The focus here is on the "cheerleader" accusation. What about that? Well, she did ask the Congressman if he voted to cut funds to the diplomatic corps. But that isn't relevant to Benghazi and what happened there.
The cuts in spending, if they occurred at all, wouldn't have prevented an adequate defense. This is what Dick Morris was getting at in his lunch alert posted here yesterday.
There was a request for more security, which could have been filled, but was denied by Panetta. It was denied because they sought diplomatic immunity since they would be under the State Department. This was refused by Panetta. If it was under the State Department, the military personnel would have had diplomatic immunity, but instead would have been posted under the Pentagon, which doesn't have such immunity.
The result is nobody got posted there at all when the warnings were out that the threat was increasing. Fewer people meant an invitation to attack, and that is what happened. It had nothing to do with money. The personnel would have still been paid in either case. No additional monies were necessary.
You could probably cite other examples, but you won't be able to do so, because there is a cover-up.
Maddow, by spouting the party line about "cuts" is helping out the Democrats. Cheerleader or not, she isn't acting like a journalist. Otherwise she would know this.
No comments:
Post a Comment