On the right are asking, who is karl rove and why should we listen to him anymore . Rove wants electable republicans nominated. The tea partiers want their people in, real right wingers, and theyre trashing rove and Establishment Republicans in the process. Plus, youve probably heard that chuck hagel once said the following, quote, the jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here. Im not an israeli senator. Im a United States senator. But what you probably havent heard is the rest of that interview and why some people who know what hagel really said arent angry with him at all. And why is Chris Christie talking so much about his weight . Maybe because he wants to talk about it on his terms, and why might that be . Because perhaps hes running for president. Finally, the recently fired dick morris admits he was wrong at the top of his lungs last november. Thats fine, but was he really wrong in predicting a romney landslide or did he know what was coming and decide thats what fox viewers wanted to hear . We begin with the debate over the drones. Robin wright is a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson center. Newsweeks dan klaidman is the author of kill or capture. John brennans confirmation hearing this afternoon started out with some fireworks. Antiwar protesters interrupted the proceedings five times accusing the cia of causing huge amounts of Collateral Damage with drone strikes. The committees chair, dianne feinstein, eventually cleared the room. Later, brennan cited the protesters when he addressed what he called a misperception about the goal of the drone strikes. Lets listen. I think there is a misimpression on the part of some American People who believe that we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when theres no other alternative to taking an action thats going to mitigate that threat. So we need to make sure there is an understanding, and the people that were standing up here today, i think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths. Robin, when he described this as a last resort to save lives, one reaction i had is, among the lives we save when we use drones are those of troops who otherwise would be going into harms way. Absolutely. I lived in beirut when Jesse Jackson had to hold his nose and go to damascus to beg for the release of an american pilot who had been shot down by the syrians. Drones are clearly the wave of the future because they save american lives, but theyre also effective for surveillance. They have far greater use than simply the kind of fighters weve used, and we actually also use them for domestic purposes. They were reportedly used in the case of the 5yearold who was held in alabama. They have been used for weather. There are an estimated 8,000 drones, so although its part of the most secret program, military program, we have, there are also other uses. Which starts to frighten folks domestically. Good thing with the outcome of that alabama case, but some folks think their Civil Liberties are about to be infringed upon at home. Dan, i know from your reporting and the book you wrote, there was more debate within this administration about the transparency aspect of it than there was whether they would engage in a drone program. Explain that. Well, thats exactly right, and that comes up significantly in the case of anwar al awlaki, the american citizen and yemeni member of al qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in yemen who we killed, the United States government killed. In that particular case the president really didnt have any qualms about going after him. He thought al awlaki was a Senior Member of an enemy force who was bent on attacking america and that it would be a lawful act of war. The real debate inside the administration surrounded this question of whether they ought to talk publicly about the legal rationale, the justification for going after an american citizen, and there was a lot of debate about it. Ultimately the decision was not to release the Justice Department legal opinion thats obviously been in the news a lot this week and instead to send out the attorney general to give a speech laying out some of that. But the actual underlying act itself of killing an american citizen was not something that this president lost a lot of sleep over. All right. There might not have been debate within the white house, but lets run through some of the criticisms that the drones have received. Here is what stanley mcchrystal, the former commander of forces in afghanistan, told reuters last month. Quote, the resentment created by american use of unmanned strikes is much greater than the average american appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who have never seen one or seen the effects of one. Another point, in the l. A. Times today, columnist Carol Williams wrote, quote, imagine if north korea or iran or venezuela deployed thousands of unmanned Surveillance Aircraft in search of earthbound enemies, a swarm of robotic hunters armed with lethal weaponry and their governments gohead to exterminate targets. Are either of those a convincing argument for you . There are supposedly 70 countries that have some kind of drone technology. But the drone is the instrument of the 21st century when it comes to air power, and thats a reality. The problem comes down to really the morality, and the white house has put out three criteria, including is it an imminent threat . If it were delayed, would it cause greater risk . And is there no other alternative . The problem is those always involve subjective judgments. Its the same thing as firing a gun. Its in the eyes of the person who holds the weapon, and it isnt always a balanced perception, and the truth is that the drones have generated enormous backlash in pakistan particularly, where the United States has used them the most, as well as in yemen, the second highest number of targets. Dan, robin mentions the morality of it. I hear often from radio listeners who sense a hypocrisy in that they see the Obama Administration being critical of harsh interrogation methods but going along with the drone program. Is there some inherent hypocrisy in that . Well, there was an interesting statistic in the first year of the Obama Administration. I think or perhaps over the first couple of years in the administration. He authorized more drone strikes and more people were killed in drone strikes that he authorized than the total number of people that had before passed through guantanamo bay. That crystallizes that hypocrisy people talk about. You could also argue that we know drone strikes work. You know, the jury still seems like its out with regard to harsh interrogation methods, but drone strikes work. In terms of the morality, you know, if you determine that there are threats out there, there are bad guys that you need to take off the battlefield but you cant go there, you cant go to pakistan, you cant go to certain places, then what alternative do you have if you cant capture them . In other words, once you have detained suspected terrorists, there are all sorts of international laws, the laws of war, the geneva conventions that say you cant touch the person, you cant, you know, punch the person in the nose let alone kill the person on this subject of torture, john brennan was a top official at the cia when the agency was involved with waterboarding detainees. Here is what he told senators today when asked about his role in the program. I was aware of the program. I was ccd on some of the documents, but i had no oversight of it. I had expressed my personal objections and views to my some agency colleagues about certain of those eits such as waterboarding, nudity, and others where i professed my personal objections, but i did not try to stop it because it was something that was being done in a different part of the agency under the authority of others. Interestingly, later brennan refused to label waterboarding torture under questioning from senator carl levin. My question is this, in your opinion, does waterboarding constitute torture . The attorney general has referred to waterboarding as torture. The attorney general, premiere Law Enforcement officer and lawyer of this country. And as you well know and as we have had the discussion, senator, the term torture has a lot of legal and political implications. Do you have a personal opinion as to whether waterboarding is torture . I have a personal opinion its something that is reprehensible and should not be done. Back in 2007 he told cbs that the Interrogation Program had provided some useful information. There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hard core terrorists. It has saved lives. Inconsistencies, robin, in what you just heard . Is that a consistent narrative from mr. Brennan . Not completely obviously, saying sometimes it produces information and sometimes it isnt not enough to derail this nomination. I dont think so. I think brennan probably compared with hagel is going to be a breeze to get through, but these are issues. And this is what this testimony actually illustrates, that really tug at the heartstrings of americans. We have had a traumatic decade. We have come away questioning tactics of torture, the use of guantanamo bay. The legal justification not fully understood. The drone issue still not fully explained because its so secret. Theres still a lot the American Public is struggling to understand. Dan, one reaction that i have relative to the whole standard of when we could take out even an american is, you know, be careful before you make your decision based on the occupant of the white house because precedent is being set here, and whatever the drill might be for today could apply to president clinton in 2016. It could apply to president rubio in 2017 i guess i should say. Youre exactly right, michael. I think this president actually is fairly sensitive to precedent. You know, its interesting, he has sort of supreme confidence in his own ability to handle power well and responsibly. Hes less confident about those who would come after him, and thats part of the reason that he has sort of tasked john brennan to put together what brennan has called a playbook to kind of codify and institutionalize the a set of standards. And procedures for targeted killing. It will be interesting to see how he does that when hes at the helm of the cia. Thank you, dan and robin. We appreciate you being here. Coming up, the republicans civil war. Its karl rove against the tea party, and democrats, they couldnt be happier. This is hardball, the place for politics. [ male announcer ] rocky had no idea why dawn was gone for so long. But hed wait for her forever, for any reason, and would always be there with the biggest welcome home. For a love this strong, dawn only feeds him iams. Compared to other leading brands, it has 50 more animal protein. To help keep rockys body as strong as a love that never fades. If he ever lets her leave again. Iams. Keep love strong. Yeah. Then howd i get this. [ voice of dennis ]. Safe driving bonus check . Every six months without an accident, allstate sends a check. Ok. [ voice of dennis ] silence. Are you in good hands . Have seen one child fail. To get to the air sickness bag in time. Another left his shoes on the plane. His shoes. And a third just simply doesnt want to be here. Until now. Until right. Booking now. Planet earths 1 accommodation site. Booking. Com booking. Yeah i have obligations. Cute tobligations, but obligations. G. I need to rethink the core of my portfolio. What i really need is sleep. Introducing the ishares core, Building Blocks for the heart of your portfolio. Find out why 9 out of 10 large professional investors choose ishares for their etfs. Ishares by blackrock. Call 1800ishares for a prospectus which includes investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. Read and consider it carefully before investing. Risk includes possible loss of principal. First of all, our object is not to be for the establishment. Its to be for the most conservative candidate who could win. This is not Tea Party Versus establishment. Welcome back to hardball. At his peak he was called bushs brain and the architect, but today our own Howard Fineman wrote, karl rove is done. Roves new effort to back conservative candidates who he thinks can win has incited a civil war. Gop bigwigs like rove who would like to move past primaries that brought them losses and the likes of odonnell, angle, akin, and mourdock. Tea party types are outraged that rove would try to insert himself into the democratic process. Matt kibbe is president of the Tea Party Group freedomworks. Matt, thanks for being here. Would you rather win primaries or general elections, and isnt that what this is all about . Well, i think i want to win both, and the definition of a competitive candidate, the conservative that can win, is very much up for reinterpretation when rove gets involved because, remember, he thought Arlen Specter was the most conservative man for the job in pennsylvania. He thought Charlie Crist was in florida. He thought David Dewhurst was in texas, and our view is if you can bind a set of values and the ability to communicate and to run a statewide campaign, thats how we repopulate the Republican Party. I think karl rove is headed in the wrong direction. To use a basketball analysis, couldnt one argue that karl roves losses were threepointers, they were tough shots, and the tea party losses were layups . Christine odonnell in delaware, that was a layup for mike cassell had he captured the gop nomination. Well, i mean, youre cherry picking because nobody bats a thousand, to use another sports analogy. Certainly the tea party hasnt batted a thousand, but if you look at who the young, vibrant, authentic rock stars of the Republican Party are, theyre guys like tim scott. Tim scott wouldnt have won his first Congressional Election if wed have applied this status quo litmus test. We would have gone with the establishment guy. We wouldnt have marco rubio to run in 2016. We wouldnt have rand paul, wouldnt have mike lee. If you look at who republicans get excited about, who is actually putting ideas on the table and who is the most credible challenger to Hillary Clinton in 2016, its our guys, not karl roves guys. Let me give you a tangible example of the future from just todays newspaper. A candidate that perhaps karl rove will steer away from. Paul broun, the georgia congressman running to replace saxby chambliss, and the times pointed out today, quote, mr. Broun, a physician on the house science, space, and technology committee, attracted attention last fall for saying that, quote, evolution, embryology, and the big bang theory, all of that is lies straight from the pit of hell. Ill bet that plays well in his congressional district, but my hunch is thats not playing well even in a conservative state like georgia when youre talking statewide in the general. What do you say . Well, of course, paul is going to get a lot of competition in that primary fight. Youre going to be looking at guys like tom price and tom graves who have an incredibly strong record of fiscal conservatism. I think the core of the tea party, remember, is not social issues, its not abortion, its not immigration, its not these other things. Its whether or not we should spend money we dont have. Its whether or not the government should live within its means. Thats how the candidates that have been successful have won, and i do think theres a message discipline that needs to be encouraged in our primary system, but you dont get that by choosing from the top down. You have to let the process work itself out. We believe in competition. We believe in openended, bottomup democratic processes, and thats what youre going to see in georgia, and were going to find the right candidate. I take it its not broun. Youre not making the commitment one way or the other to him. Were not making a commitment to anyone. Were doing a Candidate Forum in a couple weeks to see what all of the candidates have to say with no preconditions and let grassroots activists in georgia give us the feedback to tell us whether or not we should get involved, how we should get involved, and who they think the best guy for that job is. Karl rove claimed on fox earlier this week that he wasnt just about protecting incumbent candidates. He was about winning. Listen to this. Our job is not to protect incumbents, its to win races by stopping the practice of giving away some of these seats like we did in missouri and in indiana this past year, and that may mean telling the incumbent republican that if hes going to be in the race, he shouldnt expect any funds from crossroads in the general election. If some people think the best we can do is Todd Mourdock todd akin and richard mourdock, theyre wrong. We need to get better conservative candidates and win. When i saw that tape, i said to myself it reminded me of a lecture first year of college in a government class. In fact, ill give a shout out, dr. Frank colin who said this. He said parties exist for one purpose, to win. I think thats true if you think about it for the republican or democratic party. Thats not necessarily the case for tea party activists. Youre there to assert an purpose, to win. I think thats true if you think about it for the republican or democratic party. Thats not necessarily the case for tea party activists. Youre there to assert an ideology. The gop is not there for that purpose. Do you agree with that . I agree with that. Both Political