Video: Senator Lindsey Graham calls out John Boehner over Benghazi

It would appear that Speaker John Boehner is feeling some heat directly from a Republican Senator in Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks. During this interview, which took place last night, Graham said he would be meeting with House leaders "tomorrow" which is today. Can't wait to hear how that went.

Take note at the 3:00 mark. Shortly thereafter, Graham says:

"To my House colleagues, please, for God's sake step up your game when it comes to Benghazi."

I'd like to make a suggestion to Senator Graham. Pick of the phone and call Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. I'm guessing Issa is sure to give you an earful about how Boehner did more harm than good when it came to helping with the Fast and Furious investigation.

Audio: Today's Podcast

On Today's show...

The Rand Paul filibuster - why does CAIR, Van Jones, Cenk Uygur, and Code Pink support it??

Interview with Cliff Kincaid about explosive new development in Current TV sale to Al Jazeera.

And...

Dianne Feinstein must think she lives on the Planet of the Apes.



To download shows, go to the archives page.

Why are CAIR, Code Pink, Van Jones and Cenk Uygur all supporting Rand Paul?

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) made big headlines this week in a showdown with the Obama administration over the latter's refusal to unequivocally state that it would not use armed drones to kill Americans on American soil who posed no imminent threat to the country. Paul was relegated to eating candy bars during his twelve-plus hour filibuster while establishment types like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were dining with Barack Obama.

The conservative base ate it up. Finally, the new guard was doing what the old guard never seemed interested in doing; Paul was taking Obama on while standing on principle and the establishment didn't like it one bit. McCain referred to the Senator from Kentucky as well as Senator Ted Cruz as 'wacko birds'.

However, in addition to winning over conservatives and libertarians, Paul has garnered the support of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim Brotherhood front in America; Turkish Current TV (Al Jazeera) host Cenk Uygur; former Obama Green Jobs czar Van Jones, who is a fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) - a George Soros entity; and Code Pink, a far left group who was behind the 2010 Gaza flotilla.

CAIR's Executive Director - Nihad Awad - said the following in a press release:

"We welcome Senator Paul's efforts to press for a firm answer as to whether drones may legally be used to kill American citizens on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, the initial administration response to that question left room for doubt. We acknowledge today's statement by Attorney General Holder and hope that it represents a clear and unequivocal rejection of that obviously unconstitutional authority."

Uygur, long recognized as a far left commentator who left MSNBC to work at Current TV, said the following in reference to Paul's filibuster:

“I don’t care what his (Paul's) opinions on other things are — you can call him anything you like, but here he happens to be a constitutional hero.”

Uygur's employer - Current TV - was recently sold to Al Jazeera, another arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

How about Van Jones? Here is a guy who worked very closely with the inner circles inside the Obama administration when he was the Green Jobs czar. Jones resigned in 2009 amidst a string of scandalous revelations about his past, which included his signature appearing on a 9/11 Truth document. When he left the administration, he became a senior fellow at CAP, an entity TIME Magazine referred to as the Obama administration's "idea factory".

Here is what Jones had to say about the Rand Paul filibuster:

"Well let me just say, I might shock a lot of people as somebody, you know I love this president and I respect this president, Rand Paul was a hero yesterday, and what I've been hearing is a lot of shame from liberals and progressives who felt like geez, we should be up there sticking up for civil liberties and we should be the ones asking those tough questions."

As for Soros, he supported the 'Arab Spring' and has some very distinct ties to the Muslim Brotherhood himself. This would at least theoretically explain why both Jones and CAIR are on the same page here.

Then, of course, there is Code Pink's Medea Benjamin, who said of Paul:

"...compared to the Democratic senators who have, with few exceptions, remained either silent or support of President Obama's killer drones, Rand made a heroic stand. In gratitude, progressives should "Stand with Rand."

In 2010, Benjamin worked with Obama friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn - through the Free Gaza Movement - to coordinate the Gaza flotilla that attempted to break the Israeli blockade. This was a pro-Hamas movement as well; Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood.

There are two traits we've come to associate with left-wing groups. One is that when they want to collectively push a narrative, there's a cross-polination of shared words embedded in that narrative that supposedly independent groups all use. Note that in the examples above, Jones, Uygur, and Benjamin all refer to Paul as being a 'hero'. The second trait is that leftists - especially those in positions of prominence - don't break ranks. When Van Jones outwardly expresses a view that is in support of someone who is in direct opposition to Obama on a particular issue, it's both noteworthy and curious.

Conservatives are always talking about how they can't trust leftists. Now, all of sudden, because the leftists are agreeing with a conservative / libertarian Senator's stand against the Republican establishment, we're to take them at their word? Why isn't it possible that these leftists see an opportunity to further divide the Republican Party?

Remember, one of Saul Alinsky's rules states, in part:

Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This is not meant to say that Paul is wrong and the likes of Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) are right. In actuality, on balance, Paul is more right than they are.

McCain and Graham are an interestingly bizarre pair. Both have supported - and continue to support - arming Muslim Brotherhood rebels to fight dictators. McCain called such Libyan rebels his 'heroes' while backing NATO's efforts to oust Gadhafi. Both Senators have continued to back support for the Syrian rebels as well.

So, McCain and Graham seek to empower the Muslim Brotherhood abroad but want more latitude to attach them domestically. Conversely, Paul rightfully wants to stop funding the likes of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi and the Syrian rebels while at the same time, he gains the support of Nihad Awad, the head of a Muslim Brotherhood group in America.

In an interview with Fox's Megyn Kelly, Paul said the following about McCain and Graham:

They think the whole world is a battlefield, including America, and that the 'laws' of war should apply. The laws of war don't involve due process.

In reality, the whole world IS A BATTLEFIELD in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood, which consists of CAIR, Hamas, and Al Qaeda. The problem for the likes of Paul, McCain, and Graham is that they do not understand that America is also a political battlefield in the eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood groups here.

Again, this goes back to one very simple reality; The United States did not sufficiently identify its enemy after 9/11 (all Muslim Brotherhood groups in America and Saudi Arabia by extension). As a result and as a nation, we are confused about how best to confront that enemy almost twelve years later.

Until then, internecine battles like this one will continue.

RINO Lindsey Graham 'honored' to have dinner with Obama while chiding Rand Paul's filibuster

On the same day that Republican Senator Rand Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director, Barack Obama had dinner with 13 other Republican Senators. Perhaps there is not better allegory to illustrate the complete inability of Republicans to put forth a united front.

It didn't end there, however. The man who organized the dinner was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who spoke glowingly of the President while chiding Paul for filibustering.

This statement from Graham, from the Washington Post (via GWP) is outrageous:


If you think that was low, take a look at Graham the morning after, slamming Paul's filibuster after saying he was 'honored' to have dinner with Barack Obama:



At the end of the clip, Graham said 'the American people need to understand the threat we face'. Ironically, it is Graham who doesn't seem to understand the threat the Obama administration poses. Not only should Graham do some serious self-examination about praising the most radical Democratic President in the history of the United States while chiding a Republican counterpart who took a stand but he obviously doesn't understand the Muslim Brotherhood agenda in the United States.

**UPDATE** Here is the list of the 13 Senators who dined with Obama as Paul ate candy bars while speaking for 12 hours, via the White House Dossier:

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, and Dan Coats of Indiana.

This is not ok.

Will Confirmation of John Brennan as CIA Director reveal an even weaker Senate?

There is a mainstream line of thought that says John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director will go smoother than that of Chuck Hagel, who was recently confirmed as Secretary of Defense. Hagel was able to clear the necessary hurdles despite an embarrassing performance at his hearing and a string of past statements that indicated an anti-Israel bias at best and and anti-Semitic streak at worst.

However, unlike Brennan, Hagel didn't hold a high-ranking position inside the Obama administration during the Benghazi attacks. As of yet, we still don't have enough answers when it comes to the administration's response and / or Brennan's involvement. Though we do know that Brennan was involved in altering U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points. For some reason, it's being all but dismissed as relevant.

As Foreign Policy points out, one of the reasons a vote on Brennan's confirmation did not take place on the scheduled date of February 28th was because of unanswered questions surrounding the Benghazi attacks.

On Sunday, fellow amigos John McCain and Lindsey Graham took to CBS's Face the Nation to renew their months-long quest for more information on the terrorist attack in Benghazi -- and to threaten delays for Brennan's confirmation. One of the key sticking points has been the altered talking points provided to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice before she went on a range of Sunday talk shows to discuss the attacks.

Again, we received confirmation last week that emails provided to the Senate Intelligence Committee showed that Brenann was involved in altering those talking points.

If you are in the camp of those who believe promotions should be given based on good performance and openness relative to questionable performances, then the Senate should exercise its authority in preventing Brennan's confirmation until it gets the answers its entitled to. Unfortunately, such a reality is belied by a Democratically-controlled Senate that doesn't seem interested and a Republican minority that doesn't have enough collective will - as we saw with the nomination of Hagel.

Nonetheless, McCain, Graham, and Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) issued a statement outlining what is known and what is not known about the Benghazi attacks. The statement highlights why there should be far more interest in getting more information about Brennan, relative to those attacks, before moving forward with any confirmation.

Read that statement here.

If the Hagel nomination is any indication, such a statement will not be backed up by a united Republican front that will prevent Brennan's nomination from going through until such questions are answered. It truly will be astounding if the issues raised in the aforementioned statement are not addressed before Brennan is confirmed.

Another point of resistance to Brennan's confirmation comes from Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), who is virtually apoplectic in response to Brennan's refusal to answer a "yes" or "no" question about whether Drones could or should be used to target Americans on U.S. soil.

Via FP:

The administration's targeted killing program via drone strikes remains a sticking point for Sen. Rand Paul. The Kentucky lawmaker says a simple "yes" or "no" answer on whether the White House can authorize a drone strike against an American in the United States would satisfy him.

A couple of areas that are being ignored by these Senators are the claims made by former FBI Agent John Guandolo and the authors of a book entitled that singles out Brennan as being the primary player in an operation that served to kick the hornets nest that led to the Benghazi attacks. Guandolo claims to have sources who witnessed Brennan to convert to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.

If authors Jack Murphy and Brandon Webb are correct about Brennan's lead command role in a covert operation that involved weapons raids that took place without the knowledge of CIA Director Petraeus or Ambassador Stevens, it is the responsibility of both Republican and Democratic Senators to vet those claims. Ditto for the claims of Guandolo.

Unfortunately, Congress seems to be ceding its power to the Executive Branch on a near daily basis.

Did Lindsey Graham accuse Obama of Manslaughter?

It's now a matter of record that Barack Obama made no phone calls during the many hours that transpired during the 9/11/12 Benghazi attacks. What's also now a matter of record is the fact that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) - whether he realizes it or not - seems to have made the case for Obama's impeachment and removal from office.

Via the Washington Times:

President Obama didn't make any phone calls the night of the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House said in a letter to Congress released Thursday.

"During the entire attack, the president of the United States never picked up the phone to put the weight of his office in the mix," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, who had held up Mr. Obama's defense secretary nominee to force the information to be released.

Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Obama had picked up the phone, at least two of the Americans killed in the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi might still be alive because he might have been able to push U.S. aid to get to the scene faster.

The headline of the aforementioned story honed in on the admission by the White House that Obama made no phone calls during the attacks but unless I'm missing something, a U.S. Senator just accused the president of having the blood of two former Navy SEALs on his hands by not doing his job. In layman's parlance, that sounds like manslaughter, which has two legal definitions, both of which could apply to Obama.

Check out what the legal dictionary has to say about that offense:

There are two types of involuntary manslaughter statutes: criminally negligent manslaughter and unlawful act manslaughter. Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs when death results from a high degree of negligence or recklessness. Modern criminal codes generally require a consciousness of risk and under some codes the absence of this element makes the offense a less serious Homicide.

An omission to act or a failure to perform a duty constitutes criminally negligent manslaughter. The existence of the duty is essential. Since the law does not recognize that an ordinary person has a duty to aid or rescue another in distress, a death resulting from an ordinary person's failure to act is not manslaughter. On the other hand, an omission by someone who has a duty, such as a failure to attempt to save a drowning person by a lifeguard, might constitute involuntary manslaughter.

Try as one might, it's hard to argue - based on the White House admission and Graham's assertion - that Obama didn't have a duty to at least make an attempt to repel the attacks sometime during the seven hour siege involving the consulate and CIA Annex. If Graham is right, Obama failing to execute his duty led to the deaths of Americans. That would be criminally negligent manslaughter.

How about the more egregious form of involuntary manslaughter? As you consider the application of unlawful act manslaughter, consider the claims made in a book by Brandon Webb and Jack Murphy. Among their charges is that the 9/11/12 attacks in Benghazi were in response to weapons raids ordered by John Brennan directly from Obama's White House. Webb and Murphy also claim that then CIA Director David Petraeus and Ambassador Christopher Stevens were kept in the dark about it.

Unlawful act manslaughter occurs when someone causes a death while committing or attempting to commit an unlawful act, usually a misdemeanor. Some states distinguish between conduct that is malum in se (bad in itself) and conduct that is malum prohibitum (bad because it is prohibited by law). Conduct that is malum in se is based on common-law definitions of crime; for example, an Assault and Battery could be classified as malum in se. Acts that are made illegal by legislation—for example, reckless driving—are malum prohibitum. In states that use this distinction, an act must be malum in se to constitute manslaughter. If an act is malum prohibitum, it is not manslaughter unless the person who committed it could have foreseen that death would be a direct result of the act.

If Brennan was secretly ordering raids without the knowledge of the CIA Director and Petraeus should have been aware of those raids, that would constitute an unlawful act. If those unlawful acts were the cause of the attacks on the consulate and annex (CIA), it would seem that Brennan (acting as an arm of Obama) may be guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

Such things would mean that Brennan's nomination by Obama as CIA Director sets a new high water mark for audacity.

Video: Morning Joe panel laughs over joke about Lindsey Graham being homosexual

A little over two years ago, William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) made news at a Tea Party when he demanded that Senator Lindsey Graham 'come out of the log cabin closet', a not-so-subtle charge that the senior Senator from South Carolina is a homosexual. Feeding that rumor has likely been Graham's status as an older, unmarried man.

Enter the Morning Joe crew. This morning, during their 6am airing of the show, guest John Heilemann referred to the 'three amigos' (John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte) as being made up of two women, an obvious jab at Graham over the rumors.

Consider...

1. MSNBC is a known ventriloquist dummy for the White House; that is much more well known than what Graham's sexual preference is.
2. Indications are that the three Senators were expected to play nice in their meeting with Susan Rice less than twenty-four hours before Heilemann's comment. It didn't. In fact, Graham said he's more troubled now than he was before the meeting.
3. Whether the rumors about Graham are true or not, the White House could conceivably benefit from someone like Heilemann joking about it. If there's truth to the rumor, the joke could be seen as a shot across the bow. If there's no truth to it, people are talking about it anyway (instead of Rice's credibility).

On the other hand, the 8am re-airing of the program edited this part out.

h/t WZ

Video: Republican Senators not happy after meeting with Susan Rice

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) is definitely on the rise. As the junior senator from New Hampshire (elected in 2010), she's wading in the deeper waters quite early in her tenure. When it comes to attempts to get answers about Benghazi, she's been out in front and has teamed up with two senior senators (McCain and Graham) who are constantly fighting the moderate label but who are right to demand answers on the Benghazi attack.

In any event, there was a meeting between U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and the three aforementioned senators. Many believed it was going to be smooth-over session but all three senators said afterward that they're more disappointed after the meeting with Rice than they were before the meeting.

Again, the issue is that Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16th and blamed the attack on our Benghazi consulate that killed four Americans five days earlier, on a "spontaneous reaction" to the anti-Muhammad video. That charge has proven to be demonstrably false and it's obvious Rice either knew it was false or should have known it was false at the time.

Here is video of McCain, Graham, and Ayotte answering reporters' questions after they had met with Rice.

