House Republicans Spent Millions Of Dollars On Benghazi Committee To Exonerate Clinton

[Crabtownboy]

After spending more than two years and $7 million, the House Select Committee on Benghazi released a report Tuesday that found — like eightinvestigations before it — no evidence of wrongdoing by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton or other members of the Obama administration.

The House voted to create the committee after Republicans were frustrated that even their own GOP-led committees failed to find wrongdoing in the events surrounding the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

But the new report also fails to find evidence of wrongdoing, revealing as all previous reports did that the administration’s response to the terror attacks was flawed, but not malicious or derelict.

The select committee report largely repeats the findings of other reports, with a handful of new details and a lot of fresh condemnation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/benghazi-report-clinton_us_57727ed2e4b017b379f74880

 

[Smyth]

There's really no difference between the Republican and Democrat party leadership. There's also really no difference, politically, between Fox News and MSNBC.

Benghazi and Hillary's emails scandals are really scams on Republican voters. Both of these have been blown wildly out of proportion by people who don't want you to notice that they don't much differ from Hillary on political issues.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

That's ok. I know Democrats never squandered our hard-earned dollars Solyndra.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[Alcott]

That's ok. According.g to another thread today it is "none of the taxpayers' business" what the government does with ITS (not our) money.

 

[BobRyan]

"1. The State Department failed to protect U.S. diplomats in Libya.

This is the report's bottom line. It doesn't necessarily lay the blame at Clinton's feet — Gowdy had said he wanted to keep the report focused on the facts, not personalities — but the conclusion is clear: Clinton and the Obama administration should have realized the risks.

To back up this conclusion, CNN's Collinson reports that requests for more security in Benghazi leading up to the attacks went unheard or were refused."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...accusations-from-republicans-benghazi-report/

 

[BobRyan]

"
4. The administration failed to respond in time, in part because of political concerns.

Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered U.S. forces to be deployed to rescue our personnel in Benghazi. Though they were mobilized to a staging area in Italy and were ready to take action, not a single asset he ordered deployed ever left the ground. The damning reasons for this failure include political concerns about how the Libyan government wanted our military personnel dressed.

During a two-hour "deputies meeting" which Clinton attended that took place while the 13-hour attack was underway, the State Department ate up valuable time "by insisting that certain elements of the U.S. military respond to Libya in civilian clothes and that it not use vehicles with United States markings. Both restrictions appear to have been concessions to the Libyan government that did not want an identifiable U.S. military presence on the streets of Libya."

Larry O'Connor notes that another "even more troubling" revelation is that "nearly half of the action items that came out of this critical meeting involved the YouTube video, Innocence of Muslims, which the Obama Administration falsely claimed to be the impetuous for the deadly terror attack."

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6996/10-devastating-facts-benghazi-report-james-barrett

 

[BobRyan]

5. Clinton et al overrode the order to send a rescue team because they mistakenly thought the attack was over.


The report, as NBC News highlights, also cites several witnesses who explained that the administration failed to act in time in part because they incorrectly thought the attack was over and that it would thus be more prudent to send reinforcements to Tripoli.

"Their understanding was that the assets needed to be sent to Tripoli to augment security at the Embassy, and that the State Department was working to move the State Department personnel from Benghazi to Tripoli," reads the report.

6. The administration's claim that the attack was a result of the YouTube video was a complete fiction.

The most damning of all the sections of the report is on the administration's attempt to spin the attack for political purposes. The committee underscores that the administration's initial public talking points alleging that the attack was the spontaneous result of a protest over a YouTube video that insulted Mohammad rather than a coordinated attack was invented by officials as a means of providing the administration political cover a few weeks away from an election. All of the reports from the ground clearly proved that this was a planned attack.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is all old news. There was no need to spend 7 million more just to say the same thing. It was pure politics and a complete waste of money.

 

[BobRyan]

This is all old news. There was no need to spend 7 million more just to say the same thing. It was pure politics and a complete waste of money.

err...umm... because the lives of Americans don't really matter if you are defending Clinton??

And once we have heard of the evil that was done - there is no sense in actually investigating it and confirming it??

 

[BobRyan]

"I was stunned," said Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya. "My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed."

Hicks was referring to statements by his own State Department and the White House, which insisted for days afterward that the attack emerged from a spontaneous mob angry over an anti-Islam video.

Hicks was the first person who was in Libya during the attack to testify publicly before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the Obama's administration's handling of security in Libya and response to the attack.

Hicks said he felt he was subject to retaliation for criticizing U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice's appearances on talk shows five days later in which she insisted the attack emerged from a protest against an anti-Islam video gone awry. Several days later, the State Department acknowledged there was no protest and it was a terrorist attack.

Undersecretary of State Elizabeth Jones "told me I had to improve my management style and that some people were upset," Hicks testified.

When Hicks returned to Washington for the funeral of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who died with three other Americans in the attack, Jones "gave me a blistering critique of my management style," he said."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/05/08/benghazi-hearing-whistleblowers/2143813/

 

[BobRyan]

The deputy of slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens has told congressional investigators that a team of Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi during the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks was forbidden from doing so by U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.

The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/diplomat-us-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

 

[BobRyan]

Since the release of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee’s report on the Benghazi attacks this November, many uninformed people in the political and media world insisted the report “debunks” claims that the government did not sufficiently defend its embassy on September 11, 2012.
The report, however, is full of inaccuracies-but the authors of the report printed them anyway, despite testimony and other information that proved those statements wrong.

Global Response Staff, security contractors on the ground working for the CIA in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to September 12, 2012, provided testimony to the House Intelligence Committee. The team of CIA security contractors consisted of Kris “Tanto” Paronto, John “Tig” Tiegen, Mark “Oz” Geist, Ty “Rone” Woods (now deceased), Jack Silva, and DB Benton-all sources of the book 13 Hours, which is a first-hand account of what happened at both Benghazi locations during the attacks on September 11, 2012.

We provided the same unchanging and accurate information of what took place in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 through September 12, 2012 to our immediate chain of command in the CIA’s office of security, during several FBI interviews, and to Congressman Mike Rogers and his committee. The purpose of this article that we are writing as former CIA Global Response Staff security contractors, who fought and bled together that night in Benghazi, Libya, is to point out the major inaccuracies in the Committee’s faux “investigative” report.

It comes as a very big disappointment to us as those on the front lines that this report is full of inaccuracies and bias. We can only assume that this is the case because Rep. Rogers and others are attempting to protect their reputations, and protect, or further the careers, of others. But that should be left for another time.

We, as the men who protected other Americans on the ground in Benghazi, as best we could, are here to point out specifically what this HIPSC report and Mike Rogers got wrong. What follows is a detailed breakdown of some of the inaccuracies in Rogers’ report.

FALSE FINDING #1:

Page 8, paragraph 2 of the US House of Representative Intelligence Report states:

Security Officers from the CIA’s Benghazi Annex recalled hearing explosions from an unknown location around 9:40 p.m.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

This is incorrect. As we and others stated during our testimony before the House of Representatives’ Committee, we were first contacted at 9:32 p.m. and the explosions and gunfire were known to be at what was known to us as the U.S. consulate, which per security requirements after the attack, was changed to the U.S. Special Mission and was then called the “Temporary Mission Facility” by U.S. Department of State, and later in this report. Note that the location of all gunfire and explosions were known to those of us at the U.S. Annex. At no time did we state to the committee that we did not know the location of the gunfire or explosions. We had visited what we knew to be the U.S. Consulate on a weekly basis.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...acies-with-firsthand-account-from-the-ground/

 

[BobRyan]

FALSE FINDING #2: Page 8, paragraph 1 of the U.S. House of Representative Intelligence Report states:

Due to the thick smoke, the DS agent lost contact with Ambassador Stevens and Mr. Smith along the escape route. After crawling out the window and realizing the Ambassador and Mr. Smith were not with him, the DS Agent. under gunfire, repeatedly re-entered the burning building to search for them, but was unsuccessful.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

This is extremely unlikely. Ansar Al Sharia and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) terrorists had taken complete control of the U.S. compound in Benghazi, and had one of the villas there completely surrounded and were within only feet of each window and door opening. If the Diplomatic Security (DS) agent repeatedly went in and out of the window under gunfire, how was he not hit? The terrorists would have been no more than 10 feet from him shooting into an area that was 4 feet wide by 8 feet long with no cover. The DS agent may have been able to complete this move once, but doing so repeatedly would have been impossible without injury or death. Also, Rep. Rogers’ report makes no reference that the DS agents individually testified to Rep. Mike Rogers and the committee. We, CIA Contractors on the ground, have remained close friends with one of the DS agents, and he stated to us that he was never asked to testify before Rep. Mike Rogers’s House Intelligence Committee. How can the report be deemed a complete investigation when the members don’t speak to all who were on the ground and in combat?

Former Deputy CIA Director Mike Morrell, Rep. Mike Rogers, and James Clapper were not in Libya during the attack, nor were any member of House Intelligence Committee. CIA Chief of Station and CIA Chief of Base “Bob” did not assist us (the GRS Security Team- the CIA Contractors) at the Temporary Mission Facility. The CIA Team Leader also waited at the vehicles 400 meters from the Temporary Mission Facility allowing all 6 GRS CIA Security Contractors to clear and secure it before driving our SUV onto the Temporary Mission Facility.

This statement in the report is taken from those who did not physically see or experience what took place during the initial attack and subsequent GRS response early on at the Temporary Mission Facility.

FALSE FINDING #3: Page 9, Paragraph 4/Page 10, Paragraph 1 states:

Within approximately one hour, at about 12:30 AM, the attackers began one of several attempts to assault the Annex. Some of this attack was captured on video. CIA personnel recounted that the attacks included RPG’s, satchel charges, gelatin explosives, and small arms fire, with around five to ten people amassing in the adjacent field. These security personnel were able to repel the attackers. Around 2:00 to 2:30 AM, there was a second attempt on the compound that lasted 5 to 10 minutes that was also repelled.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

This portion of the report significantly downplays the ferocity of the multiple attacks on the Annex. The second attack involved closer to 20 or more terrorists and was much longer and more aggressive than the first. We have stated this on many occasions to all that have interviewed us, including Rep. Mike Rogers and his committee. It should also be noted emphatically that the GRS security contractors– Kris “Tanto” Paronto, John “Tig” Tiegen, Mark “Oz” Geist, Jack Silva, and DB Benton–were the only CIA personnel who saw the attackers from start to finish, and we were the only CIA personnel who were involved in both firefights.

Both the Benghazi Chief of Base and CIA GRS Team Leader hid in Building C during both attacks and the following mortar attack. Neither the Chief of Base “Bob” or the GRS Team Leader came up to the Annex Roofs or fighting positions to see what was going on outside the Annex walls. Any testimony outside that coming from the GRS Security Contractors holds limited value since no one except the GRS Security Contractors saw or was involved with both attacks in their entirety.

http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...acies-with-firsthand-account-from-the-ground/

 

[BobRyan]

FALSE FINDING #4: Page 11, Paragraph 4 reads:

Meanwhile, the other Tripoli Teams officers spread out to assess the situation, locate all personnel and fill any security gaps.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

This is entirely incorrect. Once the Tripoli element–GRS and Delta Force– arrived, all of them entered and stayed in Building C until approximately 5 minutes after the end of the mortar attacks that killed Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. Those attacks also severely injured Mark “Oz” Geist and Dave Ubben. The only member of the Tripoli element that joined the Benghazi GRS security team upon arrival was Doherty. He climbed to the roof of Building C. Rep. Mike Rogers and his committee were told this in testimony from us. Further, Paronto stated he called on the radio to the Tripoli element asking for relief in order to use the bathroom immediately after they arrived. The request was never answered by any CIA personnel in Building C or by the Tripoli element.

FALSE FINDING #5: Page 12, Paragraph 1 reads:

Following the mortar fire, the remaining members of the security team rescued and began treating the wounded officers while repelling attackers who continued to fire on the Annex for a short time.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

This is also incorrect. Once the final mortar fell, the Libyan Militia, who brought the Tripoli team from Benina Airfield, went in the direction of the mortar fire as ordered by their commander, who was trapped in Building C. Tiegen was the only one who went to Building C immediately to assist the wounded. Paronto, Jack Silva, and DB Benton were the only GRS security contractors who remained outside to defend the Annex. Tiegen was never under fire when he went up the ladder, or the whole time he was on the roof treating the four down Americans. It took the Tripoli Team and Delta Force several minutes before coming out of Building C to assist Tiegen in helping the severely wounded and to reinforce the defensive positions of Paronto, Silva and Benton.

FALSE FINDING #6: Page 16, Paragraph 2 states:

At the Annex, only one DS agent participated in the defense of the Annex, but he was in a defensive position on the roof of the Annex building #3 when it was hit with the mortar rounds and was severely injured. The other DS agents remained in a secure area with the CIA case officers and support staff.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

Again, this is incorrect. We did not state to Rep. Rogers and his committee that three DS agents were located at defensive positions with one on Building B, one on Building C, and one on Building D. We all were in defensive positions; we’re not sure why the Rogers report focused on how this DS agent was the only one in a defensive position.


http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...acies-with-firsthand-account-from-the-ground/

 

[BobRyan]

FALSE FINDING #7: Page 19, Paragraph 3 reads:

Specifically, upon receiving the first call of an attack from an assistant Regional Security Officer at 9:42 p.m., the Annex security team leader gathered the five other available security officers that were at the Annex, and he told them what he knew.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

Wrong. The first call to the GRS team in Benghazi to muster due to the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility was at 9:32 p.m. This was stated to Mike Rogers and his committee.

FALSE FINDING #8: Page 20, Paragraph 1 reads:

The CIA security team chief (GRS Staff Team Leader) in Benghazi, in consultation with the Chief of Base, made the decision to organize the rescue mission and to commence the operation.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND:

This is incorrect. The chief of base “Bob” and GRS Staff Team Leader never commenced the rescue operation to save the State Department personnel. Further, the GRS contract security team disobeyed orders to “wait” and “stand down,” taking it upon themselves to depart the Annex and come to the aid of the DS agents.

It’s also important to note that Paronto was antagonized by a committee staff member while Rep. Rogers and his fellow congressmen were in session. The young committee staff member asked Paronto about his military background and went on to continually ask for several minutes if it was normal for Rangers to disobey direct orders, since it was not proper to disobey orders when he, the staff member, served in the Navy. If the Chief of Base “Bob” and GRS Staff Team Leader commenced the rescue operation immediately, the exchange between Paronto and that committee staff member would never have occurred.

FALSE FINDING #9: Page 20, Paragraph 2 reads:

Although some security officers voiced a greater urgency to depart for the TMF, no officer at the CIA was ever told to stand down. The evidence from eyewitness testimony, ISR video footage, closed-circuit television recordings and other sources provides no support for the allegation that there was any stand-down order.

FROM THE CIA CONTRACTORS on the GROUND: This statement is grossly incorrect. Paronto stated to the committee, looking Rep. Rogers directly in the eye, that he was delayed and was told to wait twice. Paronto also stated that the “27” minute delay and his team waiting was a severe military tactical mistake made by leadership figures who had little to no military training or experience in combat operations, and the delay cost the lives of Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith due to them dying from smoke inhalation–something that takes time.

It should also be noted that the exact words “STAND DOWN” were used by the Chief of Base “Bob” to Tiegen approximately 15 minutes after the initial “help” call from the DS agents on the radio at the facility under attack.

Tiegen did not testify with his fellow teammates, Kris “Tanto” Paronto, Mark “Oz” Geist or Jack Silva. Tiegen testified alongside the CIA GRS staff team leader. This was a tactical maneuver by the Committee and the CIA since Tiegen was still employed by the CIA and scheduled to deploy shortly thereafter. This put immense pressure on Tiegen to testify in line with the CIA and Mike Rogers “cover up” agenda. It should be noted as well that Tiegen was not asked by Mike Rogers or the committee if he was told to “stand down” during his testimony. That question was directed, by the committee, to the GRS staff team leader only.

The video footage from the Annex show the GRS security contractors getting in and out of their vehicles and approaching the CIA Chief of Base “Bob” and GRS Staff Team Leader several times within the 27 minutes delay. This was due to the GRS security contractors continually requesting to “Bob” and Team Leader to leave the Annex to save the lives of the DS agents who were under attack and burning.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...acies-with-firsthand-account-from-the-ground/

 

[Crabtownboy]

err...umm... because the lives of Americans don't really matter if you are defending Clinton??

And once we have heard of the evil that was done - there is no sense in actually investigating it and confirming it??

My criticism was spending an additional 7 million on nothing. They certainly knew they were not going to turn up anything new. This was pure political posturing and a waste of tax-payers money.

 

[BobRyan]

My criticism was spending an additional 7 million on nothing.

My last 4 or 5 posts show all the "missing" and "False" information they came out with in their " release of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee’s report " Dec 2014 -- falsehood due to political wrangling efforts to hide the truth.

Hence they HAD to redo that research if they wanted something like "credibility"

 

[Crabtownboy]

Why did the GOP make no noise and demand investigations about the 13 attacks on US embassies and the death of 60 people during Bush's 8 years in office?

 

[BobRyan]

Why did the GOP make no noise and demand investigations about the 13 attacks on US embassies and the death of 60 people during Bush's 8 years in office?

Maybe it is because they were not getting 200+ complaints from those same embassies that that they were woefully under protected and then just "ignoring them" - and then when they did get attacked - try to spin all of it for "political gain" claiming that the loss of American lives was far less important of an event and did not deserve to be looked at.

Maybe it is because they were not telling U.S forces to "Stand down" during a 13 hour siege of the embassy.

(all the obvious points that do not occur to democrat politicians )

 

[Crabtownboy]

Maybe it is because they were not getting 200+ complaints from those same embassies that that they were woefully under protected and then just "ignoring them" - and then when they did get attacked - try to spin all of it for "political gain" claiming that the loss of American lives was far less important of an event and did not deserve to be looked at.

Maybe it is because they were not telling U.S forces to "Stand down" during a 13 hour siege of the embassy.

(all the obvious points that do not occur to democrat politicians )

Maybe is was simply pure politics. Years of hearing. Years of collecting data. Millions upon millions spent. The result, no condemning evidence. So now it is shouting, covering self for such a waste. And, have they given any recommendations on how this can avoided in the future? Are their eyes only looking into the past?