And the problem with this approach is not, taking source material from the Washington Post, but rather that he called it an 'article' rather than a blog post. As the Post's associate editor, Rajiv Chandreasekaran, said:
I hate it when senators refer to WP opinion blogger posts as articles. @jrubinblogger is NOT a WaPo reporter— Rajiv Chandrasekaran (@rajivwashpost) January 31, 2013
Here's what Sen. Inhofe said at the hearing:
"There was an article the other day in The Washington post by Jennifer Rubin called, "Our dimwitted State Department." It's kind of an interesting article. There are four questions that I'm willing to ask that you respond for the record. For people who don't know what that is, that means later on in writing. The questions that I liked that she asked were: Did the sale of the F-16's encourage [Egyptian President Mohammed] Morsi to crack down on his people? Number two, had we known he would crack down would we still have sent the weaponry? Number three, how will we respond to Morsi's anti-democratic moves and the rise and violence against christians in egypt, or as will likely be the case, a failure to live up to egypt's security obligations regarding gaza? And four, have we miscalculated the muslim brotherload? That would be for the record."Did the tight little circle that is the Village just shrink even smaller? As he starts his morning with his cup of coffee, Sen. Inhofe picks up his daily paper, turns to the Op-Ed page and sees an article containing questions the writer wants asked of Chuck Hagel at confirmation hearings. "Hey, these sound good, I'll ask these" he says. I thought the Senate had armies of staff to research and prepare this sort of thing - based on the needs of the, you know, Defense Department. But the main question is, why would he be taking his questions from a liberal paper for material?