State audit: Benghazi investigation unbiased
By The Associated Press
Published: Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2013, 7:21 p.m.
WASHINGTON — A State Department audit found on Wednesday that an investigation into last year's deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was unbiased — countering claims from House Republicans that it lacked independence.
The audit says weaknesses persist in how the State Department identifies threats overseas.
The assessment by the department's inspector general backs up the Benghazi review chaired by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen. They were the subjects of a sharp examination from Republicans on the House oversight committee last week.
A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the committee chairman, said the independence and effectiveness of the State Department inspector general's office has been the subject of bipartisan concern.
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.
- Drug crime reclassification to help ex-cons get vote rights
- ‘Patriots’ back Nevada rancher; Reid labels them ‘domestic terrorists’
- Automaker GM’s wait on Saturn Ion safety recall took years
- Health care law enrollee passwords at risk for Heartbleed Internet security flaw, feds warn
- IRS, other agencies award contracts to license plate tracking company
- Mauling puts bears back on firing line in Central Florida
- Washington’s snowy owl recovers from apparent bus crash, returns to wild
- Recovery expert believes wreckage of missing plane located
- Fox fires exec who used email to plan aid
- First date in New Jersey ends with him pilfering her TV and Yorkshire terrier
- Ohio couple married for 70 years dies just 15 hours apart