E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSUpdated, 5:33 pm ET, Feb. 6. The Senate Armed Services Committee may delay the committee vote on the confirmation of Chuck Hagel to be the next defense secretary.
That vote was expected tomorrow. However, Republicans say the former Republican Nebraska senator has not provided all of the vetting materials requested about some his past speeches and finances, and they are looking into a complaint by a former Hagel staffer that she was harassed by another staffer.
Hagel's explanation is that some of those materials are the property of organizations with whom he has worked. But Democrats see the attempts as an effort to try and get President Obama to withdraw Hagel, something seen as unlikely.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is among those Republicans who have explicitly asked the president to "reconsider" the choice of Hagel.
"I don't think he's done anything unethical," Graham said. "He got paid to speak in front of groups; that's a common practice around here. I want to know who did he speak in front of, what did he say, and where did the money come from?"
Hagel said at his confirmation hearing that he does not have all of the speeches because he delivered many of them extemporaneously.
The White House reacted to the potential delay, calling for the Senate to "move quickly," per NBC's Kristen Welker.
"We continue to expect the Senate to move quickly to confirm Sen. Hagel as our next Secretary of Defense," an official said in a statement. "Since his confirmation hearing, more Senators on both sides of the aisle have announced their support for his confirmation, including Sens. [Mike] Johanns [R-NE], Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY], [Tom] Udall [D-CO], [Kay] Hagan [D-NC], and [Richard] Blumenthal [D-CT]. It's clear that Senator Hagel has significant support in the Senate. So with 66,000 troops serving in Afghanistan and other Defense issues to deal with, it's time to move beyond these distractions and move forward with a vote on his nomination."
But without an opportunity to review all the requested information about Hagel's background and views contained in his past speeches, some Republican members have raised concerns and want more time.
Graham supports a delay. "You do have the ability to stop the nomination from going forward to get the information," he said. "I would be willing to do that. I would vote against a motion to proceed until I feel like we have the information that we need to make an informed decision."
Tomorrow, the committee will hear from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on the Benghazi attacks. Their appearance and testimony before a Hagel vote was one condition requested by Graham in order to leverage more access to information about the deadly attack in Libya. Graham said he would seek to put a hold on Hagel's confirmation vote until Panetta testified.
A decision on timing for the committee vote belongs to committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) who aides say is "working very hard to try to address and resolve those concerns today, so the committee can go forward with the vote tomorrow."
However, Levin's office acknowledges that it is unclear now if the vote will go forward as originally planned.
"We were supposed to vote tomorrow," Graham said, "but I think we should wait."
Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) told The Cable Tuesday that Republicans also are awaiting the results of a their investigation into a claim by a former Hagel staffer of sexual harassment by another staffer in 2007.
"I remember handling it, I thought it was handled," Lou Ann Linehan, Hagel's chief of staff at the time, told The Cable. "I did not bring it to the senator. I would not have taken it to the senator unless it required a termination and that wasn't the case. The term sexual harassment shocks me a little bit. I wouldn't have put up with anything that was actually sexual harassment. I had a very low tolerance for it. I don't put up with that stuff. Hagel didn't tolerate it, I didn't tolerate it."
Leave a Comment:
If anyone can convince the republicans not to be the stupid party, we will need them to go to our mental institutions and convince the inmates not to be crazy.
Well...if Graham is against it....
Give ma a freakin break. The Republicons know Hagel is no friend of large defense budgets.
So much for the make-over of the Tea-Republicans. That lasted about as long as an intelligent statement from Sarhra.
As for Mr. Graham, what is his next request to show how stupid he is? He probably is going to ask Hagal for some used toilet paper so he can personally examine it.
LazLong ......LazLong ...Hum! Another intelligent left wing extremist with no real name. My issue is non tax paying left wing radicals such as your self ,and Feisty whom ( based on your post) have no depth or understanding of government or how it works . Yet you continue post one liners attacking government official on the right because of some lame believe that your a liberal . The fact that you ( Feisty ) use fantasy name to post seemly indicates that you have a reality issue !!
Do you have a job???? social security # ,,,,,,,,,probably not ! you can't used your real name .
Come on man up ...........jump into real world !!
And we once again hear from the newest little chickenhawk tepub, a lockstep rubber stamper walker for sure, who loves the nixonian spitting on veterans especially us Vietnam veterans: "Freshman Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who opposes Hagel's nomination, had complained to his colleagues about the information the nominee provided during a closed meeting on Tuesday. Other Republicans raised objections to a vote."
Who at 42 aged out of voluntary recruitment into the Armed Services especially after 9/11 and these two rubber stamped wars of choice, having cheered on the abandoning of the main missions for even sending the military into that region with the first drum beats pointed at Iraq!!!
USN All Shore '67-'71 GMG3 Vietnam In Country '70-'71
I just love to watch these idiots in action. Little do they know...every time they open up their mouths they lose four voters to the Democrats!
Keep going Graham until you bare your entire ass to the whole country.
The Repukes are saying they need to change their image BUT they keep doing the same things all over again...
The US has had to bring home on Navy carrier because funding cannot be assured..a situation created ONLY by the Repukes. AND McCann and henchmen waste time on kindergarden stuff rather than working on solving the problem which has led to the withdrawal of defense resources..
KINDERGARDEN KIDS KNOW BETTER!
AMEN and they keep the same jerks sending the message [ie] Mitch McConnell, John Bonehead ,Paul Ryan , John McCain and on and on....
Isn't it a sign of insanity when one keeps taking the same action hoping for a different outcome. Insanity, thy name is Republican. These guys just keep shooting themselves in the foot and looking like fools. In this day an age we NEED a director of defense so get off your duffs and get the job done. And somebody please tell McCain that every time he opens his mouth he convinces more of us that senility has set in for this poor old bitter man. He has gone from war hero to a bitter "get off my lawn" impotent old man.
I guess I should single you out along with the other liberal cronies on these blogs thinking that the drivel you spill out is doing anything but provide amusement for your little sewing circle. All politics is local and Senator McCain and others will remain US Senators as long they want the job. I don't think anybody cares what you think, particularly the people of Arizona.
I feel that President Obama should consider Sen. Lindsay Graham Kracker's request to shelve the Chuck Hagel nomination only if the state of South Carolina fires Sen. Lindsay Graham Kracker.
I think the state of South Carolina likes Senator Graham just fine. The more he can be a thorn in the side of Obama, the better.
Ernest T comes to mind: No rhyme or reason to not take the vote. We cant afford any more obstructionism trying to make the President non effective as the President.
When they talked on and on about the Presidents birth certificate, that seemed to be ok, now they want them to shut up about the Governors over weight problem. It is very hard to move forward when they keep obstructing everything trying to make the President and his administration fail!
Dale......I guess you feel that all 120,000,000 people who voted in the last Presidential election voted for Obama. Its our patriotic duty to obstruct policies or nominatons we feel would be detremental to our country.
Yeah Chris Rhodes Scholar: You should have rejected him before he was wounded; defending the country! You get the stupid statement award for the day!
Someone tell me what the Secretary of Defense has to do with foreign policy? His sole job is to represent the President of the United States and serve as a buffer between the President and so called BRASS (notice how it is spelled and that will explain why a buffer is needed.) Secondly, the Republicans evidently think Rumsfeldt was a wonderful SecDef. After all, he went to WAR with the Army he had and not the Army he wanted. To quote Lucy: bleeeeech!
These Republicons are becoming a pain in the arse, sour losers
Look, lets be honest, Hagel is not really a smooth public speaker.
But, do we want somebody:
A- Real American hero who works for US interests and answer to US citizens. A person whose job is not to appease warmongers, defense contractors and some freaking brats in middle east.
B- A smooth talking SOB who thinks US's only concern is some freaking welfare country in Mideast. A person who would send thousands of young men to their death just to appease some f*cks in Mideast.
I will pick A.
McCaine and Grahamm and similar republicons pick B. These morons would want somebody like M Boltone (Former US ambassador to UN), this guy was seemingly at odds with every country in the world except israel.
Is there even one Republican senator who is not an inept, hypocritical, brain dead, gun sucking, enemy of our democracy and the Constitution, and a transparent shill for the big money oligarchs who would seek the suppression of freedom?