That is entirely possible, but I don't know that there has been the same level of congressional inquiry in the Petraeus /Hamm affair as compared with Rice and the Sunday shows.
I would support digging in on any "refusal to obey orders", as that has much more to do with what went wrong on the ground.
IMHO the principle purpose for the congressional oversight should be directed towards making sure that incidents like this never occur in the future.
November 14, 2013 at 1:36 p.m.
Consider this, just suppose that Rice had gone on the tv and said that our best estimate is that the Benghazi attack was a preplaned attack by a terrorist group.
Would that statement have altered any of the other questions?
I didn't think so.And it's for that reason the the whole Rice thing is little more than a distraction from other much more important issues.
November 13, 2013 at 9:57 p.m.
Compare the relative importance of your questions.1) Why was Rice....Versus2) Why denied help...
Can you see why the Rice questions are SIGNIFICANTLY of lesser importance?
Of the questions being asked what questions "really matter"?. What issues or questions are really worth spending time and effort to chase down?
November 13, 2013 at 7:50 a.m.
76, from your link:"And sources say the CIA has been trying to keep its employees quiet.CNN reported previously that some operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya have been subjected to frequent -- even monthly -- polygraph examinations to find out whether they've have spoken to Congress or the media, according to sources with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.The CIA said in a statement this is "patently false.""
Those mysterious "sources" again, fine courageous American patriots who are afraid to be identified.
In our american justice system, the accused faces his accuser. This "unnamed sources" is like defending against ghosts, can not be cross-examined, may not even be anything more than a vapor, the imagination of sick minds.
November 11, 2013 at 7:24 a.m.
Last month, Senator Lindsey Graham vowed to block the confirmation of every Obama administration appointee because the administration was preventing Benghazi survivors from testifying before Congress. Now, three Benghazi witnesses are set to testify for the first time. Their lawyer says the administration never discouraged their testimony, but Graham’s office says the holds aren’t going anywhere. “Still have holds in place,” Graham’s spokesman Kevin Bishop tells The Cable.
Steve Benen 11-08-13: “Over the last year, convinced without evidence that their vague conspiracy theories have merit, said, “Give us classified briefings on Benghazi or we’ll throw a fit!”At which point the administration hosted a series of classified briefings, offering nothing to substantiate the conspiracy. So Republicans said, “We demand testimony from David Petraeus or we’ll throw a fit!”At which point Petraeus testified, offering nothing to substantiate the conspiracy. So Republicans said, “We demand testimony from Leon Panetta or we’ll throw a fit!”At which point Panetta testified, offering nothing to substantiate the conspiracy. So Republicans said, “We demand testimony from Hillary Clinton or we’ll throw a fit!”At which point Clinton testified, offering nothing to substantiate the conspiracy. So Republicans said, “We demand to hear directly from Benghazi survivors or we’ll throw a fit!”At which point the administration agreed to make several Benghazi survivors available for testimony.If Graham said he’d block the entirety of the Senate confirmation process unless the witnesses agreed to testify, and now they’ve agreed to testify, why is Graham still blocking the confirmation process?Because it appears some people just enjoy throwing fits as if it’s some kind of mature habit.”
November 10, 2013 at noon
The Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter of phone metadata.
In 1979 in Smith v Maryland SCOTUS held that phone metadata (called and received numbers, time and duration) is NOT protected under the 4th amendment.
No warrant is required to obtain and collect that data.
June 12, 2013 at 6:27 p.m.
@Alexinytown:Important phrase is "WILL operate"
from US News & World Report, Dateline May 15, 2013“Organizing for Action, as it's now called, has not yet filed for tax-exempt status. Officials with the group say they are only in their fourth month of existence and federal law says it has two years to file paperwork with the IRS, though they plan on operating in the same manner as the targeted groups.In carrying its work, OFA will operate as a 'social welfare' organization within the meaning of section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code," the group's website states.Organizing for Action, however, has said it is voluntarily opting not to accept money from corporations and disclose all donors giving more than $250 on their website on a quarterly basis”
The second sentence of the Treasury Inspector General's report (May 14, 2013) may help clarify this for you. He writes" Other organizations, such as social welfare organizations, may file an application but are not required to do so".
June 11, 2013 at 12:18 a.m.
To Mark Mangie,I might take your comments more seriously if they were grounded in facts.Unless you have evidence to the contrary, Organizing for Action is not a 501 c 4 organization, and as of two weeks ago they had yet to apply for that status.
Because there is no 1024 application from OFA, there is nothing for the IRS to "hold up", there is nothing to scrutinize.
On the other hand, if you are serious about the truth, take a look at the 1024 for Crossroads GPS, specifically at question 15 on that application.
Or look at the 1024 for the West Virginia Conservative Foundation, their application clearly says they do not and will not spend money influencing selection, nomination or election. And yet that is exactly what they did. Check their website and the political ads they ran.
June 9, 2013 at 3 p.m.
@Bonezuk,Did you look at the first page of the report (NCJ241730)?
The graphic on the first page shows dramatically that the firearm homicides rate dropped most rapidly between 1993 and 2000.
Better look at the report.
May 9, 2013 at 10:05 p.m.
@ Tex Fischer,You are mistaken on so many levels. You incorrectly say that the Manchin-Toomey amendment "would have required states to send all criminal records of the violently mentally ill to NICS”. In fact there is no requirement to do so in the amendment. Furthermore, the amendment specifically excludes mental health records provided to NICS from the regulations under HIPAA. (see sec 117 of the amendment). I fail to see your objection “increased paperwork hassle” that you would have to suffer in exercising your second amendment rights.Are you suggesting that “violently mentally ill” should be permitted to purchase and possess firearms?
In your next paragraph you ask “what good would it be to create another commission”. Please check out the amendment co-sponsored by Portman and supported by Paul. It creates several commissions, and task forces and paperwork.
Manchin did say that his legislation would not have stopped the Newtown tragedy, however he went on to say that ‘this is about trying to avert the next Newtown type tragedy’. That is the greater point. What can we do going forward to try to avert the next tragedy.
In your next paragraph, you say that something has to be done to stop senseless violence but you fail to make or back any proposals. You are factually incorrect about an assault weapons “ban” in Connecticut. But you are still missing the point. It’s not about Newtown CT, or Virginia Tech etc, it’s about the increasing tendency to solve problems with a firearm. Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Chadron and others only highlights this tendency.
People are going to be angry at their neighbors, spouses will cheat, road rage will continue, mentally unhinged people will continue to be a problem. The suggestion that we should add more guns to the mix, does that sound like a good prescription?
Lastly, Portman voted against even having a discussion (debate) on gun legislation, do you think he was right in doing so?
Portman’s vote on the Leahy amendment is a clear message. He voted against increasing the jail time for convicted gun traffickers. There is no excuse for that.
May 5, 2013 at 11:31 a.m.