Graham Grandstands On Obama Nominations

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Feb. 14, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                         

           Trying to make headlines after President Barack Obama’s State-of-the-Union Speech, 57-year-old two-term Sen. Lindsey O. Graham threatened to hold up confirmations of 66-year-old former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) for Defense Secretary and 57-year-old John Brennan to head the CIA.  Graham continues to beat a dead horse on Benghazi, where 52-year-old U.S. Libyan Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans were ambushed Sept. 11, 2012 by al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.  Graham wants to get to the bottom of what the White House knew but wouldn’t share with the public about the circumstances under which the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was vulnerable to a terrorist attack.  Graham was not satisfied with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s final act in office, testifying under fire Jan. 23 in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

             Graham can’t get answers to why U.N. Amb. Susan Rice told several Sunday morning TV talk shows Sept. 16, 2012 as White House spokeswoman the violence was due to spontaneous rioting, not a carefully planned terrorist attack.  When questioned by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Clinton insisted that the White House didn’t whitewash Rice’s talking points to spare Obama embarrassment before the Nov. 6 election.  When acting CIA Director Michael Morell testified on Benghazi Nov. 16, he said the FBI removed the reference to al-Qaeda when Rice went public Oct. 16.  Two hours after he testified before the Senate Foreign Relation’s committee, he retracted his statements.  Neither Morell nor his boss Homeland Security Director James Clapper gave Graham a straight answer.  Holding up Hagel and Brennan’s confirmation won’t give more answers.

             Graham’s frustrated coming to Congress in 2003, watching Democrats question every detail of former President George W. Bush’s decision to go to war in Iraq.  Graham cut his teeth defending the indefensible:  The feeble grounds for taking the U.S. to war in Iraq.  “If this was a Republican president, I guran-damn-tee-ya there’d be a lot of Democrats doing a lot more than I’m doing.  And you know what?  They probably should,” Graham said at a Capitol Hill press conference.  While there’s nothing wrong with Graham seeking answers, it’s not appropriate to hold up Obama’s National Security picks.  Graham and his friend Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tried in vain to tie the White House over Benghazi to a Watergate-type cover-up, where the president ordered the talking points changed to protect in lead going into the Nov. 6 election.  Neither Graham nor McCain have gotten anywhere.

             As Hillary pointed out under withering testimony Jan. 23, there are inherent risks manning diplomatic missions in dangerous parts of the world, especially North Africa and the Middle East.  “I think Democrats had no problem doing that with Bush, and quite frankly, the did the country a service by probing into failures.  I’m going to do the same,” said Graham, showing his tone deafness to public opinion.  Public opinion has shown that there’s little equivalence between Benghazi and Iraq.  Once weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq, Democrats questioned putting U.S. troops in harm’s way and paying over $10 billion a month for finance a war without any national security benefit to the United States.  Unlike Graham who seeks some political points for the GOP from Benghazi, questioning the Iraq War raised disturbing questions about the appropriate limits of American Power.

             Instead of helping his Party, Graham continues to show the kind of sour grapes that leave independent voters scrambling away from the GOP.  Whether Graham likes it or not, he can’t stop an up-or-down Senate vote on Barack’s nominees without filibustering.  No matter what Graham’s noise, he’s shown no interest in blocking Hagel and Brennan’s nominations.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled he would call for a full vote in the Senate later this week.  Whatever Graham didn’t get from the White House on Benghazi, he’s not going to get more by putting up more fuss.  While most Senate Republicans won’t break ranks and vote for Hagel, Democrats and independents have more than the 51 votes needed to confirm his nomination.  Without filibustering, Graham has no way to hold the White House hostage on Hagel’s confirmation vote.

             Graham fights a losing battle trying to get more dirt on Benghazi by threatening to block Hagel and Brennan’s nomination.  “I’m gonna hit you and keep hittin’ you.  Absolutely,” said Graham when asked if he’d continue to make waves on Hagel and Brennan’s confirmation.  Graham can’t accept the obvious about Benghazi:  That mishaps happen in that part of the world.  Whether or not there were internal White House discussions about the PR damage from Benghazi is anyone’s guess.  Less than two months before the election, it’s likely the White House was concerned about the political fallout.  When Hillary took the blame for Benghazi Oct. 16, it was clearly an attempt to spare Obama any adverse fallout before the Nov. 6 election.  While Graham’s instincts are probably correct that the White House panicked before Nov. 6, it’s also true that he’s beating a dead horse.

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.