Senate panel will vote today on Hagel
WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats are pushing ahead with a vote on Tuesday on Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Defense secretary, rejecting Republican demands for more financial information from Hagel in a politically charged fight over President Obama's second-term national security team.
In a brief statement, Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the panel would meet Tuesday afternoon with the “intention to vote on the nomination after the members have an opportunity for discussion.” Levin had hoped to hold a committee vote last Thursday but postponed it amid complaints from Republicans that Hagel hadn't sufficiently answered questions about his personal finances.
Not all Republicans shared that view, however.
“I have examined the information and responses to members' questions that Sen. Hagel has provided to the committee, and I believe that he has fulfilled the rigorous requirements that the committee demands of every presidential nominee to be secretary of Defense,” Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said in a statement Monday backing Levin's plans for a vote.
McCain's expression of confidence in Hagel's answers was a crucial counterpoint to GOP criticism of the nominee, who still faces Republican threats to block or delay his selection.
McCain, the panel's former top Republican, has said he's leaning against supporting his former GOP Senate colleague and friend, but he made clear he would not participate in any walkout by committee Republicans over a Hagel vote.
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.
- Obama to mandate steeper emissions cuts from power plants
- 2 women advance to final phase of Army Ranger training
- State Department accuses top Clinton aide of violations
- Construction of giant bridges sparks curiosity, high demand for public tours
- Fires’ fury unabated in California
- Pressure mounts for Biden to join 2016 White House race
- Dusty Atlantic Ocean thwarts tropical storms
- Marines finally ready to roll out controversial fighter jet
- Bee vaccination study gives insight, could aid food production
- U.S., Hong Kong researchers develop computer model to examine spread of influenza
- VA whistle-blowers aghast