Via MediaIte:

Video: Woman Bookmarks Qur'an with Bacon, Then Burns

Feel free to call this one, 'Pastor Terry Jones on steroids and in a skirt.' Her name is Ann Barnhardt and she is clearly disgusted with Senator Lindsey Graham's comments about wanting to hold people accountable when they burn a Qur'an. See how many times you count her calling Graham a 'Jackass' as you watch. As our Commander in Afghanistan grovels at the feet of the Islamists, Barnhardt, presumably a private citizen, literally puts herself in danger with this video. To call this woman angry doesn't even come close to describing her. This display might just cause a few burka-sheddings.

Regardless of where you come down on the Qur'an burning issue, the leaders of this country have been behaving like cowards for far too long and once again, it's a woman who steps up.

In Part one, Barnhardt completely and thoroughly shreds Lindsey Graham.



In Part two, Barnhart pulls out a copy of the Qur'an, which is bookmarked with bacon, reads individual passages, rips out the page from which she read it, and then burns the pages individually. This is hard core and makes Terry Jones look like a piker.



h/t Weasel Zippers

Video: Shameless RINO Lindsey Graham Wants to Rescind First Amendment during War with Unidentified Enemy

While on CBS's Face the Nation, Senator Lindsey Graham (RINO-SC) said he wished there was a way to hold people (like Pastor Terry Jones in Florida) 'accountable' for burning the Qur'an. He then said that 'Free speech is a great idea but we're at war.' As justification for shutting it down, he harkened back to WWII and said Americans were prevented from saying things that could 'inspire the enemy.' Senator Graham, perhaps if you political leaders accurately identified an enemy, people like Terry Jones wouldn't be 'inspired' to do what he did. Just who did Terry Jones 'inspire' with his Qur'an burning?

When the subject turns to Libya, Graham insists that Gadhafi should be removed from power without any apparent understanding of what would fill the void.

Exchange starts at the 2:00 mark.



Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday called Terry Jones a 'Total Jackass.' Amazingly, the words he had for the murderers who reacted to Jones were not as strong. Once again, Kristol exposes himself as completely hypocritical. In 2006, he proudly explained why the Weekly Standard decided to publish incendiary Muhammad cartoons.



Diana West over at BIG PEACE explains perfectly the position of those who disagree with RINOs like Graham. If the liberal media and political leaders aren't careful, they're going to end up making Terry Jones a hero.

h/t Hot Air

RINO LINDSEY GRAHAM ONLY REPUBLICAN BACKING IMMIGRATION REFORM

Before I get to Graham...... Chalk up the signing of this strict immigration bill in Arizona by Republican Governor Jan Brewer as one of the hurdles Obama didn't count on when he had dreams of implementing his own special version of Socialist America. Perhaps that's why his rhetoric in response to it has been so strong, including a threat to get Eric Holder's Justice Department to investigate the state for civil rights violations.

First up, Brewer's signing of Senate Bill 1070:



Obama's reaction to one of the 50 states deciding to pass legislation to protect itself.



Now, onto Lindsey "RINO" Graham. In light of the boldly brash claim by ALIPAC President William Gheen at an April 17th Tea Party that Graham is a closet homosexual who is being forced to support immigration reform because Democrats in congress are using it as some form of blackmail (video below), it is at least somewhat noteworthy that Graham appears to be THE ONLY Republican supporting the Democrat push for a new Immigration Reform Bill.

Via CNN:

Sources familiar with discussions about the issue say the White House is reluctant to move on the politically polarizing and divisive issue of immigration without bipartisan support.

Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina seems to be the only GOP senator on board, but he has told Democrats they will lose his support unless they find another Republican.

Obama called Sen. Scott Brown, R-Massachusetts, to try to get him to sign on, as well as four other GOP senators: Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Lemieux of Florida and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.

CNN contacted aides to those senators, and all said none gave the president a commitment to work with Democrats on immigration reform.

Now, onto Gheen, president of ALIPAC. Granted, no one should make such charges without proof - I'm not saying he doesn't have it. They are very strong charges. That said, considering the political climate, there really is no conceivable reason why a Republican Senator would be in support of immigration reform right now. All of the reasons for taking it on at this juncture necessarily involve helping the Democrats in November. Graham's support of it is inexplicable and he should explain it. Otherwise, Gheen's explanation is likely to garner more support.

