HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Sen. Graham Threatens To ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:09 AM

Sen. Graham Threatens To Delay Obama's Nominees For Defense, CIA Because Of Libya Attack

Source: Associated Press

ASSOCIATED PRESS | 0 minutes ago in Politics

A leading Republican senator is threatening to hold up Senate confirmation of President Barack Obama's nominees to lead the Pentagon and the CIA until the White House provides more answers about the Sept. 11 attack against a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is angered by what he calls White House "stonewalling" about the attack that killed four Americans.

Graham tells CBS' "Face the Nation" that he'll hold up Senate action on the nominations of Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary and John Brennan to be CIA director until he gets what he wants from the White House.

Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/da4bsalg0/sen-graham-threatens-to-delay-obamas-nominees-for-defense-cia-because-of-libya-attack.html

78 replies, 6594 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 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sen. Graham Threatens To Delay Obama's Nominees For Defense, CIA Because Of Libya Attack (Original post)
Purveyor Feb 2013 OP
Island Deac Feb 2013 #1
SaveAmerica Feb 2013 #20
MidwestTransplant Feb 2013 #31
awake Feb 2013 #2
liberal N proud Feb 2013 #3
awake Feb 2013 #6
liberal N proud Feb 2013 #24
ReRe Feb 2013 #28
awake Feb 2013 #29
ReRe Feb 2013 #36
awake Feb 2013 #39
ReRe Feb 2013 #41
awake Feb 2013 #43
ReRe Feb 2013 #47
onenote Feb 2013 #73
ReRe Feb 2013 #75
onenote Feb 2013 #76
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #4
ashling Feb 2013 #16
Thinkingabout Feb 2013 #53
Thinkingabout Feb 2013 #71
Ezlivin Feb 2013 #5
kpete Feb 2013 #15
nobodyspecial Feb 2013 #18
They_Live Feb 2013 #7
former9thward Feb 2013 #49
Thinkingabout Feb 2013 #52
former9thward Feb 2013 #57
Thinkingabout Feb 2013 #59
former9thward Feb 2013 #66
jaded_old_cynic Feb 2013 #60
former9thward Feb 2013 #65
jaded_old_cynic Feb 2013 #67
former9thward Feb 2013 #69
jaded_old_cynic Feb 2013 #70
former9thward Feb 2013 #72
titanicdave Feb 2013 #8
chuckstevens Feb 2013 #9
Thinkingabout Feb 2013 #55
BE10sCoach Feb 2013 #10
lotsofsnowplease Feb 2013 #11
DemoTex Feb 2013 #12
Coolest Ranger Feb 2013 #13
nradisic Feb 2013 #14
Berlum Feb 2013 #17
Historic NY Feb 2013 #64
onehandle Feb 2013 #19
SaveAmerica Feb 2013 #21
cstanleytech Feb 2013 #22
The CCC Feb 2013 #23
Botany Feb 2013 #30
karynnj Feb 2013 #78
barbtries Feb 2013 #25
Blue Palasky Feb 2013 #26
Fuddnik Feb 2013 #27
onenote Feb 2013 #74
awake Feb 2013 #32
malibea Feb 2013 #40
onenote Feb 2013 #77
Third Doctor Feb 2013 #33
DFW Feb 2013 #34
malibea Feb 2013 #37
malibea Feb 2013 #35
DallasNE Feb 2013 #38
vlyons Feb 2013 #42
PatrynXX Feb 2013 #44
SpankMe Feb 2013 #45
musette_sf Feb 2013 #46
judesedit Feb 2013 #48
frylock Feb 2013 #50
Angry Dragon Feb 2013 #51
benld74 Feb 2013 #54
lordsummerisle Feb 2013 #56
Thinkingabout Feb 2013 #58
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #61
Purveyor Feb 2013 #62
Blue Palasky Feb 2013 #63
malibea Feb 2013 #68

Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:15 AM

1. So Even If I Did Win

the HGTV Dream Home in South Carolina, I would turn it down. It isn't worth having this "clown" as your Senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Island Deac (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:00 PM

20. But you'd live near Colbert and have a chance to vote

Graham out. I really yearn for that moment he is gone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Island Deac (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:51 PM

31. He won't be senator for long. He'll be primaried out in 2014.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:18 AM

2. How is that "deal" on filibuster going now Harry Reid

Our problem is not the Repuks in the Senate it is our Leader or Non-Leader,it is time to get rid of Harry Reid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:20 AM

3. He said on Face the Nation that he wasn't going to filibuster

Just that he wouldn't allow a vote. Don't know what the difference is but that is how the clown from the south put it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:28 AM

6. How can it be constitutional to put a "hold" on a president's nomination?

The Senate has the right to give "advise and consent" the Constitution no where say that one or a few Senators can put a hold on a nominee. We need to grow some balls and charge anyone who tries to prevent a vote on a nominee with obstruction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:26 PM

24. The republicans have been about obstruction for 4 years now, maybe...

if they keep doubling down with their obstruction tactics, the voters will punish them sever ly in 2014.

Assholes like Graham keep getting more extreme and it is becoming harder for the M$M to give them the green light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:34 PM

28. I think I remember "holds"

in the Senate. And it was holds on many many many of POs nominees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #28)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:38 PM

29. Well is it not about time we "grow a few balls" and stop it

If Harry Reid will not stop it then it is time that we replace him with someone with the backbone to do the right thing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #29)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:50 PM

36. Well, as far as I know, the Dems in the Senate reelected Harry....

...as Majority Leader. They probably did that the first day of the 113th Congress, no? And if so, they had no idea that Harry was going to go back on his word to change the filibuster rules. Remember, that little filibuster discussion and agreement wasn't worked out until after the Inauguration, with Mitch McConnell. Or that's how Harry made it appear. I, personally, think the filibuster business was worked out before or maybe ON Inauguration Day. Did you watch tie Inauguration? As Harry walked out to the balcony with Nancy and others, he looked physically ill. It worried me, as my mind shot back to PO's first Inauguration luncheon, when Ted Kennedy had to be taken out on a stretcher. Now, here was Harry acting like he could barely keep up, looking down the whole way out. I really was worried about him. So, OK... then comes the luncheon. Schumer toasted Joe Biden first, and then comes Harry Reid's turn to toast PO. I guess it took him a while to get up and walk to the front to give the toast, but he finally got up there. He sat his champagne goblet down behind him and read the toast, not smiling or looking up. It was not rememberable, And then he just walked off. He did not click glasses with the President! He left his glass behind where he had set it down. Huh? I found it very rude of Harry. I can imagine what Schumer said to him later. Anyway, his behavior that day was an omen in my eyes. What was up with Harry? Then we found out that he had caved on his promises to change the filibuster. Coincidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #36)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:09 PM

39. Thanks for the insight

As far as I know the Majority Leader can be replaced any time the majority wants to replace him(or her as the case may be someday)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #39)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:23 PM

41. I'm far from an expert on the inner workings of the US Congress...

...i.e., not a parliamentarian. So I hope you're right and they DO IT!. Really, I didn't know that they could get rid of the Majority Leader any time for any excuse. Now, if he/she does something that is totally reprehensible, and against the rules of the house, then I think they can replace him...you know, like TOM DELAY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #41)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:32 PM

43. Well the "Senate Democrats Vote to Oust Their Leader" in N.Y. State

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/nyregion/senate-democrats-in-albany-replace-their-leader.html?_r=0

"Democrats in the State Senate, smarting over their inability to take control of the chamber despite winning a numerical majority, on Monday ousted their leader, John L. Sampson of Brooklyn, and replaced him with Andrea Stewart-Cousins of Westchester County."

So if they can do it in New York State I would think it can be done in D.C.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #43)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:15 PM

47. Wow... Farrrrrrrrrr Ouuuuuuut (as John Denver would say it)

You would think, wouldn't you? Well hey, let's find out. Bet you we could get an answer from Bernie in short order if we wrote or called him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:58 PM

73. The answer is that the Democratic caucus could vote to replace Reid whenever they want, if they want

But they don't want. That's because they understand what therole of the majority leader is. The majority leader sets the agenda which means working with Democrats with different priorities to find a happy medium. And his job is to count votes. If the votes aren't there to accomplish a particular objective, he's not going to pursue it, which was the case with filibuster reform. It never had a majority and even more telling, it didn't have the support of many of the most senior Democrats in the Senate, the members that Reid is going to listen to most closely.

I haven't heard a single member suggest that they think Reid should be replaced, which suggests its not going to happen no matter how much table pounding occurs here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #73)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:13 PM

75. So I gather...

...that you are not frustrated by what happened in PO's first term, re all the filibustering by the Minority in the Senate? Well, I guess we're up a creek without a paddle, no recourse. Thanks for your reply to my questions...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #75)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:18 PM

76. Sure I'm frustrated

but filibuster reform is not an easy question. While the repubs are abusing the filibuster process, Democrats have used it in the past to block odious legislation and nominees and since the odds that the Democrats will hold the Senate forever are slim and none, I'm worried what will happen if its eliminated. Sure, the repubs, if and when they regain control of the senate could attempt to get rid of the filibuster, but they've had that opportunity in the past and they've blinked for much the same reason that many senior Democrats have blinked -- they take the long view.

Plus, getting rid of the filibuster isn't going to have a significant impact in terms of getting legislation passed. The House will remain a bottleneck. As an example, just consider the Violence Against Women Act. Its gotten through the Senate, but if it gets through the House at all its going to be with a bunch of killing amendments (just like last Congress).

That's not to say that there aren't changes that can and should be made to the Senate's procedural rules. Its just that the issue is more nuanced than some realize, which is why so many of the most senior Democrats didn't sign on to the recent proposal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:27 AM

4. Hillary testified, Petraeus testified, Dempsey testified, Leon testified...

they have all the answers they're going to get, and they know it. This seems to be an excuse for more time to keep fishing for dirt on one certain nominee--we all know the GOP really hearts Brennan the Drone Warrior and will confirm him eagerly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:51 AM

16. Their testimony is equivalent to

the "short form" birth certificate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:55 PM

53. And there was a briefing, not a stage for questioning in which not all Congessional.members attended

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:48 PM

71. All could have attended, if it is important to those who seems to not understand they should

Have made arrangements to attend. There was security personnel in attendance to further explain what was occurring. Perhaps the questions of real time video would not have been ask if the Senators attended the briefing instead of getting their information from reporters who had the wrong information. Sometimes information is given in a briefing which should not go out to the general public and I am sure the,Senators are aware of this also. It is all about theatricals, they are playing to their base and do a very poor job of fooling perhaps anyone but their base and themselves. I guess 8% approval rate is not low enough for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:27 AM

5. Imagine just how angry Graham would have been about 9/11

And the failure of top leadership.

I'll bet he was furious.

Wasn't he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezlivin (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:50 AM

15. here you go...



and, peace, Ezlivin
kp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ezlivin (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:51 AM

18. Yes, and he demanded answers and refused to budge until he got them

Oh, wait...

No, they just launched a war against a country that had nothing to do with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:29 AM

7. When is Graham going to investigate

all of the Bush era embassy attacks and the deaths that resulted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to They_Live (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:26 PM

49. The last ambassador killed was in 1979.

Not sure what you are referring to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #49)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:51 PM

52. There have been many other times embassies have been attacked and lives lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #52)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:16 PM

57. I hoped there would be links provided.

I guess that is too much to hope for. Can't wait for the "Do your own homework!" post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #57)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:42 PM

59. I found several links by doing a google search.

Since there was an ambassador killed in 1979 the link I am providing contains some of that information. I thought it was common knowledge we have had several attacks since 9/11 but good luck with your homework.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/114173/are

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #59)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:09 PM

66. The poster I replied to said there were killings of embassy staff in the Bush years.

Your link does not support that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jaded_old_cynic (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 01:04 PM

65. Those involve local people getting killed.

None involved our embassy staff being killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:47 PM

67. The poster

The poster They Live did not say anything in his/her post about embassy staff being killed. The question was; "When is Graham going to investigate all of the Bush era embassy attacks and the deaths that resulted?" The word "staff" does not appear in any part of that question. You inserted that yourself after the fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jaded_old_cynic (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:50 PM

69. He was comparing "Bush embassy attacks"it to the Libya investigation.

Where the ambassador and staff were killed. As you well know. Don't play word games with me. It doesn't work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:56 PM

70. It seems you are the one playing word games.

I was merely posting a link to American embassy attacks and the resultant deaths. So because no staff died, the other deaths under the bush era attacks don't warrant an investigation? .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jaded_old_cynic (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:52 PM

72. Investigate away.

What one has to do with the other I don't know. I don't favor cover ups no matter who is in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:30 AM

8. Not Surprised

that Senator Jerkwater from a southern red state would do this........get your stuff together and do what is right for the country, you dip wad

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:31 AM

9. It's Whitewater All Over Again

Keep fishing and hopefully something will turn up to score cheap political points. Whatever it is, the GOP and Faux News will hype it into being bigger than Watergate.

Our the American people so stupid that they have forgotten that it was Bush and Cheney who had a major "intelligence failure" that cost the US over 4,000 American lives on 9/11, over 5,000 US soldier deaths in a war that they intensionally lied the nation into, over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilian deaths, and trillions of dollars of our money that made their rich friends even wealthier, all while destroying the US economy? Get to the bottom of Libya? GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!

I wish we had an attorney General would turn the tables ans start investigation people like Graham, McConnell, Isa, etc. What an unbelievable joke it all is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chuckstevens (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 06:02 PM

55. Are you saying we are going to get a bill for over 100 million dollars and nothing for it?

And then the repubs will talk about how much money the Democrats spend. They forget about the two billion a week spent on a senseless war. Yea, just keep spending.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:32 AM

10. GOP Filibuster and Graham

First Mr. Leader, inact filibuster common sense and real talking filibuster rules! The Republican are nothing more that obstructionists and learned nothing from the last election, so further and further they will drop into minority status. As for "Twinkle Toes" Lindsey Graham, please come out of the closet, the Log Cabin Republicans need you as a national spokesman!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:33 AM

11. Cry baby Graham

 

This guy is a fucking piece of shit whine baby loser. He is just one example of why the people of the world do not like FUCKING REPIGLICANS!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:34 AM

12. My vapid, petulant little senator

Even the ultra-right upstate of SC is tiring of this little prick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:37 AM

13. Old winbag will not let it go

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:41 AM

14. Can someone please out Graham already...

That would seal his fate with the God-hates-fags crowd and get rid off him once and for all. There are 3 Senators I cannot stand: McConnell, Graham and McCain. I can't wait until they go away for ever...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:51 AM

17. Olde Sourpussy Lindsey Graham (R) having a Prissy Hissy Fit

..over doodley squat. As usual. These whiney RepubliWankers all need MET (Massive Enema Therapy) to rid them of their Inner ChickenShit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:09 PM

64. Let get his sent back to active duty to Lybia where he can ...

check for himself. What a idiot..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 11:57 AM

19. Graham, McCain, and Ayotte are useless windbags that should be drafted...

...and parachuted into Tehran.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:03 PM

21. Don't you wonder what the Republicans are holding over

his head that allows them to pull his strings for whatever they want? Some pictures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:08 PM

22. Wanna bet he didnt hold up any nominations Bush made after it turned out that the intel

over Iraq having WMDs was false?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:16 PM

23. Sen. Graham Threatens To Delay Obama's Nominees For Defense, CIA Because Of Libya Attack

Lindsey Graham... JAG officer with a Reserve grade of Colonel.
John McCain...Pilot in Vietnam.
Kelly Ayotte...Husband in military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The CCC (Reply #23)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:41 PM

30. and Jefferson Beaureguard Sessions and Jim Inhofe to your list

Sessions is named after 2 people who wanted to destroy the United States. Gen. P.T. Beauregard and
C.S.A. President Jefferson Davis both of whom thought owning human beings was a good idea and
that United States should no longer exist.

