Video: Deb Fischer tears into Chuck Hagel at confirmation hearing like he was her next-door neighbor or something

To see all AKSARBENT's posts about who is behind the unprecedented (and often downright sneaky) PAC campaign against Chuck Hagel, click here.


Transcription from C-SPAN is software-generated. Take it with a grain of salt and cross-reference it to video. (In one section AKSARBENT changed USED CAR to VIEWS FAR because that's what Fischer said.)
     Fischer, who doesn't believe that global warming is real, articulates her worries about Chuck Hagel's "extremist" views. 
     The Global Zero Report, from which Deb Fischer cherry picked out-of-context quotes designed as "gotcha" questions to torpedo Hagel's nomination, may be read in its entirety and in context here.
     For a reality check on Sen. Fischer's emerging knee-jerk, rubber stamp right-wing agenda, below is a second opinion on Hagel's commendable efforts to rid the world of its nuclear Sword of Damocles.
     By the way, if the "next-door neighbor" allusion in this post's headline doesn't make any sense to you, go here.

	>> SENATOR FISHER?
	>> >> THANK YOU, MR.
	CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, SENATOR, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.
	I WANT TO BEGIN BY THANKING YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY AND TO THE STATE OF NEBRASKA.
	I APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED WILLINGNESS TO SERVE THE UNITED STATES.
	I NEED TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
	AFTER OUR MEETING LAST WEEK, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT YOUR NOMINATION.
	MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE CONCERNED THAT YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR OF USE, AND I SHARE THAT CONCERN, BUT I MUST ADMIT THAT I AM MORE WORRIED THAT YOUR VIEWS HAVE NOT CHANGED.
	FROM YOUR MEETING WITH ME LAST WEEK, IT WAS CLEAR THAT YOU MAINTAIN THE VIEWS THAT LED TO SUCH SCRUTINY OF YOUR NOMINATION.
	DESPITE THESE RECENT CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY, YOU CONTINUE TO HOLD I BELIEVE VIEWS FAR TO THE LEFT OF EVEN THIS ADMINISTRATION.
	IN PARTICULAR, YOUR CLEAR STATEMENT TO ME DURING OUR MEETING THAT IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECAST YOUR VOTE ON THE IRANIAN SANCTIONS, YOU WOULD STILL OPPOSE THOSE SANCTIONS.
	I BELIEVE THAT INDICATES THAT YOU HOLD THESE CONCERNING THE VIEWS.
	OUR NATION FACES MANY CHALLENGES.
	PERHAPS NONE GREATER OR MORE IMMEDIATE THAN AROUND'S CONTINUED PROGRESS TOWARD OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
	AT THE SAME TIME, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE IS ENTERING A TIME OF TRANSFORMATION THAT WILL LIKELY TO FIND ITS ROLE FOR MANY DECADES TO COME.
	THE FUTURE OF OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENCE COULD DEPEND ON OUR CHOICES MADE BY THE NEXT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.
	I AM " TO BRING UP THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT -- I AM GOING TO BRING UP THE REPORT THAT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT QUITE A BIT.
	YOU ARE LISTED AS THE CO-AUTHOR OF A REPORT ON OUR NUCLEAR POSTURE.
	I BELIEVE THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION IN THERE, AND I BELIEVE THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR FORCES.
	WHEN WE SPOKE LAST WEEK, YOU DESCRIBE THIS REPORT AS BEING OFFERED BY GENERAL CARTWRIGHT, AND I HAD THE IMPRESSION, AND I AM BELIEVE HE'LL APPLY TO ME, THAT YOU WERE NOT CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH THAT.
	YOU ARE LISTED AS A CO-AUTHOR OF THAT REPORT, AS ONE OF THE FIVE.
	MOREOVER, YOU TOLD ME AT THAT TIME THAT THIS REPORT DISCUSSED OPTIONS.
	YOU HAVE REITERATED THAT STANCE TODAY.
	AFTER I HAVE TO REEXAMINE THAT IT, THE ONLY OPTIONS I HAVE FOUND IN THE REPORT ARE RELATED TO HOW BEST -- HOW TO BEST ACHIEVE THOSE REDUCTIONS I BELIEVE IT ADVISES.
	THERE ARE NO ALTERNATIVE TO USE OR DISSENTING OPINIONS THAT ARE DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT.
	IT STATES MANY CONTROVERSIAL OPINIONS.
	IT STATE THEM AS FACTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONCLUSION, AND I BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU AGREE WITH THOSE POSITIONS.
	AS IT HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE, MY TIME HERE IS LIMITED, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH AND REVIEW SOME OF THOSE MORE CONCERNING PROCLAMATIONS THAT AND MAKES WITH YOU.
	I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE COULD GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY.
	FOR EXAMPLE, THE UNITED STATES ICBM FORCE HAS LOST ITS CENTRAL UTILITY.
	THAT IS STATED IN THE REPORT.
	DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
	>> WELL, SENATOR, THAT REPORT WAS NOT A RECOMMENDATION.
	THAT REPORT AS WE HAVE SAID IS A SERIES OF SCENARIOS, AND AGAIN I USE THE TERM ILLUSTRATIVE, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE BEGINNING OF THE REPORT, AS POSSIBLE WAYS WE COULD CONTINUE TO REDUCE OUR WARHEADS, NOT UNILATERALLY, BUT BY LATTERLY TREAT EVERY TREATY WE HAVE EVER SIGNED TO REDUCE WARHEADS AND THE THRUST CAPABILITY WITH THE RUSSIANS HAS BEEN ABOUT REDUCTIONS.
	THAT IS NOT NEW. THAT IS WHERE IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN PICKED ICBM'S, A SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
	IT IS A 25-PAGE REPORT.
	I ASSUME YOU HAVE READ IT.
	IT TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE REASONS ICBM'S MAY EVENTUALLY BE INSIGNIFICANT BECAUSE OF THE OVER-FLIGHT OVER RUSSIA AND SO ON.
	THOSE ARE NOT FICTIONAL ANALYSES.
	THOSE ARE FACTS.
	NO ONE IS RECOMMENDING IN THAT REPORT -- AND YOU PROBABLY NOTED GENERAL CARTWRIGHT AND OMAHA -- THESE ARE SERIOUS PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THIS BUSINESS, AND NO ONE RECOMMENDS THAT WE UNILATERALLY DO AWAY WITH OUR ICBM'S.
	WHAT THAT REPORT WAS ABOUT WAS LOOKING AT WHERE THIS IS GOING.
	THE TITLE OF THE REPORT WAS MODERNIZING OUR NUCLEAR STRATEGY, NOT ELIMINATING IT.
	>> CORRECT, BUT THE YOU AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THE ICBM'S, THAT FORCE HAS LOST ITS CENTRAL UTILITY?
	>> THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAID.
	>> I HAVE IT CITED, AND WITH RESPECT I CAN ENTER THAT INTO THE RECORD, BUT IT IS CITED IN THE REPORT.
	>> THE REPORT IN THE OVERALL CONTEXT, ICBM'S, AND ALL THE PARTS OF THE REPORT WERE ABOUT THE UTILITIES OF OUR TRIAD, WHERE IS THIS GOING, AND MONEY THAT WE ARE INVESTING IN THAT, AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
	I THINK THOSE KINDS OF REPORTS ARE VALUABLE TO ASSESS OUR NEEDS, TO ASSESS OUR NUCLEAR CAPABILITY, TO ASSESS OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT.
	WEEK TWO STUDIES ALL THE TIME.
	THIS WAS NOT AN OFFICIAL REPORT.
	THINK TANKS DO THIS ALL THE TIME.
	I THINK THAT IS VALUABLE.
	>> EXCUSE ME.
	I DO THINK THAT REPORTS FROM VARIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, THINK TANKS, INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, I THINK THOSE ARE ALL VERY IMPORTANT IN GETTING INFORMATION AND OPINIONS OUT THERE.
	BUT WHEN YOU CO-AUTHORED A REPORT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER A FEW -- IF YOU AGREE WITH STATEMENTS MADE IN THE REPORT.
	>> I DO NOT AGREE ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT WOULD UNILATERALLY TAKE ANY ACTION TO FURTHER REDUCE OUR NUCLEAR WARHEADS AND OUR CAPABILITY.
	AGAIN, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REPORT SAID.
	I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT.
	EVERY OPTION THAT WE MUST LOOK AT, EVERY ACTION WE MUST TAKE TO REDUCE WARHEADS OR ANYTHING SHOULD BE BILATERAL.
	IT TO BE VERIFIABLE.
	IT SHOULD BE NEGOTIATED.
	>> EVERY ACTION THAT THIS COUNTRY TAKES SHOULD BE BILATERAL?
	>> WHEN WE ARE REDUCING WARHEADS -- EVERY TREATY WE HAVE SIGNED WITH RUSSIANS AS THE BILATERAL, HAS BEEN VERIFIABLE.
	RONALD REAGAN SAID AT BEST -- TRUST, BUT VERIFY ITS.
	THAT IS THE KEY WORD.
	HE ALSO SAID WE SHOULD WIPE NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM THE FACE OF THE ARTS.
	I THINK ALMOST EVERY PRESIDENT HAS AGREED WITH THAT.
	INCLUDING, THIS PRESIDENT,.
	WORLD LEADERS AGREED WITH THE CONTINUED REDUCTION, AND THIS IS NOT A REPORT OUT OF THE MAINSTREAM.
	PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS SAID IN HIS PRAGUE SPEECH IN 2009 THAT THAT WAS HIS GOAL, AS WAR BREAKING DEBT, AS MANY PRESIDENTS DID.
	>> THANK YOU.
	ALSO, AS I READ THE REPORT, IT CALLS FOR ALL U.
	S. TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO BE ELIMINATED OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND ASSERTS THE MILITARY UTILITY IS PRACTICALLY NIL.
	DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT?
	>> SENATOR, I DO NOT DELETE IT CALLS FOR IT.
	THESE ARE SCENARIOS AND SCHEDULES AND POSSIBILITIES AND OPTIONS.
	BUT NONE OF THIS COULD EVER, EVER HAPPEN UNLESS IT WOULD BE NEGOTIATED, BILATERAL, AND VERIFIABLE, AND THAT WAS PART OF A LETTER THE GLOBAL THE ZERO- CREDIT GROUP SAID TO THE PRESIDENT IN 2009, SPECIFICALLY, STATING THAT.
	IF I MIGHT, I MIGHT GIVE YOU A MORE RECENT EXAMPLE.
	SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S SUBCOMMITTEE -- SHE HAD A HEARING LAST YEAR.
	GENERAL CARTWRIGHT AND ADMIRAL PICKERING -- OR AMBASSADOR PICKERING TESTIFY, AND THEY WENT INTO THIS.
	WITH ANY ACTION WE WOULD TAKE WOULD HAVE TO BE NEGOTIATED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BILATERAL, NO UNILATERAL ACTION, AND THEY MADE THAT POINT AGAIN ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF SENATOR FEINSTEIN'S SUBCOMMITTEE.
	AND I SUPPORT THAT.
	I AGREE WITH THAT.
	>> I HAVE ANOTHER STATEMENT FROM THE REPORT.
	THE UNITED STATES ICBM RAPID REACTION POSTURE REMAINS IN OPERATIONS AND RUNS A REAL RISK OF ACCIDENTAL OR MISTAKEN LAUNCH.
	I THINK THAT STATEMENT IS PRETTY CLEAR.
	DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT?
	>> YES.
	I MEAN, I THE ACCIDENTAL LAUNCH AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE ALWAYS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT AND WE NEED TO ASSURE AS WE HAVE OVER THE YEARS THAT THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN, BUT ON THE RUSSIAN -- >> THAT WE WILL RUN A REAL RISK OF ACCIDENT OR MISTAKE AND LAUNCH?
	>> IF YOU PUT JUST RISK, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A RISK.
	WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES, AS YOU KNOW, YOU DO NOT GET A LOT OF SECOND CHANCES.
	WE NEED TO BE VERY SURE ABOUT THESE THINGS, AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT.
	>> YOU NEED TO SAY ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SECOND ROUND.
	>> I AM SORRY -- I DO NOT -- >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
	>> THANK