Hagel loses support of Maine senator
WASHINGTON — A moderate Republican senator once thought to be a possible backer of Chuck Hagel's nomination to be secretary of Defense said she'll oppose his confirmation, while other GOP senators signaled they may delay a floor vote on the nomination unless the White House provides more information about the deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said on Wednesday that Hagel's views on the most critical threats facing the United States are “unsettling.” In a four-page statement, Collins said Hagel was unwilling to ask the European Union to designate Hezbollah a terrorist organization in 2006, and he has been hesitant to back the use of all non-military options, such as unilateral sanctions, to pressure Iran into ceasing its nuclear program.
As Collins voiced her opposition to Hagel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., set the stage for a full Senate vote on Hagel, President Obama's choice to succeed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Reid filed a motion to limit debate and force a vote, which is expected to be held on Friday. Democrats hold a 55-45 edge in the Senate and have the numbers to confirm Hagel on a majority vote, but would need the support of five Republicans to clear the way for an up-or-down vote on Hagel.
A president's pick for a cabinet post usually requires only a majority vote, leading Reid to accuse Senate Republicans of orchestrating a filibuster against a nominee for secretary of Defense for the first time in the country's history.
But the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee said it's not unusual to hold a cabinet nominee to a 60-vote threshold. “It's not a filibuster,” said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
The Armed Services Committee voted to approve Hagel by a 14-11 party-line vote.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Wednesday that he would vote against ending debate on Hagel's nomination to be defense secretary because he wants more information on Obama's actions on the night of the Sept. 11 raid on the mission in Benghazi. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the raid.
Graham, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., wrote to Obama and asked whether he spoke to any Libyan government official during the assault.
“There seems to not be much interest to hold this president accountable for a national security breakdown that led to the first ambassador being killed in the line of duty in over 30 years,” Graham said. “No, the debate on Chuck Hagel is not over. It has not been serious. We don't have the information we need. And I'm going to fight the idea of jamming somebody through until we get answers about what the president did personally when it came to the Benghazi debacle.”
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.
- Mountaineer workers fear smoking ban will harm ‘livelihood’
- To fight crime, Chicago tries wiping away arrests
- HGH use on the rise in teens, survey finds
- Beef industry’s environmental footprint bigger than pork, poultry, eggs, dairy, study finds
- Man convicted of enslaving woman gets 30 years
- Montana judge censured over rape case comments