But everyone knows that bloggers are always right
by digby
Lindsey Graham explains the latest Hagel "scandal":
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.): Well, on the day of the vote, there was a blog posting about a speech I think in 2007 or 2008 that Chuck Hagel made at Rutgers University, and the blogger was a supporter of Senator Hagel. He was thinking about running for president, and he put on his blog the next day six points of the speech, question-and-answer session. And point six was allegedly Senator Hagel said that the U.S. State Department was an adjunct of the Israeli foreign minister’s office, which I think would be breathtaking if he said that, had such a view.
I got a letter back from Senator Hagel, in response to my question, did you say that and do you believe that? And, the letter says he did not recall saying that. He disavowed that statement.
He did say that since Hagel denied it, he wouldn't hold it against him, so that's something. It sure has Jennifer Rubin hopping mad at Huckleberry Graham, though. She knows that the wily (yet inept) Hagel is pulling the wool over everyone's eyes:
Whoa. Graham is a good lawyer, good enough to spot Hagel’s dodge. Hagel’s answer is downright bizarre — he can’t recall if he made it, but it’s a terrible thing to have said?! The average senator, I am quite certain, would feel comfortable categorically denying — not simply pleading a poor memory — an egregious statement such as that. However, Hagel draws a blank. And Graham seems to have fallen for it.
Then there was Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who repeated that Hagel is unqualified but “We will have a vote when we get back, and I am confident that Senator Hagel will probably have the votes necessary to be confirmed.” Huh?
Both McCain and Graham (who termed Hagel “one of the most unqualified, radical choices for secretary of defense in a very long time”) haven’t merely said they disagree with Hagel or that other nominees would be better. They said flat-out that he’s unfit, uninformed and “radical.” So why in heaven’s name would they help him get confirmed by lifting the filibuster? They cite respect for the president’s ”discretion,” but no discretion is owed to confirm someone unfit for the job, who said he couldn’t or wouldn’t do the job.(Hagel denied he’d be a policymaker or would run anything, pleading that it didn’t matter what he thinks.)
She's demanding that they keep up the filibuster (and it's actually refreshing to see a Republican actually admitting there was a filibuster) and bemoans the fact that Democrats refuse to treat Hagel as the Harriet Meiers figure he so clearly is. There's a blog post that proves he's an enemy of Israel! What's it going to take?
.