Senator vows to delay Obama's nominees over Libya

February 11, 2013 @ 1:19 am


| Zoom

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Lindsey Graham is determined to get more answers about the deadly Sept. 11 attack against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Now the South Carolina Republican says he will hold up Senate confirmation of President Barack Obama's nominees to head the Pentagon and the CIA until he gets that information.

Graham has accused the White House of "stonewalling" requests to release more information about the attack that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

"We're going to get to the bottom of Benghazi," he said Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

The White House has urged quick approval of the president's second-term national security team and scolded any lawmakers trying to "play politics" with critical nominations.

A Democratic colleague branded Graham's threat to stall the nominations as "unprecedented and unwarranted." Senators should have the chance to vote on whether former Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., will be defense secretary and whether John Brennan, Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, will be CIA director, said Sen. Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island.

The White House did not address Graham's demand for more information, but did note that Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified Thursday before Congress about the chaotic day of the attack.

In January, Graham had signaled he would delay Brennan's pick and told Fox News he would "absolutely" block Hagel unless Panetta and Dempsey testified about Benghazi. The senator said he was "happy as a clam" when he learned the hearing with Panetta and Dempsey had been scheduled.

Republicans have accused the Obama administration of an election-year cover-up and at the hearing several suggested the commander in chief was disengaged as Americans died.

"We know nothing about what the president did on the night of September 11th during a time of national crisis, and the American people need to know what their commander in chief did, if anything, during this eight-hour attack," Graham said on CBS.

Graham contended that a six-person rescue team was delayed from leaving the Benghazi airport because of problems "with the militias releasing them and a lot of bureaucratic snafus," and he said he wants to know whether Obama called any Libyan officials to expedite their mission.

"I don't think we should allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to secretary of defense until the White House gives us an accounting," Graham said, adding: "What did he do that night? That's not unfair. The families need to know, the American people need to know."

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said: "We believe the Senate should act swiftly to confirm John Brennan and Sen. Hagel. These are critical national security positions and individual members shouldn't play politics with their nominations."

Reed said that "to dwell on a tragic incident and use that to block people is not appropriate. To try to find information, to ask legitimate questions, as Senator Graham is doing is completely appropriate. But then to turn around and say, `I'm going to disrupt, essentially, the nomination of two key members of the President's Cabinet,' I don't think that's appropriate, I don't think it's warranted, I think it is an overreaction that is not going to serve the best interest, going forward, of the national security of the United States."

Graham disagreed.

"In a constitutional democracy, we need to know what our commander in chief was doing at a time of great crisis, and this White House has been stonewalling the Congress, and I'm going to do everything I can to get to the bottom of this so we'll learn from our mistakes and hold this president accountable for what I think is tremendous disengagement at a time of national security crisis," he said.

At the Senate hearing, Panetta testified that he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible.

Graham asked whether Panetta spoke again to Obama after that first meeting. Panetta said no, but that the White House was in touch with military officials and aware of what was happening. At one point, Graham asked Panetta if he knew what time Obama went to sleep that night. The Pentagon chief said he did not.


(Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)
More National News
Top Stories
MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (18)


  • Add A Comment

  • CH wrote...
    Lindsey Graham
    February 10, 2013 7:26 am
    put your head back in your butt!! If you want to know what happen at U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya ask Fox News. You were given the report what did you do with it? One meat head can hold things up? Must bee a Republiturd[http://youtu.be/hct5P_OfklU]. But then again they all are.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    And the reports change daily. The reality is that the timing was inconvenient to the Wizard.
    February 10, 2013 10:11 am
    And, because he could not immediately blame Bush, he just got fresh popcorn and watched.

    Funny, CH. Had Benghazi happened under Boy George, every democrat in congress would have been demanding impeachment. ..... But Mt. Obama can skate.

    They once said that Reagan was the teflon president, because bothing bad would stick. ........... Oz, however, can be covered in 'shinola' and he party and the press will tell us all it's flowers.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Promises To Hold Things Up
    February 10, 2013 7:49 am
    Those nominees are going to end up being approved. The RWNJ aren't really wanting to do what is best for this country and get things moving. They want to grandstand and tell their voters "look at how tough I was on the president." Most voters are sick of these tactics. Graham and McCain are looking like twins. Hope to them get the eventual "boot" from political power. They aren't part of the solution, they are clearly part of the problem.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Ohhhhh WSU
    February 10, 2013 1:43 pm
    Sorry Mr. government employee, but in the real world, when there is a crisis, the CEO and leaders of the company stop everything and work to find out what happened and how fast can the problem be resolved. Instead of LYING, covering up the problem and flying off to yet another fund raiser like the inept, incompetent, chickenshit miserable failure of a leader that BHO rally is...OBAMA is a PATHETIC FAILURE and a LIAR....now go back to your little government job and keep you head firmly buried up your asssss.....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Maple
    February 10, 2013 7:31 pm
    Now, now, Maple, there you go again. Continue assuming what my job is. Obama is a pathetic loser? What does that say about your party that he defeated? BYTW, what do you have against government workers? My wife works within the public school system. She does a great job and is admire by her students,parents, and staff. Too bad jerks like you have a total "snotty" attitude towards those people. But what else should I expect from an elitist RWNJ like yourself.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • maplefish wrote...
    Government workers
    February 11, 2013 10:04 am
    I ave nothing against. Brain dead unaccountable liberals who are too blind to see that the Obama administration and Democrs in general( government employees) don't give a ratsass about the fiscal destruction that is being perpetrated on this country. Obviously you ave ZERO FINANCIAL education or intelligence. BTW- I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, so if that makes me a RWNJ.... Well, I guess that just makes you a moron. Or incredibly STUPID. I'm pretty sure you're both....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    Just looking for something to stick...
    February 10, 2013 11:03 am
    I remember the criticism of Jimmy Carter was that he was caught up in the details, and needed to step back and let his people do the work. The criticism of Ronald Reagan was that he was caught up in the big picture, and didn't know what his people were doing. I don't think it would have mattered what Obama was doing or what time he went to bed. According to the testimony before the senate, when Obama learned of the attacks, he directed the Defense Secretary and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs to deploy forces ASAP. Sounds like an appropriate response to me. Anything after that is nitpicking.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    That's not exactly what Panetta said. Certainly Obama did NOT follow what was going on after initially being informed.
    February 10, 2013 11:35 am
    And, again per Panetta, NOTHING was ordered dispatched.

    If Carter was caught up in details and Reagan in the big picture. it seems Mr, Obama is caught up in himself.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Ron
    February 10, 2013 11:57 am
    Reagan? Where was Reagan when the barracks in Beirut were bombed? Was there a call for an investigation? Were there any previous warnings about an attack in Beirut?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Wazzu, Reagan admitted a mistake in Beirut.
    February 10, 2013 5:26 pm
    No one ever said he was perfect. ..... But that was 1983. We DID NOT have the sophisticated communications then that we have now. So, Mr. Reagan likely learned of the attack the same time everyone else did.

    He certainly didn't watch it in real time and then go to bed, however. .

    And, so far as warnings...... I can't recall. But the French compound was also bombed at the same time. And it was as much a surprise to them as to us.

    .

    But Beirut was nearly 30 years ago, so how is THAT relevant to Mr. Obama's actions - or lack thereof ???????

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    Real Time?
    February 10, 2013 8:46 pm
    Sorry dude, that is a total myth brought to you than none other than "Faux News." They always talked about "real time." Total "fallacy." They got you "hook line and sinker" on that one. How is Beirut relevant? I find it completely relevant. What did we do after that, we left. If Obama did such a thing, you guys would complain about him "cutting and running." There were numerous warnings about suicide bombers back then. The GOP wouldn't dare blame The Reagan Administration for incompetence on that one. In fact, The Dems didn't either. They blamed the suicide bomber. That doesn't happen today. The GOP blames Obama.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    BTW, Wazzu, the Reagan reference was to the Pair o'dimes post.
    February 10, 2013 5:44 pm
    Contrasting to Carter and a dig at your hero. ... It was certainly not saying that Reagan would have done Benghazi better (or that Carter would have).

    But, then, if everything has been Bush's fault for the past 4 years, what's going back 30 or 40 years to assign blame for Obama's failures ???

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • wsualumn wrote...
    If Everything Is About Blaming Bush...
    February 10, 2013 9:13 pm
    Now who tells you that Bush is blamed all of the time? Who tells you that Ron? Hannity? Rush? Beck? I hear them parrot that constantly.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    Barack
    February 11, 2013 1:48 am
    Obama
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Pair o'dimes wrote...
    According to the story
    February 10, 2013 12:21 pm
    That's EXACTLY what Panetta said. Last paragraph, and I quote "Panetta testified that he and Dempsey were meeting with Obama when they first learned of the Libya assault. He said the president told them to deploy forces as quickly as possible".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • cigarfan wrote...
    Ironically... this will help the Dems.....
    February 10, 2013 2:34 pm
    If the GOP thought acting obstructionist was going to help endear them to voters, they're in for a surprise. Couldn't happen to a nicer party ;)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Rangerhawk wrote...
    As the next generation comes of age
    February 10, 2013 9:55 pm
    They will be able to look at this as the national embarrassment it was. Foreseeable and avoidable made worse by a freshman attempt to hide the truth for political security versus national. There's nowhere to hide from time and the facts. It also gives historic precedent of our press being willing enablers of unethical political fantasies. They've poisoned their own well with Kool Aid and no good ever comes from this in the long run.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Tyrone DeVille wrote...
    Lady Lindsey (Graham).
    February 11, 2013 12:01 am
    Come out of the closet !
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }