What’s sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander.
According to Colonel Morris Davis:
“Funny seeing the GOP frothing at the mouth today because the State Dept told Greg Hicks not to talk to Rep Chaffetz about Benghazi when he visited Libya … same bunch sat quietly when the Bush Defense Dept ordered me not to testify at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Guantanamo and torture in Dec 2007.”
I am so sorry I missed the frothing. I had a long standing engagement today that required me to be away from the TV. I came close to cancelling.
So, did the usual bullying go on?
I’ll agree that both actions were wrong. Next! It’s not the Bush administration that is the subject of the questioning. Think of it as two different criminal cases if it pleases you. The supposed guilt of one doesn’t impact the lack of guilt of the other. Always about Bush isn’t it, and Gitmo is still open don’t forget.
i think you missed the point, SA.
Lest we forget this bemoaning of “whistle blower” treatment by the republicans! Pa-leeze! Where was this caterwauling when a CIA agent was outed because her Ambassador husband DARED to tell the truth about Cheney yellowcake lies.
These guys are such hypocrites, how can they stand to look in the mirror.
I will never understand why Valerie Plame was just dismissed and marginalized. Her career as an operative was destroyed and the people she was working with were endangered.
Term limits – Term limits – Term limits !!!
Benghazi was a fatal mission security and incident response situation handled very, very poorly, in the opinion of many, by the Administration. It stands on its own in the current Congressional investigative process. Morris has identified a genuine match between his own Gitmo experiences and that of the current State Dept. witnesses, but those are hardly unique happenings in our history. Neither that match nor criticism about the case of Valerie Plame Wilson should have any bearing on the truth coming out finally about what happened in Benghazi, Tripoli, and Washington that night.
One of the major issues with Benghazi, is that half of the attack and response was for the state dept, and the other half was for the CIA. What we will not know for a long time, is what was the CIA response to the attack. 2 of the deaths (private security detail) were at the annex – which was not under State Dept control – but if you listen to the hearings, it would make one think that this was all under the control of the State Dept.
Good point, Pat. It might be the reason for all the confustion also.
I think it would be a mistake to believe that the CIA Annex in Benghazi was some totally independent element established and operating entirely outside the ultimate purview of the US Ambassador. It doesn’t work that way.
@Wolverine
Is the Sec of State responsible for the CIA annex, its people and its protection? If Issa wants to find out something of value, why doesn’t he try to find out how the attackers knew about the existence and location of the annex – get Petreus on the stand and ask him about the response of the CIA to their people being attacked and killed. But that would not go along with the political nature of the narrative.
Totally agree, Pat. To further prove your point, Karl Rove has released an anti Hillary ad. Isn’t that about 3 hours too early?
Its patently obvious what the intent is.
Wolverine,
The belief that CIA and State Dept work hand in hand together, skipping along, is a fairy tale. What I found astounding is the witch hunt for Hillary when there was SILENCE during all the attacks at the myriad of consulates when Rumsfeld was office.
Elena, I addressed your list of incidents on another thread. That list was a misdirected effort to protect Obama by claiming that embassies and consulates were attacked while Bush was POTUS as well, so we shouldn’t be hacking on Obama about the same thing. Well, the incidents on that list involved installations which were prepared and protected and not penetrated by the attackers. Benghazi , on the other hand, looks like it was a total security and response screwup at the Washington level — although I don’t really excuse Amb. Stevens for going there under those dangerous conditions (Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard the line plenty: Got to get out there and show myself to those people!). Moreover, the screwup was followed by some terribly stupid lies to the public. Believe me on this. My old job often entailed protecting US missions and overseas personnel from terrorist attack, sometimes right there in the mission being targeted.
I never said the CIA-State relationship is happy, happy land. It, in fact, can be very contentious; but many things come down to hard negotiations. As for Pat’s query about how the attackers found out about the annex and its location, well, I believe that the CIA rescuers took the rescued to the annex after the firefight with the attackers near the consulate. Could have been followed or reported. However, let us not be naive about overseas service. You take a bunch of Americans and plunk them down in a compound in a place like Benghazi, where there are few other Americans, if any; and it will not be long before every local in the neighborhood will notice and start chattering about those Americans. And terrorists listen to the grapevine all the time. Difficulties of the job. There are many places where we cannot disappear into the woodwork. Americans watch too many movies.
@Wolverine
Heh….Americans stand out in EUROPEAN countries, much less places further east.