And Inhofe just because he is a douche bag who said that nobody in his family is gay or divorced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The CCC (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:24 PM

78. Hagel's military record beats both Ayotte and Graham

and is at least equal to McCain's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:27 PM

25. wtf does he want?

what can he possibly expect at this point? jeezus

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:29 PM

26. FUCK YOU

 

HARRY REID!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:32 PM

27. I'm so glad Hairy Reed cured the filibuster.

Nobody could have ever seen this coming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fuddnik (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:11 PM

74. As noted above, this is different than a filibuster

Holds are an informal practice of longstanding in the Senate that have frequently been used by Senators of both parties. In fact, Bernie Sanders has used holds against President Obama's nominees on more than one occasion. Carl Levin also placed a hold on at least one Obama nominee (first term nominee for undersecretary of Defense).

By putting a hold on a nomination, a Senator can slow its progress but in the end, holds are not a tool for preventing a nomination from reaching the floor. That would take a filibuster and it appears clear from what is known at this point that there are sufficient votes to break any attempted filibuster of either Hagel or Brennan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 12:55 PM

32. What would happen if the nomination of Chuck Hagel was brought up for a vote

and Sen. Lindsey Graham's "hold" was ignored as being unconstitutional? We should force the wacko right to defend themselves and stop them from hiding behind "rules" of the Senate. We are talking about a war hero being smeared by a bunch of chicken-hawks! The real reason that the right does not want Chuck Hagel is that his is not a "NeoCon" who thinks that the only answer is to start a war when and where ever they can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #32)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:15 PM

40. In addtion, don't forget anyone OBAMA wants- they do not!

The basic reason the repugs do not want this nominee, Hagel, for "dogcatcher" is that the President wants him. It would not matter what the position was, which I refer to here as "dogcatcher". It could also be referred to with the same outcome as "cat herder"! Same difference. These actions and behaviors are so stupid, knee-jerk, and definitely racist. I don't know what else to call it besides racist. I have seen party opposition, but this is beyond that. In addition, Hagel is a republican!

And for people to continue to vote for these racist assholes make them as racist as their representatives. It is no way these repugnants could win re-election if their constituency were not racist. It is a shame to always continue to say, but it is true. I am also tired of beating a dead horse but there is no other way to see it or say it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awake (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:46 PM

77. Bernie Sanders would object vehemently among other things

Bernie has used holds against several of President Obama's nominees, including Bernanke, so I doubt that he would sit silently if the practice was labelled unconstitutional.

Its an informal practice that is effectively enshrined in the Senate's rules. It doesn't block a vote from occurring -- only a filibuster can do that. It simply slows the process down. I suspect that Reid will allow Graham to have his hold for a couple of days and then move for cloture, which from everything I've read, will pass and the confirmation vote will occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:02 PM

33. Lindsey is beating his chest

because the nuts back in SC are thinking about primaring him. This issue has been explained and done to death but the GOP is still clawing at this straw. This is Reid and the senators that would not support reform's fault. I really hope he does not run in 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:12 PM

34. Oh, gimme a goddam break

The Republicans were going to hold up Obama's nominees no matter what. They've been doing that since day one, so don't any of their sleazebag teabaggers try to tell us that this is a response to anything recent. This is their response to America having preferred Barack Obama to their guy (now twice in a row), and to nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DFW (Reply #34)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:52 PM

37. AMEN to the effing Amen!

You called it correct! Everybody should know what is up by now- and if they don't they have slept for the last 4-1/2 years or are definitely in denial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:48 PM

35. Get off the b/s!

Come on- do these repugnants think that for a minute it matters what they think happened in Libya-or anywhere else for that matter! They don't care about any person, or persons, let alone anybody in Libya. It is just a bullspit stall tactic intent upon never, ever confirming any of the President's nominees. I don't think the President should put any of his nominees at the mercy of these gutless, shameless, stupid repugnant son of a bitches! The President should go ahead and save everyone some time and probably some money, by appointing whomever he wants to serve in whatever position. I know it is in the U.S. Constituion that the appointees should come before certain committees for benefit of "questioning", but what these lousy repugnants do is so stupid and asinine, it has become a pitiful little GAME! Geez, enough of this bullcrap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:02 PM

38. Benghazi Is A Remote Outpost

In a dangerous part of the world where, unfortunately, 4 American's were killed in a terrorist attack. But in the scope of things this is small in scale and rather unimportant. Yes, you want to quietly evaluate what happened and take steps to assure that we are better prepared to defend against this kind of action in the future but make no mistake, this has already gotten 1000 times the attention it deserves. Besides, this is not much bigger than a roadside bomb that blows up and kills 4.

