Benghazigate Congressional Report: Obama Inc. Lied About Video, Hillary Knew About Inadequate Security


hillary 2016  button

The response of Obama Inc. and its defenders to the Benghazi attack has generally been some variation of, “Who could have known?”, “We didn’t know” and “How could we have known.”

Their claim that they practiced due diligence only to fall victim to an unexpected set of events never held much water. Benghazi was a danger zone and everyone knew it. The issue wasn’t a movie trailer, but the aftermath of a botched war that left Islamist militias in control of entire cities.

Now the Congressional report on Benghazigate tears apart some of the biggest claims.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:

• Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

• In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

• Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.

This is, as noted, still preliminary but it finds enough deceptions to justify a more in depth investigation.

First the report makes a clear case that Hillary Clinton knew the situation in Benghazi and chose to weaken security while far larges sums of money were being wasted by the State Department elsewhere.

Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department. For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

• The attacks were not the result of a failure by the Intelligence Community (IC) to recognize or communicate the threat. The IC collected considerable information about the threats in the region, and disseminated regular assessments to senior U.S. officials warning of the deteriorating security environment in Benghazi, which included threats to American interests, facilities, and personnel.

And also notes

In addition, the April 2012 cable from Secretary Clinton recommended that the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the U.S. Mission in Libya conduct a “joint reassessment of the number of DS agents requested for Benghazi.” This prompted one frustrated Embassy Tripoli employee to remark to her colleagues that it “looks like no movement on the full complement of [five DS] personnel for Benghazi, but rather a reassessment to bring the numbers lower.”

Furthermore it points to a lack of preparation by the White House and its incompetent centralized national security framework.

The President, as Commander-in-Chief, failed to proactively anticipate the significance of September 11 and provide the Department of Defense with the authority to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense. Defense Department assets were correctly positioned for the general threat across the region, but the assets were not authorized at an alert posture to launch offensive operations beyond self-defense, and were provided no notice to defend diplomatic facilities.

The report addresses the fumbled cover-up and incompetent response in the aftermath of the attacks.

After the Attacks:

• The Administration willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video. U.S. officials on the ground reported – and video evidence confirms – that demonstrations outside the Benghazi Mission did not occur and that the incident began with an armed attack on the facility. Senior Administration officials knowingly minimized the role played by al-Qa’ida-affiliated entities and other associated groups in the attacks, and decided to exclude from the discussion the previous attempts by extremists to attack U.S. persons or facilities in Libya.

• Administration officials crafted and continued to rely on incomplete and misleading talking points. Specifically, after a White House Deputies Meeting on Saturday, September 15, 2012, the Administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely
participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks. The Administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the Department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.

• Evidence rebuts Administration claims that the talking points were modified to protect classified information or to protect an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Email exchanges during the interagency process do not reveal any concern with protecting classified information. Additionally, the Bureau itself approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested. Thus, the claim that the State Department’s edits were made solely to protect that investigation is not credible.

• The Administration’s decision to respond to the Benghazi attacks with an FBI investigation, rather than military or other intelligence resources, contributed to the government’s lack of candor about the nature of the attack.

• Responding to the attacks with an FBI investigation significantly delayed U.S. access to key witnesses and evidence and undermined the government’s ability to bring those responsible for the attacks to justice in a timely manner.

The report includes a timeline of events and of the administration’s narrative and slams Obama’s determination to treat the attacks as criminal attacks, rather than acts of war.

Without significant progress in finding and questioning suspects, it appears that the decision to proceed with an FBI investigation – presumably with the intention of obtaining a criminal indictment in
U.S. courts – was ill-advised. For instance, the United States responded to the attacks against U.S. embassies in Africa in the 1990s and against the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 with criminal investigations. On their own, those investigations failed to bring many of those responsible to justice and likely encouraged further terrorist activity. This approach is not the most effective method of responding to terrorist attacks against U.S. interests in foreign countries.

It was only after the September 11, 2001 attacks, when the United States responded to terrorism with military force, that the government successfully brought some of the perpetrators of those attacks and the previous attacks to justice.  The Department of Defense offered to provide a U.S. military security team to accompany the FBI team. This option was not pursued. Terrorists are not deterred by criminal investigations. Because members of terrorist organizations that attack U.S. interests around the world are conducting more than a crime, they must be responded to accordingly to be thwarted.

  • Anonymous

    So when will Hillary be serving jail time for lying under oath?

    • IsShe?

      Did Hillary lie about Bosnia? If she was under light attacks when landing in Bosnia, and said she was under heavy attacks, that would be a misspeak. But CBS News found nothing.

      So, is Hillary telling the truth about Benghazi?

      • http://twitter.com/Guarinango @Guarinango

        NOoooooooooooooooooooo. She is a big mouth liar.

    • burkasrugly

      People like her don't even think of God or of the hereafter. This is why they don't care about lying through their teeth, even when it involves the death of Americans. They have NO conscience…..if they did, someone would have opened their mouth about this.

  • Soapy Johnson

    And Google masks the search results on her famous "What difference does it make?" quote — http://placeitonluckydan.com/2013/02/difference-g

  • Elizabeth

    She's a lying sociopath.

  • Softly Bob

    Yes, but don't you realize that Nixon's Watergate scandal was far more serious than this? After all Nixon bugged a few people whereas Benghazigate cost lives!
    We're living in the 20teenys not the 1970s and morals have changed. Under the Hilary-Obameinhoff gang, human lives are cheap and it is far more immoral to criticize the Marxist-Democrat regime or to be offensive towards minorities than it is to kill people. Where have you been for the last thirty years?
    Obamhilary will get away with this because it's not a crime under today's standards. The only crimes are scrutinizing Muslims, defending innocent people and being a Christian. The guidelines to being a good citizen is to support homosexual marriage, kill unborn babies, open all borders and never, ever vote Republican. Do none of you realize this, yet?
    America you are losing your way. You should have impeached Obama months ago. You invited Satan in as a house guest and now you're having problems showing him the door!

    • theccur

      Friends of Nixon bugged people. Nixon tried to cover it up.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    We didn't need Congress to tell us that Obama Inc lied and Americans died, but it is good to have it on the record. We shall see if any justice is in the offing – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/04/08/benghazigates
    http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/01/25/benghazigate-

    And that is that.

    Adina kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • Ar'nun

    If she lied under oath, then clearly she can be charged with purgery. But I think it would be best to charge her with obstruction of justice.

    • Larry

      They aren't mutually exclusive, you can get her for perjury, obstruction of justice, at the very least culpable, if not even depraved negligence, criminal conspiracy. There is a whole raft of things she should be charged and prosecuted for, and the GOP in Congress should go after her with all guns blazing.

      It looks like this time the Empty Suit has failed in his cover up.

  • DutchCC

    Let's hope, this report starts a real indictement proceeding and congressional hearing.
    I don't know the specific procedures commonly used in the US, but the Americans better impeach this president sooner than later.
    Too many innocent lives are already sacrificed and ruined because of your governments unwillingness to confront Islamic terrorism and extremism, in and outside the US

  • Alsgal59

    It is amazing to me that the 4-5 k soldiers, not to mention civilians, killed in the name of a war started on lies so that Bush/Cheney gang could line their pockets pales to all of you Obama haters when you talk about the four in Benghazi. Seriously, google all of the presidents on both sides of the aisle and you will find attacks on consulates and military bases with many more than four dead. Do you ever ask yourself WHY all those others were less important than those others? Think about it.

    • NAHALKIDES

      No, YOU think about THIS: there were no "lies" told by Bush/Cheney to drag us into a "war for oil" as the Left claimed. Most Democrats supported both wars, at least at the beginning, then changed their minds. To cover up their flip-flop, the "lies" narrative was born – but there were no lies.

      In Benghazi, there were a whole lot of lies, plus a President who apparently would prefer that the besieged men there die rather than have the wisdom of his Middle East policies called into question.

  • Rover

    How did Bush/ Cheney line their pockets, by using Halliburton ? Who do you think Bill Clinton used in Bosnia in the early 90`s. Bush had 9 attacks on embassies in 8 years, Obama has had 7 in 5 years, Like to bet he ends up with more than Bush. I hope not, but I think the "bad guys" see him as weak.

  • theccur

    The ONLY truth that the Administration has shared about Benghazi is the U.S. Citizens were MURDERED.

  • burkasrugly

    Like I said before…only God can help us. This government is SOOOO rotten to the core. NOTHING is going to help unless people start allowiing God back into our country and start being moral beings once more. See below what our first two presidents said about morality. Think we have kinda run off the rails???

    "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other," John Adams

    "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to a political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim that tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness," George Washington.