RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Clark writes: "A probe by a Congressional committee into the September 11, 2012 attack on a US compound in Benghazi debunked allegations that President Barack Obama's administration fell down on the job."

A burnt house and a car are seen inside the US Embassy compound on September 12, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. (photo: AFP)
A burnt house and a car are seen inside the US Embassy compound on September 12, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. (photo: AFP)

US Congress Report Debunks Benghazi Attack Claims

By Dave Clark, Agence France-Presse

23 November 14


probe by a Congressional committee into the September 11, 2012 attack on a US compound in Benghazi debunked allegations that President Barack Obama's administration fell down on the job.

Since the assault on the US mission in the Libyan city, which left the ambassador and three colleagues dead, the White House, CIA and State Department have been accused of mishandling their response.

But the report released Friday by the House intelligence committee, which is led by some of Obama's fiercest Republican opponents, cleared the administration of all the most serious charges.

One claim investigated was that the Central Intelligence Agency had not provided adequate security for its own agents at an annex near the diplomatic mission, and Washington had failed to send support.

But the report, based on "thousands of hours of detailed investigation" and interviews with both senior officials and agents who had been on the ground found that this had not been the case.

"CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA activities in Benghazi and, without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks," it said.

"Appropriate US personnel made reasonable tactical decision that night, and the committee found no evidence that there was a stand-down order or a denial of available air support.

"The CIA received all military support that was available," it added.

The report did conclude, however, that the State Department diplomatic compound where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed had inadequate security and had needed CIA assistance.

The committee also found that there was "no intelligence failure prior to the attacks" as the US mission was aware of the worsening security situation in Benghazi but not of a specific planned attack.

The 2012 attack, which came on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 Al-Qaeda attacks on New York and Washington, was carried out by Libyan militias and extremists, some with Qaeda ties.

But after it was carried out, then US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice blamed the attack on a spontaneous local protest provoked by a privately-made propaganda film that attacked Islam.

- False reports -

During a highly charged presidential campaign, Obama's critics accused the administration of denying the Al-Qaeda role in the attack in order to protect the president's counterterrorism record.

But the report concluded that Rice had based her remarks -- which did indeed prove false -- on an intelligence assessment that was believed correct at the time.

The report also tried to put to rest a persistent rumor that began after the attacks that the CIA had been using the Benghazi base to covertly smuggle Libyan weapons to Syrian rebels.

"The eyewitness testimony and thousands of pages of CIA cables and emails that the committee reviewed provide no support for this allegation," it said.

In fact, the report said, the CIA agents at the facility were tracking on local groups smuggling weapons, not collecting them themselves.

The report also said that, while some government agencies were slow to respond to its queries, all eventually cooperated with the inquiry and no CIA personnel were intimidated by the administration. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+3 # flippincuteM 2014-11-23 10:55
Wonder if good ol Rep Issa will be as vocal now? Ha...rhetorical question. This probably will not be covered by Yawnity, O'Really or Van Cistern either. But will it make it on Upchuck Todd 's Meet The Reds?
+1 # Radscal 2014-11-23 13:08
Please pardon me for repeating myself from yesterday's article on this report.

This Republican mud-slinging has successfully drawn attention away from the basic reality of U.S. foreign policy in Libya and Syria, which had been two of the most prosperous and secular countries in the region, before U.S. meddling turned them both into bloody hellholes.

Those of us who oppose U.S. military "adventures" that profit transnational resource-extrac tion corporations and military contractors, but leave in their wake hundreds of thousands of dead, millions of dispossessed and untold numbers of traumatized need to look beyond the partisan Kabuki Theater of BENGHAZI-GATE!

Remember that Rumsfeld issued a memo early in 2002, calling for "regime change" in 7 countries, starting with Iraq, and including Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon and climaxing with Iran.

During the Bush II Administration, Iraq fell and Lebanon was politically neutered. Under the Obama Administration, Somalia, Sudan and Libya have been brought down though Syria has resisted. And as bad as the sequel was, we're looking down the barrel of Iraq War III right now. All that remains unbloodied is Iran.

So, please put aside the partisan theatrics and pick a side. Are you in favor of U.S. "interventions" that kill millions and traumatize millions more for the profits of transnational corporations or are you for human rights?
0 # tomwalker8 2014-11-24 10:02
There is nothing partisan about believing, sincerely, that GW Bush, Cheny and Rumsfield ought to be tried as war criminals. If Obama were guilty of the same abhorrent transgressions, my position would be identical. In point of fact, I have lost potential friends and a girlfriend, in part, over my strenuous opposition to the administration' s use of drones. Partisanship ought not to infect our support or opposition to the deployment of military resources.
0 # Radscal 2014-11-24 11:41
I agree that the Bush Administration certainly committed war crimes. One of the first signs that the Obama Administration was corrupt was when he and House Speaker Pelosi stated that they would not permit investigations, let alone prosecutions of those war criminals.

The list of Obama Administration war crimes is long indeed, including his drone and JSOC "kill list" including of U.S. citizens, but since this article is about Libya and Syria, then what's relevant is their arming and funding "rebels" in both countries.

The fact that they negotiated with the "rebels" to market oil months before the "regime change" is also against international law

Again, Libya and Syria were two of the most prosperous and secular countries in the region until the Obama Administration moved to check them off of Rumsfeld's "regime change" list. Now, hundreds of thousands have been killed, many of the survivors live in terror; even the U.S. State Department has fled both countries.
0 # lewagner 2014-11-23 21:55
Good old Republican Commission gives a light hand-slap to the Democrats. Good old Democratic Administration gives a light hand-slap to the Republicans. (Even on 9/11, torture, and Iraq.)
Really, what we have in America is two parties, one bad, and one good -- and here we have the Republicans even ADMITTING that the Democrats did pretty good in Benghazi.
Which PROVES that "conspiracy theorists" who say they're all good-ole-boys in cahoots together backing the MIC and Wall Street, are idiots. :)
0 # Radscal 2014-11-23 22:44

Yeah, those "good" Democrats don't get ANY "campaign contributions" (what the civilized world calls bribes) from MIC and Wall Street.

But more importantly to the victims and the survivors, both parties are quite adept at slaughtering or overseeing the slaughtering of foreigners (especially those of a slightly higher melanin rate).

eg. The UN found that President Clinton's weekly bombing and "sanctions" against Iraq killed 500,000 children. When asked about those 1/2 million dead children, his Secretary of State, Mad Albright said it was "worth it."

Yeah. "Good" Democrats indeed.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.