What I want to know is why CBS even had Graham on today as he is on almost as much as McCain. In fact, those two are on TV more than all Democrats combined. And they never do anything but rehash the same thing they said the week before. Check it out, how many weeks in a row has Graham been on TV talking about nothing but Benghazi. It is just plain silly and needs to stop. It is like the non-stop coverage Joseph McCarthy got in the early 1950's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:28 PM

42. What Graham really wants is:

for Obama to drop his pants, bend over, and take it in the you-know-where. I hate Lindsey Graham. I do believe that he gets more and more obnoxious with every passing year--if such a thing is possible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:57 PM

44. Not sure what other answers there are. Clearly cutting funding was bad. end of story

so alas they want to risk our security just to find some tiny speck where they can blame Obama. Crap at this rate we shoulda held longer hearings on the corrupted voting machines in 2004. Certainly a bigger story than Libyans fighting for us. sheesh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:59 PM

45. More bullshit obstructionism

1. Tell the Whitehouse you'll hold up their nominees until they answer all of your questions.

2. Ask questions that are rhetorical and/or unanswerable. Or, imply you have questions that aren't being answered, even though you haven't formulated the questions yet.

3. Profit!

The Dems aren't doing enough to expose this MO. They won't get my vote or donations any more until they start playing some hardball and winning these things. They won this election decisively. They need to move the agenda forward. Right now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:04 PM

46. Lindsay, in pearl-clutching apoplexy,

retires to the fainting couch with some smelling salts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:12 PM

48. Can't someone make these parasites go away, PLEASE

Who the hell does Graham think he i? He's a do-nothing Congressman is all. I'm sick of this bs where one asshole can hold up everything. How old is that coot anyway? Obama should tell Graham-cracker, he'll get more answers after they hold a rigorous interrogation on 9/11 and embassy attacks during the Bushco fiasco and no sooner. Get these parasites outta there, please, people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:32 PM

50. i hate this little fucker with a white hot passion..

I hope the baggers primary his ass to absolute obscurity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:40 PM

51. terrorists issue threats

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:58 PM

54. Graham is such the popcorn fart I can hardly stand hearing the guy speak anymore,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 06:12 PM

56. Great

old Graham Cracker is at it again....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:28 PM

58. Senator you mean may nit have heard but we have had several mass shootings in the USA recently.

What is I you plans to investigate these incidents. I want you to place as much importance on the mass killings as you are to Benghazi and put forth measures to get the gun violence in the USA under control. You think you can hide behind the NRA, guess what we are going to target the Congress members who refuse to regulate weapons of war on our streets. We are following your actions, watch out for the sane voters, we are coming after you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 08:38 PM

61. Obama needs to get on his bully pulpit about this

Also, the other Dems need to get on their bully pulpits. These guys are like Sen. McCarthy from the 50s. Ted Cruz is saying that Hagel has ties to Hamas.

Please Dems get on your bully pulpits. Expose these unpatriotic frauds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #61)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 08:39 PM

62. I hoping he brings this up in his SOTU address Tuesday night. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Purveyor (Reply #62)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 10:01 PM

63. he won't

 

he'll praise the fucks for the "bipartisan" bullshit they were able to get passed. then talk about the need for more, stronger bipartisanship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftInTX (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:50 PM

68. These DEMS are cowards!

Well, we got rid of of some/most of the Blue Dog democrats but apparently NOT ALL OF THEM! I have always seen this cowardice in the Dems for a long time and from 99% of them, but it makes me sick that these elected democrats do not support nor sponsor any of the Presidents' policies or mantras.

In addition, do these democrats ever campaign for their own re-election-- or do they just continue to ride on the coattails of the President as they have done in the past? Well, the joy ride and "freebie" is over since the President cannot run again.

As I have said in the past, "with friends like this (Dems) who needs enemies (repugnants)?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread