CIA acted properly in Benghazi but slow to spot terrorism: Bipartisan report

[Valin]

Washington Times:

Stephen Dinan

Friday, November 21, 2014

 

The House intelligence committee cleared the CIA of wrongdoing in the run-up to the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack and its actions during the assault, but said in a newly declassified report Friday that the way the agency wrote the controversial talking points afterwards was “flawed.”

 

The bipartisan report says the CIA’s initial talking points saying the attack was a protest against a video, while eventually proved to be incorrect, were based on intelligence the agency had at the time. The CIA only came to the correct conclusion two weeks later, which was days after then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used the erroneous talking points.

 

But the agency should have moved more quickly to change its conclusions as on-the-ground evidence mounted, the investigators said.

 

Investigators also said no CIA employees were prevented from speaking with Congress, as some lawmakers had claimed — though the agency was slow to respond to some inquiries.

 

The report dents many of the claims some Republicans have advanced, including rejecting the claim that CIA security officers were told to “stand down” and not try to rescue State Department personnel at the diplomatic compound under assault, and that the White House forced the CIA to alter talking points to delete references to a terrorist attack.

 

(Snip)

 

 

[Valin]

AP: House intel panel debunks many Benghazi theories

KEN DILANIAN

Nov. 21 2014

 

WASHINGTON (AP) - A two-year investigation by the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has found that the CIA and the military acted properly in responding to the 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, and asserted no wrongdoing by Obama administration appointees.

 

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

 

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

The Report

[Valin]

About that Benghazi report…
Jazz Shaw
November 22, 2014

There’s a lot of end zone dancing going on this weekend among Democrats and their supporters in the media after the release of a report from the House Intelligence Committee on the tragic events in Benghazi. Noah talked about some of the New York Times coverage of related stories yesterday, but there’s a lot of digging to be done here. To be clear, the report of the committee – chaired by Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan – paints a far less dark picture than some previous accounts from various actors involved in the events seemed to indicate. But at the same time, the less than conclusive results don’t paint the same pretty picture that you’ll be hearing from Rachel Maddow, either.

The media interpretation of the findings is also flatly contradictory in places. Take for example this declaration of a lack of any culpability. (Emphasis added.)

Debunking a series of persistent allegations hinting at dark conspiracies, the investigation of the politically charged incident determined that there was no intelligence failure, no delay in sending a CIA rescue team, no missed opportunity for a military rescue, and no evidence the CIA was covertly shipping arms from Libya to Syria.

So, nothing to see here. Move along. Except for one problem. The coverage also seeks to make it clear that Susan Rice couldn’t possibly be to blame for her blatantly false portrayals of the attack on the Sunday morning shows. Watch what happens to the analysis on this score.

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people.

Keep in mind, these are not two paragraphs separated by miles of text. They’re back to back. And somehow, in the space of four sentences, we went from there was no intelligence failure to reading it was intelligence analysts… who made the wrong call. If you’re making the wrong call – particularly one which turned out to be so incredibly far off base – then that sounds like an intelligence failure to me.

(Snip)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I'm plowing my way through the report. So far I've not seen the anwser to my question.....12 hours to launch 2 fighters and a tanker? Really? If true Combat Command We Have A Problem!

[nickydog]

So what's the bottom line? Has FNC been wasting its time and reputation to have been continually hammering at this issue?

 

A crowing Rachel Maddow has made her way to Facebook, by my daughter no less! In my daughter's tiny defense I will say they do not have cable in their house and I don't think she even knows who Rachel is. Still....

 

i did wisely refrain from commenting, although it wasn't easy.

[Valin]

So what's the bottom line? Has FNC been wasting its time and reputation to have been continually hammering at this issue?

Short answer No. This is the report of one committee looking at this, I would also be interested in what the minority report says.

 

As for smirks Maddow 2 words come to mind.

[nickydog]

Who will write the minority report?

[Valin]

Graham: House Benghazi report is ‘full of crap’

Jacqueline Klimas

Sunday, November 23, 2014

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sunday that a report on the Benghazi attack released late last week is “full of crap.”

 

The GOP-led House committee’s report found no failures in intelligence in connection with the 2011 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and also found that any misinformation released after the attack was accidentally incorrect — not a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

 

But Mr. Graham, South Carolina Republican, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the report is inaccurate and that the House Intelligence Committee that released the report accepted a “bunch of garbage.”

 

(Snip)

 

[Valin]

Who will write the minority report?

 

Committee members who don't agree with this.

[nickydog]

 

Who will write the minority report?

 

Committee members who don't agree with this.

 

 

And I suppose they'll all be Republicans? Which will make Miss Smirk and others of her ilk smirk all the more.

 

Is Trey Gowdy part of this committee or another committee?

[Valin]

 

 

Who will write the minority report?

 

Committee members who don't agree with this.

 

 

And I suppose they'll all be Republicans? Which will make Miss Smirk and others of her ilk smirk all the more.

 

Is Trey Gowdy part of this committee or another committee?

 

 

 

No Majority Members

 

What may be happening....

More on “more than fair”

Paul Mirengoff

November 23, 2014

 

Yesterday, I wrote about the report on Benghazi issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The report found essentially no fault on the part of the CIA or the military in its response the attack in Benghazi — findings that I consider sound.

 

The report also finds that the administration’s subsequent narrative about the attack was the product of a “flawed” process. What’s more it finds that aspects of the narrative were inaccurate. However, it did not find willful deception or bad faith on the part of any administration official.

The administration and its supporters will, I assume, construe the lack of such findings as exoneration. They should not.

 

(Snip)

 

Why didn’t the Committee make such findings, one way or the other? The main reason, I suspect, is that the Republican members wanted bipartisan agreement as to the facts (including the fact that Rice’s comments were inaccurate). Keep in mind too that the House Intelligence Committee is something of an island of bipartisanship in the stormy seas of Capitol Hill, which is probably a good thing given the vital and sensitive nature of its work.

 

Republican members must also have been mindful that Trey Gowdy’s special committee is tasked investigating the Obama administration’s post-attack behavior, among other things. Thus, the honesty and good faith of Team Obama (or the lack thereof) remains the subject of an important, well-publicized House investigation. Indeed, by not opining on this subject, the Intelligence Committee invites Gowdy’s committee to focus sharply on it, and precludes any valid claim that the issue was resolved by another committee.

 

(Snip)

[nickydog]

Thank you, @Valin. Answers my questions very well.

 

So we wait for Trey Gowdy.