Senate, White House struggle over secretary of defense nominee impasse

Senators seek info on president's actions during Benghazi attack

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 16, 2013 7:03 p.m.

    I am not saying Hagel has done anything wrong or terroristic. However, a question has not been answered by Hagel regarding whether he has received money from terrorists. If he had, the Senate should be made aware of that & take it into consideration when voting for his appointment. Wouldn't you want to know? We just need him to answer the question.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 16, 2013 3:42 p.m.

    Just how likely is it, David, that there is a former US senator and current nominee for Secretary of Defense who is also a secret terrorist promoter or sympathizer? What does Hegel have to do - prove he never flew over a nation with Muslims in it? I mention Cheney and Rumsfeld because they did business with regimes we later saw as very dangerous to the world. If it was OK for them to make money off those guys, then why wouldn't be all right for Hegel, your fellow Republican? And if Hegel is OK regarding terror, what's the next hurdle for his appointment - proving his gasoline has no foreign oil?

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 15, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    Mark B, So let me see if I understand you. If Hagel accepted money from terrorists and/or Iran, it would be fine since Cheney and Rumsfeld accepted money and had dealings with someone in the past?

    Or, what Cheney/Rumsfeld did or did not do is irrelevent here because they are not being nominated for Secretary of Defense. Lets find out the truth here regarding Hagel and whether he accepted money from terrorists and Iran and decide if he should be Sec of Defense. If he is asked to serve in the cabinet as Secretary of Defense, and he has taken money from terrorists or Iran, wouldn't that possibly affect his positions if we have to deal with these characters in the future? Would it weaken Hagel in any way? Lets find out. At this point, Mark B why are you talking about Cheney or Rumsfeld?

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 15, 2013 3:03 p.m.

    I wonder if David was shocked when he found out who Cheney and Rumsfeld had dealt with over the years.

  • David Centerville, UT
    Feb. 15, 2013 2:10 p.m.

    If Hagel accepted money from Iran or terrorist affiliated groups then that would be critically important information to know. So answer the question and have a vote. If Hagel or the Obama administration refuse to present information that answers the question then a filibuster is justified. If Hagel did accept money from such groups, would he not feel some obligation to those groups? If those groups are enemies of the US (terrorists, Iran) do we really want him serving as Secretary of State?

    I am shocked that Obama could not find a more qualified candidate to present to the Senate.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 15, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    The filibuster tool is supposed to be used rarely, and that's what Reid and the Democrats did in opposition to less than 10 Bush judicial nominees out of 200 or more. Today's GOP sees a day without a filibuster like one with no sunshine. I guess it was just a matter of time until the Senate's "gentleman's agreement" on filibusters was going to be trashed, although this one didn't even last a month!

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:19 p.m.

    Re: xscribe

    You mean that far right activist judge Roberts who voted to uphold Obamacare as Constitutional. That one?

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 10:10 p.m.

    Re: Mark B.

    However, you might remember that Harry Reid DID filibuster Bush judicial appointments for the Federal Court when he had the power. Precedent set!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Feb. 14, 2013 9:48 p.m.

    There was no filibuster against Bork's nomination to SCOTUS. He failed to get 50 votes, some of them from his own party. Then he quit the job he had to become a conservative celebrity. I'm not sure - he might be considered a GOP moderate now, like Hegel. Note to m.g: If there's anything today's Republicans know how to do, it's how to game the filibuster rules. No testing needed.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 14, 2013 8:34 p.m.

    As opposed to Bush appointing a couple of far-right activist judges?

  • m.g. scott LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 7:23 p.m.

    I'm glad the Republicans are testing the filabuster out. Now I only hope that they have the guts to use it when it really counts, like if Obama gets a chance to put a new justice on the Supreme Court. Should Obama put a far left wing activist judge up, I want the Republicans to "Bork" him or her. In spite of all the crying of foul, it won't be unprecedented. Keep it up Republicans!

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2013 4:08 p.m.

    The Republicans had no problem with Bush lying us into a war with Iraq, but because there was some confusion about what exactly happened in Benghazi for a few days, they have a BIG problem with that. No wonder they are becoming an endangered species.

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    Feb. 14, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    Wonder how many from the right are going to slam McCain for his lies: I will not vote to filibuster. Oh, lied, now I will vote to filibuster!