The accusation that the prospect of Graham's sexual preference going public could be influencing his vote starts at the 7:00 mark.



h/t to Gateway Pundit

LINDSEY GRAHAM AND CHUCK SCHUMER PAIR UP ON IMMIGRATION

It should be obvious that unlike John McCain, Lindsey Graham is not up for re-election until 2014. He's pairing up with New York corruptocrat Chuck Schumer to re-visit the issue of Immigration Reform. Three years ago, the American people stood up against the proposed bill because it didn't secure the borders first.

Now this:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Immigration Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. are set to appear Thursday at the White House for a meeting with President Obama in which they are expected to seek his guidance on charting a path forward.

The reform effort blew up in 2007 after more than a year of work when Republican critics branded the effort as "amnesty" and the tide of public opinion turned strongly against the bill.

Graham, in fact, was booed at a Republican gathering in his state in 2006 for his work on comprehensive reform with Ted Kennedy and John McCain. Sen. McCain is conspicuously absent from the current talks; Graham remains at the table as the lone Republican supporter.

What I find particularly interesting is that Schumer and Graham very much want to get another Republican on-board with the effort. The most likely candidate would normally be John McCain. However, unlike Lindsey Grahamnesty, McCain is not only up for re-election in 2010 but he's in the middle of a very hotly contested primary against a candidate in J.D. Hayworth. Immigration enforcement is what the latter is running on as evidenced by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's endorsement.

The fact that McCain is silent on the issue tells you everything you need to know. If he truly believed Grahamnesty's latest foray into immigration reform was the will of his constituents, he'd be right there with his buddy Lindsey, pushing for it as well.

If this effort for Immigration reform was about border enforcement, it would be an entirely different debate. Instead, Lindsey "RINO" Grahamnesty is letting the people know that he is more interested in ramming a three year-old bill down their throats than he is in doing what they want. In the twisted minds of politicians, avoiding impasses at all costs by compromising principles is better than standing on principle and getting nothing done. Lindsey has said as much in the past.

Frankly, I'd love it if congress just shut down and went home.

h/t to Free Republic

VIDEO: JOHN BRENNAN LOWERS BAR ON HIMSELF

Wow. I'm actually quite surprised that counterterrorism czar John Brennan wasn't smart enough to avoid a faux pas like this only days after he wrote that the Republicans who criticized him were aiding and abetting al-Qaeda. Brennan actually said that the recidivism rate of detainees released from Gitmo is 20% and then proceeded to say it's "not that bad". Tell that to the troops you whack job.

You know, at some point the positions that people at the top levels of this Obama administration take, must be seen as so collectively and completely untenable that they couldn't possibly be the result of their own individual incompetence. Whether it's Counterterrorism Czar John Brennan attempting to explain how the Christmas Day bomber Mutallab coughed up all that he knew in 50 minutes before he lawyered up, Eric Holder attempting to justify Khalid Sheikh Muhammad being tried in civilian court in NYC, or any countless non-sequiters uttered by press secretary Robert Gibbs, the collective idiocy is palpable.

When it's that bad, it's not the result of the incompetence of these individuals - although Brennan, Holder, and Gibbs are nothing to write home about - but a reflection on the president himself. Obama has been escaping much of the criticism because he's good at it. One of his strengths is flashing a big smile while keeping his fingerprints off of pretty much anything. It's starting to catch up with him.

Jake Tapper at ABC has more detail and I encourage you to watch the first two minutes of the video embedded in Tapper's piece. If you're pressed for time, watch these 30 seconds but just know you're missing out if you don't watch the longer version.



While talking with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham wasn't very kind to Brennan, and justifiably so.



Then of course, speaking of Graham, this one never gets old. Here is Graham back in November completely dressing down Attorney General Eric Holder, who had NO CLUE how defend his position that KSM should be tried in NYC federal civilian court. For all my problems with Lindsey, this was awesome.

