The Benghazi report: Damning conclusions
An abysmal lack of security at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, despite warnings about deteriorating conditions, left Americans needlessly exposed to the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks by terrorists, according to a bipartisan Senate committee report that slams the State Department.
“The attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya,” according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Murdered in the rampage were U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Add to that body count 15 people in Benghazi who tried to help the FBI investigate the killings, although it's unclear whether all had cooperated with the United States, according to USA Today.
What's clear, and has been since the Obama administration initially denied that it was a terrorist attack, was the stunning lack of attention to security after assaults on Red Cross and British embassy personnel. Even Mr. Stevens is implicated in this disregard in the Senate report.
“The bottom line is that (Secretary of State) Hillary Clinton wanted the appearance of normalization” in the run-up to the 2012 presidential election, says Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, in response to the Senate report. “Security was not driving these decisions.”
Still smouldering in the rubble are questions about the ineffectual military “response” to the attacks, which continued for several hours after the White House and Pentagon were informed. And the nation is no closer to answers or any measure of accountability.
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.
- Sunday pops
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- The Box
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- U.N. Watch: Turtle Bay economics
- The ‘green’ ruse: Germany’s poor ‘model’
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Saturday essay: Waltz of the robins
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances