Home > US Politics > Lindsay Graham to block Hagel, Brennan confirmation until he gets information

Lindsay Graham to block Hagel, Brennan confirmation until he gets information

February 11th, 2013

Senator Lindsay Graham says he will stall the votes to confirm Hager or Brennan for their respective posts until he gets the information he wants on Benghazi. Specifically he wants to know what the President was doing the night of September 11, 2012.

He is claiming complete “system failure” that night.

Graham is full of accusations and says he will not back down.

Why is he holding up 2 administrative appointments over some other issue? Graham needs to stop his childish games, quit playing politics, and get on with the senate confirmation. These are critical posts and eat nominee deserves an up or down vote.

Categories: US Politics Tags:
  1. middleman
    February 11th, 2013 at 10:11 | #1

    Graham has become, along with McCain, the front man in the GOP effort to somehow discredit the president. Their party is in disarray, public opinion is against them, so they try to get a toehold on making the president look unpresidential.

    Maybe they should bring back Monica Lewinsky and give that angle a try?

    • February 11th, 2013 at 10:29 | #2

      Wouldn’t they take great delight in another Monica? I can see Lindsay now.

  2. February 11th, 2013 at 11:29 | #3

    I can answer Graham. Its easy. He was sleeping. Panetta told everyone what he was doing. He was completely out of the loop. Doesn’t he believe Panetta?

    Of course, that doesn’t explain why Panetta DIDN’T wake the President, if what he says is true. Or authorize assistance.

    There…that’s settled.

    Now we can put the candidates into their positions and continue to screw up American foreign policy and defense policy.

    • February 11th, 2013 at 11:32 | #4

      You were right there with them, eh, Cargo?

      You think we ought to go out and start a few more wars? Would that make you happy?

      psssst–who will pay for it?

  3. February 11th, 2013 at 11:56 | #5

    Why are you asking me that? Panetta was on the news saying this.

    Where did you get the “Start more wars” from? Remember, its the PRESIDENT that sets policy, so no matter who is there….he’s still there to screw it up….like committing an act of war without even Congressional discussion on a peaceful country…. Libya.

    I didn’t advocate any more wars and wanted the President to pull out of Afghanistan as soon as he surrendered.

    • February 11th, 2013 at 14:16 | #6

      He who surrendered in Afghanistan?

      Its just the incessant jabbing. You sure didn’t answer the other questions I asked either.

      Do you think Lindsay Graham ought to be holding up appointments over this?

      If he found out that Obama was out wmanizing and laying drunk on Sept 11th, what could he, Graham do about it now? Obama can’t be re-elected and no one can be brought back to life.

      The whole thing just makes Lindsay Graham look like…well… a bitch.

  4. Peterson
    February 11th, 2013 at 14:34 | #7

    Your forgetting something Cargo, he was on the phone for 1 hour but it had nothing to do with Benghazi, it was purely political. Then He went to bed early to get lots of rest because he had something MUCH more important to do the next day. He had to party with Beyonce and JayZ in Vegas!

    He can’t be bothered with something like Benghazi and leave Beyonce hangin’. Everyone knows that, duh.

  5. February 11th, 2013 at 17:49 | #8

    Lindsay Graham can stop being a bitch. All he needs to do is ask people on this blog. They know all the answers—except how to stay on topic which is about Graham being obstructionist.

    Apparently people aren’t bothered by the fact that the appointment of Secretary of Defense and CIA head are going unfilled so Graham can have his little bitch fit.

    Regardless of what he finds out, it will not change anything.

  6. February 11th, 2013 at 17:50 | #9

    Who would have changed their vote if they found out Obama was out playing night golf the night of 9/11?

    I sure would not have.

  7. Clinton S. Long
    February 11th, 2013 at 19:00 | #10

    Sorry, but what Mr. Graham is doing is standard for getting information that is alleged to be withheld.

    Happens whether one is democrat or republican. Heck, Ron Wyden, a democrat, has threatened similar action when he wanted something from the Obama administration.

    • February 11th, 2013 at 19:29 | #11

      I would be equally critical of him. I don’t like that kind of politics.

      Graham in particular is just galling to me.

      What was Wyden’ title on the committee? Was he actually able to stall a vote?

  8. Starryflights
    February 11th, 2013 at 19:19 | #12

    The American people support Obama on foreign policy, particularly his decision to leave Iraq. Graham is making his party and himself look like a bunch of idiots.

  9. Scout
    February 11th, 2013 at 22:38 | #13

    This has a lot to do with South Carolina politics. Mr. Graham has to secure his right flank. While I am not particularly edified by this tactic, this Senator has, over time, been one of the more enlightened, intelligent and public-spirited members of Congress. This is pretty nasty and I can’t defend it, but don’t lose sight of Graham’s being a relatively independent force in Congress.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 03:01 | #14

      @Scout, I used to defend him also…but in the past year, something has happened to him. Same with McCain. I used to consider both men to be enlightened.

  10. Clinton S. Long
    February 11th, 2013 at 22:52 | #15

    @Moon-howler
    Any senator can stall a vote. They don’t have to have a rank other than senator. It happens daily and some is politics but mostly it is the only way that information that has been requested for months can be forced. I am not defending, just stating a truism. It is what it is.

    If administrations just replied to oversight committees, there wouldn’t be a need to place a hold. It is all wasted since usually an administration just caves and wastes everyone’s time stalling.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 03:03 | #16

      I suppose I just don’t understand the new senate rules. New equals past decade.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 07:56 | #17

      I heard on TV very early this morning (Rachel Maddow as a matter of fact) that the stall and the filabuster have never been used in the past over a nomination–by anyone.

      So someone help me out here. Maddow is generally well researched.

  11. February 12th, 2013 at 07:51 | #18

    Moon-howler :
    He who surrendered in Afghanistan?
    Its just the incessant jabbing. You sure didn’t answer the other questions I asked either.
    Do you think Lindsay Graham ought to be holding up appointments over this?
    If he found out that Obama was out wmanizing and laying drunk on Sept 11th, what could he, Graham do about it now? Obama can’t be re-elected and no one can be brought back to life.
    The whole thing just makes Lindsay Graham look like…well… a bitch.

    What questions didn’t I answer? I didn’t promote more wars. I stated where I saw Panetta say what he did. And I’ve said that I didn’t care whether they were appointed. AND I said that I would answer Graham’s questions…implying that he doesn’t need to hold them up.
    Surrender: when you tell the enemy that you are leaving, regardless of the facts on the ground. leaving the field of battle to them.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 08:16 | #19

      Were we at war with Afghanistan? Didn’t think so.

      Were we at war with Iraq? Interesting. I find it strange you left out why we were there in the first place. No mention of the fact that we invaded a country who was, in essense, not doing anything to us.

      I don’t believe we surrendered there and we certainly didn’t surrender to Afghanistan.

      So what are you talking about?

  12. Clinton S. Long
    February 12th, 2013 at 08:26 | #20

    @Moon-howler
    She may be “well researched” but I think The Hill has a different opinion.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/282335-its-not-unprecedented-to-filibuser-cabinet-nominees

    It also isn’t new.

  13. Clinton S. Long
    February 12th, 2013 at 08:30 | #21

    @Moon-howler
    By the way, I would not trust the impression that any of these commentator, who are expressing personal opinion and not reporting news, to be doing anything other than spinning loose facts in order to support their opinion.

    Like the saying goes, never let a few facts get in the way of a good opinion.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 10:41 | #22

      It was reported as fact, not opinion. Maddow is good about correcting facts when she is wrong. Like what she has to say or not, she is one of the more professional of the current commentators. She and Greta are both professional.

      Please provide examples of other confirmations that have not gone through because of filabuster or the stall. (hold?)

      If you can verify that some other confirmation hasn’t gone through because of either of those Senate tricks of the trade, by all means bring them out so we can discuss them.

  14. February 12th, 2013 at 08:33 | #23

    @Moon-howler
    We surrendered the field of battle to the Taliban and have been taking 4 years to retreat, ever since the President openly declared when we were leaving, during his first term. He said it in a speech to West Point. He stated that we were leaving…no matter what was going on in theater.
    In Iraq, we defeated the enemy and left afterwards.
    As for the invasion of Iraq, there was, at least, discussion with Congress and the UN. Iraq was still under sanctions for ITS aggression and had broken its agreements. There was cause.
    Libya, on the other hand, gave up its WMD and Nuke program voluntarily. It was attempting to rejoin the world as a non-terrorist state.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 10:48 | #24

      There was cause? No. There was no cause based on fact. I beg to differ. We aren’t the UN enforcers. You are pulling this one out of your ears, Cargo.

      Iraq-there was no official national surrender.
      Afghanistan- we weren’t at war with them. I don’t think there is a word for what we were/are. I don’t recall a surrender to the Taliban. Horse puckey.
      Libya–Let’s talk about what a good guy Quiddafi is. How about when he put out the women and children in his faamily to guard his palace.

  15. February 12th, 2013 at 11:23 | #25

    So….we are supposed to attack a country because the leader is a jerk?

    Iraq… we were part of the signatories to the cease fire agreements with Iraq. Do I really need to go through the entire history of the Kuwait invasion, subsequent cease fire agreements, subsequent failure of Saddam to abide by the agreements, the entire UN fiasco, etc? Capturing the leader and installing a new gov’t means that you don’t require a surrender. No cause based on fact? Lets go with your assertion. When did we know that for certain? Oh..yeah. AFTER we searched his country…..btw..we found WMD. We would have found more…..but it was probably on the convoys going to Syria to his fellow Baathist. AND in the final report, it was noted that Sadaam did have a nuke program ready to be set up as soon as the sanctions were removed.

    Afghanistan – we are in a war with the Taliban in that theater of conflict. We stated that we are leaving the theater of conflict without victory, leaving the opposing force in place. They win. We lose.

    Libya – Yep. Lets talk….. He was an islamist that did the typical thing of hiding behind women and children. And yet…he handed over his WMD to the world. What WAS the reason for attacking Libya? Our President has YET to tell Congress why he committed acts of war against a peaceful country.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 13:20 | #26

      Libya–it was a NATO iniative. We didnt do jack unilaterally.

      You know, that’s what happens with allies. Remember how pissed off everyone was when we went into Iraq and some counties didnt want to be involved?

      Libya was security issues to some of those countries, like UK, etc.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 13:41 | #27

      Don’t talk down to me. re: ” do I need to….blah blah blah”

      Many people simply don’t agree with your right wing bullsnort. You are making your own reality. No WMD were found and there is no proof of Syria. After all that the country is region is more unstable than before we decimated Iraq.

      “They win we lose?” Isnt that a rather sophomoric way to look at Afghanistan? Binary thinking in a country that has a couple thousand years of defense against the outside world. Its tribal for a reason. They can’t crack their own country.

      Do you ever get tired of Obama bashing? Aren’t you just exhausted at night propping up your right wing world of unreality?

      Qiddafi was ruthless dictator who was killing his own people.

  16. February 12th, 2013 at 11:26 | #28

    Of course, none of the above has anything to do with the pro-Islamist Brennan and the incompetent Hagel.

    While I feel that appointing Brennan, with his ties to arab support, would endanger our country, go ahead…do it. We deserve no less. He can’t be worse than his boss.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 13:23 | #29

      please stop that crap. Discuss issues and stop name calling.

      What exactly does does pro islamist mean? is that code for killing all Muslims?

  17. February 12th, 2013 at 11:36 | #30

    Hey…I’ll even give Obama credit if this is true….

    Panetta says that Obama refused to arm the Syrian rebels.

    Of course, this flies in the face of evidence that American weapons are reaching the rebels via weapons provided to somebody in Libya.

    So, maybe he’s not arming them INTENTIONALLY.

    Obama states that he WILL intervene if Syria uses chemical weapons inside Syria. I wonder what he will do if the rebels use chemical weapons, as they have threatened to do?

  18. Elena
    February 12th, 2013 at 14:16 | #31

    Wow, talk about drama Cargo …..”endanger our country” with his pro islamist ties. you sound like a perfect little mcarthy era robot.

  19. Clinton S. Long
    February 12th, 2013 at 14:53 | #32

    @Moon-howler
    This will be a little long since I am quoting it from the webpage link above:

    “The Senate website defines a “filibuster” as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.” By that definition, there have been many filibusters of cabinet-level nominees.

    The most prominent manifestation of a filibuster is when a senator attempts to overcome a filibuster by a motion to invoke cloture, which limits further debate on the pending matter to 30 additional hours. To pass, cloture attempts require the support of three-fifths (usually 60 votes) of the full Senate.

    Cloture was attempted successfully to end filibusters of the nominations of: Dirk Kempthorne for secretary of the Interior in 2006; Robert J. Portman for U.S. Trade Representative in 2005; Stephen L. Johnson for administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2005; Michael O. Leavitt for EPA Administrator in 2003; and C. William Verity for secretary of Commerce in 1987. Every one of these nominees were chosen by Republican administrations and primary support for each filibuster came from Democrats in the Senate including, in some cases, current President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of State Kerry and former Secretary of State Clinton.

    Further, a cloture attempt was withdrawn to end a filibuster of Hilda Solis, outgoing Secretary of Labor in the Obama Administration. And by unanimous consent, the Senate agreed to a 60-vote threshold (the same as required to overcome a filibuster) for confirmation of two other Obama Administration cabinet nominees – Kathleen Sebelius for secretary of Health and Human Services and John Bryson for secretary of Commerce.”

    And–

    “An alternate anti-filibuster argument is that there has never been a successful filibuster of a cabinet-level nominee, but this claim is also false. It is difficult – if not impossible – to show that such a filibuster has never succeeded, given the broad definition of the term. Several cabinet-level nominees have withdrawn following delays on consideration of their nominations. John R. Bolton’s nomination by President George W. Bush to be U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations – a cabinet-level position under Presidents Clinton and Obama but not President Bush – also was not confirmed after a concerted, Democratic-led filibuster.”

  20. February 12th, 2013 at 16:47 | #33

    @Elena
    I used to have a Top Secret Clearance. If I had been found to have ties to Hamas….ANY TIES, I would have lost that clearance.

    He has financial ties. He has supported the Palestinian cause. He names Jerusalem as Al Quds. He doesn’t believe that the terrorists are jihadists or islamists.

    So, you know where you can take your little McCarthy statement. Btw…McCarthy was proven right in many cases when the Soviet files were released.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 20:53 | #34

      So, in your own words, what financial ties does Hagel have to Hamas?

      What is the Palestine cause? Since when is it un-American to have sympathy for Palestine and Palestinians? Plenty of people do. To those of us not guilty of binary thinking, it is possible to have sympathy for Palestine and defend israel’s right to exist, all in the same brain.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 21:26 | #35

      McCarthy is an American disgrace. He destroyed many lives and careers. Even a broke clock is right 2x a day.

  21. Elena
    February 12th, 2013 at 19:57 | #36

    well goodie for you Cargo, top secret isn’t that hard to get my friend.

    Are you sure you don’t mean to accuse Hagel, I am reading all the paranoid tin foil hat people via the “interwebs” and it sounds like we have a plethora of traitors to the jihad cause ;)

    I mean, they do include Brennan too, is President Obama on the list as well?!

  22. Peterson
    February 12th, 2013 at 21:12 | #37

    Moon-howler :
    It was reported as fact, not opinion. Maddow is good about correcting facts when she is wrong. Like what she has to say or not, she is one of the more professional of the current commentators. She and Greta are both professional.
    Please provide examples of other confirmations that have not gone through because of filabuster or the stall. (hold?)
    If you can verify that some other confirmation hasn’t gone through because of either of those Senate tricks of the trade, by all means bring them out so we can discuss them.

    Sure it’s happened before… to borrow a phrase from you… Obama acted like a bitch, Hillary Clinton acted like a bitch, Joe Biden acted like a bitch and John Kerry acted like a bitch durning Bush’s admin. But I suppose that is way back when acting like a bitch was cool, looks like these days acting like a bitch means something else.

  23. Scout
    February 12th, 2013 at 21:40 | #38

    @Cargosquid: When did Brennan suddenly become “Pro-Islamist”? He’s been on the frontline for many years against Islamic fascist-terrorists. I saw nothing of this in the press over the last few days. If he defected, perhaps a drone strike is in order. But I think you’re hallucinating.

  24. February 12th, 2013 at 21:46 | #39

    @Moon-howler
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165058
    And
    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/07/Saad-Hariri-Friend-of-Hamas-Supporter-of-Hagel

    Of course, you will discount it because its from Breitbart.

    The point is suspicion of such would have killed my clearance. He refuses to disclose his finances and yet expects to be made head of CIA?

    All this said…. I don’t care if he is made head of the CIA or not. HE’s not the threat.

  25. February 12th, 2013 at 21:50 | #40

    @Elena
    Oh goody for me…that it wasn’t that hard to get. Just having my life examined back to my childhood. Having my friends and family interviewed. Just having to make sure that my relationships and actions were especially above board.

    Nice that you think that they are so easy to get. And it was a little higher than that….

  26. February 12th, 2013 at 22:11 | #41

    @Scout
    He’s never been willing to acknowledge the danger or even the existence of the Islamist movement.

    @Moon-howler
    The Palestinian Cause. Well, if you go by the charters of their respective elected governments, it is the utter destruction of Israel.
    Only the fanatics call Jerusalem by the term Al Quds.

    Oh..and so does Brennan.

    • February 12th, 2013 at 22:44 | #42

      Oh bloviate bloviate bloviate. How do you know what “he” has been willing to acknowledge.

      Rather than spin spin spin let’s look at the reality of the situation here. There are Palestineans, the people who lived in Palestine. Many of them are homeless, living in refugee villages, living in poverty, and many young men are out of work. There is no work. There is no Palestinian state.

      So what do we do with these people? Do we ignore them? They won’t allow that. Do we kill them? Do we welfare them? Do we talk about them like they ar dogs? People I know from the region lost homes and property in the late 40′s as israel reclaimed its statehood and was backed by the UN.

      Now, we can talk to the Palestinians and we can seek solutions. We can look can look at the humanitarian side of their plight.

      Or we can be A-holes with a binary political agenda. There are 2 major groups of people here and solutions must be sought. Good for Hager and Brennan also.

      Cargo, do you ever go outside the box and look at ideas that aren’t spewed forth by right wing nuts? That is what I find so frustrating about YOU and those you claim “we-ness” with….all on the same sheet of music. I don’t see any individual thinking. Just group-think.

  27. February 12th, 2013 at 22:13 | #43

    @Moon-howler
    Well then…if he’s such a bad guy, why am I being insulted because I brought up issues?

    I didn’t even say that these people should NOT be nominated.

    • February 13th, 2013 at 02:15 | #44

      You slay me, Cargo. You rattle off all these negative remarks about something or someone and then when someone challenges that, you say well, you didnt say that. Preety much , yea you did. Not a direct quote but the implication is there.

      I actually don’t care who they nominate. I just want the Republicans to play fairly. If there is something wrong with either nominee, then let’s discuss the real issue instead of all this made up BS. Its the idea that everything Obama is cause for you to start hurling insults. Its distracting and its so political that it stinks.

  28. February 12th, 2013 at 22:58 | #45

    @Moon-howler
    As opposed to your lock step with certain political positions, oh independent one? Do you ever leave your apologist box and look at things critically, other than the GOP?

