You're just saying that if it involves national security, all criticism is off limits. That's ridiculous. It's not 'immoral' to disagree with your government on matters of war. It would be unconscionable to expect citizens to not question decisions with such horrific costs, which we know going in. People of high ethics, fully understanding the issues, WILL disagree, often strongly, and when they do they have an obligation to protest what they feel is wrong.
We could post dueling opinion pieces all day, and yours is from an obviously right wing leaning outlet. But I'll take an early passage - 4th paragraph:
First of all, that no republican signed off in this era is hardly surprising. 20 years ago it would be - not today when votes that break exactly along party lines are the norm. Second, anyone with the slightest interest in the report knows that the committee has been fighting and negotiating with the WH and CIA for a year or so about what can and what cannot be released, at least. So the committee did not 'sit on' the report for two years. That's just misleading to the point of a lie.
Second, the author says several times the report is 'untrue' and 'highly biased' but doesn't provide details. What is biased about the findings? What part of the report, specifically, is untrue. I accept that there WILL BE honest and legitimate differences of opinion about whether it should have been released and what part of it blacked out, but that's just because we're thinking humans. That does not mean those who disagree are biased or that the report is.
The side of the U.S.
You avoided the point - questioning the government is the norm from conservatives on every issue except apparently the CIA on this subject.
Again, not the point. If right wingers can't accept the line from the various people about Benghazi after many hearings, you can't then question my 'morality' when I do the same with the CIA on this issue, especially since on this issue the CIA has a documented history of lies and brazen attempts to hide information - hacking into the committee's computer to remove the Panetta report, which is the most comprehensive internal examination of the program, its successes and failures. If they have been honest, and the program's successes obvious, they should proudly hand over their internal review which supports all their assertions - why hide that from the investigators, then illegally attempt to remove that document? Something to hide, obviously....