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

[UCmeNdc]

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

[Cali_Democrat]

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 don’t 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

[yourout]

2. What a collasal asshat.

Lindsay need to go "Cheney" himself.

[TwilightGardener]

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?

[dsc]

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.

[PDJane]

5. What answers on Benghazi?

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

[Highway61]

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

Love it!

[budkin]

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

[Brother Buzz]

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

[marshall]

9. "What difference does it make?"

He already got his answer.

[onenote]

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.