    I’m all for treating the Palestinians humanely. I’m all for seeking solutions. Just as soon as THEY start seeking solutions. Want to know why there is such a problem in “Palestine?” Because THEY refuse to act in a civilized manner. They won’t allow us to ignore them by firing missiles into Israel or sending murderers into homes and slitting the throats of children or using suicide bombers. They elected the governments that are more interested in killing Israelis than they are building up their territory. Heck, Hamas kills more Palestinians than Israel does.

    Why can’t we ignore them? What makes them any more special than anyone else?

    Israel left Gaza, leaving millions of dollars in infrastructure, farms, businesses to them for free.

    It was destroyed and missile launchers put into place.

    I actually support Palestinian statehood. I think that Israel should simplify its “wall”, define the border, and tell the settlers in the “Palestinian” area to either leave or become Palestinian. Once statehood is achieved, Israel can treat it like any other country. If terrorists/missiles/etc come across the border, hold the gov’t accountable.

    As for Brennan, I’ve watched his career and take him at his word. I am using his statements.

    • February 13th, 2013 at 03:23 | #47

      @Cargo

      In the first place, who the hell is Caroline Glick? Why is her opinion any more important than anyone else’s? She is a militant Israeli. Ok. We don’t expect her to love Palestinans.

      No, Hamas doesn’t want Israel as part of their “state.”

      One of Hagal’s good points is he doesn’t want to make sure ever Muslim in the world hates us. Obviously the Arabic world is not going to continue to let western countries ride rough shod over arabic countries.

      Not every Irish citizen is Sinn Fein and not every Palestian is militant Hamas. Not every American is tea party. I have no problem with Hagel in that regard. I would rather him go in than that airdale who wanted to piss everyone off. (and succeeded) The only responsible behavior regarding the middle east is to establish dialogue. If for no other reason, we really can’t afford to wage war on every one who pisses us off or who looks cross eyed at Israel.

  29. Scout
    February 13th, 2013 at 05:43 | #48

    If he’s part of our Government effort to kill and destroy Al Quaeda, how can you say he’s never acknowledged the danger or existence of the movement? That seems more than a bit nutty, Cargo. How is Brenna “pro-Islamist”?

  30. Scout
    February 13th, 2013 at 07:10 | #49

    Maybe this is a semantic issue. What does CS mean when he talks about “Islamists”? To me the term denotes radical, armed, militant killers who use Islam as a cover and recruiting tool. Al Qaeda comes immediately to mind, but there are some offshoots, affiliates and similar organizations that would merit the term also. Surely CS isn’t saying that Brennan has come out in favor of these groups(?). That would be ridiculous on its face. So what does he mean?

  31. February 13th, 2013 at 07:59 | #50

    So, we should discount Glick because she’s familiar with Hamas and she is Israeli? Would you discount her if she was PRO-Hamas?

    You know that’s not what they mean.
    Hamas doesn’t want to be part of a two state deal. Hamas, along with Fatah,wants to destroy Israel. Both organizations are currently terror organizations masquerading as governments.

    Roughshod? Really? The West rides roughshod over what Arab countries?

    No, not every Muslim hates us or is an enemy. It would be hoped that the Defense Sec recognizes that there are SOME muslims that want to kill us and use their religion as a reason.

    @Scout
    Brennan has come out stating that there is no “islamist” threat and that any such group is minor and fringe; that jihad is only about purifying one’s soul. The very people that ARE islamist, he states are harmless Muslims, that there is no underlying philosophy to advance their cause.

    • February 13th, 2013 at 09:43 | #51

      She is nobody. Her opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s. I don’t see facts, I see opinion and a poorly contructed hypothesis. I would also discount her opinion if she were pro-hamas. I would recognize she is giving her opinion which is based on her experiences, either real or perceived.

      Historically, the west rode roughshod over various arab nations pretty much most of the 20th century. Example, Great Britain had a real foot hold in the region for decades, especially Palestine.

      As for your response regarding Brennan, I find that simply absurd. Too much right wing propaganda.

      What would Chris Stevens have said about them?

