Senator threatens CIA nod
WASHINGTON — Sen. Lindsey Graham threatened on Tuesday to block Senate consideration of President Obama's nominee to head the CIA in retaliation for the Obama administration's failure to provide more details about the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
The South Carolina Republican's threat to place a hold on the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director raises doubts about a second senior national security leadership pick by Obama, with several senators questioning former Sen. Chuck Hagel's qualifications to be Defense secretary.
Graham, a Senate Armed Services Committee member who served as a military lawyer in Iraq and Afghanistan, voiced concerns about Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska who was nominated Monday. But Graham indicated likely support for Obama's pick of Sen. John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, to be secretary of State.
Criticism over the Benghazi assault, which killed four Americans, from Graham and fellow Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire contributed to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's decision last month to withdraw her name for consideration as secretary of State.
Graham brought up Rice again in explaining why he is weighing a block of Brennan's nomination to head the CIA.
“I have not forgotten about the Benghazi debacle and still have many questions about what transpired before, during and after the attack on our consulate,” Graham said in a prepared statement.
“In that regard, I do not believe we should confirm anyone as director of the CIA until our questions are answered — like who changed Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points and who deleted the references to al-Qaida?” Graham said. “My support for a delay in confirmation is not directed at Mr. Brennan, but is an unfortunate, yet necessary action to get information from this administration.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- White House breach ‘a cry out for help,’ alleged intruder’s ex-wife says
- NYC’s High Line completed, culminating 15-year effort
- Officials say too many in the 18-64 age range skip flu vaccination
- March around the world seek to put focus on climate change
- Legislators urge Secret Service to reassess White House security
- Beads in beauty products called toxin
- Mentally ill Pa. man might go free in 9/11 scare
- U.S. confident it’ll have allies for airstrikes against ISIS
- 32 structures destroyed in California’s King wildfire
- Backers seek expansion of Till civil rights death law
- Man seen with UVa student faces driving charge