Sorry Lindsey

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AK Forty Seven, Feb 12, 2013.


    Republican senator says will block CIA, Pentagon nominees

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Sunday threatened to block votes on President Barack Obama's nominees for CIA director and defense secretary until the administration gives more information about the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

    On CBS's "Face the Nation," Graham said he would invoke senatorial privilege to put a hold on votes on the nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, and on defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel until the White House gives more information.

    Harry Reid will reject GOP efforts to stall Obama nominees

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will not honor any "holds" used by Senate Republicans to stall votes on President Barack Obama's nominations to lead the Department of Defense and the CIA, the Nevada Democrat said Tuesday.

    "A hold means nothing," Reid said during his weekly press briefing.

    South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham had vowed to use a hold—an informal procedure in which senators inform Senate leaders they oppose a bill or nomination reaching the floor in order to stall a vote—on defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel and CIA director nominee John Brennan. He said he needs to hear more information about the deadly September attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, before proceeding. Graham, who made his vow on CBS's "Face the Nation" Sunday, added that he did not think the Senate should vote on the nominations "until the White House gives us an accounting" of events surrounding the attack, but he stopped short of vowing a filibuster.

    Reid, who said he planned to schedule a vote on Hagel's nomination later this week, said he would ignore Graham's request.

    In response, Graham called the planned vote "a mistake."

    "We don't have enough information," Graham told Yahoo News. "We're not going to get jammed on something this important."

    Senate panel approves Hagel for Pentagon chief

    WASHINGTON (AP) — A bitterly divided Senate panel on Tuesday approved President Barack Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the nation's defense secretary in a rancorous session at which Republican questioned the former GOP senator's truthfulness and challenged his patriotism.

    On a party-line vote of 14-11, the Armed Services Committee voted to send the nomination to the full Senate, where Republicans have threatened to delay a vote on the president's choice to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.

    Democrats have the votes to confirm Hagel, a twice-wounded Vietnam combat veteran and former two-term Nebraska senator, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he would press ahead with a vote on the most divisive nominee of Obama's second-term national security team.

    Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., said after the hearing that he was hopeful the Senate could confirm Hagel by week's end.

    Hagel has faced fierce opposition from Republicans who have challenged his past statements and votes on Israel, Iran, Iraq and nuclear weapons, but the two-hour-plus session took an uncomfortable turn for some members of the traditionally bipartisan panel.

    Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, insisted that Hagel provide information on compensation for paid speeches over a five-year period — three years more than required — and suggested that without the information, the committee wouldn't know whether Hagel got money from "extreme and radical groups."

    By DONNA CASSATA | Associated Press – 1 hr 28 mins ago
  3. pspr


    Yup. Requiring 60 votes until some stonewalling stops.
  4. Hagel will be confirmed pspr
  5. pspr


    Not unless more info is provided. Obama might just withdraw his nomination.
  6. A friendly bet pspr? If Hagel is confirmed you don't post for 30 days,if he isn't I don't post for 30 days :)
  7. pspr


    We've already gone over this.
  8. Yes,you are not willing to stand behind your opinion with a friendly bet :(
  9. pspr


    I stand behind my opinion with my words. I'm not so insecure that I need to bet with anonymous posters.

    Do you think the Founding Fathers were so childish as to feel the need to place wagers with each other on what would get into the Constitution and what woudn't?
  10. Well I know most of my opinions and predictions are right so I'm always willing to bet on them :)
    #10     Feb 12, 2013