Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
Woah... twitter verse is going crazy...

Chuck Hagel hasn't been confirmed yet as the GOP is filibustering this...

The Nuke Option on the table?

When the GOP claim there hasn't been enough time to vet Hagel... when he was a senator in their own party for 12 years just shows how much bs is going on.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Woah... twitter verse is going crazy...

Chuck Hagel hasn't been confirmed yet as the GOP is filibustering this...

The Nuke Option on the table?

When the GOP claim there hasn't been enough time to vet Hagel... when he was a senator in their own party for 12 years just shows how much bs is going on.

It is a grand standing move anyway. They know that he only needs 51 votes soon so they are able to "block" it for fancy soundbites during the next campaign while knowing that they really didn't Filibuster the first cabinet appointment.

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Woah... twitter verse is going crazy...

Chuck Hagel hasn't been confirmed yet as the GOP is filibustering this...

The Nuke Option on the table?

When the GOP claim there hasn't been enough time to vet Hagel... when he was a senator in their own party for 12 years just shows how much bs is going on.

It is a grand standing move anyway. They know that he only needs 51 votes soon so they are able to "block" it for fancy soundbites during the next campaign while knowing that they really didn't Filibuster the first cabinet appointment.

Yeah... he'll get confirmed.

This is all political... Dems did the same thing against John Bolten for UN Ambassador(?).

They actually forced a vote on the filibuster? I honestly don't remember.

 d-usa wrote:
They actually forced a vote on the filibuster? I honestly don't remember.

I think they actually filibuster'ed him...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/21/20050621-121515-4570r/?page=all

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Very much so.

 youbedead wrote:
Well you can always make more Americans...

Giggity

Yes, you can.

You can always make more money too though.

The best part is all the Republicans trying to dodge the term filibuster.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They actually forced a vote on the filibuster? I honestly don't remember.

I think they actually filibuster'ed him...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/21/20050621-121515-4570r/?page=all

They did. Although the Republicans still carry the honor of being the first to filibuster an actual cabinet nominee.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
They actually forced a vote on the filibuster? I honestly don't remember.

I think they actually filibuster'ed him...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jun/21/20050621-121515-4570r/?page=all

They did. Although the Republicans still carry the honor of being the first to filibuster an actual cabinet nominee.

True... there's a first time for everything eh?

Bah... just confirm him already...

 d-usa wrote:

They did. Although the Republicans still carry the honor of being the first to filibuster an actual cabinet nominee.

No, the Democrats filibustered 2 of Bush's. I think it was for SecInt and the EPA.

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They did. Although the Republicans still carry the honor of being the first to filibuster an actual cabinet nominee.

No, the Democrats filibustered 2 of Bush's. I think it was for SecInt and the EPA.

Does it really matters who did it first?

It's always a political side-show with these.

The President got re-elected. He gets to choose his cabinet.... as long as the appointee isn't Hitler.

 Hordini wrote:

You can always make more money too though.

I was just being pithy with my comments because I get a bit annoyed when people are shocked at the death of Americans; especially Americans who were doubtlessly aware of the risks they were taking.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The thing that makes Benghazi more significant than some of the other attacks is the fact that the ambassador was killed, and we haven't had an ambassador killed in an embassy or consulate attack since 1979 in Afghanistan.

Are you telling me that if this was just 4 regular diplomatic personel this inquiry wouldn't be happening?

And if you look at the case in 1979, you see an ambassador who was kidnapped and killed in a bungled rescue by Soviet & Afghani forces. But what you don't see is any effort to blame the Secretary of State of any of their staff for what happened. Because 1979 was a different time in US politics, and partisan politics doesn't mix with the basic value of governance. And governance knows that the world is a dangerous place, and sometimes security systems will fail.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be happening or that it wouldn't still be a big deal, I'm saying it's a bigger deal because the ambassador got killed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

You can always make more money too though.

I was just being pithy with my comments because I get a bit annoyed when people are shocked at the death of Americans; especially Americans who were doubtlessly aware of the risks they were taking.

Fair enough!

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

They did. Although the Republicans still carry the honor of being the first to filibuster an actual cabinet nominee.

No, the Democrats filibustered 2 of Bush's. I think it was for SecInt and the EPA.

Looks like I stand corrected. I guess for SecInt they consider that it wasn't a filibuster because it didn't actually work due to not having 41 votes.

 d-usa wrote:

Looks like I stand corrected. I guess for SecInt they consider that it wasn't a filibuster because it didn't actually work due to not having 41 votes.

In the US "filibuster" generally refers to any extension of debate, which can be brought to a close by way of cloture. So, to take Kempthorne as an example, a few Senators may force a cloture motion because they continue to extend the debate; despite mass agreement by the rest of the Senate.

To my mind this is filibuster because, despite the weakness of the action, it was still an action to obstruct.

Lindsey Graham really only had a few simple questions, and I think it's reasonable to demand answers to them, and to withhold the vote until they're adequately answered. From the hearing:

1.) Could God create a boulder so heavy He could not lift it?
2.) If a train left Philadelphia going 120 miles an hour, and a train left New York going 80 miles an hour, why does Obama hate America so much?
3.) Which is the correct ending for the film "Inception"?
4.) When did you stop beating your wife?
5.) Do you think Lindsey is kind of a girls name?

 dogma wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Looks like I stand corrected. I guess for SecInt they consider that it wasn't a filibuster because it didn't actually work due to not having 41 votes.

In the US "filibuster" generally refers to any extension of debate, which can be brought to a close by way of cloture. So, to take Kempthorne as an example, a few Senators may force a cloture motion because they continue to extend the debate; despite mass agreement by the rest of the Senate.

To my mind this is filibuster because, despite the weakness of the action, it was still an action to obstruct.

I didn't mean to disagree with what you are saying. Just trying to think of why that wasn't considered a filibuster by some. I just figured it was some weird technicality because nobody likes the label unless they can paint somebody else with it.

 Hordini wrote:
I'm not saying it wouldn't be happening or that it wouldn't still be a big deal, I'm saying it's a bigger deal because the ambassador got killed.

Which is fair, it is a bigger deal than it would be if it was four embassy grunts that were killed. I just don't believe that makes it enough of a big deal as to be worthy of the attention the Republicans have given the issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
Lindsey Graham really only had a few simple questions, and I think it's reasonable to demand answers to them, and to withhold the vote until they're adequately answered. From the hearing:

1.) Could God create a boulder so heavy He could not lift it?
2.) If a train left Philadelphia going 120 miles an hour, and a train left New York going 80 miles an hour, why does Obama hate America so much?
3.) Which is the correct ending for the film "Inception"?
4.) When did you stop beating your wife?
5.) Do you think Lindsey is kind of a girls name?

Ha!

 d-usa wrote:

I didn't mean to disagree with what you are saying. Just trying to think of why that wasn't considered a filibuster by some. I just figured it was some weird technicality because nobody likes the label unless they can paint somebody else with it.

Well, yeah. The term "filibuster" doesn't have a precise meaning. In the US, in the popular present, it is often used to denote action with the intention of obstruction. That's fair, because that's basically what it means, but in a highly partisan nation that renders the term dirty. So you apply it to your opposition in order to paint them in a bad light.

I just wish people would stop calling it "bigger than Watergate". No matter how botched and flawed the handling of the Embassy event has been it doesn't compare to an attempt to spy on your political adversaries in order to get yourself elected. Even if the Obama administration tried to cover the whole thing up (which doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it does and that they did) it wouldn't compare to a premeditated, intentional cheating in a democratic election. It's just not the same.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Nuke Option on the table?

I don't think Frazzled has ever taken nuking congress off the table. I believe he actively encourages it.

Nuke the site from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

To the immediate topic of filibuster. Looks like they put a hold on until Senate meets again (to review the material whatever the hell that is). Graham is really tryign to hold to get more stuff on Benghazi. But it looks like the filibuster breaks in two weeks. Again, absent something like being caught being in bed with Putin, cabinet positions should not be filibustered.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I just wish people would stop calling it "bigger than Watergate". No matter how botched and flawed the handling of the Embassy event has been it doesn't compare to an attempt to spy on your political adversaries in order to get yourself elected. Even if the Obama administration tried to cover the whole thing up (which doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it does and that they did) it wouldn't compare to a premeditated, intentional cheating in a democratic election. It's just not the same.

This will be bigger than Watergate!

Regarding Hagel, are the Repubs playing right into the Presidents hands after his "I dare you to pay the Political Price to stop me" SOTU address? I mean, the president in 2014 can point to the Repubs and say, 'They wouldn;t even confrim a former member of thier own party to be Secretary of Defense! What do you expect me to do with these guys?"

Edit: I'm not even sure this point makes any sensee, so if anyone can state it more clearly I would appreciate it.

Wouldn't it have been better to just, you know, nominate a better candidate? Kerry's confirm went through like fries through ketchup.

Get it? ketchup? Heinz? get it? LAUGH OR DIE!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I just wish people would stop calling it "bigger than Watergate".

Well... its similar considering both administration attempted to coverup the truth.

No matter how botched and flawed the handling of the Embassy event has been it doesn't compare to an attempt to spy on your political adversaries in order to get yourself elected.

So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?

Even if the Obama administration tried to cover the whole thing up (which doesn't make sense, but let's pretend it does and that they did) it wouldn't compare to a premeditated, intentional cheating in a democratic election. It's just not the same.

 whembly wrote:
Well... its similar considering both administration attempted to coverup the truth.

Having a standard that you will launch a congressional inquiry every time a politician doesn't tell the whole truth is a pretty ludicrous standard.

So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?

So everytime 4 Americans die while serving their country you want an investigation? 128 US policemen died in 2012. Do you want 32 congressional inquiries for those deaths?

 whembly wrote:
During the campaign, Obama's foreign policy was touted as his strength.

The only real noise made about foreign policy during the 2012 campaign was made by Republicans touting Obama's as a failure, mostly as a result of Benghazi.

 whembly wrote:

Here's what I thing really happened... it looked like our people in Bengahzi were overwhelmed and doomed, so there was shock, sadness, and acceptance.

If you're going to be upset about anything it should be the absence of a response to an assault on the position (not the person) of a US Ambassador. You should also probably be angry at the deceased Ambassador for going to Benghazi.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/02/chuck_hagel_s_nomination_as_secretary_of_defense_the_republican_senators.html

Just read a piece that sums nicely the problem I've had with the Hagel nomination - the apparent problems with him has been some really, really stupid nonsense.

And I think that's really the point that's gotten lost in much of the debate - blocking a nomination is okay when there's some substance behind. Robert Bork's quashed nomination is generally seen as the turning point in nominations, as the Democrats didn't just oppose the nomination, but did it very publically.

But dammit even if you thought Bork was a good pick for the job at least you had to recognise the Democrat's complaints had some kind of substance to them, some kind of basis in the politics of the day. The concerns about Hagel are just stupid nonsense.

 sebster wrote:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/02/chuck_hagel_s_nomination_as_secretary_of_defense_the_republican_senators.html

Just read a piece that sums nicely the problem I've had with the Hagel nomination - the apparent problems with him has been some really, really stupid nonsense.

And I think that's really the point that's gotten lost in much of the debate - blocking a nomination is okay when there's some substance behind. Robert Bork's quashed nomination is generally seen as the turning point in nominations, as the Democrats didn't just oppose the nomination, but did it very publically.

But dammit even if you thought Bork was a good pick for the job at least you had to recognise the Democrat's complaints had some kind of substance to them, some kind of basis in the politics of the day. The concerns about Hagel are just stupid nonsense.

What Ted Cruz said in particular was just... amateur hour. Which makes sense considering he is a rookie.

Basically, the Repubs are holdign up Hagel because he didn't tow the party line 100% of the time as a Repub and now must pay the political price.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... its similar considering both administration attempted to coverup the truth.

Having a standard that you will launch a congressional inquiry every time a politician doesn't tell the whole truth is a pretty ludicrous standard.

Well... I'm not actually calling for any congressional inquiry as they rarely find anything anyways...

I'm calling for proper accountant from the administration. That's all.

So... you're saying that trying to steal information to help your re-election campaign is WORST than the lives of 4 americans?

So everytime 4 Americans die while serving their country you want an investigation? 128 US policemen died in 2012. Do you want 32 congressional inquiries for those deaths?

Yeah, and getting bad optics IS bad politics.