Senate Intel Committee: BENGHAZI WAS PREVENTABLE - ADMIN FAILED TO RESPOND

View attachment 2230

January 15, 2014
The Senate Intelligence Committee has released a comprehensive report on the Benghazi attack finding the tragedy was “preventable” and the administration failed to respond to “ample” warnings that security was deteriorating before Sept. 11, 2012.

The report faulted the State and Defense departments. It also cited the failure of the Obama administration to "bring the attackers to justice."

Specifically, the report said the intelligence community provided “ample strategic warning” that security in eastern Libya was deteriorating and U.S. personnel “were at risk.” The report said multiple “tripwires” were crossed signaling security problems, and the State Department should have increased its security posture in response.

The report also detailed a possible failed ambush, where attackers tried to lure the CIA into the hospital where Ambassador Chris Stevens' body was being held.

The CIA did not take the bait.

"The committee worked on a bipartisan basis to investigate the various allegations that have come out since the terrorist attacks in Benghazi in September 2012 and to get to the truth about what happened leading up to, during and after the attacks,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement, adding she hopes the report puts “conspiracy theories” to rest.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., top Republican on the panel, also said the report provides “needed and deserved answers.”

“In spite of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and ample strategic warnings, the United States Government simply did not do enough to prevent these attacks and ensure the safety of those serving in Benghazi,” he said.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ittee-releases-comprehensive-benghazi-report/

 

So, the Senate Intel Committee has concluded that the tragedy was "preventable". OK, so who was responsible for preventing it? Well, let's see.... as you might recall, Hillary Clinton was in charge of the State Department at the time. The report also concluded that the Obama administration "failed to respond to ample warnings". The report faulted the State Department and the Defense Department. Again, who was in charge of State at the time? The intel community provided "ample strategic warning" that our personnel were at risk, but State (again, Hillary Clinton) should have increased security. Did she? You tell me: Our ambassador and his personnel are dead.

Additionally, the report has faulted the Obama administration for "failing to bring the attackers to justice".

As the Senate Intel Committee has concluded, those in the administration responsible for preventing Benghazi failed miserably.

Beyond the Senate Intel Committee's report, Obama knew that the perpetrators were terrorists, not demonstrators riled up because of some stupid video. Yet, he continued that narrative until it was revealed that he was lying about it.

 

The truth is now out, Hillary:

View attachment 2231

 

I encourage anyone interested in how the administration could have prevented the loss of lives to read the Intel Report:

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/do...ence-committee-report-on-benghazi-attack/748/

 

I encourage everyone to ignore FOX's take and actually read the report...

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf

 

The Intel Report concluded [emphasis mine]:


It is also imperative that those in decision- making positions in Washington, D.C. heed the concerns and wisdom of those on the front lines and make resource and security decisions with those concerns in mind.

The United States government did not meet this standard of care in Benghazi, but we believe this report's findings and recommendations will help avoid similar tragedies.

 

If you've actually read the report, please tell us where it differs from "Fox's take". I'm waiting...

 

View attachment 2232

 

Let me get this straight...You're waiting?

 

If you don't like reading it on Fox, here's the same story on Huffington Post:

View attachment 2233

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/15/senate-benghazi-report_n_4602540.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

 

Taking the necessary steps to prevent any incident whatsoever are always clearer in hindsight. The report is NOT saying that the Administration could have rushed in and saved these people had they just acted in time. They are saying that important and crucial security steps were not in place given the intelligence that said hostiles were ramping up their activity in the area and that that intelligence did not move up the chain of command in a timely manner. The Right-wingers would have us believe that Obama didn't act during the attack and these people died as a result. That is NOT what the report says. We can't prevent every attack on our foreign diplomats and any review of recent history will tell you exactly that. Sometimes, they get through. Using this tragedy to further your political agenda is the only real crime here and the GOP should be ashamed of itself for doing it.

Do you think that cutting the State Departments budget had anything to do with less security in Benghazi? Do you think the fact that the Republicans just cut the State Department's budget again will lead to more dead diplomats?

That is my take and all I will say on the matter.

 

Since you don't want to talk about the real issues and since you don't have anything relevant to say, then I'll gladly accept your silence.

 

No, but that's exactly what the victims were saying as they were being slaughtered & it's what the survivors have been saying ever since!

 

I told you what I think. I read the report. Silence isn't the issue. Silence is what I got from you and your ilk on the nonexistent IRS "scandal". That's how you guys work. Lie, lie, lie until the truth of the matter is exposed and then keep lying about it anyway.

 

Here is a story from 1 year prior to the Benghazi tragedy. What do you think?

State Dept. reeling from budget cuts

By Walter Pincus, Published: October 1, 2011
The State Department is still reeling from deep cuts made by Senate and House appropriations panels to the Obama administration’s budget requests for next year, with some officials warning of national security risks. Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state in its Bureau of Political Military Affairs, told a meeting last week of the Center for New American Security that the hefty cuts will compromise national security. He noted that the 2012 funding bill for State Department and foreign operations was cut 8 percent by the full Senate Appropriations Committee and a whopping 18 percent by the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee.

 

Deflecting the issues again? It did not say it had anything to do with the budget cuts passed by the Senate and signed by Obama. No one said in that report they come to the rescue during the attack. What they said was there was ample notice for them to have prepared to come to any rescue of such an attack.

Oh, and they said that the State Department has and still is not cooperating with the investigation.

 

View attachment 2235

 

I won't respond to your blatant use of dead Americans for political purposes by re-posting your pictorial meme but I will say that the Senate report also faulted Stevens himself for ignoring the warnings. You really should read it sometime and then try to come up with an intelligent posting. Hey, I won't be waiting for it but it's unlikely to show up anyway.

 

Report highlights

Highlights of Senate's Benghazi Report

January 15, 2014 (AP)
By The Associated Press


Some main points of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the terrorist assault on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya:

— Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was among those killed that night, had twice in the weeks before the attacks declined the U.S. military's offer of a team of special operations forces that had been available to bolster security and provide other help. The State Department had decided not to request an extension of the team's presence, about a month before the attacks, because officials thought the job could be done by local or department security.

— The report recommends that only in rare cases should a diplomatic facility continue to operate if it falls short of the State Department's security standards — and in such cases the facility should have the personnel, weapons and fire safety equipment needed to address the threat. The State Department should be ready to evacuate or close diplomatic missions facing the highest threat, the report says.
— The report recommends that the intelligence community expand its work to analyze social media used by extremists, noting that little of that was done before the attacks and it's possible there were hints in web postings of trouble ahead.

— Operations in Benghazi continued with little change even though the mission crossed some "tripwires" that should have led to reduction in personnel or the suspension of operations. Some nations closed their diplomatic facilities because of worsening security conditions in the summer of 2012. But others stayed, contrary to reports the U.S. was the last country represented there.

— An unarmed U.S. military drone was not delayed when responding to the attack, and it provided important information during the attacks.

— Based on limited intelligence, analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the mission before the attack, and they didn't corroborate the information. The intelligence community took too long to correct the erroneous reports, causing confusion and leading government officials to make incorrect public statements.

— The U.S. government must not rely on local security in areas where its facilities are under high threat or where the host nation is not capable of providing adequate security. The report said the committee supports the State Department's initiative to work with the Pentagon to expand the Marine Security Guard Program to increase protection at high-risk facilities beyond just the protection of classified information.

 

Riiiiiiight. Fault the dead guy. Not the people responsible for providing security to him. Is that the "logic" you're trying to espouse?