Esquire: “For the first time, the Navy SEAL who killed Osama bin Laden tells his story — speaking not just about the raid and the three shots that changed history, but about the personal aftermath for himself and his family. And the startling failure of the United States government to help its most experienced and skilled warriors carry on with their lives.”

“The performance now of Barack Obama as he staffs up the national security team for the second term is dismal… Frankly, what he has appointed are second-rate people.”

— Former Vice President Dick Cheney, quoted by the AP.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) “threatened to block the
confirmations of President Obama’s nominees for secretary of defense and
head of the Central Intelligence Agency if the administration does not
provide more information about its response to the deadly Sept. 11, 2012
attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya,” the Washington Post reports.

“Graham said that he would not attempt to filibuster, but nodded yes
when asked if he was willing to put holds on the nominees, which
essentially means asking for the courtesy of notification before the
Senate majority leader moves ahead on a vote.”

New York Times: “Four years into his tenure, the onetime critic of President George W. Bush finds himself cast as a present-day Mr. Bush, justifying the muscular application of force in the defense of the nation while detractors complain that he has sacrificed the country’s core values in the name of security.”

“The debate is not an exact parallel to those of the Bush era, and Mr. Obama can point to ways he has tried to exorcise what he sees as the excesses of the last administration. But in broad terms, the conversation generated by the confirmation hearing of John O. Brennan, his nominee for C.I.A. director, underscored the degree to which Mr. Obama has embraced some of Mr. Bush’s approach to counterterrorism, right down to a secret legal memo authorizing presidential action unfettered by outside forces.”

President Obama’s pick to head the CIA, John Brennan, heads to the Senate today for a likely contentious confirmation hearing before the Intelligence Committee.

First Read: “Brennan is certainly going to get tough questions, especially from Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden, but what could be more remarkable is we’re likely to learn more about America’s drone war in a public setting than we ever have before. It may be technically a confirmation hearing for Brennan, but he will also be up there defending America’s drone program, as someone who’s worked in both of the last two administrations, for both a Democrat and a Republican.”

“Contention aside, it’s likely Brennan will be confirmed. But the White House, by saying last night it would brief Congress on the classified legal justifications of the targeted killing of Americans, made a decision not to have a confrontation — mostly with Democrats.”

CNN reports there “are now at least five Republican senators who
would oppose a filibuster of former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be secretary of
defense, all but ensuring the embattled nominee will be confirmed in the
coming days.”

Daniel Larison: “We won’t know what the final confirmation vote tally will be, but by
my count there are at least 20 Republicans that will definitely vote
against Hagel and there are only two definite Republican yeas. Even if
all of the remaining Republicans voted to confirm, that would still mean
that nearly half of the Senators from Hagel’s own party are voting the
other way. It isn’t surprising when the president’s opposition votes in
large numbers against a nominee from the president’s party, but in this
case Republicans are going out of their way to repudiate one of their
own mostly because he is not enough of a jingoist and saber-rattler.
Hagel will almost certainly be confirmed, but along the way Senate
Republicans are confirming everyone else’s worst fears about their
foreign policy views.”

The New York Times reports that several Republican senators — notably John McCain — said “they would oppose a filibuster of former Senator Chuck Hagel’s confirmation as secretary of defense, moving the nominee much closer toward approval.”

NBC News obtained a confidential Justice Department memo which concludes that “the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be ‘senior operational leaders’ of al-Qaida or ‘an associated force’ — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.”

Marc Ambinder: “So here’s what that means: Even if the person is not actively planning terrorist attacks against the U.S., because of the nature of terrorist attacks in general, merely his membership in an organization that is planning those attacks meets the requisite definition of imminence.”

John Brennan, President Obama’s choice to be the next CIA director, “will face tough questions at his Senate confirmation hearing Thursday, but it appears unlikely that lawmakers’ concerns will derail his nomination,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

“It’s pretty obvious that the — political knives were out for — Chuck Hagel.”

— Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in an interview on Meet the Press, about the Senate confirmation hearings for his successor.

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE) told the Lincoln Journal-Star that he will vote to confirm former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s (R-NE) for secretary of defense.

“In the wake of Hagel’s contentious confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday, the green light from Nebraska’s senior Republican senator could be timely and pivotal in helping pave the way for additional Republican support in the Senate.”

