That's a bunch of rubbish. The stripped down, tl;dr version of that entire post is that you know you can't answer the question because it would completely demolish your original point. I suppose that's fine, but don't dodge the topic and then say "now we can go forward" unless that is suppose to be some sort of concession. Those aren't bizarre hypotheticals. Look at who Obama just announced for different positions. Right in the middle of the benghazi scandal, Obama knew Susan Rice wouldn't be confirmed as SecState, so her name was withdrawn from that, and now Rice is going to be National Security Adviser, which doesn't require confirmation. Except that move is only slightly less controversial than if Charles Manson was nominated to be potential director of the Federal parole board. Even more controversial is Samantha Power being nominated as UN ambassador, to which I think even the previously mentioned Manson would have to scratch his head and say "stop with the controversy!" The problem is that Obama doesn't seem very concerned with filling positions with people who are the most qualified, he seems more interested in intentionally stoking the fires. Maybe it is part of a grand scheme to trap his opposition. If Obama keeps nominating more and more controversial figures, the GOP will have to continue to filibuster and/or object to them. I guess that would prove something about something, but it's just as dirty politics as anything the other side as done, and it's diminishing the effectiveness of government. And regarding Hagel, you're still missing the point. First off, trying to say that the speeches "weren't about Israel" and only about Israeli interests is a meaningless distinction, because the diplomatic complications don't change. Again, the point was that there were comments out there that could complicate US-Israeli relations-which is the most important military partnership in the Middle East- right at the time when situation with Iran and Israel was heating up. Hagel's viewpoint had to be examined and clarified. You're acting like there was some sort of foregone conclusion, which isn't true. There were speeches out there, rhetoric flew back and forth regarding those speeches, and so Congress said, "hey, before you are confirmed, come back and explain what you meant." He was then confirmed after additional scrutiny and after those questions were answered. That's called "due diligence," and it should apply to either party.