The Benghazi report: Conflicts & obstruction
Published: Friday, Sept. 20, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
A supposedly independent State Department report on the fatal Sept. 11, 2012, debacle at the U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, was tainted by conflicts of interest and willful obstruction, according to the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee.
A committee report obtained by The Hill newspaper says Accountability Review Board (ARB) members and those who selected them had “actual and perceived conflicts of interest” with State. It also says the ARB didn't “record or transcribe” interviews and State still refuses to provide summaries of those interviews, despite a subpoena issued in August by committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif.
The Hill says State and Obama administration leaders “wholeheartedly accepted” the ARB report — which did call the Benghazi assault a terrorist attack, not a protest sparked by an anti-Muslim video, and criticized outpost security — even though the ARB's co-chairmen said the panel's mandate compromised its work. And four State officials placed on administrative leave at the ARB's recommendation were reinstated by Secretary John Kerry.
Committee Republicans suspect the ARB protected his predecessor at State, likely 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and other top administration officials. State's continued stonewalling suggests that protection continues — and that the public has yet to learn the full truth about the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- ObamaCare: HIT’s hit
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Detroit’s bankruptcy: An object lesson
- Corrections reinvention
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- ‘China City’
- Another EPA crock: Fire hydrant illogic