Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:52 AM
markpkessinger (7,014 posts)
Another thing to "thank" Harry Reid for . . .
. . . asshole.
Lindsey Graham Plans To Block Chuck Hagel, John Brennan To Get Answers On Benghazi
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) plans to block two of President Barack Obama's top national security nominees until he gets answers from the White House on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Graham said he was not going to let Chuck Hagel go forward as Secretary of Defense nor let John Brennan move ahead as CIA director unless he gets more information on the president's involvement in the response to the consulate attack that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
"I don’t think we should allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to Secretary of Defense until the White House gives us an accounting," said Graham. "Did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the Libyan government to help these folks? What did the president do?"
"We know he talked to the Israeli Prime Minister from 8 to 9 on September the 11th , about a dust-up of the Democratic platform, and the fact that he didn’t meet the Prime Minister of Israel when he came to New York to visit the U.N., but that’s not related to Libya," Graham added. "What did he do that night? That’s not unfair. The families need to know, the American people need to know."
< . . . . >
Full article and video at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/lindsey-graham-chuck-hagel_n_2657802.html
14 replies, 2137 views
Another thing to "thank" Harry Reid for . . . (Original post)
|The Wizard||Feb 2013||#4|
|Coolest Ranger||Feb 2013||#6|
Response to rdharma (Reply #1)
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:05 AM
markpkessinger (7,014 posts)
2. What else is new?
Of course he is throwing a hissy fit. Republicans will do what Republicans will do. But at this point, we really can't complain about what Republicans do -- not when our own Senate majority leader balks on the one real chance he had to stop this nonsense.
Response to markpkessinger (Reply #2)
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:21 AM
bigtree (64,088 posts)
5. we can't complain?
. . . we've been advancing nominees that republicans threaten to block for decades. Sure, some of them have fallen by the wayside, but nominees who are opposed because of policy differences almost always end up going through.
We can certainly debate whether Reid could have done something to persuade Democratic holdouts to support tighter filibuster rules, but we haven't even seen what effect the new rules will have on these 'holds' by republicans. It's nonsense to throw up our hands just because a republican threatens to hold up a nominee. There are several ways to get them off of their obstruction, which is likely just bluster and positioning, rather than a serious effort to deny the nomination.
It's not as if this is the first nominee that republicans have threatened to hold up. We damn well better complain.
Response to markpkessinger (Original post)
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:59 AM
Zorra (27,670 posts)
8. Here's a post of mine about this less than zero POS from 2 years ago that should answer
your question to a great extent.
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-07-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
16. Reid was selected by the DLC because he is a corporate tool.
Many progressives were absolutely horrified when we heard the DLC had selected Reid to be SML. If you want to know why Harry always snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, and why it always it always seems like Harry bends over to make deals with republicans, it is not because he is incompetent. Ever wondered why Harry always manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at the last moment? It is because that is his job--to further corporate interests while convincing us that it is raining while he pisses down our backs. He is a master of politics. Too bad he is not really on our side.
Harry Reid, Gold Member
Is our Senate leader in bed with America's worst polluter?
The Silver State owes its holdout status in part to Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who went from a hardscrabble childhood in a gold town to becoming one of the mining industry's most reliable allies in Congress. Reid has been instrumental in blocking efforts to reform the archaic General Mining Law of 1872, a legal blank check that's allowed miners to take an estimated $408 billion worth of gold and other hard rock minerals from public lands without paying a single cent in federal royalties—ever. When those mines are tapped out or go bust—as they inescapably do—taxpayers are often stuck with the cleanup bill, estimated at more than $30 billion nationwide. But Reid, who owns a handful of defunct gold mines and whose sons and son-in-law have ties to mining companies, has vigorously fought off efforts to make the industry pay its way.
This makes for good politics back home. Even in Elko County, where Barack Obama got just 28 percent of the vote despite making three campaign stops here (what a former Reid staffer considers "an absurd number of times to go to Elko") and declaring himself an "honorary Elkonian," Reid is forgiven for being a Democrat. "He has been our biggest proponent," said the miner at Goldie's.
Yet Reid's loyalty to mining has increasingly put him at odds with other Democrats, who have sought to end more than a century of giveaways to the nation's dirtiest industry. It's also been a curious contrast with his own record as an environmentalist and a champion of Nevada's growing urban population. As congressional Democrats once again prepare to drag the mining industry into the 21st century, Reid may be headed for the final showdown between the two seemingly incompatible sides of his political identity.
Specifically, Harry Reid has presided over one of the biggest corporate welfare heists in this country's history -- it turns out that the mining industry has stolen $400+ billion of taxpayer dollars without ever having to pay for restoring federal lands that they had gutted after they were done mining the lands. And in a blatant conflict of interest, it turns out that Harry Reid owns several such defunct mining companies and his sons have financial interests in several others. In other words, Harry Reid is not working for the common good. He is in it for the benefit of himself.
Coal, oil, and gas companies, as the article notes, have to kick back anywhere from 8 to 17% of their revenues back to the government annually. But thanks to Harry Reid and his cronies, the mining industry doesn't have to kick back any. And then, people wonder why so many people are calling on the government to forgive all college student loans. If we could pass a law requiring mining companies to pay their fair share like the other industries, then we would have money to forgive student loans and then set up scholarship funds for where the need is greatest.
But Reid's ties to mining run deeper than his sentimental connection to his rough-and-tumble origins. His sons Rory and Leif work for law firms that represent mining companies. Since 1999, his son-in-law, Steven Barringer, has earned as much as $3.7 million lobbying for mining interests including Barrick Gold, though he does not lobby Reid directly. Reid's natural resources staffer, Neil Kornze, is the son of a geologist who discovered Barrick's Betze deposit outside Elko. Since 1994, mining interests have donated more than $269,000 to Reid, including at least $82,000 from Barrick and its employees. Any suggestion, however, that these links have swayed Reid is "an attempt to draw a conclusion that would be inaccurate," says his spokesman Jon Summers. (Reid declined to be interviewed for this article.) Yeah, sure... -- EH
Reid's relationship with the mining industry is a fiercely guarded piece of political capital. Though Reid has a solid base in expanding urban areas such as Las Vegas and Reno, he has had to fight for votes in conservative rural areas. Part of the problem is his environmental record: Reid has opposed road building in national forests and supported setting aside 5.6 million acres in southern Nevada to protect the threatened desert tortoise. His 1998 reelection bid was opposed by the anti-environmentalist Wise Use movement; he won by just 428 votes. In 2001, when Bush moved to quash mining regulations put in place by the Clinton administration, Reid saw an opportunity to mend fences back home. "President Bush can't be wrong all the time," he said. In 2003, prominent Nevada Republicans endorsed his reelection bid, and he won by a comfortable margin.
Response to Mass (Reply #9)
Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:29 PM
markpkessinger (7,014 posts)
11. That remained to be seen . . .
. . . If the proposal had actually gone to debate on the floor, and if Senators were faced with having to go on record as voting for or against it, it is quite possible some may have changed their votes under public pressure. It's happened before, and neither you nor anyone else can say that it wouldn't have happened this time.
And even IF it hadn't succeeded, the very fact that Reid would have had the guts to actually pursue it might have shaken at least some of the recalcitrant GOP Senators. But Reid balked, so we'll never know.