Where is the wingnut criticism of CIA Director Patraeus?

Petraeus’s Quieter Style at C.I.A. Leaves Void on Libya Furor



*snip*

But since an attack killed four Americans seven weeks ago in Benghazi, Libya, his deliberately low profile, and the C.I.A.’s penchant for secrecy, have left a void that has been filled by a news media and Congressional furor over whether it could have been prevented. Rather than acknowledge the C.I.A.’s presence in Benghazi, Mr. Petraeus and other agency officials fought a losing battle to keep it secret, even as the events there became a point of contention in the presidential campaign.


Finally, on Thursday, with Mr. Petraeus away on a visit to the Middle East, pressure from critics prompted intelligence officials to give their own account of the chaotic night when two security officers died along with the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and another diplomat. The officials acknowledged for the first time that the security officers, both former members of the Navy SEALs, worked on contract for the C.I.A., which occupied one of the buildings that were attacked.


The Benghazi crisis is the biggest challenge so far in the first civilian job held by Mr. Petraeus, who retired from the Army and dropped the “General” when he went to the C.I.A. He gets mostly high marks from government colleagues and outside experts for his overall performance. But the transition has meant learning a markedly different culture, at an agency famously resistant to outsiders.


“I think he’s a brilliant man, but he’s also a four-star general,” said Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Four-stars are saluted, not questioned. He’s now running an agency where everything is questioned, whether you’re a four-star or a senator. It’s a culture change.”


*snip*

 

25 views so far, but no wingnut criticism of Patraeus.

Just more proof that this whole Benghazi bullshit is just that: bullshit.

Thanks for (not) playing, wingnuts!

 

A very interesting question I'm guessing your directing the question at the left wing nuts as they were the ones who took out this full page ad ironically in the very paper you link to the New York Times.

 

the CIA is the missing link in who should have taken responsibility for the Benghazi debacle -

the lack of security rests with the CIA and its director Petraeus.

 

The Bots are well trained. Another layer of deflection.

 

No, dumbass. I'm asking where the wingnut criticism is of CIA Director Patraeus.



Can't you fucking read?

 

Don't be too hard on blackhawk. He's having Pre-Loss issues.

 

They are still hooked up to their rage I.V. They are unable to sustain life... or an erection, without it.

They HAVE to stay mad... regardless if what they are mad about is nonsense or not, otherwise they are utterly irrelevant.

 

Patraeus isn't the President. The President isn't present in the presentation of the promulgation of facts.

Where's Walbamado?

 

a-HA! So Bush WAS responsible for Abu Ghraib!

Damn wingnuts kept telling me that Bush couldn't be expected to know about the specifics of one military base out of hundreds.

They kept telling me it was unreasonable and stupid to think that anyone higher than the base commander was to blame.

Imagine that.