Senator Lindsey Graham Blocks Obama's Abortive Appointments

Congressman Lindsey Graham led the fight to impeach President Clinton in 1998. He was willing to go the distance to remove from office a chief executive who had compromised his authority by engaging in unseemly private conduct, then lying about it under oath to a grand jury. In spite of Clinton’s partisan acquitted, Lindsey Graham gained well-deserved notoriety, eventually winning the senate seat previously occupied by Thurmond.

His record in Washington, however, started to worry some conservatives, and certainly a growing constituency of South Carolinians who expected their senator to represent their interests, not those of the Washington Beltway elite. He supported Bush's judicial nominees, but also President Obama's. He has joined the more centrist "Gang of Eight", which has pushed compromise without character in some cases. He voted to increase the debt ceiling, and he even signaled his willingness to renege on the Grover Norquist "No New Taxes" Pledge.

All too often, more center-leaning Republicans like Senator Graham, along with his colleague from Arizona John McCain, have made compromise in itself the final goal, while ignoring or eliminating the long-term consequences of easy-breezy short-term deals. Why support liberal Supreme Court nominees just to get through business? Why add insult to injury to a party which now more than every needs unity, not disparity?

To his credit, Graham successfully resisted the appointment of UN Ambassador Susan Rice to Secretary of State. Her ignorance about the coordinated attacks on Bengahzi was disturbing. The diplomatic corps succumbed to terrorist attack on September 11, 2012, even though the stationed officials asked for help. The memos from the consulate demanding more support, and her garbled story about merely reading talking points, exposed that Ms. Rice was either immoral or incompetent, unworthy of promotion. "Someone has got to start paying a price around here", Graham commented.

More to his credit, Graham will not relinquish the Libyan terrorist attack on Benghazi. He demanded information from security personnel about what the President knew. General Dempsey acknowledged that there should have been "more boots on the ground" to protect the consulate.  Only one plane was dispatched to save the beleaguered staff. The questions which trouble the Senator, and should concern us, stand on what did the President know, and could he (or should he) have done more.For the first time in years, Senator Graham is brandishing his judge advocate general bluster from his Congressional days.

Recently,  pointedly hammered  Chuck Hagel, the former Senator from Nebraska, whom President Obama nominated for Secretary of Defense. Hagel's nomination spurred nothing but dissent from leading politicians, including Tom Coburn and a number of Jewish leaders, Democrat and Republican.

In the vetting hearings in the Armed Service Committee, Graham asked for clarity about funding and the current war status of this country. Hagel offered that the United States spends five percent of the total budget on defense, although he waffled on that figure. As potential leader of the Pentagon, Hagel's incertitude on costs was deafening. Graham then rolled out one of Hagel's more disturbing statements, his indictment of the "Jewish Lobby[that] intimidates a lot of people" in Washington. Graham demanded specifics about "who is intimidated" -- and Graham slammed the provocation and the hollowness of the invective, since Hagel offered no evidence of such pressure from Israel on American foreign policy.

Hagel also refused to sign a letter to the European Union which would designate that Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, even though Hagel had prompted former President Bill Clinton to move on behalf of Jews in Russia.  Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, but as a Senator he refused to sign a letter which would designate them as such, either. Hagel has admitted his  inconsistent stance on the Senate's role in foreign policy.

Graham then demanded to know: "Do you believe that the sum total of your votes suggests statements about the Palestinians would send the worst possible signals to our friends and our enemies?"

Hagel shared unconvincingly that he was convinced about the integrity of his record. The South Carolina Senator pressed him to recast his votes. If there was a vote on the floor of the Senate to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, would Hagel vote "Yea"? Hagel bageled again, deferring to the President, the same President who refused to stand with Iranian protestors in 2009 and 2011. The former Senator even refused to sign a letter expressing solidarity with Israel and disappointment with the Palestinians' inaction during the 2000 Intifada.

President Obama has also nominated Top Counter-Terrorism Advisor  the same advisor who called jihad "Legitimate", the same advisor whom Graham suggested should resign because of his unserious disconnect with Islamic terrorism. 

Lindsey Graham has pledged to hold both Brennan and Hagel until he gets answers from the President about the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012.

His staunch refusal to allow the President to get away with promoting abortive cabinet nominees commands a great deal respect. Perhaps Graham deserves to be reelected in 2014.