'This Week' Transcript: Sen. Jack Reed, Sen. Bob Corker, Sen. Joe Manchin and Jon Huntsman

STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning and welcome to "This Week."

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: America and the world. Debating a new chief for the Pentagon.

OBAMA: Chuck Hagel is the leader that our troops deserve.

GRAHAM: This is an in your face nomination.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Ending the war in Afghanistan.

OBAMA: Our troops will have a different mission.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And starting one with Iran. That conversation with Senators Jack Reed for the Democrats and Republican Bob Corker, plus ABC's chief global affairs correspondent, Martha Raddatz, and the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.

Then with the White House set to act on guns --

BIDEN: There's got to be some common ground here.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We join the search for solutions with the new leaders of No Labels. Plus, the short strange life of that trillion-dollar coin.

STEPHEN COLBERT: We should have known a coin was Obama's solution to everything. It was right there in his slogan, change.

That and all the week's politics on our powerhouse roundtable with Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, America's last comptroller general David Walker, Judy Woodruff from PBS and Bloomberg View's Al Hunt.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hello again. Lots to get to this morning, including the Treasury Department's decision late yesterday to bury the idea that a trillion-dollar platinum coin could solve the debt limit stalemate. Advocate Paul Krugman and our roundtable ready to weigh in on that, but first the national security debate, with our panel of experts and policymakers including the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, Democratic Senator Jack Reed, who just returned from his 14th trip to Afghanistan, Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, author of the forthcoming book, "Foreign Policy Begins at Home," and ABC chief global affairs correspondent Martha Raddatz.

And, Martha, let me begin with you. We saw that announcement from the president on Friday, speeding up the withdrawal of American troops out of Afghanistan. That's a little faster than the military wanted, but he was silent on how many troops would be left behind. What's behind the decision and where do you expect it will end up?

RADDATZ: I think all through the election season, I thought all they ever talk about is leaving Afghanistan, but this is real. This was a very big deal this week and a very big change. U.S. troops will be in an advise and train -- that's all they'll be doing come spring.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Pulling back from the front lines.

RADDATZ: Pulling back from the front lines. They will be with Afghan forces. The president has not announced how fast they'll draw down, but I suspect by the end of this year, we could be down to 30,000 troops. We're 66,000 troops now, possibly down to 30,000. And when we really draw down in 2014, when we are no longer doing combat missions, I think you'll see anywhere from only 6,000 to 9,000, and the important thing to remember about that, George, is tooth to tail. Tail means the enablers, the support. We would really have, if we had 3,000 troops there, we would really only have about 800 trigger pullers. You're going to see a lot of counterterrorism action, all of those things Joe Biden talked about a long time ago. I think that's all we'll have there in the future.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Corker, are you comfortable with that?

CORKER: Well, I think the decision about the number of troops we have on the ground after 2014 is something that ought to be weighed as we move along. I realize we're going to be moving down to about 30,000 troops. I'm relatively comfortable with that, but I think as far as what we -- the contingent we have after 2014, I would wait, and I don't know of any reason why we would make that decision today. It seems that we'd want to see what the state of Afghanistan is. We'd want to see what's happening in the electoral process. All of those things are obviously big factors. My sense is there's no reason to decide whether 6,000, 9,000, 15,000 troops until we get to that point.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But, Senator Reed, how about this decision to pull back to simply training and support by the spring? Last month's Pentagon report said that only one of 23 Afghan battalions is now capable of operating on its own.

REED: Well, I was down in the (inaudible) Paktika Province, and essentially 83 percent of the operations in the eastern part are initiated and conducted by Afghan forces, so we are already seeing a transition, and by next spring the Afghani forces will be in the lead. That's what our military has been doing in preparing for the last several months, so I think we're making great progress.

There are issues ahead in terms of the election, but ultimately this has to be an Afghan-led effort. President Karzai recognizes that. I think the military leaders I met, both American and Afghan commanders, recognize it also. And there's something about a deadline that would coalesce and to spear action, and actions taking place dramatically in Afghanistan today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Richard Haass, the president also addressed our overall success in Afghanistan on Friday. He said it was less than ideal and went on to say this --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: Have we been able, I think, to shape a strong relationship with a responsible Afghan government that is willing to cooperate with us to make sure that it is not a launching pad for future attacks against the United States, we have achieved that goal. We are in the process of achieving that goal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) in the process of achieving that goal. Is he right about that and is it sustainable after 2014?

HAASS: The short answer is no. What we started in Afghanistan after 9/11 was a warranted war of necessity. We expanded it over the years, particularly under President Obama in 2009, when we tripled our forces, we decided to go after the Taliban, essentially join Afghanistan's civil war and nation build.

