« | »

‘Scathing’ Benghazi Report Could Tarnish Hillary

From the Associated Press:

Benghazi review slams State Department on security

By MATTHEW LEE | December 19, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) — The leaders of an independent panel that blamed systematic State Department management and leadership failures for gross security lapses in the deadly Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya will explain their findings to Congress on Wednesday…

An unclassified version released late Tuesday said serious bureaucratic mismanagement was responsible for the inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi where the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed.

"Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the panel said.

Despite those deficiencies, the board determined that no individual officials ignored or violated their duties and recommended no disciplinary action. But it also said poor performance by senior managers should be grounds for disciplinary recommendations in the future.

Of course. This is what it means to work for the government. You are never responsible for anything. Even the death of innocent people.

Wednesday’s classified testimony from the review board — retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen — will set the stage for open hearings the next day with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, who is in charge of policy, and Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides, who is in charge of management.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was to have appeared at Thursday’s hearing but canceled after fainting and sustaining a concussion last week while recovering from a stomach virus that dehydrated her. Clinton is under doctors’ orders to rest.

That’s a new claim. We haven’t heard that detail before. By the way, which hospital did she go to after her concussion?

In a letter that accompanied the transmission of the report to Capitol Hill, Clinton thanked the board for its "clear-eyed, serious look at serious systemic challenges" and said she accepted all of its 29 recommendations to improve security at high-threat embassies and consulates.

How gracious of her.

She said the department had already begun to implement some of the recommendations. They include increasing by several hundred the number of Marine guards stationed at diplomatic missions throughout the world; relying less on local security forces for protection at embassies, consulates and other offices; and increasing hiring and deployment of highly trained Diplomatic Security agents at at-risk posts.

And, hopefully, hiring more people who have same-sex partners.

Clinton agreed with the panel’s finding that Congress must fully fund the State Department’s security initiatives. The panel found that budget constraints in the past had led some management officials to emphasize savings over security, including rejecting numerous requests from the Benghazi mission and the embassy in Tripoli for enhanced protection.

This is a blatant lie. We have already had sworn Congressional testimony from the security officials involved in Benghazi that this has nothing to do with any lack of funding.

It singled out the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the Bureau of Near East Affairs for criticism, saying there appeared to be a lack of cooperation and confusion over protection at the mission in Benghazi, a city in Eastern Libya that was relatively lawless after the revolution that toppled Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi.

But it appeared to break little new ground about the timeline of the Benghazi attack during which Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens, information specialist Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods — who were contractors working for the CIA — were killed…

What a surprise that this report does not cover what everyone wants to know. What really happened?

The board determined that there had been no immediate, specific tactical warning of a potential attack on the 11th anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001. However, the report said there had been several worrisome incidents in the run-up to the attack that should have set off warning bells.

It did confirm, though, that contrary to initial accounts, there was no protest outside the consulate. It said responsibility for the incident rested entirely with the terrorists who attacked the mission

A detail that the AP buries in its 14th paragraph.

While criticizing State Department management in Washington along with the local militia force and contract guards that the mission depended on for protection, the report said U.S. personnel on the ground in Benghazi "performed with courage and readiness to risk their lives to protect their colleagues in a near-impossible situation."

It said the response by Diplomatic Security agents on the scene and CIA operatives at a nearby compound that later came under attack itself had been "timely and appropriate" and absolved the military from any blame. "There was simply not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference," it said.

The report also discounted speculation that officials in Washington had refused appeals for additional help after the attack had begun.

"The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders," it said. To the contrary, the report said the evacuation of the dead and wounded 12 hours after the initial attack was due to "exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response" that helped save the lives of two seriously wounded Americans.

What a whitewash. What a despicable travesty. No wonder Hillary won’t dare show her face.

Meanwhile, we have this slightly more critical report from Reuters:

Inquiry harshly criticizes State Department over Benghazi attack

By Arshad Mohammed [sic], Anna Yukhananov and Tabassum Zakaria | December 19, 2012

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya was grossly inadequate to deal with a September 11 attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three others because of failures within the State Department, an official inquiry found on Tuesday.

In a scathing assessment, the review cited "leadership and management" deficiencies at two department offices, poor coordination among officials and "real confusion" in Washington and in the field over who had the responsibility, and the power, to make decisions that involved policy and security concerns

It’s so scathing they didn’t even mention any names. Or cite anyone who was directly responsible. And no one will be punished.

The report’s harsh assessment seemed likely to tarnish the four-year tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said in a letter accompanying the review that she would adopt all of its recommendations…

"Tarnish" Hillary’s brilliant record? Don’t make us laugh. Her pantsuits are made of Teflon.

The five-member board said U.S. intelligence provided no "specific tactical warning" of the attack and that there was "little understanding of militias in Benghazi and the threat they posed to U.S. interests" in the eastern Libyan city, where the central government has little influence.

Except we have heard sworn Congressional testimony that the Libyan embassy and consulate were both warned about the inadequacies of their security. And they were told about the terrorist groups operating in the area.

Jon Alterman, head of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the assessment reflected poorly on Clinton and its recommendations would probably make life harder for diplomats in the field

"This is a mark against Secretary Clinton. While she was not singled out, the report highlighted the lack of leadership and organization on security issues, and those fall into her bailiwick," Alterman said…

Again, the idea is laughable. Mrs. Clinton will never be criticized by our news media.

The report faulted as "misplaced" the mission’s dependence for security support on the "armed but poorly skilled" Libyan February 17 Martyrs’ Brigade militia members and unarmed guards hired by State Department contractor Blue Mountain Libya.

No Blue Mountain guards were outside the compound immediately before the attack to provide early warning, which was their responsibility. The report raised the possibility that Blue Mountain guards left the "pedestrian gate open after initially seeing the attackers and fleeing the vicinity. They had left the gate unlatched before."

The board found little evidence that the February 17 guards alerted Americans to the attack or swiftly summoned more militia members to help once it was under way. There had been questions of reliability in the weeks preceding the attack.

Details we have never heard before. And it is also something that adds to the suspicion that this was an inside job.

"At the time of Ambassador Stevens’ visit, February 17 militia members had stopped accompanying special mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours," the report said.

Funny how we’ve never heard this detail, either. Maybe the entire attack was just a labor dispute.

The board recommended that the State Department create a new, senior position to oversee security at "high threat" posts, to strengthen security at such posts beyond what is usually provided by host governments, and to consult outside experts on "best practices" for operating in dangerous environments.

Oh, good. Another level of bureaucracy.

The department should also hire more security personnel at dangerous posts, ensure key policy and security staff serve there for at least a year and consider making it easier to punish those who perform poorly in future security incidents…

But, once again, no word on whether they would still give hiring preference to people in same-sex marriages.

The review, however, concluded that no protest took place before the attack…

Reuters managed to buried this detail in their article’s final paragraph.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Wednesday, December 19th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “‘Scathing’ Benghazi Report Could Tarnish Hillary”

  1. GetBackJack

    Nothing will tarnish Hillary. She is an agent of, and protected by Archons.

    Archons?

    The Book of Enoch (vi. 3, 7; viii. 1) names 20 “archons of the” 200 “watcher” angels who sinned with the “daughters of men,” as appears from one of the Greek fragments. The title is not indeed used absolutely (τ. ἀρχόντων αὺτῶν, Σεμιαζᾶς, ὁ ἄρχων αὐτῶν, bis: cf. ἱ πρώταρχος αὐτῶν Σ.), except perhaps once (πρῶτος Ἀζαὴλ ὁ δέκατος τῶν ἀρχόντων), where the Ethiopic has no corresponding words: but it has evidently almost become a true name, and may account for St. Jude’s peculiar use of ἀρχή (Jude 1:6).

    Archons are attracted to centers of power, such as Capitols. They fixate on particular rulers and influence their actions and decisions in the ongoing effort of Evil to destroy Mankind, God’s most precious creation.

  2. Astravogel

    Golda Meir, the Iron Lady
    Margie Thatcher, the Steel Lady
    Our gal Hilly, the Teflon Lady

  3. Do we operate under a system of equal justice under law? Or is there one system for the average citizen and another for the high and mighty?–Ted Kennedy

    Let’s check to see if that’s true….

    “….bureaucratic mismanagement was responsible for the inadequate security at the mission in Benghazi.”
    “….no individual officials ignored or violated their duties and recommended no disciplinary action.”
    “…..The report’s harsh assessment seemed likely to tarnish the four-year tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.”

    “Tarnish.” –How terrible.

    Direct violence or INDIFFERENCE leading to death, is still a crime

    How would you or I be treated under similar circumstances?

    We would be charged with criminal NEGLIGENCE until we started playing ball, naming names, turning each other in, testify for a reduced sentence, and eventually the most responsible person would be found who would plea bargain for a lighter sentence. NOT SO WITH GOVERNMENT! “Um, no one is directly responsible for these deaths, so let’s just forget the whole thing.”

    Our humble servants won’t even be slapped on the wrist for criminal negligence leading to death. How soon will it be before Hillary is given the Medal of Freedom by Obama?

  4. canary

    Why the blame for Benghazi should go higher than Hillary.
    To think we once impeached her husband and former president for shaking his finger at America saying he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Both Obama & Hillary’s lies blaming that awful video to the entire world is far worse.

    Obama knew U.S. Ambassador’s Stevens was taken to Al-Qaeda in-filtered hospital in which he afterwards praised the hospital to the world for spending an hour and a half trying to bring the dead American official back to life, saying not a word about the U.S. Military Serviceman that died trying to save the Ambassador’s and Diplomat’s lives.

    Obama administration had e-mails by Steven’s and the Diplomat begging for security that night way before the attack took place.

    FOX News: Sources, emails point to communication breakdown in Obama administration during Libya attack

    By Jennifer Griffin Nov 02, 2012

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....z2FZtHNN7P

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    at this link scroll past the debate for more proof he lied to the country and to the world.

    FoxNews: What President Obama really said in that ’60 Minutes’ interview about Benghazi

    by Bret Baier November 05, 2012

    Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews......z2FZu3nAk5
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Why, Hillary Clinton and other politicians should be charged with manslaughter at the very least.

    Security team in place in Benghazi removed in spite of objections weeks ahead. !!!!!!

    NOTE CBS headline deceiving

    CBS News:Ex-U.S. security team leader in Libya: “We needed more, not less” security staff

    (CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces “Site Security Team” in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for “more, not less” security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

    Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

    Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August – about a month before the assault in Benghazi – he felt, “like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff.”

    “We felt we needed more, not less,” he tells Attkisson.

    Asked what response their repeated pleas got from the State Department in Washington, Wood says they were simply told “to do with less. For what reasons, I don’t know.”

    “We tried to illustrate… to show them how dangerous and how volatile and just unpredictable that whole environment was over there. So to decrease security in the face of that really is… it’s just unbelievable,” Wood tells CBS News.

    One State Department source tells CBS News the security teams weren’t “pulled,” that their mission was simply over.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50.....ity-staff/

    How disgraceful for Obama to say Benghazi murders were a a bump in the road after Obama knew Stevens was dragged dead through the streets and treated worse than road kill.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »