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

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:12 PM

Lindsey Graham Plans To Block Chuck Hagel, John Brennan To Get Answers On Benghazi

Or How is that filibuster deal working out for you now Sen. Harry Reid?

10 replies, 1299 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 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lindsey Graham Plans To Block Chuck Hagel, John Brennan To Get Answers On Benghazi (Original post)
UCmeNdc Feb 2013 OP
Cali_Democrat Feb 2013 #1
yourout Feb 2013 #2
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #3
dsc Feb 2013 #4
PDJane Feb 2013 #5
Highway61 Feb 2013 #8
budkin Feb 2013 #6
Brother Buzz Feb 2013 #7
marshall Feb 2013 #9
onenote Feb 2013 #10

Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:20 PM

1. Link:

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 donít 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?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/lindsey-graham-chuck-hagel_n_2657802.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:23 PM

2. What a collasal asshat.

Lindsay need to go "Cheney" himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:28 PM

3. Guess he should have held up the Kerry confirmation, then, since it was State Department

personnel involved. Oh wait...they wanted that Senate seat. How's that workin' out for ya, GOP?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:33 PM

4. I felt he had every right to issue a hold to get Hillary to testify

as well as Petraius and Penneta. But he has gotten his testimony and now he should vote up or down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:40 PM

5. What answers on Benghazi?

There is no there, there. This is political grandstanding for the very ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDJane (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:22 AM

8. .... "political grandstanding for the very ignorant."

Love it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 06:32 PM

6. I'm glad. Harry needs to see what a spineless worm he is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 09:27 PM

7. Twisting Albert's words: Asking the same thing over and over again and expecting a different answer

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:06 AM

9. "What difference does it make?"

He already got his answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UCmeNdc (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 08:46 AM

10. Not a filibuster issue

The informal practice of 'holding' legislation has existed for some time and is enshrined in the Senate's rules. It doesn't block legislation from reaching a vote the way that a filibuster does -- it slows it down a bit. Reid can, and probably will, let Graham have his hold for a couple days before filing for cloture and moving the nominations to a vote -- from all indications there are not sufficient votes to actually prevent cloture.

So why doesn't Reid simply ignore the hold and move for cloture immediately? Because (1) as mentioned the practice of "holds" is part of the Senate rules and (2) holds are utilized quite often by Democrats as well as repubs. Indeed, some Democratic Senators have used holds to slow action on some of President Obama's nominations.

By the way, one of the foremost practitioners of the hold is Bernie Sanders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread