#BENGHAZI: Bipartisan Senate Report Finds Attack Was Preventable

A newly release Senate Intelligence Committee report cast blame on the State Department for the attacks on the Benghazi Mission and CIA annex.  The report, which details fourteen different findings about the attacks that night, makes it clear that the attack was preventable.


Ultimately, however, the final responsibility for security at diplomatic facilities lies with the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Because the Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi did not meet the security standards set by the State Department, it would have required a waiver to be occupied. Although certain waivers of the standards could have been approved at a lower level, other departures, such as the co-location requirement, could only be approved by the Secretary of State. At the end of the day, she was responsible for ensuring the safety of all Americans serving in our diplomatic facilities. Her failure to do so clearly made a difference in the lives of the four murdered Americans and their families.


Some key points from the Washington Post link of the report:

P.6 – No stand down order given to the security team at the Annex by “Chief of Base or any other party”. There is no mention of stand down orders given to AFRICOM or other entities, however.

P.7 – By 11:10 pm Benghazi time, an unmanned DoD predator drone arrived overhead, watching the events unfold. The drone was diverted one hour earlier by AFRICOM.  The drone observed roadblocks just east of the Mission; in attempting to pass them the teams took heavy fire. The assault began at 9:40pm Benghazi time, which means for the drone to arrive at 11:10 pm it would have been diverted at 10:10 pm; about 30 minutes after the attack on the mission began.

P.8 – The attack on the CIA annex is described as taking place between 11:56pm and 1:00 am Benghazi time. There is an interesting line on this page that reads, “Although officially undercover, the Annex was known by some in Benghazi as an American facility.”  What’s interesting there is that AFRICOM and DoD both gave conflicting reports as to even knowing the CIA annex was there (see P.28). Black site?

P.10 – The first finding of the report says that in the months before September 11th,  there was ample warning and intelligence that the mission was at risk.  In other words, it could have been prevented. The next page also reports that as of July 6th, the CIA had identified Benghazi and Libya in general as becoming an “Al Qaeda Sanctuary”.

P. 12 – Finding number two hits the State Department; they should have increased security but didn’t. The State Department seemingly wrote off improving security because the mission only had a 1 year charter in place.  The pages following detail the multiple requests made by Ambassador Stevens for upgrades, more weapons and men. The requests came on June 6, July 9 and again on August 12. All were denied. The final request came in a cable from Stevens on September 11th.  NOTE: Something is a little weird, because on P.21/22 of the report, it says in the weeks leading up to the attack, the Ambassador twice rejected an offer from AFRICOM’s General Ham to keep the Libyan SST (Site Security Team) in place. Also, on page 40, it is noted that the local police fled when attackers showed up.

P.23 – Finding number 3 states there was “no tactical warning” in the intelligence reporting leading up to 9/11 that predicted an attack on Benghazi, although CIA and State Department both sent general warnings about the anniversary.  This contradicts the statement from then  interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, who claimed Libya had warned the U.S. of a terrorist attack in Benghazi three days before it took place.

P. 29 – Further evidence the State Department had written off the Benghazi mission is found in the fact that there were no U.S. military resources apparently in any relative position to intervene.  Yet, somehow at around 2:00 am Benghazi time, Panetta ordered two FAST teams to go in; one to Tripoli and one to Benghazi (P.31). Neither made it there in time. Panetta also ordered two Special Operations teams in between 12:00 am and 2:00 am Benghazi time. So, four teams went in but no air support is mentioned. If they were that far away, their objective was likely retrieval of whoever was left. It’s odd no jets were scrambled or mentioned.

P.33 – It wasn’t a protest and the Intelligence Community said there was, erroneously. The finding also says it took too long to correct. That was likely a feature, not a bug.  On P. 36, there’s more about the lack of in-depth analysis of sources used to create the talking point it was a protest.

Hmm. pic.twitter.com/wA1zm6SPgu

— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) January 15, 2014

P. 44- 46 Deals with the CIA’s talking points. A full list of the 11 CIA revisions, claiming it was about a spontaneous protest, are found in the appendix on p. 46-53. It’s page 46 that has the money quote:

“This Committee faced significant resistance from the Administration in getting access to emails and documentation that Mr. Litt ultimately provided on February 26th, 2013, and that were made public – in redacted form – on May 15, 2013. This resistance was apparently based, in part, on Executive branch concerns related to executive privilege and the deliberative process which appeared to evaporate when the emails were made public. However, it also served to exacerbate the controversy surrounding the talking points, prolonged media and public speculation and raised questions of trust of the IC as Members attempted to extract information.

Litt is the general counsel for the Director of National Intelligence.

P.42 – A disturbing piece of information, with emphasis added:

In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller noted that as many as 15 individuals supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States have been killed in Benghazi since the attacks, underscoring the lawless and chaotic circumstances in eastern Libya. It is unclear whether their killings were related to the Benghazi investigation. 

The full unclassified timeline for the events that night is found on page 52 in Appendix II.


In addition, recently obtained declassified transcripts make clear the President and White House were informed it was a terrorist attack and not a spontaneous protest.  Transcript portion via FOX:

WENSTRUP: “As a military person, I am concerned that someone in the military would be advising that this was a demonstration. I would hope that our military leadership would be advising that this was a terrorist attack.” 

HAM: “Again, sir, I think, you know, there was some preliminary discussion about, you know, maybe there was a demonstration. But I think at the command, I personally and I think the command very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack.” 

WENSTRUP: “And you would have advised as such if asked. Would that be correct?” 

HAM: “Well, and with General Dempsey and Secretary Panetta, that is the nature of the conversation we had, yes, sir.”

In related news, Member of the Senate Committee, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, threw the NY Times under the bus for their assertion that Al Qaeda wasn’t involved and that the revival of blaming a YouTube video:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) rejected the Times’s conclusion that al Qaeda wasn’t responsible for the attack that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. She also took issue with the notion that the Libya strike was sparked by a U.S.-made anti-Islam video online.

“I believe that groups loosely associated with al Qaeda were” involved in the attack, she told The Hill last week. “That’s my understanding.”

She also disputed the notion that the Sept. 11, 2012, assault evolved from a protest against the video, which was widely disseminated by Islamic clerics shortly before the attack.

“It doesn’t jibe with me,” she said. – The Hill

The report and the transcripts all call into question the testimony given by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, Mrs. Clinton knew that the YouTube video being to blame was a bogus claim. At best, she was clueless at her job and it cost four Americans their lives. At worst, she knew, she ignored it and then she lied. Repeatedly.


Obama's IRS Is Now Targeting Sarah Palin's Father, Old Media Ignores
Reporter Confronts Union Chief Supporting a Child Molesting Teacher
  • jim_m

    Bruce and Chico both believe that despite any findings of fact that this was not related to al qaeda and the this was solely caused by the video. their political beliefs tell them so and that is all they need to know.

    • Brucehenry

      I never said that. You said the State Dept “announced this was an Al Qaeda op.” I pointed out that the State Dept made no such announcement. You then said that someone in government said that Ansar al-Shariah IN YEMEN was started by al Qaeda. I pointed out that Yemen is a long way from Libya and that this name-adopting business has been going on for years.

      Never said this was “caused solely” by the video, either. Ever. Not once. Or anything similar.

      What do you call a guy who lies and mischaracterizes what others say in the comment section? Starts with a “t” and rhymes with “poll.”

      • jim_m

        I accepted that the state dept did not say that and that it was the congressional committee. I suppose the fact that I admit when I was wrong slipped your trollish mind.

        • Brucehenry

          So where do you get off lying about what I, according to you, believe?

          • jim_m

            Feel free to correct me. You usually do and on rare occasions succeed.

          • Brucehenry

            Those rare occasions have occurred with some frequency lately, but I won’t gloat.

            But watch it!

          • jim_m

            Hey as soon as you want to show how you disagree with Barry on Benghazi feel free to do so. And simply stating the lame excuse that there are others who do that so you don’t have to is like Chico saying he voted for Gary Johnson. Opposition in a form that does nothing to oppose is defacto support.

          • Brucehenry

            I’m not sure I follow that second part, but, OK, whatever.

          • jim_m

            You occasionally say that you oppose obama’s policies but that you decline to say anything because there are a number of others here that already express their opposition.

            So what you do is pose as being against that policy without actually doing anything to oppose it, even in the minor way of saying something here. So just as Chico claims to have voted for Johnson because he wanted to oppose obama is nothing more than a pose because he supports obama in virtually everything on every thread, you claim that there are issues you disagree with but you never express that disagreement.

            So if you are going to disagree with my characterization of you as a mindless sycophant supporting everything that obama does and believing everything he says, you had better start expressing that opposition sometimes. Otherwise your claims are just as meaningless a pose as Chico’s.

          • Brucehenry

            Since there are many shades of gray and what I do here is not so much in support of Obama as dissent against the majority view, I think you misunderstand me. I usually just point out overheated, exaggerated rhetoric and debunk the slinging around of words like “treason,” “fascism,” “tyranny,” and such like bullshit.

            However, I see where you get that, using Jim-logic, so it’s all good. If it makes you feel better to think of me as a “sycophant” that’s fine. I’ll just correct you when you claim I said something specific that I didn’t say.

            And when you claim that someone else said or did something they didn’t say or do, when I notice it and feel the inclination.

          • jim_m

            I’m not sure that I misunderstand you. You have been quite direct in the past in saying that you disagreed but that you would not voice your dissent because others had already done so.

            Like I said, It’s a pose.

          • Brucehenry

            Is this thread supposed to be about me?

            You guys always complain when I try to make it about me, lol.

            I think I remember saying something similar to what you’re bitching about. I don’t think I meant it to be taken as my Philosophy Of Blog Commenting or something, but yeah, whatever you say. I’m just posing, fine.

          • We’re quite certain you follow only Obama’s Pipe…

      • Feel free to set the record strait by clearly indicating here who you believe instigated the attack, and who is culpable for the situation.

        • Brucehenry

          You mean the attack on my integrity? Jim did, and is culpable.

          (That was a joke, Rodney)

  • Hank_M

    Interesting phrase contained in the report.

    Clinton’s failure to provide adequate security “clearly made a DIFFERENCE in the lives of the four murdered Americans and their families.”

    Whoever runs against her in her quest for the presidency should wrap that sentence around her throat.

  • Lawrence Westlake

    Sun rises in east. But that said don’t underestimate the Idiocracy effect. If Hillary gets even ~42% of the white vote she’ll very likely become president. At 43% of the white vote she’d all but be a dead solid lock. When you factor in the unions, college kids, dolts, malcontents, white trash, the Oprah demographic, the Sandra Fluke demographic, those who wish to be dependent upon the government, etc., that’s not that tall of an order. Plus every brain dead denizen of the erstwhile right who stays home and doesn’t vote in Nov. 2016 will be casting de facto ballots in Hillary’s favor, too. It all adds up. The prospects for the country at best are doubtful.

    • 914

      Shut up already.. Sickening