February 14, 2013

Hagel nomination blocked... for now.

"The vote was 58 to 40, with one vote of 'present,' falling short of the 60 required to break the Republican filibuster. Members were set to leave for recess on Friday, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said they would vote again on Hagel when they returned, leaving Hagel’s nomination in limbo until then."

52 comments:

Lem said...

Ok.. who is kissing Lindsey's ass?

jimspice said...

The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Dicks.

edutcher said...

Panetta stays on until a new one.

Try again.

Besides, if Flournoy was filling in the breech, it would be an improvement.

PS Three cheers and a tiger for Rand Paul.

garage mahal said...

President McCain and VP Lindsey Graham will pick their own Cabinet thank you very much!

The Drill SGT said...

Flournoy is gone

Roberto Severino said...

I hate Lindsey Graham.

Leave Hagel alone. Period.

Drago said...

garage: "President McCain and VP Lindsey Graham will pick their own Cabinet thank you very much!"

It seems like only yesterday the dems were going their patriotic duty in filibustering John Towers nomination as Sec of Defense.

Good times, good times.

Drago said...

jimspice: "The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Dicks."

LOL

Oh my, how will the Dept of Defense survive without Hagel as SecDef?

Do you think they have shut down operations, closed up shop and boarded the windows at the Pentagon yet?

David said...

Doin' de limbo . . .

How low can you go?

AReasonableMan said...

Well, if nothing else, this proves what a lot of BS it was when Hagel talked about the Israel lobby have senators in their back pockets.

Revenant said...

Not only that, but apparently the "Israeli Lobby" has influence only within the party Jews don't vote for.

Lawyer Mom said...

Well, at least we have confirmation Obama didn't even phone it in during Benghazi. Not even, "so is the fighting over? How many weapons did we lose?"

Ann's theory gets a plug here, too.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/02/white-house-confirms-obama-did-nothing-on-benghazi.php

Maguro said...

Well, if nothing else, this proves what a lot of BS it was when Hagel talked about the Israel lobby have senators in their back pockets.

Indeed. Along the same lines, saying the Jews have a lot of influence in the media can get you firedfrom your media job.

Kind of ironic.

The Drill SGT said...

John Bolton was filibustered by the Dems for a minor position, relative to the SecDef.

US Ambassador to the UN

edutcher said...

The Drill SGT said...

Flournoy is gone

Figures. She was the only one who had a clue.

When did it happen, because I sure missed it.

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

Well, if nothing else, this proves what a lot of BS it was when Hagel talked about the Israel lobby have senators in their back pockets.

He was talking about the State Department.

mccullough said...

Given Hagel's display at his confirmation hearing, I'm pretty sure the troops will make it a few more weeks without him. I don't care about the guy's views on Israel but he did not come across as competent and capable at that hearing. It will be embarrassing to watch him on TV the next few years try and explain anything or answer questions.

furious_a said...

The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense. Nothing could possibly go wrong. Dicks.

For five months prior to 9-11-01 the Democrats, by filibustering John Ashcroft's nomination, left the nation without an Attorney General.

Treasonous dicks. Thanks for playing.

tim maguire said...

I wonder how many of those 58 votes were cast only because they knew there were no 59 and 60.

furious_a said...

Well, if nothing else, this proves what a lot of BS it was when Hagel talked about the Israel lobby have senators in their back pockets.

That's why Israelis prefer watching Arab media -- it's where they learn how Jews and their money conteol the media and make American politicians dance like marionettes.

Big Mike said...

The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense.

From everything I've seen of Hagel, the DoD would be with a leader even if Hagel was confirmed. Make that especially if Hagel was confirmed.

Big Mike said...

@garage, interesting picture. Was that you in your younger days or is that you today?

furious_a said...

J-Spice: >The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense...

Nominee Hagel: "I've said I don't know enough about it...There are a lot of things I don't know about. I, if confirmed, intend to know a lot more than I do. I will have to."

This delay will give Mr. Hagel more time to cram for his open-book makeup testimony.

Alex said...

It seems like only yesterday the dems were going their patriotic duty in filibustering John Towers nomination as Sec of Defense.

