Hey @ss, You have way too many facts in your post. So many in fact, I could not read them all. But, Benghazi was just a "bump" in the road with 4 dead Americans.

The American people deserve to know the truth and the families of those killed also deserve to know the truth just the same as Pat Tillman's family did. Shame on you Liberals for supporting this cover-u

For the record, the Pat Tillman "coverup" occurred on GW Bush's watch. Just want to make that clear as you use it as a lead-in to your comment about Liberals. It was also the Bush administration that concocted the bull@!$%# story about Pvt.Jessica Lynch valiant fight against Iraqi insurgents, her wounding by gunfire, and her capture by militants. She was awarded the Bronze Star just to give their propaganda effort greater weight. But they walked in with a film crew and "rescued" her from a civilian hospital where she was being treated for non-lethal injuries and no gunshot wound. When she spilled the beans on what a bogus story Rumsfeld and Cheney had drummed up, they dumped her like a bad habit. Now there was a true coverup of an intentionally manufactured bull@!$%# story to "sell the war." Benghazi happened ~ the Lynch story didn't!!!!

and we still dont know the truth!

Exactly what do you think has been covered up? There has already been a report on all the things they did wrong on security. Are you just assuming there must be something else just because that's how much you hate them?

Jim,

I like your idea much better, as I never gave my idea much merrit anyway, but you have to admit it was a nice dream.

You two getting jobs and ending the incessant whining would be the nicest thing of all.

skibum,

I have a job, thank you, and the only one I see whining here is you.

Don't need a job. I own my own business and employ 16 full-time workers and eight part-timers. In case you wonder, I bury people ~ ~ ~ I'm a mortician. Can I interest you in a funeral? We have special rates for crooked conservatives since we don't have to dig a grave ~ we just screw you into the ground.

Jim,

Nice come back! 2 points!

And only 5 feet from Obama when he said:

When I pick up my Bible, you know what I see? I see the fairest individual in the universe, God, and he’s given us a system. It’s called tithe. Now we don’t necessarily have to do a ten percent, but this principal. He didn’t say, “If your crops fail, don’t give me any tithes.” He didn’t say, “If you have a bumper crop, give me triple tithes.” So there must be something inherently fair about proportionality.

check your cut and paste he does not chair the armed svcs committee but he is at least as credible as the democrat chairman of the foreign relations committee- menendez.

Without the South the military would have six members.

Lincoln made one big mistake. He should have pushed each and every southerner into the sea. Rid us of these hateful people once and for all.

I agree since that would have ended the Democrat party and their calls to keep slavery.

was it the questions or his inability to answer them?

You don't sound like an American at all.

Right now loyalty to this Country, it's Constitution, and it's laws IS the paramount consideration. After all we swear an oath to defend them...so did some of the people in office now that have blatantly broken that oath and betrayed all of it.

Are you implying that Hagel has no loyalty to this country, its Constitution, and its laws? If that be the case, what is and where is your evidence of such? Just because someone's political opinions differ with yours does not make them an enemy of the state, Bob. I take it from your previous post that you have retired from active service. Since you question the loyalty and patriotism of the commander-in-chief, that would be the proper thing for you to do. Its bad enough that our flag officers are now politicians first. We surely don't need line officers masquerading in that capacity.

tom & skibum definitely not americans.

They must be "jewish americans" whose hearts and minds are with some country in mid east. Who needs enemies when we have people like these.

Jim the people who are disloyal to America are the stooges who spent 8 hours grilling Hagel about israel, not spending so much as 10 minutes asking what Hagel will do for AMERICA . I would go so far as to recommend that the FBI investigate if Lindsey Graham is being blackmailed by the israeli lobby. Considering rumors of Mr Graham's propensities, it is likely in my opinion. Hagel hearings exposed treason at the highest level of our govt.

if you saw a runaway vehicle heading for a group of children would you try to stop it? the car is the debt the democrats are piling on future generations.

tom, we have been complaining abuot the debt for 30 years; where have yo been?

You do not get it at all...being a part of the military is all about NOT representing your self at all. It is about service to the Country and in this case The Corps. If your "experience" is about representing and serving just yourself...well you never will get it. Why don't you just burn the flag and quit being hypocrite. And while you are at it dump any entitlements you may be getting, there are real Americans that bled and deid for them while NOT representing themselves.

I think he will be confirmed since repubs have very little say in the senate and then his actions will make YOU and the Democrat Socialist Party look foolish.

Were his "injuries" service connected? If so, why would he leave active service four years short of retirement? A medical discharge would have ensured him disability compensation if his injuries were service connected. Seems he made a decision not well thought out and with consequences attached. I certainly have empathy for the man and his situation but we are all responsible for our decisions and it appears he made a bad one.

we are all responsible for our decisions

How can you espouse to being a democrat socialist liberal and believe that statement?

@bob,

So you blaming the President because this Vet is now jobless. Boy you are 1 stupid fool. I served in the military for 10 yrs, and when I got out I did not look or expect the President of USA to find me a job. I pursue my own career path. As a veteran I found that there were many opportunities to educate myself and pursue a career after the military.

But what should I expect from someone who post a link from "Fox News". Now thats Disgusting!!

Bringing Fox News articles over to support you arguments only decreases your credibility.

That's right Anita, "what difference does it make" how they died and what the White House did to cover up a terrorist attack?

Of course I wonder if you were saying "what difference does it make" when WMDs weren't found? After all, Republicans AND Democrats were calling for the ouster of Saddam and simply used WMDs as the excuse. What difference does it make?

I wonder if you were saying "what difference does it make", when 8 U.S. Attorneys were fired by Bush's Attorney General. I KNOW you weren't saying anything at all when Clinton's Attorney General fired ALL 45 of them. After all, "what difference does it make"?

What difference does it make Anita? The difference between a DEMOCRACY and a government that decides for itself what the "truth" is and what "facts" they will present to the people of that nation as that "truth".

I know you think Obama would just NEVER lie to you, despite the FOUR YEARS of PROVEN lies.

But what difference does it make Anita?

Cheryl, you know very well that the "what difference does it make" had nothing to do with how they died. She was referring only with the Republican Senators obsession with when they confirmed whether or not there had been a demonstration prior to the attack. To that I would still ask the question "what difference does it make."

Just wondering when you will realize how to spell? Truly. Take note...I wont say that all lefties are complete morons.

Wow!! Another "tolerant", "respectful", "open", "accepting", "civil", progressive heard from.

Don't actually debate the MERITS of why he's not supported or is supported.

Instead throw out hate and filth.

It seems to be the thing that you libs live on.

In King's English, "realise" is correct. "Realize" is the Americanization of proper English spelling. "Truely" is misspelled but in communication of thought, comprehension is more desired than grammatical accuracy other than in academic papers. I hardly think NewsVine ranks high in academia.

Wow, grammar Nazi on board.

Thanks Jim, your contribution was significant to the argument of the merit, or the lack of merit, of the appointment of Hagel.

You probably think Clinton was simply brilliant with his "Well it depends on what is is" argument too. Never mind he committed purgery. The semantics of his speech was simply more important.

Cheryl, Jim was defending you, and yuo savage him anyway. Kind of a hair trigger on that attack mode, isn't it.

"Insult first, think later."

I was actually trying to, Jock ~ but some people you just can't help. Cheryl seems to have some rather unique problems so one never knows what to expect in return. I'm sure she means well but if I had my guess, I'd suspect she is a self-made woman ~ ~ ~ who simply ran short of material.

Wow, i came back to read more comments, and what do i find? The Nazi spelling police from the right! Nice. NOT!!! As for the anger and hatred, i only give back what is freely given by you ignorent righties!!!

That's right, when the Democrats are in power, then get rid of the filibuster.

But when Republicans were in power in the 90's there was not ONE single Democrat saying get rid of the RIGHT of filibuster, was there? And the Republicans actually RESPECTED the right of the minority party in Congress to filibuster.

But now, when Harry Reid doesn't have his 60 votes anymore to shove whatever he wants to down our throats, suddenly the RIGHT of the minority party to filibuster is something that needs to be taken away.

I wonder if you'd have been so supportive of taking away the filibuster if Trent Lott had simply decided that the Democrats could not filibuster, seeing as they were the minority party.

Cheryl: "suddenly the RIGHT of the minority party to filibuster"

And where exactly do you believe this RIGHT comes from? From the Constitution? Obviously not. There is no RIGHT to negate the majority unless the law itself is unconstitutional, which is not even relevant with appointments.

Just for @!$%#s and grins, Cheryl ~ do a bit of comparison in how often Democrats used the filibuster in the '90s' as compared to the number of times it has been employed by Republicans since they lost control of the Senate? I don't give a damn if its Republicans, Democrats, Tories or Whigs in majority ~ the filibuster should not be an available tool to stall or kill legislation. Moreover, I strongly advocate all submitted legislation be brought to the floor for a vote regardless of which party submits it. No proposed legislation should be allowed to atrophy and die in the majority leader's office. And I have stated my case on the 60 vote super-majority and historical comparison as you offer has not altered my opinion one iota.

jock......Actually if you CHECK the FACTS you'd find that Senate Rule XXII says a Senator or group of Senators may speak as long as they want on ANY subject they wish unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture. (That would be called a filibuster, by the way)

That means the minority actually has the RIGHT to filibuster until 60 votes are in to close the debate on ANY appointment.

Too bad that you don't actually do any research, but instead simply throw out words that show not only do you not know the FACTS, but that you aren't even willing to do any research.

And Jim, so does that mean that you agree that the THREE budgets passed by the House, along with the DOZENS of bills passed by the House, should have brought on the floor of the Senate for a vote instead of being "tabled" by Harry Reid? And would you keep on agreeing with that sentiment if Democrats actually voted WITH Republicans and PASSED some of those bills, or even ONE BUDGET, with Obama vetoing them immediately after passage by a MAJORITY of both Houses of Congress?

Cheryl, I know very well what the Senate Rules. My point was that Senate Rules do not constitute a "right." They are just the rules somebody made up once. They aren't even laws. I asked you where the CONSTITUTION gave the RIGHT of an individual (or any other minority) to block the appointments.

And Jim, so does that mean that you agree that the THREE budgets passed by the House, along with the DOZENS of bills passed by the House, should have brought on the floor of the Senate for a vote instead of being "tabled" by Harry Reid?

ABSOLUTELY!!! All legislation should be voted on ~ in both chambers. S/he who controls the calendar should have a specified length of time to bring all legislation up for vote. And if it is resubmitted to committee or sub-committee, it must return to the chamber's legislative calendar within a specified length of time. All proposed legislation deserves a vote and no one should have the power to unilaterally kill it.

The GOP will not have a majority in the Senate for decades, if ever. Do away with the illegal filibuster.

Actually it's a Congressional RIGHT to block appointments.

Too bad you weren't saying all this when Democrats were filibustering and blocking Republican appointments.

Of course the ideology of hypocrisy is to DEMAND you have the power to stop an appointment when you aren't in power and then DEMAND that no one be able to stop an appointment when you are.

I've always thought the filibuster was wrong, and fundamentally undemocratic.

Actually it's a Congressional RIGHT to block appointments.

Then I'm confident you will be able to cite the Article, Amendment, or paragraph which conveys that "right." It is a constitutional right of a nominee to expect an up or down vote and a president has a clear constitutional expectation that such will occur.

Senate Rule XXII.....Why don't YOU do some of your own research instead of sitting in denial and demanding that someone else do it for you?

Oh wait, because you're "entitled", right? I forgot for just a second there that liberals either can make up their own rules as they go along, or are somehow entitled to believe whatever they want to, say whatever they want to, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with what they say.

Cheryl: " or are somehow entitled to believe whatever they want to and attack anyone that doesn't agree with what they say."

Isn't that what you are doing right now? We asked you where the Constitution (or common sense, for that matter) gave the RIGHT of filibuster, and all you can do is come back with the whiney righ-wing talking point about how we must feel "entitled."

Uh, Cheryl ~ ~ I hate to break it to you, kid, but Senate Rules are not the same as Constitutional rights. Those rules can be amended with a simple majority vote at the will of congress. The Constitution grants "rights" ~ Senate rules grant "privilege" and only to its members.

Why don't you go look up what filibuster means?

Oh wait, we can't do that.

It's easier to IGNORE the Senate Rules that have been agreed to by BOTH parties and have Harry Reid simply make up his own rules, like he's been doing for four years anyway, right?

"Consent" can only be granted by the Senatorial body voting as a committee of the whole. Even subordinate committees cannot block a nominee. They can only send their findings to the floor with a recommendation that the nominee be confirmed or rejected. Since a full committee lacks this authority, allowing it to extend to one individual is ludicrous.

So what's Harry Reid been doing for the past two years Jim?

ONE MAN has "tabled" nearly every bill and HAS tabled every budget that has come out of the House. No committee, no recommendations, NO VOTE.

Seems like you have no problems with ONE MAN blocking legislation coming out the House, but are somehow offended that Republicans as a GROUP can block the appointment of someone the President has selected.

You know, like last year, when Obama unConstitutionally appointed his group of three to the EPA while the Senate was in pro forma session. And after the Department of Justice spending a year of defending that crap, and allowing over 200 ILLEGAL decisions by that group, a Federal Judge finally ruled that what he did actually WAS illegal. You might take note that while Harry Reid was the Senate Minority Leader, he held his pro forma Senate sessions and Bush NEVER attempted to appoint someone while those sessions were going on.

But then again, Obama has minimal integrity and his agenda is way more important than the Constitution.

Cheryl, the appointments were not to the EPA, and there was nothing wrong with challenging the constitutionality of the pro forma sessions.

As for tabling legislation, etc. I have never liked that kind of power given to one or a few, but it was done according to those same Senate Rules that you seem to think are so inviolate.

So what's Harry Reid been doing for the past two years Jim?

I clarified this back in Post # 44.6, Cheryl. I don't give a damn if it is Harry Reed, John Boehner, or any who succeed them from either party. No one should be allowed to, in effect, "pocket veto" proposed legislation by refusing to bring it up for vote. In fact, I'd like to see all legislation be submitted for vote within two weeks of it being filed with the clerk of either chamber. Maybe with this structure, congress would have to work for their paychecks instead of being in recess more days than they are actually on the job. Two weeks is enough time to study all legislation as every member of congress has staff to do the research. I'd go further in stating that no bill can be longer than 24 pages, 30 with amendments, and if it contains any riders or ear marks, it is rejected by the parliamentarian and cannot be brought up again for at least twelve calendar months. In the vernacular, "this ain't rocket science" ~ its business and well past time that the nation's business be handled in a manner consistent with the expectations of the electorate.

What would being gay have to do with him being a jerk?

do not get me wrong.. I hope I am not offending gay people.. I am just saying that he is a miserable jerk.. because he is gay and he can't come out because for sure it would confirm how much of a hyprocate he is and the rest of his party is... However, it is just a matter of time... this rooster wil be roasted soon for being an unbearable jerk....

Careful, Nico, the spelling Nazi's are out in force today!!!