HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sen. Graham on Brennan: N...

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:26 AM

Sen. Graham on Brennan: No Confirmation For CIA Until Benghazi Questions Are Answered

Source: TPM

Sen. Graham on Brennan: No Confirmation For CIA Until Benghazi Questions Are Answered

TOM KLUDT 10:16 AM EST, TUESDAY JANUARY 8, 2013

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Tuesday released a statement on President Barack Obama's nomination of John Brennan to serve as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, arguing that the administration's counterterrorism adviser should not be confirmed "until our questions are answered" on the September attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans.

The statement:

“I have not forgotten about the Benghazi debacle and still have many questions about what transpired before, during and after the attack on our consulate.

“In that regard, I do not believe we should confirm anyone as Director of the CIA until our questions are answered - like who changed Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points and deleted the references to Al-Qaeda? My support for a delay in confirmation is not directed at Mr. Brennan, but is an unfortunate, yet necessary action to get information from this Administration.

“I have tried – repeatedly – to get information on Benghazi but my requests have been repeatedly ignored.
...

-snip-


Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/sen-graham-on-brennan-no-confirmation-for-cia

40 replies, 3101 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sen. Graham on Brennan: No Confirmation For CIA Until Benghazi Questions Are Answered (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
Botany Jan 2013 #1
valerief Jan 2013 #22
JDPriestly Jan 2013 #35
niyad Jan 2013 #2
Mass Jan 2013 #3
KansDem Jan 2013 #4
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #31
xxqqqzme Jan 2013 #40
The Wizard Jan 2013 #5
DonViejo Jan 2013 #18
IthinkThereforeIAM Jan 2013 #34
albear Jan 2013 #6
Lochloosa Jan 2013 #16
hobbit709 Jan 2013 #7
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #8
olegramps Jan 2013 #9
denverbill Jan 2013 #10
Not Me Jan 2013 #11
Renew Deal Jan 2013 #12
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #14
AtheistCrusader Jan 2013 #13
samsingh Jan 2013 #15
FreeBC Jan 2013 #17
Festivito Jan 2013 #19
reteachinwi Jan 2013 #20
EC Jan 2013 #21
Zambero Jan 2013 #23
Spirochete Jan 2013 #24
leveymg Jan 2013 #25
julian09 Jan 2013 #27
JoePhilly Jan 2013 #26
Rob H. Jan 2013 #28
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #29
Purveyor Jan 2013 #30
xxqqqzme Jan 2013 #32
blueclown Jan 2013 #36
Nanjing to Seoul Jan 2013 #33
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 2013 #37
Alamuti Lotus Jan 2013 #38
PSPS Jan 2013 #39

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:29 AM

1. Fuck you Lindsey

You are not the King of the World.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:55 AM

22. +1 gazillion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:21 PM

35. Brennan is a questionable choice. He carries a lot of ugly baggage.

In March 2001, Brennan, a longtime CIA Middle East expert, was named deputy executive director of the agency. For the next several years he was in a position to learn about the counterterror "dark side:" extraordinary renditions, CIA black sites, waterboarding, and other methods euphemistically described as "enhanced interrogation."

Brennan's role in internal CIA debate over those tactics is not fully known, and will almost certainly be plumbed during the nomination process. An October 2012 report by The Washington Post found that "several colleagues … could not recall" him voicing criticism of the tactics. By 2006, when Brennan was working in private industry, he was making news as a vocal critic of waterboarding, which he told the New York Daily News "goes beyond the bounds of what a civilized society should employ."

When then-Sen. Barack Obama began a presidential run, Brennan signed on as a national security advisor and quickly befriended him. After Brennan's name was floated as a potential pick for the CIA post in November 2008, however, liberal critics and human rights advocates erupted in anger. Brennan, blogger Grenn Greenwald noted, had not only worked within the Bush administration. He had also publicly declared that "enhanced interrogation" techniques not including waterboarding had "saved lives."

The psychologists penned their letter and the influential blogger Andrew Sullivan wrote, "If Obama picks him, it will be a vindication of the kind of ambivalence and institutional moral cowardice that made America a torturing nation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/07/john-brennan-cia-nomination_n_2428282.html

The nation deserves to know Brennan's record on torture before his nomination is ratified.

I do not want a torturer in the CIA. Do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:30 AM

2. and what about all the unanswered questions about 9/11? where were you, graham, then? I

do not recall you demanding investigations then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:31 AM

3. So, he is decided to block two hearings because of Benghazi and is against the third nominee,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:33 AM

4. This John Cole cartoon sums up the GOP's obsession with Benghazi


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:38 PM

31. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 03:48 AM

40. Perfect!

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:35 AM

5. Some say

our national security is endangered by the Senator's sex life. The gentleman from South Carolina is easily compromised and subject to extortion by enemies of the United States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:07 AM

18. He has a sex life? Who da thunk? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Wizard (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:23 PM

34. Ding Ding Ding...


... we got a winner!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:37 AM

6. Here we go again!

 

Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:15 AM - Edit history (1)

These idiotic republicants are like rabid dogs locked onto their prey! Why wasn't Bush W's security top personnel forced to testify after their massive 9/11 failure?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albear (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:00 AM

16. Welcome to DU albear

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:38 AM

7. We can only hope that posturing idiot stands up too fast while his head's up his ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:38 AM

8. When will Sen. Graham ask questions about the thousands of people killed by guns

Last edited Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:47 AM - Edit history (1)

in the USA? Where are the hearings? Where are the Congressional reports?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:39 AM

9. Every day my absolute loathing of Republicans intensifies. They are without honor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:40 AM

10. Hey Lindsey, thanks for the reminder about filibuster reform.

UP OR DOWN VOTE!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:43 AM

11. Go there.

The American public is not with you on this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:47 AM

12. Weren't Petraeus and Rice sent to testify?

I don't think his requests have been "ignored."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Renew Deal (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:50 AM

14. Probably didn't show up for the testimony, a la John McCain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:50 AM

13. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Is there lead in the water or something?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 10:53 AM

15. is there any question left that the gop purposely screwed the economy and the US to try and make

Obama a 1 termer?

so, they are willing to weaken the CIA unless they can create some political points over Beng.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:05 AM

17. Republicans insist on continuing to look like idiots. Stick to your guns Lindsay!!!

 

Graham is his own worst enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:11 AM

19. NOW he wants to know! NOW? NOW!

I'd like to know how why and who in CIA did this to our potential Sec of State.

Giving her bad information she then used on TV.

Republicans then shouted her down simply saying Benghazi.

For that we lost a Senate seat: Kerry.

So, NOW he wants to know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:23 AM

20. He's being primaried

 

so he is compelled to bear down on conservative crazy.
With conservative groups such as the Club For Growth signaling their intent to challenge Sen. Lindsey Graham in the 2014 Republican primary, South Carolina’s moderate senior senator needs to boost his conservative credentials if he wants to survive for another term.
http://palmettopublicrecord.org/2012/11/16/lindsey-graham-john-mccain-distorting-facts-on-benghazi-attack-to-obstruct-obama-agenda/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 11:41 AM

21. I think they don't really need his vote

and I hope Reid will do something about the holds these guys have been using when he works out the fillibuster rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:00 PM

23. Graham, ludicrous as usual

Any new CIA appointee not associated with that agency under the current administration would have had no connection to prior events at Benghazi or otherwise. Just another excuse to practice obstructionism GOP style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:04 PM

24. Frequent reminders that the stupidest Lindsey

is not Ms. Lohan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:07 PM

25. Lindsey has never asked the right questions about Benghazi, so he's not getting any answers. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:17 PM

27. He wants Hillary to appear at hearing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:10 PM

26. Stroke, stroke, stroke.

Lindsey is trapped in a singular masturbatory fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:30 PM

28. Remember, this is the same Graham who not only voted to confirm Condi Rice

...he did it after Rice was responsible, in part, for one of the largest intelligence failures in American history and after she said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be mushroom cloud" to gin up support for invading Iraq. (She was also a member of the White House Iraq Group, "the propaganda arm of the White House whose purpose was to sell the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the public.")

Graham and John McCain were of the same mind on Rice's nomination, namely that she should have been made Secretary of State despite her mendacious claims that there were WMDs in Iraq.

Asked if then-Sen. Mark Dayton's use of the word "liar" was justified, Graham pounced.

"Yes, that's even more unfair. Because it was all in terms of weapons of mass destruction and misleading us about the war and what was in Iraq. Well, every intelligence agency in the world was misled. And to connect those two to say that (Condoleezza Rice)'s a liar is very unfair, over the line."

Before the vote, McCain noted from the Senate floor that the chamber had enough votes to confirm Rice to the job, questioning why Democrats wanted to debate her nomination.

"So I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion," he said, adding that Rice is qualified for the job. "I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election." (Emphasis mine--Rob)


As I've said before, if Graham seriously believes that "every intelligence agency in the world was misled," I have three words for him: Downing Street Memo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:36 PM

29. You can't object to everything!

This dweeb has objected to absolutely every nomination the Obama has presented in the last 4 years.

Doesn't he think his approach is a little stale?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:37 PM

30. So will Harry Reid fix the filibuster rules to prevent a 'hold' on nominations? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 12:56 PM

32. Hey Lindsey - give it a rest.

You have worn out that recording.

Why are these rethugs willing to take this script to the airways? I don't get it. Are their seats so safe, they become the bat shit crazy person of the month?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xxqqqzme (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 02:39 PM

36. That's the problem here.

Lindsey's seat isn't safe, so he must be bat shit crazy, because that is what his primary base demands.

It's important to recognize that all of Graham's actions over the past few months have been complete theater to win his primary in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 01:00 PM

33. Expect loaded questions like "do you still beat your wife"

Assholes. . .and again, it's South Carolina. Should have let them secede.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 04:17 PM

37. Ben Gazi?

Isn't he a rapper?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 05:51 PM

38. hope they stall the confirmation indefinitely, Brennan is a murderous creep

 

The clear direction Barry is taking with these appointments is a distinct pattern and well beyond disturbing--a Republican for Secretary of Defense (the wholly contrived furor over this notwithstanding) and the commander of the drone wars for the top CIA position?

Brennan has been bold and strident in his defense of torture and the drone wars--such a man should be shipped off to The Hague, not promoted to be Director of the CIA.

Nobody is asking the right questions about these appointments. The message being delivered from the top is clear, and the direction being taken is a direct line maintaining the erstwhile reviled Bush foreign policy (which was really just a slight amplification of what has been business as usual for decades, but that is neither here nor there).

Even though Lindsey Graham (R-Scumbag) is, of course, not acting from a remotely valid or principled position (--the Benghazi "questions" are basically as contrived as anything else from these brainless, obsessive Republican bastards--), I hope it becomes permanently tangled, even by nonsense like this (though this kind of "opposition" is really not opposition at all, and will prevent nothing). Maybe the CIA will suffer from the lack of administrative clarity in the meantime, that awful agency certainly deserves the trouble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 8, 2013, 07:30 PM

39. Fine with me. I'm tired of having war criminals in government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread