This article is from the source 'nytimes' 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.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world/middleeast/republican-led-benghazi-inquiry-largely-backs-administration.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Republican-Led Benghazi Inquiry Largely Backs Administration G.O.P.-Led Benghazi Inquiry Bolsters Administration
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — A Republican-led investigation into the fatal 2012 attacks on American outposts in Benghazi, Libya, has reached conclusions similar to at least five other government inquiries into the episode, finding little evidence to back up Republican lawmakers’ most damning accusations about how the Obama administration responded to the attacks. WASHINGTON — When a Republican-controlled congressional committee released the findings of its investigation into the fatal 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, late Friday, it was the fifth time that a part of the federal government had issued a report on the Obama administration’s handling of the incident.
According to a report released by the House Intelligence Committee late Friday, the administration did not purposely mislead the public about what occurred during the attacks in talking points it created for officials to use in television appearances that turned out to be inaccurate. Though sharply critical of the State Department’s preparedness, the new report concluded that there was little evidence to back Republicans’ most damning accusations about how the Obama administration and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, responded to the attacks.
The report said that no order was given by the military to “stand down” in responding to save the four Americans killed in the attacks, a claim that Republicans have made based on the account of a member of the security team in Benghazi that day. Similar to the other reports, the one released by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday said that the administration had not intentionally misled the public about what occurred during the attacks in talking points it created for officials to use in television appearances that turned out to be inaccurate.
It also said that no order was given by the military to “stand down” in responding to save the four Americans killed in the attacks, a claim that Republicans have made based on the account of a member of the security team in Benghazi that day.
Coming six months after Speaker John A. Boehner created a separate special committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks, the report raised questions about what that panel might uncover that the Intelligence Committee — whose chairman, Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, is leaving Congress — and the other investigations missed.Coming six months after Speaker John A. Boehner created a separate special committee to investigate the Benghazi attacks, the report raised questions about what that panel might uncover that the Intelligence Committee — whose chairman, Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan, is leaving Congress — and the other investigations missed.
The special committee that Mr. Boehner created is led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, who has a budget of $3.3 million for the investigation.The special committee that Mr. Boehner created is led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, who has a budget of $3.3 million for the investigation.
Democrats have asserted that the special committee was created by Republicans only to try to discredit Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was the secretary of state at the time of the attacks and is expected to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. A Clinton representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Democrats have asserted that the special committee was created by Republicans only to try to discredit Mrs. Clinton, who is expected to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016.
“The effort to turn the Benghazi tragedy into a political scandal never had a factual basis,” said David Brock, founder of Correct the Record, a group that defends Mrs. Clinton in the news media, and author of the e-book “The Benghazi Hoax.” “The Republican committee report should close the case. If the scandal persists into 2016, it will only be for partisan reasons.”
While the report backed up many of the administration’s longstanding claims that its response was proper, it agreed with the other reports that criticized the State Department for having inadequate security at the compound where the ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed.While the report backed up many of the administration’s longstanding claims that its response was proper, it agreed with the other reports that criticized the State Department for having inadequate security at the compound where the ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, was killed.
“The State Department security personnel, resources and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required C.I.A. assistance,” it said.“The State Department security personnel, resources and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required C.I.A. assistance,” it said.
The committee’s findings reflected well on the intelligence apparatus, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. The agency “ensured sufficient security” for its facilities in Benghazi and “without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks,” according to the report. The panel’s findings reflected well on the intelligence apparatus, particularly the Central Intelligence Agency. The agency “ensured sufficient security” for its facilities in Benghazi and “without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks,” according to the report.
“Their actions saved lives,” the report said.“Their actions saved lives,” the report said.
The report said the C.I.A. did not have an “intelligence failure” in the months before the surprise attacks. In fact, the report said, the agency had increased its security in response because of intelligence reports showing that attacks had intensified in the area. The report said the C.I.A. did not have an “intelligence failure” in the months before the attacks. In fact, the report said, the agency had increased its security in response because of intelligence reports showing that attacks had intensified in the area.
In the course of the investigation, the committee reviewed thousands of pages of intelligence assessments, cables, emails and other documents, and it interviewed many senior intelligence officials and people who were on the ground during the attacks — including eight security personnel who responded to them, it said.In the course of the investigation, the committee reviewed thousands of pages of intelligence assessments, cables, emails and other documents, and it interviewed many senior intelligence officials and people who were on the ground during the attacks — including eight security personnel who responded to them, it said.
Republican lawmakers have said that the administration, fearing political fallout from the attacks — which occurred on Sept. 11, 2012, less than two months before the presidential elections — tried to mislead the public.
In particular, the Republicans have said that Susan E. Rice, who was the ambassador to the United Nations at the time, lied on several Sunday television talk shows when she said the attacks were set off by a protest over an anti-Muslim video. They claimed that she glossed over whether the fatalities were the result of “terrorist” attacks by Al Qaeda because that would have undermined the administration’s narrative that it had all but defeated the group.
The panel found that in the days after the attacks, there was contradictory intelligence about what precipitated them and who was behind them. Ultimately, Ms. Rice’s assertions were wrong, the committee said, but there was no evidence that the administration was attempting to misconstrue the facts. Even today, the report said, the government is still uncertain about much of what happened that day.
“Much of the early intelligence was conflicting, and two years later, intelligence gaps remain,” the report said. A mix of individuals, “including those affiliated” with Al Qaeda, participated in the attacks, it said, adding, however, that “the intelligence was and remains conflicting about the identities, affiliations and motivations of the attackers.”