Senate security committee releases Benghazi report – review board report reviewed here

The U.S. Senate homeland security committee has released its report on Benghazi. You can read it here –

It differs little from the report released earlier by the State Dept. Accountability Review Board (ARB) report. You can read it here –

Both reports conclude the U.S. State Dept. was at fault for failing to respond to mounting security threats. Both reports also conclude that the intelligence community didn’t provide specific “actionable” intelligence prior to the attacks. In contrast, Libyan interim President Mohammed el-Megarif contends his government passed on information regarding a “credible threat” 48 hours prior to the attacks –

The Senate report findings include these seemingly contradictory claims. First it lists this finding.

Finding 3. The absence of specific intelligence about an imminent attack should not have prevented the Department of State from taking more effective steps to protect its personnel and facilities in Benghazi.

Then within the same finding it states this based upon a 1985 committee report finding included in the Inman Report.

it would be foolhardy to make security decisions on the basis of an expectation of advance warning of peril

Lets see if we can keep up with their logic to this point. Both reports cite numerous accounts of security incidents and threats in the months leading up to the attacks. Both reports cite no specific or actionable intelligence immediately prior to the attacks. Then the Senate report finds that an absence of that specific intelligence shouldn’t have prevented the implementation of more security. Then immediately thereafter the report states “it would be foolhardy to make security decisions on the basis of an expectation of advance warning of peril”.

Got that? Lots of previous security threats none of which are specific which aren’t required to increase security but would be foolhardy to rely upon to increase security. If that’s not a clear example of clear as mud, I don’t know what is. That’s your taxpayer dollars at work for you folks.

The Senate report goes on in finding 4 to cite the responsibility of the host nation to protect “consular” (key word) facilities and quotes the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Yet, both reports highlight that this was no diplomatic facility. It was a U.S. special mission, or mission, and an annex used by another government agency (read CIA). Why should the host country be required to protect a non-diplomatic facility? Of course when you’re conducting a covert, multi-agency operation in overseas facilities, you shouldn’t expect highly visible host country security, should you? No, that’s why you employ contract security such as the “February 17 Brigade, a Libyan militia deputized by the Libyan government but not under its direct control” as the report stated previously.

The report goes on to detail the reasons why the February 17 Brigade was utilized and the concerns surrounding their abilities throughout 2012. This is where reports such as this are less than useless. The attempt is made to show a pattern of security concerns and the lack of action taken in response to said concerns to mitigate the blame for the administration taking action once the attacks commenced. The reports can’t address the nature of these non-diplomatic missions because it’s classified. Security wasn’t increased because it would draw attention where none was wanted. So blaming the State Dept. or the host country is like blaming the dog for eating your homework after you used it to wrap your leftover steak.

The rest of the report is merely protocol reviews and recommendations for reviewing security at other locations globally. Again, a waste of time and your taxpayer dollars because none of that applies to covert ops as this was.

It does address the botched media narrative of not labeling a terrorist attack as such in finding 9 claiming the administration was “inconsistent”. Really? There was nothing inconsistent whatsoever. The administration was nothing but consistent in distributing its talking points to ensure this event was not labeled a terrorist action. It was only after the video cover-up story imploded and third-party accounts finally pressured administration officials to abandon the non-terrorist labeling.

Here is part of the conclusion.

Conclusion The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans at the hands of terrorists is a tragic reminder that the fight our country is engaged in with Islamist extremists and terrorists is not over. U.S. and Western diplomats, and other personnel operating in the Middle East and other countries where these terrorists use violence to further their extremist agenda and thwart democratic reforms are increasingly at risk.

How many ways can I say “bullshit”? When you engage in arms trafficking to Al-Qaeda as well as regime destabilization as in Syria, you’re playing a dangerous game. The tragedy of the deaths of 4 Americans needlessly is blood on the hands of this administration pure and simple.

5 thoughts on “Senate security committee releases Benghazi report – review board report reviewed here”

  1. What they were saying is that it’s foolhardy to base security decisions on the expectation of getting sufficient advanced warnings of an imminent attack from the intelligence community to prepare for it for that’s like closing the barn doors after the horses already got out. So they’re saying they should have had much more security on site based on all those earlier examples of a deteriorating security situation rather than expect a call to 911 could bring in sufficient help should a totally unexpected attack begin. It’s highlighting shortcomings of the intelligence community.

    It’s actually a pretty good darn argument against the gun control freaks trying to take our weapons away! 😀 We can’t wait for the cops to show up, for they’re usually busy shaking down citizens in traffic stops and trying to find anything they can apply forfeiture laws against to steal it. On site security in your own hands rocks!

    What caught my eye was the “lack of sufficient funding” on page 17 for buying stuff like mantraps. References to scarcity of resources were also in the State Dept ARB report as well, for it’s in the official US government report writing template that all agencies use claiming they just don’t have enough of your money to do all the things they task themselves to do. You see, our representatives (don’t ever call them leaders, they’re our employees) and other government unelected bureaucratic ‘servants’ basically make up their own job descriptions, set their own travel plans, and they’re always embellished to require more funds. The departments fight amongst each other for your money so they can go on junkets to hobnob with their counterparts and discuss crap (like the barmaid’s boobs) over a beer rather than sending them an e-mail. That’s where our taxpayers dollars go. Back to the lack of security funds in this report, Marines and Soldiers deploy all over the world in austere environments, and their answer for such security measures for their temporary compounds to slow down attackers is very cheap concertina wire. Why isn’t that sufficient for the DS?

    Oh, they also gave a cute little backhanded slap to the administration for continuing to classify the Ft Hood massacre as workplace violence instead of violent Islamist extremism. Priceless.

  2. I know the Senate committee is comprised of 15 members. I believe the House committee has 32. How many brought it up in committee only to have the chair reject it? Who knows. What if it were brought to the floor of either chamber, would anyone get that question asked? Certainly not with Reid or Boehner in charge. They certainly do protect their own, don’t they?

  3. Shortcomings of the IC? I discard their conclusion to highlight shortcomings out of hand when you consider their intent was to review security at a true diplomatic facility, not a covert op. For proof of the distinction between the two, witness the Mali Embassy. We just closed it a few days ago based upon “security concerns”. No specific threats. No actionable intelligence. Just being prudent due to a deteriorating situation. Like Libya. Only different.

    You’re definitely on to the main focus of the reports which is funding. All the “lack of” speak means only one thing for American taxpayers. Pony up!

Comments are closed.