State Department made "grievous mistake" over Benghazi: Senate report

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,636
27,395
898
Seattle
#1
State Department made "grievous mistake" over Benghazi: Senate report
By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball | Reuters – 7 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department made a "grievous mistake" in keeping the U.S. mission in Benghazi open despite inadequate security and increasingly alarming threat assessments in the weeks before a deadly attack by militants, a Senate committee said on Monday.

A report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the September 11 attacks on the U.S. mission and a nearby CIA annex, in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died, faulted intelligence agencies for not focusing tightly enough on Libyan extremists.

It also faulted the State Department for waiting for specific warnings instead of improving security.

The committee's assessment, "Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi," follows a scathing report by an independent State Department accountability review board that resulted in a top security official resigning and three others at the department being relieved of their duties.

Joseph Lieberman, an independent senator who chairs the committee, said that in thousands of documents it reviewed, there was no indication that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had personally denied a request for extra funding or security for the Benghazi mission. He said key decisions were made by "midlevel managers" who have since been held accountable.

Republican Senator Susan Collins said it was likely that others needed to be held accountable, but that decision was best made by the Secretary of State, who has the best understanding "of how far up the chain of command the request for additional security went."

The attacks and the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens put diplomatic security practices at posts in risky areas under scrutiny and raised questions about whether intelligence on militant activity in the region was adequate.

The Senate report said the lack of specific intelligence of an imminent threat in Benghazi "may reflect a failure" by intelligence agencies to focus closely enough on militant groups with weak or no operational ties to al Qaeda and its affiliates.

"With Osama bin Laden dead and core al Qaeda weakened, a new collection of violent Islamist extremist organizations and cells have emerged in the last two to three years," the report said. That trend has been seen in the "Arab Spring" countries undergoing political transition or military conflict, it said.

NEED FOR BETTER INTELLIGENCE

The report recommended that U.S. intelligence agencies "broaden and deepen their focus in Libya and beyond, on nascent violent Islamist extremist groups in the region that lack strong operational ties to core al Qaeda or its main affiliate groups."

Neither the Senate report nor the unclassified accountability review board report pinned blame for the Benghazi attack on a specific militant group. The FBI is investigating who was behind the assaults.

President Barack Obama, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, said the United States had "very good leads" about who carried out the attacks. He did not provide details.

The Senate committee said the State Department should not have waited for specific warnings before acting on improving security in Benghazi.

It also said it was widely known that the post-revolution Libyan government was "incapable of performing its duty to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel," but the State Department failed to fill the security gap.

"Despite the inability of the Libyan government to fulfill its duties to secure the facility, the increasingly dangerous threat assessments, and a particularly vulnerable facility, the Department of State officials did not conclude the facility in Benghazi should be closed or temporarily shut down," the report said. "That was a grievous mistake."

The Senate panel reviewed changing comments made by the Obama administration after the attack, which led to a political firestorm in the run-up to the November presidential election and resulted in U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrawing her name from consideration to replace Clinton, who is stepping down early next year.

Rice had said her initial comments that the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam film were based on talking points provided by intelligence agencies.

Lieberman said it was not the job of intelligence agencies to formulate unclassified talking points and they should decline such requests in the future.

The report said the original talking points included a line saying "we know" that individuals associated with al Qaeda or its affiliates participated in the attacks. But the final version had been changed to say: "There are indications that extremists participated," and the reference to al Qaeda and its affiliates was deleted.

The report said that while James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, had offered to provide the committee with a detailed chronology of how the talking points were written and evolved, this had still not been delivered to Capitol Hill because the administration had spent weeks "debating internally" whether or not it should turn over information considered "deliberative" to Congress.

(Editing by Warren Strobel and David Brunnstrom)
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-report...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
 

OccupyWackbag

Registered User
Dec 12, 2011
3,416
188
98
#2
Just another crazy right wing non issue just like gun control... right Mayr? ;)
 

OccupyWackbag

Registered User
Dec 12, 2011
3,416
188
98
#4
Sounds like career state department employees blew it. Where's the big smoking gun of a giant cover up by Rice, Hillary, or Obama?
It was directly after the attack. There were tons of stories and hundreds of post about it... are you drunk?
 

lajikal

Registered User
Aug 6, 2009
15,977
3,856
373
#6
Ugh, the people that went there knew it was dangerous. End of story. You could put them in a bubble and the risk would not change, fuck off. Anything else is implying they were retarded.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,636
27,395
898
Seattle
#8
Benghazi is a non-starter. Nice try though. Nothing in that article proves the huge coverup that right wingers insist Obama was in the thick of.
There is no mystery here. For a week the administration would not admit that it was a terrorist attack and blamed it on a stupid YouTube video. That was bullshit and we know it. Only pressure from the right made them finally admit what was really behind it.

Your willing ignorance on this issue is embarrassing.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,440
8,605
693
Silverdale, WA
#10
There is no mystery here. For a week the administration would not admit that it was a terrorist attack and blamed it on a stupid YouTube video. That was bullshit and we know it. Only pressure from the right made them finally admit what was really behind it.

Your willing ignorance on this issue is embarrassing.
And it was explained ad nauseam the reason for Susan Rice's deception. HINT: It wasn't a coverup. We did 40+ pages on this already. All the "secrets" are out, this well is dry.
 

mascan42

Registered User
Aug 26, 2002
18,847
5,675
768
Ronkonkoma, Long Island
#11
There is no mystery here. For a week the administration would not admit that it was a terrorist attack and blamed it on a stupid YouTube video. That was bullshit and we know it. Only pressure from the right made them finally admit what was really behind it.

Your willing ignorance on this issue is embarrassing.
You're right. There is no mystery here. People fucked up, and then they didn't want to admit to it.

Wow. Big revelation there: politicians are assholes. What now?
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,555
923
753
With a stranger
#12
Move along people, there's nothing to see here!

Clinton sought end-run around counterterrorism bureau on night of Benghazi attack, witness will say

By James Rosen, Chad Pergram
Published May 06, 2013

On the night of Sept. 11, as the Obama administration scrambled to respond to the Benghazi terror attacks, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a key aide effectively tried to cut the department's own counterterrorism bureau out of the chain of reporting and decision-making, according to a "whistle-blower" witness from that bureau who will soon testify to the charge before Congress, Fox News has learned.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Fox News has also learned that another official from the counterterrorism bureau -- independently of Thompson -- voiced the same complaint about Clinton and Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy to trusted national security colleagues back in October.

Extremists linked to Al Qaeda stormed the American consulate and a nearby annex on Sept. 11, in a heavily armed and well-coordinated eight-hour assault that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson's lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

Sources close to the congressional investigation who have been briefed on what Thompson will testify tell Fox News the veteran counterterrorism official concluded on Sept. 11 that Clinton and Kennedy tried to cut the counterterrorism bureau out of the loop as they and other Obama administration officials weighed how to respond to -- and characterize -- the Benghazi attacks.

"You should have seen what (Clinton) tried to do to us that night," the second official in State's counterterrorism bureau told colleagues back in October. Those comments would appear to be corroborated by Thompson's forthcoming testimony.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki called the counterterrorism officials' allegation "100 percent false." A spokesman for Clinton said tersely that the charge is not true.
Thompson's attorney, diGenova, would not comment for this article.

Documents from the State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Council, first published in the May 13 edition of "The Weekly Standard," showed that senior officials from those agencies decided within days of the attacks to delete all references to Al Qaeda's known involvement in them from "talking points" being prepared for those administration officers being sent out to discuss the attacks publicly.

Those talking points -- and indeed, the statements of all senior Obama administration officials who commented publicly on Benghazi during the early days after the attacks -- sought instead to depict the Americans' deaths as the result of a spontaneous protest that went awry. The administration later acknowledged that there had been no such protest, as evidence mounted that Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had participated in the attacks. The latter conclusion had figured prominently in the earliest CIA drafts of the talking points, but was stricken by an ad hoc group of senior officials controlling the drafting process. Among those involved in prodding the deletions, the documents published by "The Weekly Standard" show, was State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, who wrote at one point that the revisions were not sufficient to satisfy "my building's leadership."

The allegations of the two counterterrorism officials stand to return the former secretary of state to the center of the Benghazi story. Widely regarded as a leading potential candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, Clinton has insisted she was not privy to decisions made by underlings about the inadequate security for the U.S. installations in Benghazi that were made in the run-up to the attacks. And she has portrayed her role -- once the attacks became known in Washington -- as that of a determined fact-finder who worked with colleagues to fashion the best possible response to the crisis.

Clinton testified about Benghazi for the first and only time in January of this year, shortly before leaving office. She had long delayed her testimony, at first because she cited the need for the ARB to complete its report, and then because she suffered a series of untimely health problems that included a stomach virus, a concussion sustained during a fall at home, and a blood clot near her brain, from which she has since recovered. However, Clinton was never interviewed by the ARB she convened.

Fox News disclosed last week that the conduct of the ARB is itself now under review by the State Department's Office of Inspector General. A department spokesman said the OIG probe is examining all prior ARBs, not just the one established after Benghazi.

The counterterrorism officials, however, concluded that Clinton and Kennedy were immediately wary of the attacks being portrayed as acts of terrorism, and accordingly worked to prevent the counterterrorism bureau from having a role in the department's early decision-making relating to them.

Also appearing before the oversight committee on Wednesday will be Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Like Thompson, Hicks is a career State Department official who considers himself a Benghazi whistle-blower. His attorney, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee, has charged that Hicks, too, has faced threats of reprisal from unnamed superiors at State. (Toensing and diGenova, who are representing their respective clients pro bono, are married.)

Portions of the forthcoming testimony of Hicks -- who was one of the last people to speak to Stevens, and who upon the ambassador's death became the senior U.S. diplomat in Libya -- were made public by Rep. Issa during an appearance on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Hicks told the committee that he and his colleagues on the ground in Libya that night knew instantly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and that he was astonished that no one drafting the administration's talking points consulted with him before finalizing them, or before U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice delivered them on the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 16.
Hicks was interviewed by the ARB but Thompson was not, sources close to the committee's investigation tell Fox News.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/clinton-sought-end-run-around-counterterrorism-bureau-on-night-benghazi-attack/print#ixzz2SWMFE8fk
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Jul 21, 2003
17,919
5,330
838
Wilmington, NC
#13
Jeez....there could have been serious repercussions had this happened in the weeks prior to a big Presidential election. Oh....that's right. :rolleyes:
 

KRSOne

Registered User
Dec 8, 2011
13,020
2,986
258
Sunnydale
#14
Jeez....there could have been serious repercussions had this happened in the weeks prior to a big Presidential election. Oh....that's right. :rolleyes:
Do you really think Obama voters would care? His cult would blame Bush or act like its no big deal and ignore it. Obamas admin was running guns to drug cartels that got cops and border agents killed and it had no affect on the Obama cult.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
Donator
Mar 10, 2006
48,750
36,889
628
In a porn tree
#15
Turning white and refusing to hand out free shit. The only two things Obama could do to turn his nutswingers against him.

Short of that... he can bow and scrape before the leaders of savage muzzie nations and continue to wipe his ass with the Constitution, and the Obamabots will continue to worship him.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,555
923
753
With a stranger
#16
Turning white and refusing to hand out free shit. The only two things Obama could do to turn his nutswingers against him.

Short of that... he can bow and scrape before the leaders of savage muzzie nations and continue to wipe his ass with the Constitution, and the Obamabots will continue to worship him.
And the same people will do the same shit if Hillary runs in 2016. This whole mess will be ignored because it's inconvenient to their whole myth about how "she already ran the White House once" and voting for her despite her incompetence will be justified with, "It's about time we had a woman in the White House." You know, the type of logically sound arguments the Obama crowd offers now while they ignore the crappy economy and his blatant ineptitude in nearly ever facet of the job. They're the ones who still think they didn't get a tax increase this year because taxes were only raised on the "one-percenters." I'm not sure how the hell he messed up his Star Wars/Star Trek reference because he's pulled some serious Jedi Mind Tricks on his supporters.
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
78,636
27,395
898
Seattle
#17
Obama denounces Benghazi cover-up charges as ‘political circus’
The Ticket
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 19 hrs ago

President Barack Obama on Monday furiously dismissed as a "political circus" Republican charges that his administration had misled the public about the Sept. 12, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya. Obama said the accusations of a cover-up dishonor the memory of the four Americans killed in the onslaught.

"There’s no 'there' there,” Obama insisted during a joint question-and-answer session with British Prime Minister David Cameron at the White House. "And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."

The president’s angry words came after news reports surfaced Friday that the White House had overseen a process that repeatedly watered down administration talking points on the attack, removing references to possible involvement by al-Qaida and to prior warnings about threats in Benghazi. Republicans have charged that the White House was worried about the potential political fallout from the spectacular terrorist attack during Obama's re-election campaign. The White House has repeatedly denied that it deliberately misled the public.

"The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow," Obama said.

The talking points, which portrayed the attack as evolving from a demonstration of anger at an Internet video that mocked Islam, "pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing," he added, referring to his top-secret morning intelligence review with the CIA.

While protests against the video in Egypt led to an assault on the American embassy in Cairo, officials in Libya never reported a demonstration outside the compound in Benghazi before the assault that claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Obama aides have said that the decision to scrub references in the talking points to al-Qaida and another extremist group, Ansar al-Sharia, reflected the intelligence community's uncertainty about the role they played.

"Immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were," Obama said. "It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film. And nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days."

The president also pointed to his first public remarks on the attack, in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, 2012, when he lumped the events in Benghazi in with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist strikes as "acts of terror."

But he and other senior officials declined in subsequent days to label the attack the work of terrorists. And U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice linked the Benghazi assault to the Internet video when she appeared on morning news shows the first Sunday after the attack.

"I’ve just got to say, here’s what we know: Americans died in Benghazi," Obama said. "What we also know is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected.

"The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism, and what I pledged to the American people was we would find out what happened, we would make sure that it did not happen again," he added, "and we would make sure that we held accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime. And that’s exactly what we’ve been trying to do."

Obama praised the work of envoys like Stevens and diplomats and other personnel serving overseas today, and declared: "We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus."

Obama also said he had “sent up” the head of the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, to Capitol Hill, where Olsen branded Benghazi a “terrorist attack” with possible connections to al-Qaida, including a regional offshoot, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). At the time, Olsen’s testimony was notable in part because of the top Obama aides’ reluctance to brand the Benghazi attack the work of terrorists.

“If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened, or tamp it down, that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we end up putting out all the information that in fact has now served as the basis for everybody recognizing that this was a terrorist attack," Obama said. "Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days?"

"The whole thing defies logic."

The president also pointed to the State Department-commissioned independent investigation led by retired veteran diplomat Tom Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who produced a scathing report on failures to heed requests for more security in Benghazi.

"What they discovered was some pretty harsh judgments in terms of how we had worked to protect consulates and embassies around the world," Obama said.

Three State Department witnesses, including the No. 2 American diplomat in Libya the night of the attack, have criticized the so-called Accountability Review Board for not pinning the blame on senior State Department officials. And they warned that failure to learn from the attack could leave U.S. diplomats vulnerable in the future.

"Frankly, if anybody out there wants to actually focus on how we make sure something like this does not happen again, I am happy to get their advice and information and counsel," Obama said.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...cover-charges-political-circus-164742459.html


I hate the air this fuck hole breathes. Oh, yeah. American deaths are a sideshow. Go fuck yourself. Seriously, how is anyone defending this fuck at this point?
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
34,999
12,008
693
Ill Repute
#18
Soooooo, is it still "a non starter"?
 

NuttyJim

Registered User
Feb 18, 2006
14,019
6,366
638
#19
I would love more than anything for this to be taken seriously and for impeachment to happen but we all know this is a dog and pony show. The media still loves POTUS and his supporters will always back him no matter what.

No one is going to take any responsibility for this. They'll just continue to blame others. After this and Fast & Furious and now reports of enemy lists / wire tapping I don't seriously understand how shits not being turned upside down right now. It's truly fucking disgusting.
 
Feb 5, 2003
5,555
923
753
With a stranger
#20
I would love more than anything for this to be taken seriously and for impeachment to happen but we all know this is a dog and pony show. The media still loves POTUS and his supporters will always back him no matter what.

No one is going to take any responsibility for this. They'll just continue to blame others. After this and Fast & Furious and now reports of enemy lists / wire tapping I don't seriously understand how shits not being turned upside down right now. It's truly fucking disgusting.
To certain segments of the population and the media, there is nothing more important than making sure that the first black President is not a gigantic failure. Nothing will be reported the way it really is unless it's good. Benghazi is only being looked at more seriously now because the election is over and there's no way to maintain whatever facade of journalistic integrity these organizations still have and ignore the fact that whistle-blowers have come forward. Prior to that, it was easy enough to dismiss it as a witch hunt or whatever phrase Obama used to describe it on any given day. The IRS story will be reported in a way that doesn't even raise the possibility that Obama or anyone in his administration was aware of it prior to the media finding out. The AP story will get more attention because it directly affects them, but I'm sure nothing will really happen in the end and the press will happily eat up the excuse that, once again, nobody in the administration knew anything until it was reported in the press. Has there ever been an administration in history with fewer connections than this one claims to have? They never seem to know anything until the media tells them. Guns sold to cartels? I know nothing! Terrorists attack an embassy on 9/11? Our information indicated it was a protest, I swear! IRS harrassing groups that oppose me? Nothing to do with me! Didn't even know about it! The Department of Justice got an alarming number of phone records from the AP? "Other than press reports, we have no knowledge of any attempt by the Justice Department to seek phone records of the AP."
 

nikoloslvy

I wear my sunglasses at night...Anyone want fries?
Donator
May 5, 2003
4,937
121
753
#21
 

Falldog

Wackbag's Best Conservative
Donator
May 16, 2007
19,252
6,859
568
Nothern VA
#25
Every time I stop by these parts I get the sense that folks here are just discovering the concept of politics.