When will you learn? Garage is a fascist.

garage mahal said...

@garage, interesting picture. Was that you in your younger days or is that you today?

Neither.

Sorun said...

"The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense"

That's right. If there's another Benghazi-like attack, we won't have the leadership needed to quickly respond. Oh, wait...

machine said...

Party over country...no surprise.

Michael said...

machine: Hagel won't make clear that the president has no authority to use drones against US citizens here in the United States. But for that inability to articulate what should be obvious he would have been approved. Narrowly but approved nonetheless. Why will he not state that the president cannot unilaterally use drones against US citizens on their own soil?

edutcher said...

machine said...

Party over country...no surprise.

It is, after all, DNC policy.

garage mahal said...

The camera preening Bobbsy Twins are just stomping their feet temporarily because Hagel committed the ultimate atrocity. Criticizing the Iraq War as a Republican. That's like kicking the Baby Jesus. And shockingly he doesn't automatically put Israel's interests ahead of America's interests, which puts him to the left of Democrats in Congress.

rcocean said...

'No' to Hagel but 'Yes' to Amnesty and John Kerry.

The Republican party is now the McCain party.

Look forward to another wipe-out in 2016. The Repubs are getting in touch with their inner loser.

edutcher said...

Don't count on it.

First, the RINOs are getting in touch with their inner dough-face, so they may be headed for extinction.

Second, it's starting to look as if Brennan (a Moslem convert, possibly of convenience, after all) is also in trouble.

furious_a said...

Party over country...no surprise.

What's surprising is how popular the Maverick act was with Democrats when it was deployed against the Bush White House.

I won't be in a policymaking position.

Not sure if Onion article or if Hagel actually said that.

machine said...

Soooooo...the GOP is bigger if all the moderates leave and Brennan is Muslim.


No wonder Romney got blown out....get used to it if this is really what you believe.




mccullough said...

Is Brennan a Muslim? That explains Obama's drone policy.

EDH said...

The Republicans are "Chuck-blocking" Obama.

bagoh20 said...

"... one vote of 'present',"

I thought Barack Obama got a promotion. I swear I heard something about that somewhere.

creeley23 said...

Krauthammer says this is a delay, not a denial of the Hagel nomination -- which was my impression.

It's hard to see the argument for Hagel, other than he has been anointed by Obama and someone has to be SecDef.


MayBee said...

The camera preening Bobbsy Twins are just stomping their feet temporarily because Hagel committed the ultimate atrocity. Criticizing the Iraq War as a Republican

Yeah, because McCain and Graham never criticized the Iraq war.

Here's the difference between the way they criticized it: Hagel didn't want to fix the situation he'd helped vote us into. He wanted it to magically go away, and imagined his responsibility ended there.

Aridog said...

The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense.

Somebody doesn't know how the United States military works vis a vis fulfilling chains of command. The last man standing, etc....

Hagel? Aw gee, too bad, so sad...a professional concern troll isn't just confirmed unanimously.

Brennan? ... almost comical, except he's real. This guy has more flying 180 degree position changes in his career than the dancers for Beyonce' at the Super Bowl. You don't know who he is, or what he really stands for...and neither does Obama, he just thinks he does. You want answers about Benghazi...Brennan is your guy. Good luck.

Jay said...

jimspice said...

The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense. Nothing could possibly go wrong.


The silly, ignorant, Democrat makes a retard post on the Internet in another moment of self-beclownment.

Jay said...

machine said...

Party over country.


Hysterical.

After 8 years of air raiding villages and killing civilians and attacked a country that posed no threat to us

Do you stupids ever stop to bother to think about the logical conclusions of your idiotic assertions?

Jay said...

jimspice said...

The strong-military party leaves the nation without a Secretary of Defense. Nothing could possibly go wrong


Hey General.

Name a single thing that the Pentagon won't or can't do while Panetta remains SecDef.

Thanks in advance.

cubanbob said...

Well, if nothing else, this proves what a lot of BS it was when Hagel talked about the Israel lobby have senators in their back pockets.

