What the House Intelligence report on Benghazi says


We used to say back in the day in Air Force intelligence that that there are three kinds of intelligence — human, animal and military — in that order.

When the House Intelligence panel report on what happened in and after the attack in Benghazi on the American consulate came out, there was a lot of spinning and interpretation.

Here are few excerpts:

finding 11ajpg

finding 11bjpg

finding 11cjpg

findings 11djpg

83 comments on “What the House Intelligence report on Benghazi says

  1. Nyp says:

    Wow. The CIA initially gave confused & inaccurate information to the UN ambassador.
    That’s pretty damning. Impeach!

  2. Nyp says:

    Of course, for those wondering about the parts Mr. Mitchell decided not to mention:
    “Similar to five other government 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 try 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.”

  3. Vernon Clayson says:

    As usual, love finds a way with Nyp, his heartthrob Obama, and his administation, is faultless, what’s four lives compared to saving the hides of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and the leaders of the various agencies. This report is as full of holes as the explanations for the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK. Henry Ford said ‘all history is bunk”, perhaps so if he was speaking of history as pushed by politicians.

  4. Athos says:

    The Intelligence committee report focuses only on the intelligence community, not on the White House or the State Department. It therefore leaves the core of the Benghazi scandal intact, which is a case in three parts:

    1. President Obama’s dereliction of duty. We know that after being briefed early in the evening at a prescheduled meeting, Obama failed to monitor the attacks in the Situation Room, or even to maintain contact with his national security team. He claims to have issued “three directives,” but there is no evidence of that, and some testimony contradicts that claim. He went to a fundraiser the next day, declined for days to refer to the events as a terror attack (despite later claims to the contrary), and blamed a YouTube video for the attack.

    2. Hillary Clinton’s dereliction of duty–and intimidation. In addition to failing to provide additional security to Benghazi when requested, Clinton enthusiastically promoted the story about the YouTube video, long after it was known to be untrue. She also allegedly tried to stop witnesses from cooperating with Congress.

    3. The media’s role in the cover-up. CBS News covered up the fact that Obama had lied to the public, and CNN’s Candy Crowley famously intervened in the second presidential debate to help that lie along. Instead, the media targeted Mitt Romney’s criticism of the administration’s reaction to an attack on the Cairo embassy.

    The Intelligence report did not interview anyone in the White House, or in the State Department. Some of its findings, moreover, will continue to be disputed. Regardless, the core of the Benghazi scandal remains, and the enthusiasm with which the left has greeted the report suggests a continued attempt to distract from the facts.

    This was lifted from a Breitbart article that perfectly echo’s my thoughts (by Joel B. Pollak)

    I wouldn’t celebrate too soon, petey. Trey Gowdy is coming up to bat.

  5. Nyp says:

    Benghazi forevah!

  6. Rincon says:

    Only a rabid Conservative could look at a report by a Republican led House panel, which agrees with 5 other investigations on this matter, and still claim that there was dereliction of duty. Your hatred is blinding you.

    !) The President is the Commander in Chief, not the Micromanager in Chief. YOU think he needed to be in the situation room. Big deal. And…OMG, he went to a fundraiser the next day. Bush went to fundraisers many times while dozens of U.S. troops were being killed daily in his own personal war. I didn’t hear anything about dereliction of duty at that time.

    2) Once again, YOU decide you are the one to decide what security was adequate. Stop listening to the other hate mongers. There is no such thing as adequate security if that security is breached. Being inadequate doesn’t show that the failure could have been foreseen or that “adequate” protection could have been provided in the real world. Did you blame George W when it was shown that our intelligence agencies actually ignored many crucial pieces of evidence prior to 9/11? Did not Bush fail to provide adequate security? Your partisanship is less than rational.

    3) Should I believe you or the NY Times? “…House Intelligence Committee on Friday said that the administration had not intentionally misled the public about what occurred…” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/23/world/middleeast/republican-led-benghazi-inquiry-largely-backs-administration.html Let me translate for you: This means Obama didn’t lie. Where do you come up with this stuff?

    The fact is, the blind partisanship that has crippled our government has now once again been convincingly exposed. The very Conservatives that wrap themselves in the American flag are the ones crippling our nation. Get over it and move on to being an American first and a Conservative second.

  7. Nyp says:

    Really, fellas … You should focus on whatever the next pseudo-scandal happens to be.

  8. You are the one who insisted on this topic, petey.

  9. Nyp says:

    Ah, good point. OK then, proceed ….

  10. Steve says:

    It’s fo-evah, nyp.

    Get yo-ah southie accent right fo a change.

    Crapintel screud moah than one admin…

  11. Athos says:

    Wow Rinny. Really struck a nerve, eh? Let me turn it around for you and ask where was your condemnation of Jorge when he was president? Or is this all smoke screen for your “chøsen øne”??

    And why should Jorge’s duplicity of the American public allow Pinocchio a pass for his ineptitude? Are you of the same mind that BJ Clinton should be under the same scrutiny as Bill Cosby? Or is this a partisan thing on your part? (Liberals, good; conservative values, bad)

    “Should I believe you or the NY Times?” The Old Grey Lady that gives Pulitzer’s to Jason Blair, Judith Miller or Tyler Hicks? The same paper owned by little Pinch? That’s an easy choice, Rinny. NYT has been in the bag for Pinocchio for years.

    And I hate to sound like a broken record, but none of the Benghazi story passed the smell test. So why are you pulling a Gruber, and insisting the American Public is too stupid to trust it’s instincts?

    Methinks you doth protest too much!

  12. nyp says:

    If you or someone in your family needs health insurance, now would be a good time to go to healthcare.gov to find a high-quality, affordable plan. There are lots of plans to choose from, and now no one can deny you or your family member an insurance policy over a pre-existing condition.

  13. Rincon says:

    I guess you’re right about striking a nerve. Going on the offensive when the administration has been essentially exonerated by its own enemies seems a bit much. Even a President should be innocent until proven guilty, GW included. Bush made some serious errors in judgment, but I never doubted his veracity or patriotism. The same applies to Obama.

  14. Rincon says:

    Come to think of it, there’s one lie in particular. He said everyone would be able to keep their health insurance, but appears to have known that it was not true. Bush may have been dumber, but probably he was more honest.

  15. Athos says:

    Rin, the list of lies by Pinocchio is quite lengthy. Benghazi being only one of the many. Jorge had many faults, the one that drove me crazy was how he allowed Compean and Ramos to be put in jail for shooting an illegal drug dealer in the butt. And having Shifty Paulson (from Goldman-Sachs) run the treasury department???? We have a broken government “by the people” system that the Constitution, and our Founding Fathers provided for us.

    Pinocchio is not the solution, he’s exacerbated the problem, exponentially!

    So why are you defending this poser?

  16. nyp says:

    “In an interview with National Journal, Jonathan Silver, who served as head of the clean-energy loan program during Washington’s peak Solyndra era, put the numbers in context. “The DOE loan program record is better than virtually every bank and clean-energy investor in that space over the same period,” he said. Silver, who stepped down from his position as head of the loan program in 2011, has long argued that the overall loan program was well structured. Now he has the numbers to prove it.

    “The agency has lent a total of $34.2 billion with the aim of speeding development of clean-energy technology, and companies have defaulted on just $780 million of that so far, a loss rate of roughly 2 percent. In addition, the agency has collected $810 million in interest, putting the program $30 million in the black.”

  17. Winston Smith says:

    Petey, are you required by your boss to do a commercial break for ObamaCare every 25th post or is it determined by the number of minutes since the last one?

    BTW, whether there is a profit or loss of the federal money invested in clean energy is not the point particularly. The whole concept of spending our federal tax dollars on private corporate investment is fascistic by definition and not allowed by the Constitution.

  18. Pay no heed to the cost to ratepayers.

  19. Steve says:

    What you talkin bout Willis?
    We don’t do no thinkin bout ratepayers!
    We just cash the monthly checks….it’s a bottomless well!

