Anonymous Hold Put On Obama's Iraq Ambassador

WASHINGTON — A Senate confirmation vote on President Barack Obama's choice to be the next U.S. ambassador to Iraq will likely be delayed due objections of at least one lawmaker, congressional aides said Wednesday.

The Obama administration had hoped the Senate would vote on Christopher Hill's nomination to the critical post this week along with several other ambassadorial appointments, but three aides familiar with the matter said it was now unlikely action on Hill would occur before the Senate goes into recess Friday.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because sensitive negotiations over Hill's nomination are still ongoing.

They said votes still were expected by Thursday on six other nominees who, like Hill, won Senate Foreign Relations Committee approval on Tuesday. The others, including Obama's choice for ambassador to Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, were expected to receive unanimous consent from the Senate this week, the aides said.

But the nomination of Hill, whose lack of diplomatic experience in the Middle East led some Republicans to question his suitability for the Baghdad post, has been opposed by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who accuses the veteran diplomat of misleading him when he served as the Bush administration's chief negotiator with North Korea.

Any senator can place an anonymous hold on a presidential nomination and block the process, but it was not clear on Wednesday if Brownback had done so in Hill's case. Brownback's office did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment.

One congressional aide said Brownback had in fact placed a hold on Hill but the senator was expected to lift it after negotiations with the Obama administration and Senate leaders in which they agreed to hold four hours of debate on the nomination and then a vote in which Hill was expected to be overwhelmingly approved.

The aides said allowing such a debate would make it nearly impossible for the Senate, which is wrapped up in budget matters, to act on Hill's nomination before the recess.

Comments

[nomobull]

02:56 AM on 04/03/2009

COUNTDOWN TIL CONFIRMATION

[dmbraddy]

12:40 AM on 04/03/2009

Anonymous holds are just the kind of anti-democratic maneuver totally lacking transparency and individual responsibility that lead the American to mistrust and hold Congress in contempt.

[sarabono]

09:44 PM on 04/02/2009

You folks realize that a hold is as old as the Senate? That the Senate's purpose is to act as a deliberative and tempering body.

That one of the reasons our country is a Republic, not a Democracy?

[BobSF94117]

03:58 AM on 04/03/2009

The hold is as old as the Senate. This sort of adolescent obstruction, on the other hand, is novel.

This hold is harming U.S. interests in Iraq and helping the terrorists (as GOPers like to put it).

[larmarch5]

08:10 PM on 04/02/2009

They want a more militant ambassador. War gens $$$ for their warmongering contributors.

[sarabono]

08:48 PM on 04/02/2009

That is what Reid wants?

[SPQR1775]

07:10 PM on 04/02/2009

It is obvious that many of these pot head Republicans can't even do the GOB these diplomats and in Hills case a career diplomat. Bush sent a few political hacks to run Iraq in the first few years, what experience did they HAVE? Brownsback is a fake and they despise anyone they can't pulled into their corner. I am also pleased with the selection of LTG Eikenberry, that is indeed a good selection and I am please to see it. YES WE CAN!

[Hawkeye17]

07:03 PM on 04/02/2009

Anonymous holds are for cowards...must be a Republican.

[sarabono]

08:47 PM on 04/02/2009

Could have been anyone. Even Reid

[Mum]

05:44 PM on 04/02/2009

Gee, I wonder which Republican put an "anonymous" hold on Hill. Could it be Brownback, who has already come out strong against Hill. Or maybe its McCain, or his sidekick Graham? Hard to believe that none of these three would have the courage of his conviction, and put a name to the hold. After all, they are all such stellar exemplars of courage and integrity.

[sarabono]

08:46 PM on 04/02/2009

Could have been a DINO

[PansyRose]

05:17 PM on 04/02/2009

Strange that Congressional Republicans never questioned Bush appointees most of who turned out to be incompetent. Re" Good job, Brownie"? Republicans also complain about spending by Obama but never said a word about the gross amount of spending and waste in Iraq. Republicans are such hypocrites!!!!!!!!

[Nyla785]

04:57 PM on 04/02/2009

Somebody should explain to the Republican how irrelevant they have made themselves.
And they should get out of the way so we can move our country forward.

[lvdragonlady]

04:57 PM on 04/02/2009

Why in the 'bleep' do the republicans want a 'bleeping' general to be the ambassador?
Generals do NOT make good ambassadors, no matter what party they are from.

[Realityism]

04:37 PM on 04/02/2009

Why anything coming out of Congress is allowed to be anonymous is completely beyond my comprehension.

[Harmony1812]

04:32 PM on 04/02/2009

Chicken.

[dillydawg]

04:29 PM on 04/02/2009

Blocked by Vitter. The Dems should leak the culprit to the press.

[sarabono]

08:45 PM on 04/02/2009

You don't know that.

[vgirl1]

04:29 PM on 04/02/2009

While our troops put their lives on the line in Iraq thanks to the ill-gotten and ill-conceived war of the Republicans, the Republicans have the nerve to play politics and hold up a nomination favored by all the generals on the ground and the diplomatic corps.

What a bunch of no nothings these Republicans are. They continue to put self before country just as McCain did. I guess McCain really did set an example for the Republicans.

How sad for our country that men such as these can have so much power in what happens in our name in the world.

[NURREDIN]

04:11 PM on 04/02/2009

Isn't Christopher Hill a Republican? What gives?