House panel rips review of Benghazi attack
WASHINGTON — House Republicans are strongly criticizing the review board that investigated last year's Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, Libya.
The report on Monday from House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa faults the Accountability Review Board for questioning senior State Department officials insufficiently or not at all. It claims the reviewers had conflicts of interest.
According to the official House Oversight Committee report, the board downplayed security decisions made by senior officials at the State Department, especially that of Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, and instead blamed four subordinates who, in some cases, “had little to no” responsibility for the key events. In some cases, “the ARB correctly identified poor individual decisions while apparently failing to take into account decisions made by more senior (State) Department officials,” the draft report says. “Such senior-level decisions played an equal if not greater role in the vulnerability of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.”
Issa's committee will hear from the board's chairman and vice chairman on Thursday. Both were top officials in Republican governments. Thomas Pickering was President George H.W. Bush's U.N. ambassador; Adm. Mike Mullen was Joint Chiefs chairman under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
State Department spokesman Douglas Frantz called the Benghazi review “thorough and transparent.” He said facts were being twisted to “advance a political agenda.”
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the attack.
As required by law, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton convened an Accountability Review Board to examine the attack.
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 â 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.