For a moment, I started feeling sorry for Holder. I said for a moment.



via ABC and Hot Air Pundit

LINDSEY GRAHAM CENSURED BY S.C. REPUBLICANS AGAIN!

The conservative movement is getting increasingly agitated with RINOISM and it's about time! Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is finding it rather difficult to appease Republicans with conservative rhetoric while acting like a liberal.

The perfect example of this was the juxtaposition of how Graham grilled Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor better than anyone else did and yet voted yes on her confirmation.

The South Carolina Republicans are souring on Graham. CNN reported:

The Lexington County Republican Party in South Carolina voted late Monday to censure Sen. Lindsey Graham for his positions on several controversial issues, including his recent support for a compromise on cap-and-trade legislation.

The Lexington GOP is now the second county party organization in a matter of months to censure Graham after Charleston County leaders approved a similar resolution in November. But unlike Charleston County, Lexington is one of the most conservative counties in South Carolina and is considered a bellwether of Republican sentiment in the state.

Among the reasons Graham was censured...

1.) Illegal immigration
2.) Cap & Trade
3.) Supporting the 2008 Financial bailout

Click HERE to view the one page resolution.

Advice to Graham.... Get in line behind that other South Carolina senator, Jim DeMint and start taking lessons from him. DeMint may be the best Senator in Washington.

The bad news? Graham won't be up for re-election for a while. He was re-elected in 2008 but a malleable as he seems to be, perhaps he'll get in line when he fears conservative anger more than he desires liberal acceptance.

h/t to FR

VIDEO: HOLDER GRILLED BY RINO LINDSEY GRAHAM

If Lindsey Graham's actions matched his rhetorical skills, I'd definitely feel more passionate about supporting him in this exchange. I have a problem getting behind a Senator who is justifiably grilling a guy like Holder when that Senator is in support of Cap & Trade legislation while also being known as Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty.

That said, looking strictly at this exchange, Graham has Holder in a pickle. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is going to be tried in Federal court, he is entitled to Miranda rights - rights he wasn't awarded. The logical follow-up for Graham is whether or not bin Laden should be mirandized if he were captured tomorrow. The fact that Holder can't answer that question sufficiently boxes him in.

Holder is building quite the resume for himself.

1.) Marc Rich pardon
2.) Pardoning of FALN terrorists
3.) Pardoning 2 members of Weather Underground
4.) Partner at Covington Burling, a firm that represented Gitmo detainees
5.) Opening the door for CIA prosecutions
6.) Charges dropped against Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia
7.) Trying KSM in NYC

If you need help identifying the most absurd positions Holder is taking, check out the guy sitting behind Graham. His facial expressions will tell you.



h/t to JAWA

VIDEO: Graham Hits Sotomayor Hard

I was very critical of Lindsey Graham about a month ago when he said, "To call her (Sotomayor) a racist is out of bounds". He came across as wimpy and then trumped himself when he suggested she should apologize for her "inappropriate" comments about a "wise latina woman" having better judgment than a "white male".

That said, he did well today. You DON'T have to tell me that Senate hearings are shows for constituents and that Graham was probably throwing some red meat to those who took the time to file complaints with his office. He Still did well and his efforts may have far-reaching consequences.

If you watch none of this video, do yourself a favor and watch from 14:45 and don't stop until you've seen three minutes. It is the quintessential rebuke to reverse discrimination and Sotomayor is the rightful target.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

NOTE: Did you catch the part of the exchange when Graham attempted to read the "Wise Latina" quote aloud but couldn't find the document containing it and asked Sotomayor if she remembered it. When she said, "yes", he asked her to recite it (because he couldn't locate it). I'd like to give him credit for an attempt to get her to give us the visual image (with live audio) of her repeating those comments but likely just an inadvertent misplacement.

At that point, Sotomayor knew that the video recording of her reciting the infamous quote again (regardless of context) would have been dagger-esque so she sat there with a rather dumb look on her face for a few moments. If Graham would have held out a little longer, he may have either created a very uncomfortable situation for Sotomayor OR gotten her to recite her racist comment for the EIGHTH time.

Oh well, he did ok anyway.


h/t to Hot Air