  32. February 13th, 2013 at 08:13 | #52

    But…like I said above…go ahead and confirm him. He won’t be setting policy and its obvious that the President agrees with both Hagel ideas on defense and Brennan’s on foreign policy so it doesn’t really matter who he puts into office. They still have to take direction from him.

    The country voted him in. The country deserves whatever it gets from his policies.

  33. Scout
    February 13th, 2013 at 08:34 | #53

    Sounds like word game confusion. If you say he is “pro-Islamist”, that means to me that he supports Al-Quaeda and similar groups. If that were the case, he not only shouldn’t be confirmed, he shouldn’t be nominated, and probably should be arrested (depending on whether the support takes material form). However, I don’t think that is the case and I think you need to find a more nuanced way of explaining your differing views with Brennan re the role of radical Islam as it affects US national security interests.

  34. Elena
    February 13th, 2013 at 09:03 | #54

    Cargo,
    I believe your views are poisened by these random blogs. You look for conspiracy theories on the web and find them, you post the random blogs here (which we don’t want reposted)and expect us to suddenly suspend facts based on credible sources. Blog are are not credible resources and we don’t want to propogate their fabricated realities on moonhowlings. Refer to substantiated sources please.

  35. February 13th, 2013 at 10:47 | #55

    @Scout
    Have you seen the accusations by the former FBI counter intel agent about Brennan?

    @Elena
    I don’t post random blogs. I post only to back up what I’m saying or where I have found it.

    Next time someone asks where I get something, then, the reply will be to go find it. Funny how “substantiated sources” are the rage when those “legitimate” sources, to coin Biden’s term” are in the tank, supporting the liberal narrative.

    • February 13th, 2013 at 11:02 | #56

      I believe Elena is questioning that some of your resources are not filling the bill for “substantiated sources.” Some of these articles like the one by the Israeli woman are opinion pieces which really can’t be substituted for fact.

      Use Fox news as a non liberal source.

      i think we have to be careful about using sources that are really unconventional. some dude sitting around in his parents’ basement or in a cabin in the woods in his underwear writing opinion as fact is what we need to be on guard over…liberal or conservative. Kos is sometimes questionable. Brietbart is often questionable. All news can be wrong. Example–the story on the gay couples being banned from prom left out an incredibly important part of the story. Miss Medley was not a teacher in that district. Critical. So we come along and fill in the holes. This gets harder to do if someone sitting in their tighty whities is giving opinion.

      We should be able to back up facts with facts Go find it isn’t an acceptable answer either. Use reliable sources is the way to go.

  36. February 13th, 2013 at 11:58 | #57

    So.. are Reuters and Israel National News considered substantiated sources?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/chuck-hagel-nomination_n_2326968.html
    which is reposting the Reuters story.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/165058#.URodqKWTySo

    And according to CBS, Iran endorses Hagel.

    Again…..though. The President supports whatever policy that Hagel likes….so it doesn’t matter if Hagel is appointed or not. The policy will still be advanced.

    • February 13th, 2013 at 12:14 | #58

      Reuters is a fairly neutral source. Israeli National News is a right wing periodical. I don’t know enough about its accuracy record to say..I just know it is right wing from glancing through it. A real big hint might be the op-ed that disparages reform and conservative Judaism in the United States.

      Considering that Hagel is not in office now, what is he supposedly accepting funds for? Who exactly are “friends of Hamas?” Should Hamas be on the terrorist list?

      Who cares who Iran endorses. That surely isn’t Hagel’s fault.

  37. February 13th, 2013 at 15:17 | #59

    He was receiving fund from that group for speeches he made.

    Hamas should be on the terrorist list. They act like terrorists and support terrorism.

    • February 13th, 2013 at 18:55 | #60

      Some people in the gaza strip act like terrorists. I don’t believe that terrorism is conducted in the name of Hamas.

      “He was receiving funds from that group for speeches he made.”

      That is very vague. What speeches. Let’s start there.

      I would think that “Friends of hamas” would be very interested in someone who would establish dialog rather than dissing them and only looking at what is good for Israel.

