Guess what? The then CIA Director, David Petraeus, wrote the talking points.No one put a muzzle on him, no one dictated the words or edited the content. He wrote what he knew based on the best intelligence the USA had and he sought to protect any operative in the area that could be at risk. That is his job. When Director Petraeus protected operatives he was defending the USA. There isn't anything here.
By
...The only government entity (click here) that did not object to the detailed talking points produced with Petraeus’s input was the White House, which played the role of mediator in the bureaucratic fight that at various points included the CIA’s top lawyer and the agency’s deputy director expressing opposition to what the director wanted....
Today is May 5, 2014. It is shy by 16 days of this article. That means with all the hearings Issa held and all the complaining by Graham has been a farce.
Let me take this one step further, if it truly isn't a farce, then these legislators cannot conduct effective oversight and they should not have their seat in office anyway.
The USA military with Secretary Hagle very aware of his budget and the need to adequately spend money where it is need understands the ridiculous nature of the chronic hysteria of the Republicans.
The Pentagon, not Secretary Hagle, has stated the cost and time spent on the chronic requests from Republicans is costing the USA military millions and precious time that could be spent more effectively on defending the nation.
Published March 25, 2014
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon says Congress' multiple investigations of the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, have cost the department millions of dollars and thousands of hours of personnel time.
By
...The only government entity (click here) that did not object to the detailed talking points produced with Petraeus’s input was the White House, which played the role of mediator in the bureaucratic fight that at various points included the CIA’s top lawyer and the agency’s deputy director expressing opposition to what the director wanted....
Today is May 5, 2014. It is shy by 16 days of this article. That means with all the hearings Issa held and all the complaining by Graham has been a farce.
Let me take this one step further, if it truly isn't a farce, then these legislators cannot conduct effective oversight and they should not have their seat in office anyway.
The USA military with Secretary Hagle very aware of his budget and the need to adequately spend money where it is need understands the ridiculous nature of the chronic hysteria of the Republicans.
The Pentagon, not Secretary Hagle, has stated the cost and time spent on the chronic requests from Republicans is costing the USA military millions and precious time that could be spent more effectively on defending the nation.
Published March 25, 2014
Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The Pentagon says Congress' multiple investigations of the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, have cost the department millions of dollars and thousands of hours of personnel time.
In
a March 11 letter, the Pentagon described repetitive requests for
information from about 50 congressional hearings, briefings and
interviews. The department was responding to a Feb. 4 letter from Rep.
Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the House Armed
Services Committee....
...Smith, in a subsequent letter to the committee's Republican chairman, complained about the financial strain on the military.
So, what is our military budget actually for? It is for a Republican political agenda and that includes the Iraq invasion. The USA military has to serve the Republicans. It has to serve up economies to constituents and it has to serve as a point of 'strength' for the Republican image. After all there are fewer Democrats that are willing to throw money at military pork like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
...Smith, in a subsequent letter to the committee's Republican chairman, complained about the financial strain on the military.
So, what is our military budget actually for? It is for a Republican political agenda and that includes the Iraq invasion. The USA military has to serve the Republicans. It has to serve up economies to constituents and it has to serve as a point of 'strength' for the Republican image. After all there are fewer Democrats that are willing to throw money at military pork like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
