Republicans Out the CIA, Again

[Rohirrim]

When it comes to putting on a political show, these dumbasses don't care if they give away secrets to our enemies:

Through their outbursts, cryptic language and boneheaded questioning of State Department officials, the committee members left little doubt that one of the two compounds at which the Americans were killed, described by the administration as a “consulate” and a nearby “annex,” was a CIA base. They did this, helpfully, in a televised public hearing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-letting-us-in-on-a-secret/2012/10/10/ba3136ca-132b-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

[Rohirrim]

The Republican lawmakers, in their outbursts, alternated between scolding the State Department officials for hiding behind classified material and blaming them for disclosing information that should have been classified. But the lawmakers created the situation by ordering a public hearing on a matter that belonged behind closed doors.

Republicans were aiming to embarrass the Obama administration over State Department security lapses. But they inadvertently caused a different picture to emerge than the one that has been publicly known: that the victims may have been let down not by the State Department but by the CIA. If the CIA was playing such a major role in these events, which was the unmistakable impression left by Wednesday’s hearing, having a televised probe of the matter was absurd.

The chairman, attempting to close his can of worms, finally suggested that “the entire committee have a classified briefing as to any and all other assets that were not drawn upon but could have been drawn upon” in Benghazi.

Good idea. Too bad he didn’t think of that before putting the CIA on C-SPAN.

(Ibid.)

[Traveler]

Think the presence of the CIA was the reason the administration has been so slow to clarify what happened in Benghazi?

[Rohirrim]

Think the presence of the CIA was the reason the administration has been so slow to clarify what happened in Benghazi?

Naw! That couldn't be it. It was just for politics. Like Issa. :pity:

[Smiling Assassin27]

Google 'New York Times, September 24th, 2012' and 'CIA'. This is old news, not some security breach.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[Rohirrim]

First I've heard of it.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Plame scandal confirmed that there's no instance in which these right-wing jackals won't put party before country.

[Rohirrim]

What happened to cutthemdown. Did he get banned or something? He won't post but he keeps neg repping me. :rofl:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What happened to cutthemdown. Did he get banned or something? He won't post but he keeps neg repping me. :rofl:

Maybe he changed his screen name just like every other right-wing half-wit on this board.

http://www.bartcop.com/gop-revolt.jpg

[barryr]

Yeah, the liberal media has shown in the past to worry about CIA protection LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, the liberal media has shown in the past to worry about CIA protection LOL

Says the moral retard who supports TRAITORS who outed a covert CIA operative for political payback.

[nyuk nyuk]

Q: When don't liberals consider the CIA and US miliary warmongers?

A: When a liberal is in the White House.


Or... Maybe this silly op-ed column is supposed to somehow cover for FAF?

In truth, it's an attempt by the O administration and its media lackeys to blame Benghazi on the Republicans. What did Obama say? "The buck stops here." OH apparently it doesn't. I guess our embassy men in Libya contacted the Republican party for more security and were ignored? Well, that explains things.

[mhgaffney]

Think the presence of the CIA was the reason the administration has been so slow to clarify what happened in Benghazi?

Slow?

I'd use stronger language. Like: lied about it --

Please understand: This is standard procedure when it comes to the CIA.

[nyuk nyuk]

The article title and content are misleading, which is no surprise. Media love to sex things up. The word "accidental" was used in the article regardless, yet the title is politically-loaded. We have no idea how true this article is or if it was in play, murdered staff noted they were guarded by locals and those local guards were taking photos of the compound. The guards knew what they were guarding, obviously, it's not like someone came along and said, "Hey this is a US compound," and they're like "ORLY? We had no idea."

The staff there requested more security and didn't get it, and also, they were not told of credible threats in the area. Both of those are on Obama, no matter how you slice it and no matter how many times you keep playing those bogus 47% commercials.

[barryr]

Says the moral retard who supports TRAITORS who outed a covert CIA operative for political payback.

Says the idiot who had no posts, which is news in itself, when the NY Times was telling the world intelligence secrets. Not to mention when Armitage was the one who was found to have "outed" a paper shuffler, the "crime" was suddenly not worth worrying about anymore considering Armitage was on the same side as liberals in the Iraq War. Phony outage is what liberals are known for, so congrats on being predictable LOL