Obama picks Hagel for defense, Brennan for CIA

World Jan. 08, 2013 - 07:00AM JST ( 15 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

15 Comments

1

Elbuda MexicanoJan. 08, 2013 - 10:07AM JST

So Israel does not like him?? This is an AMERICAN issue, and we have to worry if Israel will give US their stamp of approval?? Sad!
0

Herve Nmn L'EisaJan. 08, 2013 - 11:28AM JST

One hawkish, one dovish. It's a sad commentary that the hawkish nominee(with a long background in espionage and torture) will likely be a shoe-in.
1

LagunaJan. 08, 2013 - 11:46AM JST

Thumbs up, Herve.

Panetta got the best line. According to the WaPo, Panetta said he will return home to his California walnut farm to deal “with a different set of nuts.”
0

yabitsJan. 08, 2013 - 01:17PM JST

The President ought to get to pick his team. Especially one that won two elections with a majority of the popular vote.

Simple as that.
0

SerranoJan. 08, 2013 - 03:42PM JST

"Panetta... would go back to his California walnut farm where he would be dealing with a different set of nuts"

Har!
-2

sailwindJan. 08, 2013 - 04:13PM JST

The President ought to get to pick his team. Especially one that won two elections with a majority of the popular vote.

Simple as that.

Your going to have to ignore and bypass that whole pesky Article II section 2 thing in the Constitution then.

"and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States,"
-4

Herve Nmn L'EisaJan. 08, 2013 - 04:32PM JST

sail, There are many who are willing to ignore the entire Constitution. They just want an Emperor.
0

noriyosan73Jan. 08, 2013 - 04:32PM JST

Senator L. Graham opens his campaign for the 2016 presidency election today. He wants all the answers and all the attention. Does anyone understand the nomination/approval process in the USA or is just a "good ol' boy club" again?
-1

yabitsJan. 09, 2013 - 06:37AM JST

Your going to have to ignore and bypass that whole pesky Article II section 2 thing in the Constitution then.

Not at all. And also, not to mention only about 230 years of historical precedent and practice which the selective quoters and other cave-dwellers like to ignore.

Let's look at the entire section rather than slicing out selective parts:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Basically, the Power belongs with the President. Note that no 2/3rds requirement exists for the appointment of, among the others stated, "Heads of Departments," as it does for treaties. Congress may even decide -- which they do all the time by rubber-stamping -- to let the President "alone" have the power. All in accordance with the amendment. Gee, that was easy.l

We, a majority of the American people, have elected a president for his second term. Unless vetting uncovers a serious problem with one of his Cabinet officers, the time, attention, and energy of the American people are better spent on far weightier matters. That "vetting" is really all the "advice" a President (and We the People) need in the 21st century. Ask Susan Rice.
-1

sailwindJan. 09, 2013 - 07:33AM JST

And also, not to mention only about 230 years of historical precedent and practice which the selective quoters and other cave-dwellers like to ignore.\

While admiring the art on my "cave-walls" I ran across this stone tablet.

According to Senate.gov, in its history the Senate has confirmed more than 500 Cabinet members.
-1

yabitsJan. 09, 2013 - 08:51AM JST

According to Senate.gov, in its history the Senate has confirmed more than 500 Cabinet members.

It's called a "rubber stamp." You know rubber -- the walls of many conservatives' caves are lined with it.

In over 200 years, they've only rejected 9.
-1

sailwindJan. 09, 2013 - 11:30AM JST

It's called a "rubber stamp."

It called article Article II section 2 of the Constitution. I tried to find the article section for the "rubber stamp" clause but it just doesn't seem to exist.

You know rubber -- the walls of many conservatives' caves are lined with it.

Highly doubt it, caves are generally pretty damp and the adhesive placed on the back of the rubber tiles wouldn't last very long.

In over 200 years, they've only rejected 9.

The President can appoint all day long. Senate still has to confirm it and can reject the nominee if they chose to. Hardly what anyone would call just as just some rubber stamp process.
0

yabitsJan. 10, 2013 - 01:01AM JST

It called article Article II section 2 of the Constitution. I tried to find the article section for the "rubber stamp" clause but it just doesn't seem to exist.

Gee, it's fun to watch the conservative/Republican hypocrites quoting the Constitution -- but seem to remain hypocritically silent over Congress's failure to formally declare war while sending the nation's military to fight just about everywhere.

In other words, they trust a (Republican) president to start wars* but then claim a president can't be trusted to pick his own team of Cabinet officials.

*Will never forget them warning the nation in the mid-1990s about "mission creep" in Kosovo.
0

sailwindJan. 10, 2013 - 10:17AM JST

Gee, it's fun to watch the conservative/Republican hypocrites quoting the Constitution -- but seem to remain hypocritically silent over Congress's failure to formally declare war while sending the nation's military to fight just about everywhere.

I suppose this is somehow relevant to the Senate confirming a President's choice for a cabinet position as duly required by the Constitution.
0

yabitsJan. 10, 2013 - 11:05AM JST

What's even more funny is how many of the right-wingnuts in Congress who have made rumblings of opposition to the President's choices have just approved Michele Bachmann for a seat on the Intelligence Committee.