Jump to content

The Blame in the Senate Report on Benghazi


Recommended Posts

the-blame-in-the-senate-report-on-benghazi.htmlThe New Yorker:

Amy Davidson



The Senate Intelligence Committee report on what happened in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012, is, in many ways, a catalogue of what can happen when one decides to act as though a situation is what one wishes it to be, not what it is. Benghazi, the report sensibly points out, was a dangerous place, and a lot of people knew it. But it was also supposed to be an enchanted place, the birthplace of a rebellion America had generously fostered and the home of scrappy militias who were grateful to us. We had, supposedly, already arrived at the happily-ever-after part of the Libyan tale. Maybe that’s why the Obama Administration, in particular the State Department—led by Hillary Clinton—didn’t consider all the ways the plot could turn, or that the epilogue might involve the attacks on an American diplomatic installation and a C.I.A. annex. According to the report,




The talking-points controversy was always strangely misdirected—in part because, as this report makes clear, there is a lot that was substantively wrong with the way things were managed in Benghazi. That is true particularly if the subject of discussion is Hillary Clinton. She does not come out well in this report, in any part, although the Republican minority is more florid in its criticisms. The State Department made mistakes when she was its leader. One of the findings is that nothing changed even when “tripwires” meant to prompt an increase in security or suspension in operations had been crossed, and people in the Department knew it.


Why not? She doesn’t really have an answer; in the past, she has deflected questions by pointing out that Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who died in Benghazi, was someone she knew well and cared about; there is no doubt that he was. Despite her performance at a hearing last year, when she wondered why exactly what happened really mattered, callous indifference is not the answer here. (That won’t stop the clip of her testimony from playing in political ads if she runs for President.) But her reluctance to change course may have been influenced by her heavy investment in the decision to take military action in Libya; the former defense secretary Robert Gates writes in his new memoir that hers was the voice that swayed the balance. (Joe Biden was on the other side.) Libya was one of the things she had managed in her stint as Secretary of State, for which she had been so praised. Also, again, Libya was supposed to be something we were done with; now it will be a question Hillary Clinton has to contend with in 2016, and, in fairness, rightly so.





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intel Committee Republicans slam Joint Chiefs chairman on Benghazi

Jon Harper

Stars and Stripes

January 15, 2014


WASHINGTON Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee singled out Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, of exhibiting poor leadership and insufficient planning in their report on the Sept. 2012 attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.



The tenure of General Martin Dempsey, has been marked by what we view as significant deficiencies in command, the report states in the addendum signed by Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss, Richard Burr, James Risch, Daniel Coats, Marco Rubio and Tom Coburn. From Syria to Benghazi, there has been either a profound inability or clear unwillingness to identify and prevent problems before they arise. Given the known operating environment in Benghazi, much less North Africa, a strong military leader would have ensured there was a viable plan in place to rescue Americans should the need arise.


Republican Sen. Susan Collins was the only Republican on the committee who did not sign off on this section of the report. None of the committee Democrats added their names to the addendum.



Link to comment
Share on other sites



Obama Administration Lied Before They Lied


Bryan Preston, PJMedia.com

Another interesting turn reported by Fox, that the rest of the media will ignore in favor or running a zillion more stories on Bridgegate. Or maybe they'll spend some time discussing the ins and outs of the Justin Bieber egg-throwing scandal:


On the eve of the terrorist attacks that killed US Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi, the Obama White House may have exaggerated the scope and depth of President Obama's preparation for such attacks, newly declassified documents show.


On Sept. 10, 2012 -- the day before Al Qaeda-linked terrorists carried out the bloody assault on the US consulate and a related annex in Benghazi -- the White House Press Office issued a press release entitled "Readout of the President's Meeting with Senior Administration Officials on Our Preparedness and Security Posture on the Eleventh Anniversary of September 11th."



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senate Benghazi Report Damns Both Obama And Clinton

Posted 01/15/2014 06:40 PM ET


Terrorism: The bipartisan Senate report on the Benghazi attack is damning to both President Obama and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She may be sorry she asked, "What difference does it make?"


The terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi killing our Libyan ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three others was bad political timing for President Obama, coming less than two months before Election Day in 2012.


For a while afterward, Obama peddled the ludicrous story it wasn't planned terrorism but a spontaneous demonstration against an anti-Muhammad YouTube video. In the second presidential debate, when exposed on misrepresenting the attack, Obama pointed to his generic statement on "acts of terror" the day after Benghazi, which CNN moderator Candy Crowley said supported Obama's new false claim.


A new Senate report settles this, pointing out that FBI and CIA review of closed-circuit video at the mission a week after the Sept. 11, 2012, assaults "showed there were no protests prior to the attacks."


But the long-overdue report goes much further:


• Hillary Clinton's State Department didn't act on warnings of inadequate security at Benghazi.Scissors-32x32.png


Link to comment
Share on other sites

King: ‘No Question the State Department Screwed Up’ in Benghazi
'I haven't seen any real accountability, and I think that's been a failure in this whole process'
Washington Free Beacon Staff
January 19, 2014

Sen. Angus King (I., Maine) said there was no doubt the State Department “screwed up” on security in Benghazi and expressed frustration no one had been truly held accountable Sunday on State of the Union.


King addressed the Senate Intelligence Committee report released this week stating the terrorist attack was preventable and that the State Department was at fault for not heeding warning signs about a growing security concern for the consulate in the weeks and months leading up to the deadly assault.


There’s no question the State Department screwed up here,” King said. “There should be accountability, in my opinion. Who did make that decision in light of all that information, and why, and I think that’s a very fair question. I’m surprised and disappointed. I know some people have been shifted around, but if accountability means anything, it means somebody paying a price for having made a disastrous decision.”


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1695723439
  • Create New...