The idea that we're going to be able to leave behind a self-sustaining, capable Afghanistan able to -- or a government that's able to keep control of its territory, we are not going to be able to do it. It was a mistake to try. We are not going to achieve that result. Essentially what we're going to fall back to I would think is what we could have fallen back to years ago, a limited counterterrorism mission with trainers and advisers on the ground. And when we have to, we'll send in special forces or drones to deal with if there are, for example, remnants of al Qaeda to ever come back into the country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on to the man the president wants to run the Pentagon through this process, Chuck Hagel, former senator. Here was the president announcing that pick earlier this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: I came to admire his courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom. And that's exactly the spirit I want on my national security team.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Corker, you had some positive things to say about Senator Hagel last month when his name was first floated. You said you had good relations on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Do you see anything out there now that should disqualify him from the Pentagon post?

CORKER: Well, I think like a lot of people, the hearings are going to have a huge effect on me. I know I talked to Chuck this week. He's coming in to see me next week. But I think the hearings, this is going to be a real hearing process, unlike many of the people who end up being confirmed or not confirmed.

You know, I have a lot of questions about just this whole nuclear posture views. Those are things that haven't really been discussed yet. Obviously people have concerned about his stance towards Iran and Israel.

But I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament, and is he suited to run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon, and so look --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have questions about his temperament?

CORKER: -- forward to sitting down -- I -- what's that?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have questions about his temperament?

CORKER: I think -- I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them. I have certainly questions about a lot of things. I begin all of these confirmation processes with an open mind. I did have a good relationship with him. I had a good conversation with him this week. But I think this is one where people are going to be listening to what he has to say, me in particular about the things I just mentioned, but especially some of the positions he's taken generally speaking about our nuclear posture.

I think you know that I affirmed the new START Treaty. A lot of modernization was supposed to take place as a result of that on our nuclear arsenal. That's not happening at the pace that it should. The Pentagon is going to have a big effect on that, and for me, that is going to be a very big issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Reed, I had not heard those questions about Senator Hagel's temperament before. I wonder if you had heard anything like that, have any concerns like that? I did note this week that your Democratic colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer, said he's not yet convinced that Senator Hagel will be confirmed. Do you agree with that?

REED: Well, I believe (inaudible) confirmed, I think Bob is right. I think this confirmation process will be a thorough evaluation of Chuck's positions, and Chuck's very capable explaining those positions. I think he brings some unique quality to this job. He is someone who has been involved in issues of national security as a United States senator. He is someone who has been involved as a leader of the Atlantic Council. But I think one thing that's terribly compelling -- and it goes to his credibility with the forces -- he's been a combat soldier. He's fought. He has literally walked in their boots. That, I think, will inspire great confidence in the military officers and enlisted men that he deals with, and women.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Martha--

REED: So I think this situation where he's going to have to answer questions, he's prepared to do it, and I think he'll come out of this with strong support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Martha, the president emphasized that Senator Hagel will also be the first enlisted soldier at the head of the Pentagon. You talk to the military every day, have embedded with the troops. How much of a difference do you think that will make, that he served as an enlisted soldier?

RADDATZ: You know, I was in touch with a lot of soldiers and Marines last night via Facebook and email and asked them that very question. And they all said it's great that he has combat service, but that's not what we're looking at, and this is a military that has so much combat experience, and really far more than Chuck Hagel, so I think they appreciate it, but it doesn't make an enormous difference.

The one thing I think is really important here is the next two years, we are going to be bringing a lot of veterans home. That matters. Chuck Hagel understands that. He understands what it's like to be wounded, and he would probably pay very close attention to those veterans.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Richard Haass, the questions are coming at Senator Hagel from so many different directions, questions about his views on gay rights, his views on Israel, his views on Iran. We just heard Senator Corker talk about questions coming from staff on his temperament. You served in the administration, you are head of the Council on Foreign Relations -- what should be relevant here?

HAASS: The only thing that should be relevant, George, I would say, is his ability to run the Pentagon and his views on policy. And I think there is a space and there should be a space for the hearings, and more broadly, to ask Chuck Hagel what is he prepared to do about Iran, what does he think the right mix, say, is of sanctions or possible use of military force? What should we be doing about cutting the Pentagon budget or Senator Corker said about nuclear issues? All totally legitimate.

Where I think people are going over the line is with ad hominem attacks -- questioning for example whether he's an anti-Semite. I've known Chuck Hagel for more 20 years. For what it's worth, I think that's preposterous. I also don't think that has a place in the public space. We often ask why aren't public debates bitter? Why aren't sometimes the best people going into public life? This is one of the reasons. I think there is a legitimate place here, and the Senate offers it, for questioning Senator Hagel or Senator Kerry or anyone else about their policies. I really don't think there's a legitimate place in American political life for ad hominem attacks. These are loaded words that are being cast about, and I think they re simply beyond the pale.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's move to the question of his views on Iran, because he did address that in his -- in an interview with his home paper. And I want to show what he said about that. He was responding to the questions that he opposed unilateral sanctions in the past. He went on to say, "I have not supported unilateral sanctions because when it is us alone, they don't work, and they just isolate the United States. United Nations sanctions are working. When we just decree something, that doesn't work."

