HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » GOP Plans To Block Kerry ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:09 PM

GOP Plans To Block Kerry Until Hillary Testifies On Benghazi

it’s just a coincidence, now that the 2012 election is over – and Benghazi-gate was useless in defeating President Obama – Fox News is suddenly making it all about Hillary Clinton, a potential 2016 nominee. Last week, the Communications Arm of the GOP was sneering that Clinton’s concussion, which caused her to cancel testifying in Congress about Benghazi, was faked. Today, Fox helped hype a Republican effort to embarrass Clinton by blocking John Kerry’s confirmation as her replacement as Secretary of State until she testifies.

http://crooksandliars.com/news-hound-ellen/gop-threatens-block-kerry-confirm


GOP plan to tarnish Clinton's reputation before 2016?

56 replies, 4388 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 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply GOP Plans To Block Kerry Until Hillary Testifies On Benghazi (Original post)
UCmeNdc Dec 2012 OP
djean111 Dec 2012 #1
lunatica Dec 2012 #36
sakabatou Dec 2012 #2
sofa king Dec 2012 #3
julian09 Dec 2012 #5
leveymg Dec 2012 #27
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #30
leveymg Dec 2012 #31
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #34
leveymg Dec 2012 #43
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #45
leveymg Dec 2012 #46
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #48
leveymg Dec 2012 #49
blm Dec 2012 #35
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #37
leveymg Dec 2012 #44
djean111 Dec 2012 #55
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #56
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #42
karynnj Dec 2012 #6
Cha Dec 2012 #8
davidpdx Dec 2012 #15
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #4
Kablooie Dec 2012 #7
Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2012 #14
dsc Dec 2012 #9
CreekDog Dec 2012 #16
dsc Dec 2012 #18
LukeFL Dec 2012 #20
dsc Dec 2012 #26
CreekDog Dec 2012 #21
dsc Dec 2012 #22
CreekDog Dec 2012 #23
dsc Dec 2012 #25
LukeFL Dec 2012 #32
MjolnirTime Dec 2012 #10
Filibuster Harry Dec 2012 #11
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #12
Brigid Dec 2012 #13
union_maid Dec 2012 #17
LukeFL Dec 2012 #19
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #29
yellowcanine Dec 2012 #24
Buzz Clik Dec 2012 #28
Historic NY Dec 2012 #33
Sunlei Dec 2012 #38
DavidDvorkin Dec 2012 #39
Sunlei Dec 2012 #40
DavidDvorkin Dec 2012 #41
politicasista Dec 2012 #50
karynnj Dec 2012 #47
still_one Dec 2012 #51
Rosa Luxemburg Dec 2012 #53
Gin Dec 2012 #52
Jeff In Milwaukee Dec 2012 #54

Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:20 PM

1. Of course!

But I would have thought they would have saved this crap until 2016.
That's a long time away.
It seems to me the original Benghazi outrage was trumped up to hurt Obama.
It didn't work, but they have this committee and all, and hate to waste it.
Plus they are desperately lusting after the opportunity to get Clinton and/or Obama to sit down for questioning.
Maybe hoping to call someone a liar, or whatever, get some sound bites and photo ops and youtube events for their own next elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #1)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:34 AM

36. You give them too much credit for planning anything

Basically they're just holding their breath, turning blue, then purple in the face while they kick their heels on the floor just to keep anything from happening that might benefit the Democrats and the country. They don't give a shit about Benghazi, because they already know the facts. They're just doing their latest version of obstruction. It's become second nature to them.

If they were thinking of the future at all they would be making sure Americans didn't hate their stinking guts come next election time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:42 PM

2. They're going to keep doing this BS to keep Obama from confirming ANYONE

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sakabatou (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:11 PM

3. I concur.

The overall GOP object is to obstruct and resist at every turn. Benghazi is just the closest thing to a scandal they can find within the unusually clean Obama Administration, so they'll flog that while they can--like Vince Foster, for us old-timers.

But "no" to everything, and the hostage-taking and dissent that goes with it, is also highly predictable. The President has shown himself to be highly adept at turning Republican obstructionism against themselves.

If I were President, I would consider using the January recess to appoint Kerry for the duration of this Congress, then use the GOP's blocking of Kerry's confirmation as a policy point in the crucial mid-term elections of 2014, when we have a chance to bag a supermajority in the Senate.

It looks like right now Harry Reid plans to keep the Senate open so that Republicans have to sit there and vote against the middle class tax cuts again. But normally, the Senate finds a way to take a week off in January.

That week, when the Senate goes out of session, will be the week that the President uses his recess authority to appoint Kerry for the duration of this session of Congress. The Republicans will be further tarred with infamy, and the mid-terms will be further weighted in our favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:52 PM

5. GOP WILL NOT BLOCK Sen Kerry, they practically nominated him, themselves.

 

while attacking UN ambassador Rice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to julian09 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:34 AM

27. Nonsense. Susan Rice was the neocon choice in both parties.

Rice had the misfortune of volunteering to put herself forward as the Administration figure on the point of a dilemma - how to defend the Administration from blowback from a policy of multiple regime change without revealing the particulars of what was going on in Benghazi. The GOP chose the low road of going after red-herrings related to embassy security and unfounded suspicions of a failure to protect US personnel.

Susan Rice fell on the spear for a policy she championed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:43 AM

30. Rice is a neocon? LOLOLOL!



Some people will say anything for a laugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:48 AM

31. Apparently, you didn't get the memo:

She's a Mideast hawk, a liberal interventionist, but a hawk who aggressively pursues essentially the same policy of regime change as the neocons. Please, see, "Susan Rice Vocally Supported the Iraq War and Every Mideast War Since", http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021895778

Please read that and we'll talk about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:26 AM

34. .. and your opinion is that the positions she's taken make her a neocon?

This is your logic:

1. The neocons manipulated the presentation of facts and lies to sell the invasion of Iraq.
2. Susan Rice apparently supported the invasion of Iraq.
3. Therefore, Susan Rice is a neocon.

That's pretty flawed logic.

We could use the same logic to demonstrate that everyone who opposes Obama (or Susan Rice!) on this board is a Tea Bagger. You buying that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #34)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:56 PM

43. Her ME positions run parallel with the neocons - they support her over Kerry.

I did not say she's a neocon, per se. That's something that you read into my statement.

The source of flawed logic in this case is careless reading. Please review what was actually stated above and in the OP I linked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #43)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:35 PM

45. Ha ha ha! "Susan Rice was the neocon choice on both sides."

Flawed reading, indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #45)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:00 PM

46. Do you have ANYTHING substantial to say on this topic? eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:18 PM

48. About Susan Rice being a necon? Yeah, it's a bullshit claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #48)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 04:51 PM

49. "It's a bullshit claim" - that's a really well developed argument.

And a straw man you made up, yourself. See above. Won't waste any more time on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:34 AM

35. I you studied Rice's career more closely you'd know that Rice IS an interventionist and Bill Kristol

pleaded for Republicans to stop attacking her because she would be a better fit for neocon interventionism. She was an interventionist before the Iraq war and still is now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #35)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:42 AM

37. Your analysis is less flawed than leveymg's, but still flawed.

It's all moot now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #37)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:00 PM

44. It is your misreading or misrepresentation of my statement that is flawed.

I said neocons support her, not that she is herself fully a neocon. Just her stated ME policy preferences, but that's most of the way there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:19 PM

55. Let me add a little punctuation....

Susan Rice was the neocon's choice in both parties
She was the choice of the neocons.
No one said she was a neocon.
At least that is how I am reading it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to djean111 (Reply #55)

Tue Jan 1, 2013, 11:53 AM

56. You will need to add more than punctuation:

The author went on to defend the position that Rice is a neocon.

Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to julian09 (Reply #5)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:07 PM

42. Repubs wanted Obama to nominate Rice, not Kerry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sofa king (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:06 PM

6. No reason to recess appoint Kerry - there are more than enough votes to

have him confirmed.

What is really despicable here is that Hillary Clinton said she did not want to step down until she did testify. This is pushing the Republican meme that HRC is not ill and is avoiding testifying.

This is more FOX than it is the Republican party.

This does go against the idea that the Republicans want Scott Brown. The longer HRC stays - and Kerry stays in his seat - the longer Brown is out of office and the SHORTER time he (or anyone else) has in office before they need to run in 2014. Push it to say April and the special election won't be until September.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #6)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:37 PM

8. I think the recons want scott brown.. they just want to keep

up their vampire fanged attacks on the Benghazi tragedy even more.

Thanks for pointing out that the longer ol sb is out of the public eye the better it is for Rep Ed Markey or whomever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:53 PM

15. The problem for them is they can't have both

Since Kerry would have to be confirmed as SOS for an open seat to occur. I hope they somehow botch the whole thing (as they usually do) and end up with nothing. Another tire blow out on the clowncar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:15 PM

4. If ever there was an argument for killing the filibuster and the "Hold" in the Senate

 

This is it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:16 PM

7. Benghazi is the new Whitewater.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #7)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:09 PM

14. The GOP is scraping the barrell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:47 PM

9. I have no problem with them doing this

There is no reason at all that Hilary shouldn't testify and probably should do so as SOS. This is a legitimate use of the hold peragotive. They are asking for a specific thing and one they have every earthly right to expect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 01:33 AM

16. still feel the same way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:18 AM

18. I think at this point

they should get a promise of testimony when she is better since this will likely be some weeks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:55 AM

20. I want bush, Cheney, rumsfeld

To testify about 9/11.
Can you make this happen? 3000 Americans died on that day. I have legitimate reasons to want them to testify.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LukeFL (Reply #20)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:28 AM

26. we should have held up Rice and later Gates to get that testimony

it would have been a legitimate use of the hold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #18)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:59 AM

21. your judgement is terrible if you think having a SoS can wait until Hillary is better

you posted your message KNOWING that Clinton was ailing and not able to testify, only now you are relenting a little bit, but her condition has been known for a while.

your judgement on this is terrible.

based on your judgement lapse, your idea undermines your credibility, the prudent thing would be to do the opposite of what you suggest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #21)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:05 AM

22. and your reading skills are terrible if that is what you think I said

I said they should get a promise of testimony, a promise is something where you say that in the FUTURE something will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #22)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:13 AM

23. i'm arguing with your position on Friday, which was contemptable

apparently reading comprehension requires me to do a memory wipe of what you said 72 hours ago.

nice try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:17 AM

25. You responded to this post

I think at this point they should get a promise of testimony when she is better since this will likely be some weeks.

As to the other post it was posted on December 27th when there was no mention of a blood clot since it happened yet. At that time of that post, as you full well know, it was expected she would be well in a week or so which would hardly have been a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CreekDog (Reply #23)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:51 AM

32. The DUer position is all smoke

We are not interested in what happened there, benghazi is a "gotcha" maneuver being used by repubs. unfortunately some Dems are also falling for it.

Like I said, when someone investigates 9/11 and all the Americans killed at various embassies during the Bush era I will be interested about benghazi, otherwise, lets move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:42 AM

10. They block everything. And they can't do a damned thing to stop Hillary, if she wants to run.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:56 PM

11. Obstructionism continues. Well, if they want to continue then nominate Susan Rice and have

Senator Kerry keep his senate seat. Turn the tables on those bastards!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:57 PM

12. Repubs want a spectacle. I don't think they're going to

get what they're looking for--the whole Benghazi thing continues to NOT galvanize the public's interest. Hillary probably does need to answer questions about it as SoS, but if they think they're going to get something politically useful out of it, they're going to be disappointed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 04:02 PM

13. I'd like to see . . .

Any of those Repugs do a stint as SOS and see how long they last without dropping from exhaustion. Don't they hold the record for being the laziest Congress ever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:17 AM

17. I hope they'll accept someone else

It's hard to believe that a SOS doesn't have staff who can testify as well as the Secretary herself. Right now she needs to be allowed to step down and concentrate on her health. Kerry's probably the absolute best choice in this case, because it's pretty clear they've been in communication about the work prior to this and he can get briefed by understaff. She can finish up the transitional stuff when she's well enough. That's what would be best for the country right now, as well as for Secretary Clinton. Now, will the GOP do what's best? Just once? Or, do we have to wait for flying pigs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 09:51 AM

19. I hope obama and the useless Dems

In congress learn their lesson.

Repubs are nasty and they will do anything to eliminate us and make them lose their already waek political power.
And I say weak because Obama has not once acted as if he won the election. He is a weak president with no character .
I say this with tears in my eyes I busted my butt off for him in 08 and 12.

I was even spat on by a racist while canvassin during a very hot day in wpb.

My heart is aching.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LukeFL (Reply #19)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:40 AM

29. Oh, the drama.

Cue the organ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:13 AM

24. When all you have is a dead horse you have no choice except to beat it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 10:39 AM

28. No harm in Hillary testifying, and she should.

But, Kerry's confirmation should not be tied to the testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:15 AM

33. Wait this is FOX news talking.......

The Senate confirms not the Congress......they'd all look like schmucks if the put a hold on Kerry a fellow Senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:53 AM

38. Kerry start doing your SS job and let's ignore those useless GOP.

Even if those GOP disappeared today they would not be missed by me.

Our Gov. would run better without them, they do NOT serve 'the people'. Wish we could fire them, GOP politicans are harmful to America. I hate that we have to pay them and give them the best benefits- to screw America!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:12 PM

39. "Advice and consent of the Senate"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #39)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:26 PM

40. I guess you mean that whatever the GOP screams about the Senete will confime Kerry /w no issues?

Good, because I dream about ignoring the gop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #40)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 12:38 PM

41. No, I mean that he can't be SoS without being confirmed by the Senate

No matter how unreasonable their objections, if they keep the Senate from voting to confirm him, then he won't be SoS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DavidDvorkin (Reply #41)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:42 PM

50. Facts never get in the way Dem bashing n/t

Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #38)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 03:16 PM

47. He is not the SOS until confirmed by the Senate

which will happen after he has a hearing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:46 PM

51. The party that brought you 9/11, the Iraq and Afghanistan war, war against women, war against gays,

war against civil rights, now wants a war against a person in the hospital for a life-threatening condition.

They can go to hell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #51)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:03 PM

53. John McCain seemed to know an awful lot about the attacks at Benghazi

it's almost as though they planned it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 05:52 PM

52. I always thought it was to tarnish her image for 2016

They can make future ads with crap......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 06:36 PM

54. Recess Appointments...

Obama should make illiberal use of Recess Appointments and Executive Orders for the next two weeks, and simply dare the fuckwits in Congress to do something about it.

I've had it with these assholes. Obama has been President for nearly four years now, and he's still operating under the disastrous Bush Tax Cuts and a host of other policies that he's inherited from the most inept administration in history. Fuck them all -- just start exercising your presidential authority at let Congress be damned.

Obama is about four times more popular with the American people, according to most polls of approval ratings. Start spending that politcal capital, Mr. President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread