 04 2013 10:42 AM
Pro-Hagel, Anti-war Orthodox Jew (Noach) from Bklyn

Sheldon from Brooklyn wrote,
"I found it laughable that the senators asked Hagel more about his views on Israel than the actual war we are fighting in Afghanistan."


It was utterly reprehensible and downright disturbing.

@Joe from nearby:

But at least McCain actually served-- unlike all most of the rest of Hagel's inquisitors, chickenhawks who not content with remaining unrepentant about their support for the thoroughly discredited (and fundamentally immoral and illegal) Iraq fiasco, are hellbent on war with Iran.

Feb. 04 2013 10:41 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

A lot of the super bowl commercials really violent.

Feb. 04 2013 10:41 AM

On Up with Chris Hayes a guest said he heard that the Admin told Hagel to play rope-a-dope, so he wouldn't blurt out anything stupid.
Obviously they believe he's a lock.

Feb. 04 2013 10:41 AM
Robert from NYC

Well Sheldon, they proved themselves to be the senators "bullied?" (paid) by the Israel lobby without Hagel having to name them as Lindsey Graham attempted to push him to do. Hagel didn't have to mention names they all came out themselves. I don't support "USA right or wrong" so I'm certainly not going to support "Israel right or wrong" and therefore any government's/political group;s policies "right or wrong" for that matter.

Feb. 04 2013 10:40 AM
Soldier's Father from Pelham NY

I'm very happy that the Defense Dept. will be led by someone who has actually experienced combat - on the ground as an enlisted man, not as a cocky fighter pilot and admiral's son dropping ordinance from 20,000 feet on people he never saw. (At least the modern drone pilots have to look at the result of their actions in high def and real time.)

Feb. 04 2013 10:39 AM

Some people do have armed guards. They DO want to take away guns.

Feb. 04 2013 10:38 AM
jgarbuz from Queens

America today is becoming like France did after WWI. It became so fearful and defensive, so liberal and left wing, building an incomplete Maginot Line instead of an aggressive French army, that it collapsed within weeks to the Wehrmacht.
The French lost an entire generation of youths, millions, in the horrid trenches of WWI, so that they were ready to surrender as soon as the Wehrmacht attacked.
American losses in Vietnam were nothing compared to French losses in WWI. Of course anyone who has actually been in combat and experienced the horrors of the battlefield will abhor war. But when it induces such internal dread and defeatism as to seek to retreat into a shell, we will find the end more dreadful than war itself.

Feb. 04 2013 10:36 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

That murdered SEAL down in Texas is really strikes at the very core of the NRA argument against gun control policies.

Feb. 04 2013 10:35 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

I would also love to ask McCain. Can he give a yes or no on picking Palin? How does history judge his Palin decision?

Feb. 04 2013 10:34 AM

Poor Mr. Tepper thinks a former EM is part of the Generals' club politically???

He & his DC bubble-speak are alway underwhelming.

Feb. 04 2013 10:34 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

I like our leaders to be a little gun shy. We are violent enough now.

Feb. 04 2013 10:33 AM
Joe from nearby

On Iraq Hagel put the Republic over the Republican party.
That's why the GOP despises him.

McCain still thinks that they're weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. McCain is a bitter and jealous man towards Hagel, because Hagel refused to endorse McCain. As did Colin Powell and numerous other military experts.
McCain- who brought us Sarah Palin and lost his election by a landslide. That's an example of his good judgement- Sarah Palin. The lady who couldn't even keep her job at Fox news while 'more honest' people like Mark Fuhrman could. McCain who still thinks that going to war in Iraq based on GWB lies was right and is waiting for the victorious end worries about a failed surge in a wrongful war. Chuck Hagel lives in reality and McCain lives in yesteryear.

Feb. 04 2013 10:32 AM
Jane from NYC

I didn't hear Hagel's testimony, have just heard about it. Is everyone confident he's not in the early stages of a dementia like Alzheimer's Disease? Just wondering.

Feb. 04 2013 10:31 AM
Bob from Westchester

Wow - First six comments submitted from 5 hours to 30 minutes before Mr. Tapper has said a word. Must be a record -- nice to know so many listeners have the power of pre-cognition.

Feb. 04 2013 10:31 AM
Sheldon from Brooklyn

I found it laughable that the senators asked Hagel more about his views on Israel than the actual war we are fighting in Afghanistan.

Feb. 04 2013 10:28 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

I love Jake Tapper. He's definitely a good journalist. I would love to get his opinion on whether he believes the USA will be a failed state in 10 -15 years, or is he hopeful that we'll get it together and peace and understanding and prosperity is still within reach.

Feb. 04 2013 09:50 AM
Bob from Brookyln

Hi Brian,

Please ask Mr Tapper if he thinks anyone in Washington gives a sh it about what's going on in the country. Specifically, I'm talking about the destructive justice system and harsh penalties, the poisoning of our drinking water and insane debt. Do they really believe that simply creating low wage & temporary jobs will pacify the rage that is rippling through the society?


Feb. 04 2013 09:22 AM
Bob from Brooklyn

Hey Brian,

I would love to know if automatic fund cutting would come from the domestic spying programs of the NSA and other intelligence agencies. Is there any possibility that Bluffdale is on the chopping block?


Feb. 04 2013 09:00 AM
Martin Chuzzlewit from Manhattan


Ask Jake Tapper how it feels to work in the new (real) power center.
Don't believe it? Then why does Brian start each week with a report from Versailles?

"The Washington, D.C., region has long been considered recession-proof, thanks to the remorseless expansion of the federal government in good times and bad. Yet it’s only now—as D.C. positively booms while most of the country remains in economic doldrums—that the scale of Washington’s prosperity is becoming clear. Over the past decade, the D.C. area has made stunning economic and demographic progress. Meanwhile, America’s current and former Second Cities, population-wise—Los Angeles and Chicago—are battered and fading in significance. Though Washington still isn’t their match in terms of population, it’s gaining on them in terms of economic power and national importance.
In fact, we’re witnessing the start of Washington’s emergence as America’s new Second City. Whether that’s a good thing for America is another question."

Feb. 04 2013 08:05 AM
Ed from Larchmont

Did people hear the Chinese dissident's statment on human rights and communism in China? He's going to be great.

Feb. 04 2013 05:43 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The Obama administration offered another accomodation for religious organizations in the face of the healthcare mandate. But it looks very much like the earlier accomodation, it is still meaningless and unsatisfactory, and does not address the problem.

Feb. 04 2013 05:37 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.