Chuck Hagel’s confirmation vote – why the Republicans are in trouble
It’s being reported that some Senate Republicans are considering a filibuster regarding the nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel for the Cabinet post of Secretary of Defense. Senators Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and James Inhofe (R-OK) stated that they would hold up or possibly filibuster the nomination until the Administration “provided full details of its conduct during the Benghazi attack in September.”
What a bunch of hooey! Why not simply state that nomination will be opposed because the nominee is not up to the job, a.k.a., incompetent. Does Graham actually believe that the Administration is going to say anything more about Benghazi that hasn’t already been said ad nauseum. Unless the Republican Senators and members of the House develop some collective backbone, Benghazi is history.
The man, or woman, who sits in that Pentagon office as Defense Secretary will be responsible for the world’s most sophisticated fighting force and our national security. We need the strongest person for the job, and clearly, Chuck Hagel is not that individual, based upon his answers/non-answers at the hearing before the Senate Armed Services committee. Nor is he the man for the job because of possible financial impropriety, which can’t be confirmed because of Hagel’s refusal to turn over to the Committee financial disclosure documents.
As Jennifer Rubin writes in her column in The Washington Post:
“One of those senators displeased with the ongoing game of hide-the-ball is Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.). His communications director, Sean Rushton, e-mails me, “When Henry Kissinger was named by George W. Bush to the 9/11 Commission, Harry Reid demanded to know any and all foreign funds he might have received, asking ‘What are they trying to hide?’ Now, when the nominee is for Secretary of Defense — the civilian leader of our entire military, rather than just an advisory commission — Democrats are suddenly declaring it is irrelevant whether he has been paid substantial sums by foreign governments, lobbyists, corporations, or individuals?”
On Fox News Sunday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) stated he wouldn’t support a filibuster, but only an up/down vote, because he believed that Presidents should get the Cabinet nominees of their choice, and the choice deserved an up or down vote. Here’s another fool, who’s more worried about precedent, while we’ll be disarming ourselves as the world becomes increasingly dangerous, from North Korea to Russia to Iran to the resurgence of Al Quaeda in North Africa.
And when, not if the next 9/11 happens on American soil, our Preezy will most likely be retired enjoying the good life in Hawaii.
The 2012 election is over, but somehow John, Lindsay, et al., you forgot that 59 million of us Americans did not, repeat not, vote for Obama. So quit whining and grandstanding for your constituents, and put your country first. Wouldn’t that be a novel concept.