Commander denies Benghazi stand-down
WASHINGTON — The former commander of a four-member Army special forces unit in Tripoli, Libya, denied on Wednesday that he was told to stand down during last year's deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the Libyan capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.
“Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to ‘stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi,” the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.
Four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were killed in two separate attacks several hours apart on the night of Sept. 11.
Republicans insist that the Obama administration is guilty of a cover-up of the events despite a scathing independent report that faulted the State Department for inadequate security at the diplomatic mission. They have accused the administration of misleading the American people about the cause of the terrorist incident during the heat of a presidential campaign, blaming a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.
In nearly nine months since the attack, GOP lawmakers have repeatedly asked why the military couldn't get aircraft or forces to Benghazi in time to thwart the second attack after the first incident that killed Stevens.
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.
- Illegal immigrants stay in shift of policies
- Police find no evidence of shooting reported at Washington Navy Yard
- $18.7B record-breaking deal clears path for BP to put Gulf Coast oil spill in rearview mirror
- Heat records smashed across West
- Santorum charter flight tab broke $400K
- Measles death 1st known in U.S. in 12 years
- Kentucky clerk sued for denying license to wed to any couples
- Sex offenders say Indiana curbs religious freedom
- Instances of hacking may be up, but indictments against Chinese military impactful, experts say
- Soldiers’ families awarded $134.2M in Afghanistan grenade attack
- IRS says staff didn’t hide emails