      I support a humanitarian approach to Palestine. I support a state of Palestine that is negotiated between Israel and representatives of the people of Palestine.

  38. Scout
    February 13th, 2013 at 19:54 | #61

    CS: I hadn’t heard that until you mentioned it. I then did some web-prowling and found that a former FBI agent alleges that Brennan converted to Islam when stationed in Saudi Arabia.

    I would find it not particularly important if the man stated openly that he was a Muslim. In a way it’s his business and irrelevant to his duties (past or future). If he is a Muslim and hiding it, that’s a bit different. If he is a Muslim because the Saudis turned him when he was posted there, that’s disqualifying. But, I must say, this report has the smell (to me, at least) of fable.

    Most U.S. intelligence operatives posted overseas under diplomatic status experience some effort by the host country to turn or influence them. That’s not unusual. I’ve seen it happen more than once. That an American in Saudi Arabia trying to understand that culture comes to a religious epiphany that leads him to Islam is of no more concern to me than an American posted to Rome converts to Roman Catholicism or an American posted in Israel converts to Judaism. But, in sensitive positions like DCI, one has to be quite open about these things. The openness itself pretty much defuses the issues (although, in the US, there is so much ignorance about Islam that there probably are some people who would object on general principles to a Muslim in virtually any office – but that’s another pot of eels). But, if there were truth to these reports, don’t you think the Senate Committee would have run that down, either publicly or privately?

  39. Elena
    February 13th, 2013 at 20:32 | #62

    Cargo,
    The reuters article, reposted on huffington, does not claim that Hagel is a terrorist sympathizer and I thought you were railing against Brennan anyway? Who are you targeting with your pro islamist (whatever that means to you)agenda?

  40. February 13th, 2013 at 20:46 | #63

    Brennan’s background in the world of spook work would make it plausible that Islam might just be part of his cover.

  41. February 13th, 2013 at 22:46 | #64

    I was railing on Brennan…but there are objections to Hagel’s priorities….did I mix and match? If so, sorry.

    Here, I’ll make it simple

    Brennan….issues with foreign connections and attitudes towards Islamists
    Hagel……issues with the anti-war attitude and cut the military attitude. Even his supporter are wondering if he’s up to it.
    Kerry….he’s Kerry.

    @Scout
    That’s why I left it to you to track it down. I wasn’t sure of the story either. I felt that if I brought it up, it would be discounted out of hand.
    I agree with you though….that the apparent lack of openness about any of this is troubling for such a sensitive position. and no…sadly, I don’t think that anyone in the Senate could run down a a rumor of free beer much less a political hot potato as this.

    • February 14th, 2013 at 00:36 | #65

      Lets focus on Brennan. You think he is islamist and Morris Davis compared Brennan to Canadian Omar Khadr, who was convicted of “committing murder in violation of the law of war”. (having to do with drone strikes)

      Brennan speaks fluent arabic and has degrees in middle east studies. I don’t see it as a short coming to be highly knowledgeable about a region where one serves.

      It sounds like Brennan is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t on this blog.

  42. February 14th, 2013 at 14:18 | #66

    Well, it could be that they just need another candidate with less baggage. There are other experts on the Middle East without such baggage.

    But he’ll get confirmed. The Senate doesn’t really care.

    • February 14th, 2013 at 14:35 | #67

      I don’t think his baggage is real. I think his nly baggage is he is a defector in the eyes of some.

  43. February 14th, 2013 at 19:27 | #68

    Well, the R’s have blocked him.
    2 votes short.

    10 day recess.

    Isn’t control neat????

    The Senate argument is so disgusting. What a bunch of egomaniacs.

  44. February 14th, 2013 at 19:41 | #69

    For people who are so worried about weakening the United States, it seems that not having someone fill that post next week while those Senators are home with their familiesmight make the USA look weak.

    I guess that doesn’t matter though. The Senators got the information they wanted about something totally different, having nothing to do with Hagel.

Comments are closed.