Senator Corker, let me bring that question to you, because I was struck by an article in "Foreign Affairs" magazine this month by Robert Jarvis (ph), where he pointed out that the U.S. experience with coercive diplomacy and sanctions in places like Panama and Serbia and Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed, did not succeed. So does Senator Hagel have a point there?

CORKER: Well, there's no question that multilateral sanctions are far more effective. When we began the process with Iran, one of the amendments that I actually put into that process was to ensure that the sanctions we put in place were multilateral. And what we didn't do was really hurt those people who are our friends, the very companies and countries that are our allies. So there's no question that when we put sanctions in place, we need to do everything we can to make sure that they are multilateral.

One of the reasons I want to spend time with Chuck Hagel is I think, as Richard Haass has pointed out, there's been a lot of one-liners, if you will, that have been looked at, and I want to dig in and find out whether that really is Chuck Hagel's view of the world, or whether we're taking these things out of context. But certainly I have concerns as we move forward. They're not disqualifying concerns, and, again, I think the meetings that I had with him, the hearings that will take place are going to be very, very important in his case.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Reed, are you confident we can avoid an armed conflict with Iran this year over their nuclear program, and what's it going to take to prevent that?

REED: It's going to take increased pressure, economically, and that's why the issue of multilateral sanctions is so critical. Up until we -- basically enlisted under President Obama, the entire world or significant parts of it in putting pressure on the Iranians, they were not at all responsive. We have to continue that pressure. We also have to begin to look very closely at what is developing inside Iran. They have elections scheduled for June. That is going to perhaps shape their direction, we hope we it will shape it in a positive way, that they will back down from their aspirations for nuclear technology and nuclear weapons.

But the first issue is keep the pressure on. As the president has said and as Chuck Hagel will say, we need every option on the table. We have to assess all those options. And one of the things interesting about this issue of temperament there, I know there's a close relationship between the president and Chuck Hagel. I've traveled with them. I understand it, but I also understand that Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president, and I think he recognizes that, and I think that will be one of his virtues of secretary of defense.

STEPHANOPOULOS: On this issue of Iran, Senator Reed emphasizes pressure, but one of the points that Robert Jarvis makes is you also have to get a lot more creative on what you're going to -- the carrots you're going to offer to Iran so that there might be some way to have a resolution without a conflict.

HAASS: And that's teed up right now. I think these economic sanctions are having far more impact than any of us imagined. There's a really interesting debate going on right now in Iran, George, one that we haven't seen before. The Supreme Leader is allowing a debate to take place about the nuclear policy, about the economy. So this suggests to me the administration can and will go forward with the big negotiation, with the big proposal, and the real question is can we come up with an approach that's enough for the Iranians, and not too much for the United States and the Israelis? Can we, if you will, park the Iranian program out of place that sufficiently far from nuclear weapons status that we can live with it? I don't know, but we want to find out, because either of the alternatives -- going to war against Iran or living within Iran that has nuclear weapons -- are extraordinary unattractive and costly alternatives. So we want to do everything we can to see whether we can come up with a solution through negotiations.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Martha, we're just about out of time, but as we are talking about Iran's nuclear program, we're also learning that North Korea may be planning another nuclear attack.

RADDATZ: Yes, there are a lot of signs. I spoke to a U.S. official there, a lot of signs that North Korea is planning another test. There are trucks in the area. But one of the baffling things is they're doing this very conspicuously. Our satellites can see it. They are aware of when our satellites are around, so they are a little baffled by this and think it must be just some sort of negotiating tactic of some sort.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One more, OK, Martha Raddatz, gentlemen, thank you all for your time.

Up next, we introduce the new leaders of No Labels. Can they break Washington's gridlock? Plus, our powerhouse roundtable on all the week's politics. We'll be back in 60 seconds.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm voting yes.

I don't care. You shoot me dead. Just shoot me dead. I am voting yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Edwin F. Leclerc (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. Oh, to hell with it. Shoot me dead too. Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Scene there from "Lincoln" that earned a dozen Oscar nominations this week shows Congressman Clay Hawkins and others breaking with their party to oppose slavery, inspiration perhaps for our next guests, the new chairs of the No Labels movement, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and former Republican presidential candidate Jon Huntsman. Thank you both for joining us this morning, gentlemen.