Why do you prefer a camel jockey suck up?

CEO-MMP said...

Question for the slavish Obama dick lappers: would you be this worked up in favor of SecDef nominee Hagel if he was in trouble in a D controlled senate after POTUS McCain sent him up?

machine said...

"The impressive thing about the anti-Hagel effort is how politically tone-deaf it is. It’s not just that their opposition is misguided, but they stand to gain nothing from it. No one outside of a small core of hard-liners sympathizes with what Senate Republicans are doing. While they may not be losing any votes over this, they are making sure that all of the moderates, independents, and realists that they have alienated over the last ten years will keep running away from them."

Larson in the American Conservative...it ain't just Ds...

Freder Frederson said...

It seems like only yesterday the dems were going their patriotic duty in filibustering John Towers nomination as Sec of Defense.

Tower was not filibustered, his nomination was rejected 53-47.

Freder Frederson said...

For five months prior to 9-11-01 the Democrats, by filibustering John Ashcroft's nomination, left the nation without an Attorney General.

Liar, Ashcroft was confirmed on Feb 1, 2001. That is less than two weeks after the inauguration.

Jay said...

While they may not be losing any votes over this, they are making sure that all of the moderates, independents, and realists that they have alienated over the last ten years will keep running away from them."

HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA

RIIIIGGGGGHHHHHHTTTTT!!!

Because "Moderates and Independents" who make up their mind who to vote for at the last minute, are totally gripped by Chuck Hagel!

Really, they are!

PS: The Post-ABC polls show 42 percent of Americans approve of the Chuck Hagel nomination. This is poor by any historical measure. At the time of her nomination, Hillary Clinton got the support of 71 percent of Americans in a CNN poll taken in December, 2008, while 83 percent approved of Robert Gates continuing as secretary of defense. Defense secretaries, and to an even greater extent secretaries of state, have generally enjoyed excellent ratings from the public, perhaps because they are seen to be above the political fray. Even at the time of his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld’s approval hovered in the 50 percent range.”

You are pathetically stupid.

Nichevo said...

Machine, if TAC is for it, I'm agin it. The one thing their endorsement confirms is that Hagel is anti-Israel. But good enough for you to associate with...I hope you will regale us with more tales of your moral purity: pull the other one!

Aridog said...

Jay asked jimspice ....

Name a single thing that the Pentagon won't or can't do while Panetta remains SecDef?

Actually, it might do better without Panetta or Gen Dempsey. :-)

The way it works, unless already de-constructed by Tweedle-Dee Dempsey and friends, is simple enough...various commands, such as CENTCOM or AFRICOM in this case, have pre-planned contingency plans for various areas of concern within their theaters that are set in motion automatically when an incident occurs.

In short, what I am saying is that I believe somebody high up had to call off a response for Benghazi, and possibly Cairo as well.

The "rumor" of Gen Carter Ham's removal aren't far off...he is being replaced at AFRICOM shortly, as formally announced by Leon Panetta 18 Oct 2012. Such a Change of Major Army Command is unusual in less than three years, the standard tour length for such MACOM commands. The administration doing so in 18 months strongly implies irreconcilable differences.

We are in danger of our entire most senior military commands being rendered essentially "castrato" for all extents and purposes.

Frankly if a infantry line grunt Lieutenant Colonel, with a couple deployment tours under his belt, could be appointed Sec. of Defense we would be better off....just my opinion.

//rant over :)

Aridog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce Hayden said...

Brennan? ... almost comical, except he's real... You want answers about Benghazi...Brennan is your guy. Good luck.

This is important. Brennan seems to have had his fingerprints on a lot of stuff going on in N. Africa at the time of Benghazi, and may have been at the core of why the Obama Administration did not respond that night. Ann seems to think that they didn't respond because they kept thinking that it was over, and too late. But there is increasing evidence that there is a can of worms there that they, or at least Brennan, wouldn't want to see the light of day.

Senators really need to ask the guy what he knew, what he was doing, etc. Was he really running operations throughout N. Africa from the White House, using special operations troops, keeping the Pentagon, State Department, and the CIA in the dark?