This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/05/benghazi-attack-book-cia-failures-democrats

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Benghazi attack: book alleging CIA failures dismissed by Democrats Benghazi attack: book alleging CIA failures dismissed by Democrats
(3 days later)
A new book alleging the CIA stood in the way of a rescue mission that could have saved US ambassador Chris Stephen from an attack on a diplomatic compound in Bengahzi has been criticised by Democrats as a fresh attempt to politicise the incident. A new book alleging the CIA stood in the way of a rescue mission that could have saved US ambassador Chris Stevens from an attack on a diplomatic compound in Bengahzi has been criticised by Democrats as a fresh attempt to politicise the incident.
Five private contractors working as security guards at a secret CIA base in the Libyan city say they were prevented from rushing to help defend the nearby compound by the agency’s station chief who was wary of blowing its cover.Five private contractors working as security guards at a secret CIA base in the Libyan city say they were prevented from rushing to help defend the nearby compound by the agency’s station chief who was wary of blowing its cover.
In their account, 13 Hours, which is published next week, the guards allege they were told to “stand down” and delayed by a crucial 30 minutes.In their account, 13 Hours, which is published next week, the guards allege they were told to “stand down” and delayed by a crucial 30 minutes.
“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” said one of the men, John Tiegen, in an interview with Fox News aired on Friday.“I strongly believe if we’d left immediately, they’d still be alive today,” said one of the men, John Tiegen, in an interview with Fox News aired on Friday.
Their account is not substantively different from that of Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time and has been targeted by Republicans for failing to respond adequately to the attack.Their account is not substantively different from that of Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time and has been targeted by Republicans for failing to respond adequately to the attack.
“Two vehicles of armed officers left the CIA post for the diplomatic compound about 20 minutes after the attack had begun,” she wrote in her memoir Hard Choices.“Two vehicles of armed officers left the CIA post for the diplomatic compound about 20 minutes after the attack had begun,” she wrote in her memoir Hard Choices.
But the suggestion that CIA officers were initially reluctant to intervene has been angrily rejected by the intelligence community, which argues officers were simply trying to rally a more concerted response.But the suggestion that CIA officers were initially reluctant to intervene has been angrily rejected by the intelligence community, which argues officers were simply trying to rally a more concerted response.
Adam Schiff, a Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the allegations were “old myths” that had been rejected by its investigation.Adam Schiff, a Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said the allegations were “old myths” that had been rejected by its investigation.
“These so-called new allegations were examined in detail by both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, which concluded that there was no ‘stand down’ order,” he said in a statement on Friday.“These so-called new allegations were examined in detail by both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, which concluded that there was no ‘stand down’ order,” he said in a statement on Friday.
“Nor did we find any evidence that a different course of action would have saved – rather than jeopardized – more lives. To second guess these decisions made in the fog of battle is both unfair to the brave personnel involved and highly irresponsible.”“Nor did we find any evidence that a different course of action would have saved – rather than jeopardized – more lives. To second guess these decisions made in the fog of battle is both unfair to the brave personnel involved and highly irresponsible.”
• This article was amended on 8 September 2014. An earlier version misspelled the name of Chris Stevens.