And Senator Manchin, let me begin with you. The motto of No Labels -- stop fighting, start fixing. Admirable goal, but what's your specific goal and how do you intend to get there?

MANCHIN: Well, George, basically Jon and I were talking about this earlier, that, you know, I've been there two years in the Senate, and I've yet to had a bipartisan meeting where it's been organized, where Republicans and Democrats in the Senate sat down and worked through their problems.

Think about just in the Senate we don't have that type of dialogue going on from Democrats and Republicans, we don't even know our colleagues over in the House. No Labels gives us that venue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And Ambassador Huntsman, there's going to be a test of that strategy on so many issues this year, including this issue of preventing gun violence one month after Newtown. I was surprised to see there was no mention of that issue at all on the No Labels web site, pretty conspicuous in its absence. Is that a punt?

HUNTSMAN: Well, this is not about finding the endpoint for a specific policy issue. This is about creating a pathway that speaks to problem solving. So the whole attempt here, George, is to create a new attitude that speaks to problem solving. It's not about ideology, it's about extreme partisanship. That's the problem today, so Joe and I have come together. We both have a background as governors. We know what it means to make progress for the people you represent, what it means to be problem solvers.

So our attempt here -- and you ask the specific question about what to do about it -- well, you can't do anything about problem solving unless you get a group of people together on Capitol Hill who are dedicated to putting country first and making decisions that are right for the future as opposed to the next election.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Manchin, what does it mean to put the country first on this issue of guns? We're going to hear from Vice President Biden this week. Early on, right after Newtown, you said you hoped to get the NRA on board for the effort of trying to come up with a solution. We know that Vice President Biden is going to talk about universal background checks. We know he's going to talk about some kind of limits on high-capacity gun magazines. How far are you prepared to go and can you bring the NRA along?

MANCHIN: George, basically we have a cultural -- we have to change the culture of mass violence we have. If you think it's only about guns and that would change the culture, you'd be wrong. If you think it's only about the lack of mental illness coverage that we give, and you would be wrong there. And if you think it's only about the media with the video games -- it takes an all-in approach.

I have linked up with and I will be with John McCain introducing a bill that Joe Lieberman, our dear friend, has been championing for a long time, which basically puts a commission about mass violence together. You bring experts from all different fields. You bring people such as myself that are NRA members that have been sportsmen all of our lives, and look for a commonsense approach to how we change the culture of violence in America. And that's what needs to be done.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are universal background checks common sense?

MANCHIN: All of these things need to be looked at that. But if it's all in one piece of legislation and one piece of legislation only, then you get something that's much broader. If you just pinpoint, George, on one and say it's guns, whether it's the magazines or whatever, you're going to have a harder time getting through the political process we have right today.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So are you saying no action until after this commission reports?

MANCHIN: I'm saying that basically, you have to have an all-in approach. Right now, I don't know if you have the professionals from the standpoint sitting down people like myself, who have been using guns all of our lives, people that are in the health care arena that are professionals with mental illness and the lack of care for mental illness, then also the video, the media. I would tell all of my friends in NRA, I will work extremely hard and I will guarantee you there will not be an encroachment on your Second Amendment rights, the same that I would guarantee that for the First Amendment rights.

But, you know, in this atmosphere that we have in Washington today, there used to be guilt by association. It's almost guilt by conversation.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Ambassador Huntsman, you tried to take on your party's orthodoxy last year during the presidential race when you tried to run for president. And I think a lot of people looked at it and said, boy, it just can't be done inside the Republican Party.

Do you get any sense that members of your party are going to be receptive to the kind of message you have right now? And if you run for president again, can it be as a Republican or will it have to be as an independent or no (ph) third party?

HUNTSMAN: I'm not worried about myself. I'm worried about my country. We have politics of right and left and center, but we forgot the most -- forgotten the most important thing for the American people, and that's the politics of problem solving.

So getting a block of can-do problem solvers as we're beginning to do on Capitol Hill, who begin to sit down, whether it's around gun control, which is a very complicated issue -- Joe and I were just talking about this. I mean, we've been shooting since we were 5 or 6 years old. We come from cultures of guns, Utah and West Virginia. And within five minutes, we put together some -- some ideas that probably would represent a good compromise package between Republicans and Democrats. There's a deal to be had --

STEPHANOPOULOS: Which includes?

HUNTSMAN: But you got to get problem -- well, you've got to get problem solvers around the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Gentlemen, thanks very much for your time this morning. Good luck with No Labels.

MANCHIN: Thank you.

HUNTSMAN: Thank you, George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Roundtable coming up. So long to the trillion-dollar coin, Paul Krugman and company weigh in next.

Also Read

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/week-transcript-sen-jack-reed-sen-bob-corker-172117036.html

oral roberts les paul fred thompson fred thompson red hook romney tax return the tree of life movie