Tea Partiers harassed by IRS?

[derspiess]

Hicks never said "stand down".  Also the DoD said such an action was impossible.

He said "They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight."  He raised no objections when it was later mentioned by the committee member that it essentially meant a stand-down order.  But I almost don't blame you for hiding behind that to try & save face.

The team, in Tripoli already to train Libyan forces, requested to hop on a Libyan C-130 cargo plane to head to Benghazi. But Special Operations Command Africa told them not to go, because "there was nothing this team could do to assist," Little said, opting to tell the team to stay in Tripoli to assist with consular staff's evacuation from Benghazi.

According to Little and Lapan, the C-130 the team wanted to fly to Benghazi on had space for the men, but it didn't arrive in the city until after the battle ended. "There's no evidence they could have arrived in Benghazi before the end of the attack," said Lapan, a spokesman for Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/

Thing is, they had no idea how long the siege would go on.  Seems odd not to have made an effort.

But why am I bothering to discuss with you?  In your mind, zero mistakes were made, nothing happened, what difference does it make, etc.

[The Minsky Moment]

I haven't been following this story much, so I may have missed key details, but how did the above arguments get closed?

After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).

[The Minsky Moment]

He said "They didn't miss the flight. They were told not to board the flight." 

Interesting use of the passive voice.

[11B4V]

Hillary for 2016
"What difference does it make"

What a great bumper sticker.

[Admiral Yi]

After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).

This is not accurate.  Warnings were recieved.  Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.

Where's the evidence to substantiate the counter-claim, that the risks in Benghazi were tolerable ex ante?

[CountDeMoney]

This is not accurate.  Warnings were recieved.  Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.

Other countries don't take the diplomatic lead in environments like post-Mad Dog Libya.

[11B4V]

After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).

This is not accurate.  Warnings were recieved.  Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.

Where's the evidence to substantiate the counter-claim, that the risks in Benghazi were tolerable ex ante?

Of course it's not accurate. Typical Left Wing Languish dribble.

[alfred russel]

I haven't been following this story much, so I may have missed key details, but how did the above arguments get closed?

After no one was able to mount an argument for them that did not rely either on hindsight or magic (ie conjuring up additional resources that didn't exist).

I'm not going to go to Libya. It doesn't seem safe. I thought that way pre bengazi.

I would think an American ambassador would be a bigger target than me, and thus should either bring a bunch of security or not go at all.

It isn't a big deal to me--sometimes mistakes are made and bad things happen. Just like rolling through Dallas in an open car was probably a mistake for Kennedy. People don't hold that against his administration, and that was a much more important situation.

[11B4V]

Fact check rips IRS official over Tea Party targeting claims

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/fact-check-rips-irs-official-over-tea-party-targeting-claims/#ixzz2TshPq9I7

A detailed fact-check published Monday tore into an IRS official's claim that the agency's scrutiny of conservative groups started in response to an influx of nonprofit applications, showing the practice started well before the forms started flooding in.

The piece in The Washington Post disputed a central claim that Lois Lerner, head of the exempt organizations division, and other IRS officials made as they admitted to targeting conservative groups for additional scrutiny as they sought tax-exempt status.

Lerner claimed they did so in response to a "very big uptick" between 2010 and 2012 in the number of applications for a status known as 501(c)(4).

Indeed, there was an uptick recorded in that time period. But, as the Post wrote, "it was relatively small."

"The real jump did not come until 2011, long after the targeting of conservative groups had been implemented," the Post wrote.

The inspector general report released last week said a Cincinnati office began drafting the new criteria as early as May 2010. But statistics included in the report show the number of applications in that group actually declined between 2009 and 2010 -- from 1,751 to 1,735.

The Post fact-check column adjusted the numbers to reflect the rise from one calendar year to the next, as opposed to fiscal year. Even then, the increase was from 1,745 to 1,865.

Applications did not begin to rise significantly until 2011 and 2012.

The Post column gave this and several other Lerner claims a rating of "four Pinocchios," which is the worst score given by the newspaper's fact-check column.

"In some ways, this is just scratching the surface of Lerner's misstatements and weasely wording when the revelations about the IRS's activities first came to light on May 10," the Post wrote.

The column also questioned her claim that they looked at the issue after seeing "information in the press." However, as the Post points out, the IG report said Lerner was briefed on the program in June 2011. Press reports didn't appear until early 2012.

Further, Lerner claimed, as she publicly acknowledged the program, that nobody had asked her about it before. But she was asked about the probe during congressional testimony two days earlier. It has since emerged that Lerner contacted a friend to pose the question about the IRS program to her at a May 10 conference

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/fact-check-rips-irs-official-over-tea-party-targeting-claims/#ixzz2TshA7Kpb

[The Minsky Moment]

This is not accurate.  Warnings were recieved.  Other countries withdrew staff because of percieved threat.

Where's the evidence to substantiate the counter-claim, that the risks in Benghazi were tolerable ex ante?

Yi - we've been through this before.  Britain withdrew staff beause of an attempt on its envoy. I.e. a specific attack not a "perceived threat."   And that was months before. 

"warnings were received"  Seriously?  Has there been some recent breakout of a virulent strain of vague use of the passive voice?
Name any overseas diplo posting in the ME or Africa where after the fact one could not claim at any time that "warnings were received"? 

And no I am not taking up the invitation to prove a negative.  I think the burden fairly rests with those who would make the extraordinary claim that ex ante the US should not have posted diplomats to a crucial, hydrocarbon-rich post-Arab Spring state like Libya, especially where the record reflects not a single op-ed, piece of testimony, or statement by anyone of any kind suggesting such a thing.

[11B4V]

and on another front.

A Fox News correspondent was accused in a Justice Department affidavit of being a possible criminal "co-conspirator" for his alleged role in publishing sensitive security information -- in a leak case that takes the highly unusual step of claiming a journalist broke the law.   

According to court documents, the Justice Department obtained a portfolio of information about Fox News' James Rosen's conversations and visits to the State Department. This included a search warrant for his personal emails.

The effort follows that by the department to secretly obtain two months of phone records from Associated Press journalists as part of a separate leak probe. The department in this case, though, went a step further -- as an FBI agent claimed there's evidence the Fox News correspondent broke the law, "at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator."

Michael Clemente, Fox News' executive vice president of news, defended Rosen in a statement issued Monday afternoon.

"We are outraged to learn today that James Rosen was named a criminal co-conspirator for simply doing his job as a reporter," Clemente said. "In fact, it is downright chilling. We will unequivocally defend his right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press."

The case has also caught the attention of Congress. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said in a statement Monday he was "very concerned" about the reports of "possible criminal prosecution for doing what appears to be normal news-gathering protected by the First Amendment."

He added: "The sort of reporting by James Rosen detailed in the report is the same sort of reporting that helped Mr. Rosen aggressively pursue questions about the Administration's handling of Benghazi. National security leaks are criminal and put American lives on the line, and federal prosecutors should, of course, vigorously investigate. But we expect that they do so within the bounds of the law, and that the investigations focus on the leakers within the government -- not on media organizations that have First Amendment protections and serve vital function in our democracy."

In the case involving Rosen, a government adviser was accused of leaking information after a 2009 story was published online which said North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test.

An affidavit entered by FBI agent Reginald Reyes claimed there was "probable cause" to believe Rosen -- identified only as "the reporter" -- had violated a provision of U.S. law barring the unauthorized disclosure of defense information. This is where Reyes labeled Rosen as a possible "co-conspirator" -- an allegation used to gain access to two days' worth of emails.

The search warrant for that request was ultimately approved, the records show.

Investigators, in pursuing the case, also obtained records of Rosen's visits to the State Department headquarters by tracking security-badge information. As first reported by The Washington Post, a court affidavit said they used the badge records to log his visits as well as the movements of the adviser, Stephen Jim-Woo Kim.

The FBI agent said in the affidavit that the visits suggested a "face-to-face" meeting.

According to the Post, investigators also obtained two months of phone records from Kim's office.

Rosen said Monday that "as a reporter, I always honor the confidentiality of my dealings with all of my sources."

He was not contacted by any government or law enforcement representative during the investigation.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, asked about the case Monday, said he could not comment on the "ongoing investigation." He said President Obama is a "strong defender of the First Amendment," but also is "insistent that we protect our secrets, that we protect classified information."

The Department of Justice said in a statement Monday that "leaks of classified information to the press can pose a serious risk of harm to our national security and it is important that we pursue these matters using appropriate law enforcement tools."

The U.S. attorney's office for the District of Columbia also said the government, before seeking approval for the search warrant, "exhausted all reasonable non-media alternatives for collecting this evidence."

While Kim has already been indicted, the office said no other charges have been brought. "Based on the investigation and all of the facts known to date, no other individuals, including the reporter, have been charged since Mr. Kim was indicted nearly three years ago," the office said.

Attorney General Eric Holder said at a House hearing last week that he is not interested in prosecuting the press.

"With regard to the potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, that is not something that I've ever been involved in, heard of or would think would be a wise policy," he said on May 15.

The seizure of records from the AP offices also spanned two months.

AP President Gary Pruitt said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday that the AP records grab was not only unconstitutional but damaging to the operation of the press.

"It will hurt," he said. "We're already seeing some impact. Officials are saying they're reluctant to talk."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/20/justice-department-obtained-records-fox-news-journalist/#ixzz2Tsii9Br4

[CountDeMoney]

The Republican hypocrisy on the whole "leaks" thing is totally hysterical.

[Sheilbh]

Christ Raz. We have the Marine Corps to protect embassies in hotspots around the world.

In fairness the main job of marines is to protect the interests of the US - above all by protecting sensitive information or equipment and, in a situation like Benghazi, protect it until it can be destroyed.

Protecting diplomatic staff or spies is relatively low in the official list of priorities.

Raz, the ambassadors to many countries are protected by marines. The marines don't go wandering through the hotspots in war torn countries, but then neither do ambassadors.

Again, diplomatic posts are protected by marines and generally the focus is on locking the building down in case of an assault. They'll also provide security for visiting dignitaries but they're not there to protect the staff, especially once they're off the premises.

This was the situation in Tehran in 79 and from what I understand it's still the situation now.

The question is whether the host country can provide a reasonable degree of security.  If they cannot, then the question becomes whether we can provide a reasonable degree of security using our own resouces, as we have been doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not all countries will allow you to build enormous fortresses in their capital city. The real question is whether your interests in having a diplomatic post there, including for the CIA, outweighs the potential risks. I think in Libya it certainly does.

[derspiess]

The Republican hypocrisy on the whole "leaks" thing is totally hysterical.

That all you got? 

[CountDeMoney]

That's all I need.  The story writes itself.