“Democrats — from both the White House and Capitol Hill — tell First
Read that they’re still confident Hagel will win confirmation. You’re
unlikely to see a Senate Democrat vote against him or even peel off
today; in fact, the hostile GOP questioning might have made Democrats
even more united, or so the White House hopes and believes. And if
that’s the case, Hagel will have support from a majority of senators. So
the question becomes: Do Republicans decide to mount a filibuster
against Hagel? That could make things more problematic for his
nomination, because he would need 60 votes instead of 51. But it also
would create a problematic storyline for Republicans: Do they really
filibuster one of their former colleagues who fought and bled in
Vietnam?”

Chris Cillizza: “Chuck Hagel was … just plain bad during his confirmation
hearing to be the next Secretary of Defense. And it almost certainly
won’t keep him from becoming the next man to lead the Pentagon.”

National Journal says Chuck Hagel “fumbled badly” at his Senate confirmation hearing today.

“The strong, silent-type approach worked for the Nebraska Republican when
he was on the other side of the firing line, just one of a gauntlet of
senators asking questions, but it wasn’t working on Thursday, with him
in the hot seat before the Senate’s Armed Services Committee and getting
it from all sides–from some Democrats and a battery of hostile
Republicans–who began by praising his service to the nation and then
proceeded to eviscerate him. During the daylong hearings, Hagel appeared
to lose Republican after Republican, and even a couple of Democrats,
including New York’s Kirsten Gillibrand, looked a little doubtful.
Hagel’s manner and responses did little to reassure anyone, it seemed,
about his toughness on Iran and firmness on Israel.”

Jonathan Bernstein: “Fortunately for Hagel, it almost certainly doesn’t matter. Spending a
few hours on the defensive isn’t likely to sink his nomination — unless
it was already doomed.”

Politico reports that Hagel’s answers prompted Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to announce he would oppose Hagel’s
nomination.

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.) “grew irate” when former Sen. Chuck Hagel at his confirmation hearing to be defense secretary “wouldn’t say whether he believed the 2007 troop surge in Iraq helped stabilize that country,” Politico reports.

McCain: “Are you going to answer the question? Let the record show that you refused to answer the question.”

Hagel: “I’m not going to give you a yes or no. I’ll defer that judgment to history.”

McCain: “History has already made a judgment on the surge, and you’re on the wrong side of it.”

McCain said later he might oppose Hagel’s nomination because of his refusal to give him a direct response.

“You’re on your own. Good luck.”

— Former Sen. John Warner (R-VA), quoted by the Washington Post, concluding his testimony in support of Chuck Hagel’s nomination as defense secretary.

First Read looks at Chuck Hagel’s chances of being confirmed as Secretary of Defense and notes that as of right now, “there’s at least one Republican (Thad Cochran) who’s planning to vote for his former GOP colleague. That’s 56 votes, which is enough for majority passage but not enough to prevent a filibuster. But do Republicans really pursue a filibuster against their former colleague? Talk about some story if they do.”

“All that said, Hagel also has little margin for error. A bad performance today could undo all the positive momentum his nomination has had over the past couple of weeks. Bottom line: As long as there are no surprises, Hagel is likely to make it. But it also isn’t going to be easy. The most contentious questioning today is likely to come from GOP Sens. Jim Inhofe, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz.”

Josh Rogin takes a whip count.

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) “has gone on a charm offensive in the lead-up to his confirmation hearing on Thursday, attempting to beat back a well-funded, aggressive campaign that has sought to depict him as an anti-Israel, homophobic politician eager to gut the Pentagon’s budget,” the Washington Post reports.

“Hagel’s pushback during meetings with more than 50 senators and leaders of special interest groups this month appears to have been effective, said an official helping him prepare for the hearing.”

Nonetheless, NPR
says it’s “shaping up to be one of the more contentious nomination
hearings or one of President Obama’s cabinet choices.”

Reuters:
“John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee to head the CIA, had
detailed, contemporaneous knowledge of the use of ‘enhanced
interrogation techniques’ on captured terrorism suspects during an
earlier stint as a top spy agency official… Those records, the sources said,
show that Brennan was a regular recipient of CIA message traffic about
controversial aspects of the agency’s counter-terrorism program after
September 2001, including the use of waterboarding. How deeply
involved Brennan was in the program, and whether he vigorously objected
to it at the time, as he has said he did, are likely to be central
questions lawmakers raise at his Senate Intelligence Committee
confirmation hearing, scheduled for February 7.”