DescentBB

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-575 ... firmation/

This is the first time, ever in history, that a cabinet nominee has been completely blocked, ie., filibustered, by a minority group in the Senate. They don't want an up or down vote! And the nominee is a Republican and a veteran for crying out loud! Who do they want, Donald Rumsfeld the rendition king?

Ya know, I'm beginning to think these 4 Republican Senators are now just being driven by pure hatred. What else is it? They have that Benghazi affair stuck up their collective asses like a rotting, puss covered stick, and they're going to do whatever it takes to poke that purulent stick in everyone else's faces, even if it's the epitome of stupidity, childishness and arrogance on their part.

Unfortunately it had to be done. Hagel was a dangerous nominee for defense. It's bad enough to have Obama president and Kerry for state. Hagel supports Obama's vision of unilateral disarmament in the face of rising danger and the perception by thug regimes that America is weak.

WEAKNESS INVITES WAR.

Hegel will get through this process......but, TC is right, it shows what happens when a party caucus gets stuck on a subject and feels compelled to grandstand to their primary election base. Oh, and TB, the discussion of Hegel's 'dangers' is over, that isn't even the issue.

Throwing the failure and lack of responsibility the administration owns regarding Benghazi is a worthy political grandstand and to block an up or down vote that the Dems would show up for is karma considering that has been heir tactic for years.

But really, what difference does it make?

The Benghazi affair is being waaaaay overblown. It's just a small turd resulting from Republican budget cutting. Obama isn't even running the State Department, who WAS in charge of the whole affair anyway, and besides, Obama isn't an omniscient leader who has that responsibility either. These Senators need to get a reality check, get back to work and quit being the jerkoff warmongers they appear to be by using their power against a president they hate. Let there be a fair up or down vote in the Senate you 4 little dictators. The Senate shouldn't be run by the crazy minority. If Hagel is not the man for the job, a fair vote should determine that and we can move on to another selection.

tunnelcat wrote:The Benghazi affair is being waaaaay overblown. It's just a small turd resulting from Republican budget cutting. Obama isn't even running the State Department, who WAS in charge of the whole affair anyway, and besides, Obama isn't an omniscient leader who has that responsibility either. These Senators need to get a reality check, get back to work and quit being the jerkoff warmongers they appear to be by using their power against a president they hate. Let there be a fair up or down vote in the Senate you 4 little dictators. The Senate shouldn't be run by the crazy minority. If Hagel is not the man for the job, a fair vote should determine that and we can move on to another selection.

Yea, and Bush wasn't running FEMA either when Katrina hit....

You vote for this to continue every two to four years so quit bitching when the pendulum swings back at you.

You know what the real issue is for Senator Hothead concerning Hagel? It's really all about Iraq and poor old man McCain trying to save face for a war he supported and a surge he pushed. Hagel had the sense of mind to oppose the whole fiasco when most of everyone else bought the Bush/Cheney march-into-war lies.

As for Bush not running FEMA, that's correct. He also didn't put in a person with any smarts to run it either, so that's on his back. But he shouldn't have gone off on one of his many vacations when they knew the hurricane merde was going to hit the proverbial fan.

tunnelcat wrote:You know what the real issue is for Senator Hothead concerning Hagel? It's really all about Iraq and poor old man McCain trying to save face for a war he supported and a surge he pushed. Hagel had the sense of mind to oppose the whole fiasco when most of everyone else bought the Bush/Cheney march-into-war lies.

As for Bush not running FEMA, that's correct. He also didn't put in a person with any smarts to run it either, so that's on his back. But he shouldn't have gone off on one of his many vacations when they knew the hurricane merde was going to hit the proverbial fan.