  20. Rincon says:

    Somehow, the investment in renewable energy seems a better bet for a good return than the bottomless pits of Afghanistan and Iraq or the unfunded prescription drug coverage for seniors. China will help us to decide whether seeding a new industry with government money pays or not, since they greatly outbid us in this respect. Watch their results.

  21. Athos says:

    What is it with you Rinny? Sooooo, because Jorge Bush wasted money on Afghanistan (Banastan) and Iraq, it’s acceptable to waste money on renewable energy schemes chosen by government insiders????


    How old are you, anyway?

  22. Steve says:

    Lets see, government is supposed to be non profit…shouldn’t those “profits” be funneled back to the rate payers that created them in the first place?

  23. nyp says:

    They will go towards further reducing the deficit, which is already lower as a percentage of GDP than at any time since 2007.
    But you are correct that the purpose of the program was (a) to stimulate the economy out of the Great Recession; and (b) to foster technological innovation.

  24. Steve says:

    Ahh, they are taxation without representation.

  25. Mike says:

    Oh, so it was that YouTube video after all…be damned.
    Am I appropriately re-educated yet?

  26. nyp says:

    I don’t know. Take it up with the very conservative Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee who wrote the report that concluded that the Administration did not intentionally mislead anybody, that there was no order to “stand down,” and that the military acted appropriately.

  27. Athos says:

    Take it up with Leon Panetta, who could find no reason to doubt the 3 agents account (as told to Bret Baier) about being told to “stand down”.

    If memory serves, he had some high standing in the Pinocchio government, at that time, didn’t he?

  28. nyp says:

    I went to the doctor the other day for an appointment. To my surprise, when I got to the examination room there was no government bureaucrat standing between me and my doctor.
    How can that be?

  29. Athos says:

    Oh, I’m sorry petey. I thought you wanted to discuss the Benghazi debacle. Or is it time again for your Pinocchio/ad cheerleading session??

    Oh, and by the way, the Affordable Care Act has nothing to do with “Care” or Affordability. The government bureaucrat is in the room with your insurance agent.

  30. nyp says:

    Since, like most people, I purchase my health insurance through my employer, the Affordable Care Act has just about nothing to do with me -especially since I have never met my health insurance agent.

  31. Athos says:

    And therein lies the true nature of a much needed health care reform. 3rd party payers, with the patient (or insured) concerned about the medical bill. Who cares how much it costs? You’re not paying it, are you?

  32. Athos says:

    Actually, this would be a great first step in tax reform. Employer provided health care hasn’t been needed since WW2. How many years ago was that, anyway?

  33. nyp says:

    I would not want to disrupt 1/6 of the US economy.

  34. Athos says:

    Too late!! Pinocchio, Pelousy and Greid beat you to it! Ha-ha-ha-ha. Ha.

  35. Rincon says:

    I would hope that we can all agree that employers should not be the ones to manage peoples’ health insurance.

  36. Been said here many times and in many ways.

  37. nyp says:

    massively disruptive to people’s lives.

  38. nyp says:

    plus, you lose the benefit of large-volume purchasing.

  39. Rincon says:

    Generally, the larger the group, the cheaper the insurance. Well, we all belong to the largest group in the country – U.S. citizen. Online purchasing is usually large volume and efficient.

  40. Athos says:

    You mean like the VA? Now THERE’S some government health care you can promote as “large volume and efficient”, eh?

  41. Rincon says:

    You highlight a big question re: the feasibility of socialized health care in this country. I’ve talked with a couple of dozen of Australians about their health care system, including the recipients of a hip replacement, knee replacement, and cardiac bypass surgery. Every one of them expressed satisfaction with the Australian system, so a functional socialized health care system cheaper than ours appears to be possible. The doubt I have is whether or not it’s possible in this country where we all forgive the transgressions of our leaders because they’re on OUR team, as nyp and I have done comparing Obama to Bush and as you have done by failing to criticize Bush when it is deserved. Partisanship needs to fade, but won’t because Americans are too childish to embrace compromise anymore.

  42. Athos says:

    Moi embracing Jorge? Wow. And if Pinocchio wasn’t hell bent to destroy our country, and if I could find ONE thing that he’s done to enhance our freedoms, I’d give that Alinsky-ite a shout-out.

