Senator to 'Hold' Nominee for CIA Director

Damn, this guy is looking better all the time. I'm remaining skeptical, but I am liking him more and more. Good job, Senator Paul!

From the article:

Senator Rand Paul is pledging to "hold" John Brennan's nomination for CIA director, a statement from his Senate office reports.

"I have asked Mr. Brennan if he believed that the President has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and my question remains unanswered. I will not allow a vote on this nomination until Mr. Brennan openly responds to the questions and concerns my colleagues and I share." Paul's statement reads.

"These issues must be discussed openly so that the American people can understand what constraints exist on the government's power to use lethal force against its citizens. Before confirming Mr. Brennan as the head of the CIA, it must be apparent that he understands and will honor the protections provided to every American by the Constitution."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...or_701204.html

Maybe Obama will 'drone' Rand Paul and get that nomination ball rolling again!

That is all that has come from Washington is droning,or is that snoring?

Can't say I'm impressed with the folks being nominated for cabinet position this term. Almost every one seems a ste (or a few steps) in the wrong direction.

Can't say I'm impressed with the folks being nominated for cabinet position this term. Almost every one seems a ste (or a few steps) in the wrong direction. Originally Posted by Old-T

+1

Yeah, that's great. The equivalent of a Republican filibuster on the cabinet member charged with the responsibility of defending the United States....because they want to know if Obama talked to anybody in Libya the night Benghazi happened.

Bottom line: Lindsey Graham and several of the other senators leading this charge know the teabaggers back in South Carolina, or wherever, are watching. By fighting and delaying anything Obama, the get cred with the whackos. And another 6 years doing nothing for America.

It will be interesting to watch the GOP run for cover on this issue when it blows up in their faces....

Yeah, that's great. The equivalent of a Republican filibuster on the cabinet member charged with the responsibility of defending the United States....because they want to know if Obama talked to anybody in Libya the night Benghazi happened.

Bottom line: Lindsey Graham and several of the other senators leading this charge know the teabaggers back in South Carolina, or wherever, are watching. By fighting and delaying anything Obama, the get cred with the whackos. And another 6 years doing nothing for America.

It will be interesting to watch the GOP run for cover on this issue when it blows up in their faces.... Originally Posted by timpage

What's good for the goose...

Frankly, I would be ecstatic if those morons in D.C., on both sides of the aisle, did absolutely nothing for the next 6 years. I think we would all be amazed at the progress this country would make.

What's good for the goose...

Frankly, I would be ecstatic if those morons in D.C., on both sides of the aisle, did absolutely nothing for the next 6 years. I think we would all be amazed at the progress this country would make. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Oridinarily a policy of "benign neglect" is probably a good thing when it comes to Congress. Unfortuately we're in such a mess, doing nothing is not acceptable anymore. We need real changes in policy in order to overturn prior mistakes. A policy of steady as she goes will take us right into an iceberg.

What's good for the goose...

Frankly, I would be ecstatic if those morons in D.C., on both sides of the aisle, did absolutely nothing for the next 6 years. I think we would all be amazed at the progress this country would make. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

You're the goose. This doesn't happen. Legislators that are actually concerned about the fate of the country, and who are willing to respect the electorate's choice in a presidential election don't block presidential cabinet nominees. Of course, that doesn't include the current crop of conservative shitbags like you.

>>>>According to the Senate’s historian, Donald A. Ritchie, only 5 percent of presidential cabinet nominees have been blocked or rejected by the Senate. And only twice since 1917, when the Senate’s modern filibuster rules were created, has a cabinet-level nominee been subject to a supermajority vote of 60, as Republicans are forcing with Mr. Hagel. <<<<

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/us...ewanted=2&_r=0

The Secretary of Defense is a lapdog for the President. He doesn't make independent policy choices, so it really doesn't matter who the SECDEF is. Hagel just pissed off too many people in the Senate while he was there. It's not about policy, it's about revenge against Hagel.

Obama will play this to his advantage. He's a better politician that even Clinton was. The Republicans are too stupid to see it, and WAY too stupid to counter it. This will not end well for the Republicans. They're wasting their fire on this. In the long run, this appointment is irrelevant. They need to save their ammunition for more important things.

The Secretary of Defense is a lapdog for the President. He doesn't make independent policy choices, so it really doesn't matter who the SECDEF is. Hagel just pissed off too many people in the Senate while he was there. It's not about policy, it's about revenge against Hagel.

Obama will play this to his advantage. He's a better politician that even Clinton was. The Republicans are too stupid to see it, and WAY too stupid to counter it. This will not end well for the Republicans. They're wasting their fire on this. In the long run, this appointment is irrelevant. They need to save their ammunition for more important things. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Every once in a while you post something that's accurate, at least in part. It's obviously true that every President appoints a secdef that will carry out his policy initiatives. You can characterize that as being a "lapdog" if you like. Gary Johnson would do the same, nothing else makes any sense once you are elected POTUS. He'd probably appoint Ted Nugent and that would be his right if he ever fooled enough Americans into voting him into office. Cabinet members are appointed to carry out the policies of whoever has been elected POTUS.

Where you do get it right is in regard to the stupidity of the Republicans on this issue. They're wasting their time. He's going to get the appointment, they don't have the horsepower to stop it, only delay it. And they look silly and petty for doing so. Except to the teabaggers who are driving the agenda in certain southern states. Unfortunately for you and the GOP, this is going to look petty and trivial on the national scene, which it is....and voters will act accordingly. More obstruction from the GOP, no solutions to any problems, no new ideas....just anti-Obama everything.....that shit doesn't sell in terms of why should we vote for you? what a surprise. They just don't get it.

Hagel is a Bozo with a Captain Kangaroo haircut.

Timmy, how is that unfortunate for me? I see very few differences between Republicans and Democrats. It's like Coke and Pepsi. People will argue over their qualities, but if you don't see the label, you can't tell the difference.

Timmy, how is that unfortunate for me? I see very few differences between Republicans and Democrats. It's like Coke and Pepsi. People will argue over their qualities, but if you don't see the label, you can't tell the difference. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's unfortunate for you because you're a liar about not differentiating between republicans and democrats. You rarely criticize republicans, and usually only when called on it out front. You voluntarily criticize democrats, and without prodding, constantly. So, you're a hypocritical lying asshole who tries to straddle the fence....in order to avoid defending the absurd policies of the republicans whose side you generally take. Anything else you need to know shitbird?

Duh, Timmy. The Democrats are in power, and the most immediate danger to our liberty. I wasn't on this board at the time, but in other arenas I railed against Bush and the idiot Republicans just as hard, if not harder, than I do Obama. And I have praised both individual Democrats and Republicans on occasion. Even Ron Wyden and Al Franken. I cannot stand Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnell is a blithering fool.

But Obama is President, and he is extremely corrupt and dishonest. Even worse than Bush, and I didn't think that was possible at the time. And when Obama was elected, I was very impressed, and really thought he would carry through on his promises. That soon faded when it became apparent he was just a typical politician, like the rest of them. No change. No hope. But if Obama had kept his promises, I would have been his biggest cheerleader on here.

I don't go by party. I call them as I see them, regardless of the label they wear. Right now, the clear and present danger is Obama. If somehow Rubio gets elected in 2016, I expect the downhill slide to continue, and if we still have the illusion of free speech, and this place doesn't become boring, I will hit him hard when he does stupid things. Of course, Hillary will in 2016, and I kind of expect her to be better than Obama, but not any more honest.