PLAYING POLITICS WITH BENGHAZI.
... and don't ask me, by whom?
The wonder of the Benghazi attack, culminating into the United States Congressional Intelligence Committees' investigations, talking points and classified and unclassified material, is that, many people are forgetting that the U.S., and/or perhaps the rest of the world, is at war with Islamist extremists, particularly, the notorious group, called al Qaeda.
Rep. Perter King at the House Intelligence Committee hearings has been insisting that the removal of "al Qaeda", "extremists", "terror" and other words that he thought were salient to the documents in question, should not have occurred, made very little sense, if any at all.
Who would want his enemy's name or anything relating to it in his "declassified" report? As the deletion of that was necessary for security reasons, it would be undone in the unclassified version, while it (name) remained in the original classified material.
Rep. Peter King is Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and so, he is liable to know that the CIA talking points that Gen. David Petraeus testified to will be different after all the Intelligence departments have reviewed them to arrive at a final report. The original document cannot be put out "as is" or before such a report can be made public.
Furthermore, with respect to the Benghazi attack, the unclassified version would mention the demonstrations that went on in the Muslim world, especially, the one in Cairo, Egypt, at the U.S. embassy there, about a film or movie depicting Mohammad as a charlatan.
That film has infuriated Muslims, and extremists could have used that to engage in any type of nefarious acts. The statement that was given Ambassador Susan Rice to take to the TV stations on the Sunday following the attack would have contained both the violence in Benghazi as well as the demonstrations.
What the Republican members of Congress were doing was obvious, that they did not understand why they should lose the 2012 presidential election; and that whatever they should do to minimize the impact of that defeat would be worth their while.
The failures of the Obama administration to have allowed the Benghazi incident would not rise to "Watergate" levels; though, four diplomats have lost their lives, including the U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, but hammering the White House on it would produce a fallout that might look realistic, that, for example, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. has lost her job, or even President Barack Obama was likely to face impeachment.
All those issues happening soon after the election that has given the president a second term would be worth the millions of dollars spent by the Republican Party to unseat him; and now, a scandal of incredible proportions like the altering the "talking points" of the CIA classified information by his administration could topple him.
However, the National Intelligence Agency, through a spokesperson, has denied that that was the case. The NIA worked closely with the NSA, which was under the U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and had said that there was no "cover up", as the Republicans were charging.
Nevertheless, the Republican Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee was insisting that Clapper himself must explain why "changes were made in the CIA memo"; and no one knew when they would stop badgering the Obama administration to come up with "something which was not there".
The confusion was taking up so much time of Congress, it was like bedlam in Washington, DC.
Talking about "throwing a wrench in the works", but presently, it was about several wrenches being "thrown in the works" on Capitol Hill by the Republicans, while the country's dismal economy that they had created long before Obama, was teetering on the brink of a "fiscal cliff".
Has politicizing the Benghazi attack become a game? When will the drama stop?