    But it hasn’t happened yet, has it?

  43. nyp says:

    Here is one thing President Obama has done to enhance our freedoms: by making health insurance on the individual market more affordable, he has given people more freedom in which to be entrepreneurial. For example, the CEO of Uber says that health reform has had a “huge” positive impact on his business: “The democratization of those types of benefits allow people to have more flexible ways to make a living, They don’t have to be working for The Man.”

  44. Rincon says:

    Glad to see you distance yourself from this self proclaimed Conservative. What enhances our freedoms may be in the eye of the beholder. Although Obama didn’t make it happen, I hear lots of people say that they’re so glad that people don’t smoke in restaurants and other public places anymore, but it took governmental action to accomplish the mission, albeit many years late. Did nonsmokers gain the freedom to breathe clean air when we eat a meal, or did the smokers lose their freedom?

  45. Winston Smith says:

    Just watched “The Giver” last night with Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges. Kid in dystopian controlling society fights the system! Yeah, anyone else seen it?

    Reason I bring it up is how it relates to RIncon’s question, “Did nonsmokers gain the freedom to breathe clean air when we eat a meal, or did the smokers lose their freedom?”

  46. Steve says:

    Smoking was done right.
    First step was to make the general public turn away from it and begin to shun those who smoke.
    This took a couple decades to achieve.
    Second step was to begin enacting laws which became incrementally more onerous…the slope is indeed slippery for these things.

    FYI, my mom was almost a life long smoker, being from the era they were told it was actually healthy to smoke!
    I haven’t smoked since the early 1980’s. Put down the reds one day and stopped, just like that.

    I don’t agree with the length and depth of anti smoking law in some states. California comes to mind first, when flying into that state about 10 years ago the pilot got on the intercom and welcomed us to the state by saying “…where smoking is outlawed EVERYWHERE…”

    My concern is the way this series of actions can be used on other, more serious, issues. Smoking laws prove the “slippery slope” is very real.

  47. Rincon says:

    The slippery slope is indeed real, but exists for most, if not all issues. Which is wiser, to venture partway down a slippery slope with confidence in your abilities or to stand helpless, paralyzed by fear? If we had always been afraid of the slope, the American Revolution never would have taken place, because the slope would have led to anarchy. Luckily, our founding fathers had the confidence that they could successfully navigate between the extremes of anarchy and monarchy.

  48. Winston Smith says:

    There are designed slippery slopes and accidental ones. Mostly designed way ahead, via the Hegelian Dialectic Process.

  49. Rincon says:

    Since I’m not sure anyone even understands what the Hegelian Dialectic Process is (I looked it up and it sounds like double talk to me), I doubt it is responsible for “designing” very many slippery slopes. It sounds like just another Conservative bogeyman. As I said, just about every issue can be perceived as having a slippery slope, so it is also a political bogeyman, used shamelessly by both extremes.

  50. Athos says:

    I strongly disagree, Steve. Restaurant owners are in business to bring people in to eat. If there had been a market for non smoking restaurants, then the owners THEMSELVES would have provided the smoke free environment in their establishment.

    But that didn’t happen, did it? If non smokers objected to smoking in a restaurant that allows it’s patrons to smoke, those same non smokers could have declined eating there. Owners, not wanting to lose the business, would have changed their format.

    Having government (even by special ballot) enforce non smoking laws infringes on the rights of private property owners. Definitely anti-constitution, and anti-freedom and liberty.

    It really doesn’t get any clearer than this.

  51. nyp says:

    Same thing w/ food safety regulations. If patrons objected to eating in a restaurant that did not permit government food safety inspectors, they could have declined eating there. Owners, not wanting to lose the business, would have changed their format.

    Same thing with laws prohibiting discrimination. If patrons objected to eating in a restaurant that refused to serve African-Americans, they could have declined eating there. Owners, not wanting to lose the business, would have changed their format.

    Same thing with building inspections. If patrons objected to eating in a building that had not been inspected for structural soundness, they could have declined eating there. Owners, not wanting to lose the business, would have changed their format.