Sorry girl, but it was Senator Cruz that was the real instigator:

"Mr. Hagel, a former senator from Mr. Cruz’s own party, was about to be the victim of the first filibuster of a nominee to lead the Pentagon. The blockade was due in no small part to the very junior senator’s relentless pursuit of speeches, financial records or any other documents with Mr. Hagel’s name on them going back at least five years"

woody is correct....the Benghazi stuff got answered, now the Republicans are using Cruz' inquiries(or witch hunt) as an excuse. It's a truly embarassing moment for the GOP which continues the march to nationwide rejection.

tunnelcat wrote:The Benghazi affair is being waaaaay overblown.

utter BS. Here, let's ask Ambassador Stevens about that . . .

Let's see; policy fail, execution fail, followed by serious attempted backside covering. Yeah, a real nothingburger.

dissent wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:The Benghazi affair is being waaaaay overblown.

utter BS. Here, let's ask Ambassador Stevens about that . . .

Let's see; policy fail, execution fail, followed by serious attempted backside covering. Yeah, a real nothingburger.

TC didn't say, nor suggest, it is NOTHING.....merely that it has been overblown and beaten to death for political gain.

guess not. what was the expression; oh yes, it was "just a small turd".

well, if it appeared on my living room rug, a 'small turd' sure wouldn't be 'nothing', right?

“Nothing” the maid can’t clean up.

callmeslick wrote:TC didn't say, nor suggest, it is NOTHING.....merely that it has been overblown and beaten to death for political gain.

That's what I meant. I'm not belittling the death of our ambassador, no one's death is insignificant. I'm belittling the mock indignation over an event that's comparatively small in relation to other bad incidents in the past. I should have instead called it: "Republicans just yelling 'squirrel' in a room full of tea party dogs!" That's what Mad Dog Lindsay Graham's doing with all his mock indignation over the whole affair. So if this Benghazi affair is so important to him, why isn't he going after Hillary Clinton like a rabid dog, or going after his own colleges that cut funding for the State Department's security budget, or even perhaps yelling and screaming over all the thousands of our young dead troops that went to fight a war predicated and started on a stack of lies, which he supported and even participated some small way in, hmmmmmmmmm?

In fact, Hagel was a professor at Georgetown University last September when the Benghazi incident happened. So why is this even relevant to Graham concerning Hagel's nomination anyway? Unless he's doing it to look like he's going after Obama to look more manly. Probably because he's up for re-election in 2014, and he's moving even more to the right all to suck up to the tea partiers in his state to hopefully keep his job next year.

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:TC didn't say, nor suggest, it is NOTHING.....merely that it has been overblown and beaten to death for political gain.

That's what I meant. I'm not belittling the death of our ambassador, no one's death is insignificant. I'm belittling the mock indignation over an event that's comparatively small in relation to other bad incidents in the past.:

Mock indignation....hmmmm.... "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE"....

Hillary didn't fail to respond to the requests for more security or for calls for support due to budget cuts. She, and her department failed to do the right thing. Go look at the millions of dollars she spent on liquor and party catering etc. etc.! The money was there but not allocated for security so stop with that bullfeces rhetoric. Washington doesn't 'cut budgets' they argue over setting the yearly levels of constant increases in spending!
Also,she claimed responsibility for it to put the issue to rest. And then she quickly exonerated herself from any repercussions stemming from her claimed responsibility by declaring: "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE". That's what you can do in American politics when you aren't challenged by the media....

So they can all go piss up a rope, regardless of why the other side wants to point out that 'the difference' matters. Because it does matter.
You may not give a crap, the media may not give a crap, but it futhermucking matters

You're right. None of it does matter. So why don't these 4 Senators quit their petty abuse of the filibuster and allow an up or down vote, period? It's that simple. A vote by the majority, one way or another. Simple. If Hagel's not right for the job, he'll NOT get the majority nod. I'm not in the position to make that vote, they are. They need to quit acting like 2 year olds and get serious.

tunnelcat wrote:You're right. None of it does matter. So why don't these 4 Senators quit their petty abuse of the filibuster and allow an up or down vote, period? It's that simple. A vote by the majority, one way or another. Simple. If Hagel's not right for the job, he'll NOT get the majority nod. I'm not in the position to make that vote, they are. They need to quit acting like 2 year olds and get serious.

They are playing the game you authorize them to play and you reaffirm your approval for it every election.

Will has a valid point.

Don't let Will fool you, he gets in line and votes Republican every election anyways. Aside from a very small group of semi-loud people, the Benghazi tragedy was just that and only that, a tragedy. Sucks when four Americans are killed, but they were in a truly hot zone and ★■◆● happened. The vast majority of us understand that, hence why we don't mention it over and over again as some big scandal. It's not and will never be the scandal that the GOP wants.

The word here in SC is that Graham faces a tough re-election next year against a Tea Party favorite, so he has to be a little more vocal otherwise he not getting rehired.

CobGobbler wrote:Don't let Will fool you, he gets in line and votes Republican every election anyways. Aside from a very small group of semi-loud people, the Benghazi tragedy was just that and only that, a tragedy. Sucks when four Americans are killed, but they were in a truly hot zone and **** happened. The vast majority of us understand that, hence why we don't mention it over and over again as some big scandal. It's not and will never be the scandal that the GOP wants.

The word here in SC is that Graham faces a tough re-election next year against a Tea Party favorite, so he has to be a little more vocal otherwise he not getting rehired.

No, I don't ever vote for an R or a D at the State or Federal level. I haven't since GW Bush's first election. Why you feel it is important to claim otherwise is kind of telling...

And regardless of which political fraternity wants to create a scandal buzz about it the principle failure that caused those four Americans to die is worthy of some attempt to give it the scrutiny and volume level it deserves even if the media, the D's and their idiot fan base say otherwise.

The ambassador specifically asked for help weeks before going back in,citing the very threat that ultimately killed them. Two of the men who died asked for help during the attack and the Obama administration listened in real time, did nothing other than tell people to stand down, and then fed the American people weeks of bullcrap excuses afterwards.

If it had been the R's in power doing it the media would be speculating on impeachment and at least one TV movie of the week would be airing right now portraying Cheney as Voldemort and that sad truth should bother you even if the four dead for no good reason Americans doesn't.

The group that is given a free ride in the media wil turn on you too.....it's what they do, it's all they know. Will your own excuses for their abuse give you comfort then?

CobGobbler wrote:Don't let Will fool you, he gets in line and votes Republican every election anyways. Aside from a very small group of semi-loud people, the Benghazi tragedy was just that and only that, a tragedy. Sucks when four Americans are killed, but they were in a truly hot zone and **** happened. The vast majority of us understand that, hence why we don't mention it over and over again as some big scandal. It's not and will never be the scandal that the GOP wants.

The word here in SC is that Graham faces a tough re-election next year against a Tea Party favorite, so he has to be a little more vocal otherwise he not getting rehired.

it's that sort of grandstanding and pandering for votes that gets re-affirmed every time a state sends one of these clowns(left or right) back to office for another 6 years.....and that was what I read Will as stating. I'll pass on guessing how he votes in reality, just going by his words there.

Of course we all know how Slick, TC; Cobgobbler and Vision vote...

Straight D all the way.

D as in Drone...as in Deaf...as in Dumb...as in Democrat.

They would never vote for anyone without the D.

nice touch,TB. I agree with a problem issue that is seen from either extreme and you feel compelled to toss out a personal attack, bogus assumptions and essentially ZERO contribution to the thread. Way to go!

Not buying it Will, I've seen you post for a long time, it's never changed. You don't know everything and you don't have all the answers. This isn't Call of Duty--forces are staged at every point on earth and ready to be anywhere in less than two minutes. It took the drone an hour before it arrived over the embassy, ★■◆● happens. The fact that you're STILL pushing this shows just how idiotic you all can be. It's not a story anymore, Obama was re-elected, everyone else moved on. The CIA learned to not rely on the local militias and government intelligence services to provide protection, but it was a bit too late for that. Boo-friggin-hoo, more than four people die everyday in this country because they don't have shelter or adequate food.

Will, keep watching your Hannity, I'm sure he'll find another scandal for you to not be a Republican about.

CobGobbler wrote:Not buying it Will, I've seen you post for a long time, it's never changed. ..

If you really had been paying attention you would know how ridiculous your assertion sounds.
Why you are trying to fit who I am into your convenient little typical rightwinger template is all about your own doubts. It is apparently something that you need. It keeps you from having to face reality.
You'll have to cope with that on your own, or not, I can't help you with that.

And you are misrepresenting my point. I don't contend with any certainty that the administration could have stopped the attack once it began. However they might have altered the dynamic long enough to get people there on the ground if they had used what was available.
My main point is they had a month or two to beef up security and decided it wasn't worth doing and then when that proved to be a big deadly miscalculation they served up a bunch of non-sense excuses which you have willingly accepted because doing so allows your to continue to feel good about your team choice. The way they get a total pass on the story is the most outrageous part but you don't care. The 'referees' made a terrible call but since your team benefitted from it you are swallowing the excuses with glee.

Put it this way Will. You always set off my "right wing tea partier radar" just as you always seem to sniff out and comment that I'm probably some "left wing commie pinko". Maybe we're both wrong.

By the way, I DIDN'T vote for those tea party and Republican obstructionist imbeciles doing the filibustering now, nor would I EVER, even if I lived in their representative states, and I didn't vote for quite a few Dems in my state this time around either. But my Obama vote was a desperation play just to keep something far crazier from winning instead. I might be regretting my choice in the near future, but we'll see..............

http://bostonglobe.com/news/politics/20 ... story.html
well, it's all over now but the voting next week........read Imhofe's remarks and explain why he shouldn't be a candidate for public flogging. "We're at war", and that's his reason to hold up having a Defense Secretary of the President's choosing? Moron.

I'll believe it when it happens. Not that I'm rooting for a Republican choice, it's that continuing Republican intransigence towards Obama, even after their shellacking in the last election, that irks me. So why do Democratic presidents always seem to pick a Republican for Defense Secretary? Can't a Dem be trusted to run the military? All the uber liberals are whining about it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/1 ... at-Defense

tunnelcat wrote:I'll believe it when it happens. Not that I'm rooting for a Republican choice, it's that continuing Republican intransigence towards Obama, even after their shellacking in the last election, that irks me. So why do Democratic presidents always seem to pick a Republican for Defense Secretary? Can't a Dem be trusted to run the military? All the uber liberals are whining about it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/1 ... at-Defense

like much of what Obama does, policy wide, much hue and cry from the extreme right AND the extreme left. And, that, precisely, is why I support the guy. He knows where the vast bulk of the nation stands, and creates the policy THEY wish to see. What is hilarious is to read, simultaneously, righties claiming that Obama is a communist, and left wingers claiming how he a right-wing reactionary, based on the same policy.
As to the Dems picking Republicans for Defense thing, there hasn't been one set of reasons. For the Obama administration, the original choice of keeping Bush's Defense Secretary was to maintain continuity with two wars going on. Hegel, on the other hand, was picked purely for both combat experience, coupled with a very willing attitude towards sensible re-alignment of the Pentagon structure, not for party reasons. Hell, as the hearings show clearly, few Republicans consider him to even be a current party member.

I think Hegel's biggest attribute in Obama's eyes is Hegel's anti-Israel reputation fits perfectly with Obama's view that if he appears tough on Israel the Muslims in the middle east will respect his administration and come to his table to negotiate.

He's quite naive in that respect. Remember he said in his first campaign for President that "if I am elected, on day one of my administration, things would change, Muslims would respect us because of my ties to their culture".

I appreciate some of his foreign policy moves but he's foolish to think he can play the middle east power brokers like he plays black american voters. They probably got a good laugh at that one!

Will Robinson wrote:I think Hegel's biggest attribute in Obama's eyes is Hegel's anti-Israel reputation fits perfectly with Obama's view that if he appears tough on Israel the Muslims in the middle east will respect his administration and come to his table to negotiate.

I think this is wrong.

He's quite naive in that respect. Remember he said in his first campaign for President that "if I am elected, on day one of my administration, things would change, Muslims would respect us because of my ties to their culture".

got a direct quote? Because, I suspect this is flat-out false. No one ever stated that.

I appreciate some of his foreign policy moves but he's foolish to think he can play the middle east power brokers like he plays black american voters. They probably got a good laugh at that one!

what he has stated, both publicly and privately is that he wants to get the US out of the world power broker business, and focus on cooperative diplomacy abroad.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:He's quite naive in that respect. Remember he said in his first campaign for President that "if I am elected, on day one of my administration, things would change, Muslims would respect us because of my ties to their culture".

got a direct quote? Because, I suspect this is flat-out false. No one ever stated that.

....

It looks like my memory was pretty good and your suspicions are what is flat-out wrong.
Here, let him tell you in his own voice: Obama, ego or naïveté ?

odd that Breitbart is the only one with that 'video' and that a written transcript of those words are not available anywhere that I can find. Given Brietbart's site, and the propensity to flat-out lie about Obama and a lot of other things, I can't accept that. Sorry, Will.

callmeslick wrote:odd that Breitbart is the only one with that 'video' and that a written transcript of those words are not available anywhere that I can find. Given Brietbart's site, and the propensity to flat-out lie about Obama and a lot of other things, I can't accept that. Sorry, Will.

Your denial is what is sorry.

sorry, but it is doctored footage, IMHO. Go look on the web for another sourcing, there are none. In fact, the only sites one can find making claims that Obama stresses Islamic upbringing or ties are EXTREME right-wing hate sites(Breitbart, btw, is a hate site, pure and simple, with a horrible track record of manufacturing 'facts' and spreading those lies by repetitive posts).

Bottom line is that Obama's policy has been pretty even-handed and sensible toward the Middle East. His concept that we as westerners should not be the primary drivers in the region is VERY sensible, given that most of the problems we've faced from radicals has been rooted in our heavy handed support of dictators and over-zealous backing of Israel over the past decades. Obama wants that to change. Most of the citizenry who elected him twice want that to change. Hegel will support that change. Case closed.

callmeslick wrote:odd that Breitbart is the only one with that 'video' and that a written transcript of those words are not available anywhere that I can find. Given Brietbart's site, and the propensity to flat-out lie about Obama and a lot of other things, I can't accept that. Sorry, Will.

While a transcript may exist somewhere, I can confirm that it's not available to view.

callmeslick wrote:sorry, but it is doctored footage, IMHO. Go look on the web for another sourcing, there are none. ...

Really? There are none? Did you try the source?

You just want to deny anything that your preferred sources don't spoon feed to you.

Preferred sources like the ones that, one week before Obama won his first Presidential election, were sitting around discussing how they really don't know much about Obama, about his foreign policy etc.
They were talking as if they realized they forgot to try the new sauce at their favorite sushi place at lunch that day....no big deal, just a trivial realization that they, the preferred 'journalists' with a national voice, were uninformed about crucial characteristics of a candidate they were obviously enamored with!

Well here's a clue for you, just because those preferred journalists don't make something about him available to you doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means they decided they don't want you to hear it.

Here, assuming you don't think New Hampshire Public Radio is also a 'hate organization', you can hear him, in his own voice (again) from the original source of the interview that evil Breitbart supposedly "doctored"...the same inteview being brought to you straight from their archive.

Well, Senator Ted Cruz is vying for the new McCarthyism award with his outright lies about Hagel and some kind of payments from North Korea. The commie boogeyman died a long time ago Mr. Cruz. Plus, making accusations of some association between North Korea and Hagel as a personal smear tactic without a smidgen of evidence is an overused tea party tactic that's getting old.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/us/po ... .html?_r=0

And the anti-Israel meme is getting tired too. I actually agree with some of Hagel's pronouncements about Israel and the U.S. Israel has done it's little share of war crimes, just as the U.S. has the appearance of being the world's bully.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... interview/

Tell me TC, were you just as indignant when Harry Reid accused Romney of being a felon for not filling out income tax returns?