    Anything else is unconstitutional and destroys our liberty.

    It really doesn’t get any clearer than this.

  52. Winston Smith says:

    Oh petey, your three examples are not covered by the Constitution, since they are local matters. You really have to get the vertical separation of powers figured out…

  53. Nyp says:

    Rules prohibiting smoking in restaurants are local as well

  54. Tyrrany of the majority.

  55. Nyp says:

    Yeah, the majority that doesn’t want buildings to fall on them.

  56. Steve says:

    The changes in attitude about smoking actually came to the mainstream before those laws banning smoking in restaurants.

    Did not say I agree with those laws,,,only that they were enacted right. By getting the public to accept the changes before enacting the laws.

    This is a good example of how the slope works, Clark County tried to ban smoking in bars that serve food before getting their clientele on board with the idea…that law didn’t last long before being changed to allow smoking in those bars again. But a bunch of bars spent lots of money to build barriers between the bar and food sides or others that stopped their food business altogether and even others that simply refused to enforce that law in their establishments.

    Westminster, Massachusetts just failed in their bid to ban the sale of cigarettes within the town limits. Again for not getting their citizenry on board with the idea before becoming the local nanny council instead of the town council.

    The slope is effective only when the people are supportive of it. This is illustrated by the reactions of people in the story Tom wrote yesterday:

    Hugely supportive of the idea to protect endangered species, while extremely upset at the tactics being taken the the name of that idea.

  57. Athos says:

    I still disagree, Steve. Changes in attitude about smoking were driven by government nanny-state do-gooders that had a specific agenda. Google the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 and tell me that $206 Billion extortion wasn’t a power grab by the government for more money to spread around!

    If memory serves, this was the birth of the Millennium Scholarships in Nevada. All ya gotta do is find someone with deep pockets, and a judge that has no respect for private property (that’s not too hard, is it?)

    And petey, you still living in your momma’s womb?

  58. Right you are, Athos, Millennium Scholarships, which had nothing to do with the alleged settlement purpose of helping ailing smokers.

  59. Steve says:

    Athos, anti smoking movement began in the 1970’s without (overt) government influence. IT was part of the liberalism of the times. Came out of the hippie movement…funny thing too. Dope was OK but tobacco was not…

  60. Winston Smith says:

    Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966–1970)

    Ever since then, classic slippery slope with the fedbots trying to demonize and eventually outlaw tobacco through unconstitutional laws and rulings.

  61. Why do think I took up smoking cigarettes in Thailand?

  62. Steve says:

    Like I said…not overt. They wanted much more, even pictures of black lungs on the front of the packages. Which is another thing the public would never accept, to this day.

    This is also a good example of one of the things today’s liberals have completely forgotten. Gentle persuasion works much better than the stick.

  63. nyp says:

    Good point, guys: the Surgeon General’s report on smoking and lung cancer, the government ban on TV advertising for cigarettes, and the government-mandated health warning labels on cigarette packs had absolutely nothing to do with the shift in public attitudes towards smoking.

    It was all the free market.

  64. Steve says:

    None of those things would have occurred without public support for them, Nyp.

    And, I reiterate, that labeling on the packaging was severely limited, by public opinion, to the small printing on the side of the package.

  65. nyp says:

    it was a groundswell of public pressure that compelled Surgeon General Luther Terry to issue the landmark report on “Smoking and Health” in 1964.

  66. Steve says:

    Like I said from the start of this line,,,public acceptance is paramount to getting laws passed that people will follow.
    This is one of the things today’s liberal has forgotten.

  67. Rincon says:

    I have to agree with you Steve, that public opinion should precede government enforcement for most things. The problem with smoking is that the government response was way too slow. Even in 1976, 51% of polled Americans favored banning smoking in public places, with only 44% opposed. It increased to 2/3 after 1982 when the American Cancer Society published its first report on the danger of second hand smoke. http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/public-perspective/ppscan/95/95001.pdf (p.1) Yet, it was 1995 before the first statewide smoking ban went into effect, and 20% of us still have no such protection even though only 4% of us now feel that restrictions are not justified http://www.gallup.com/poll/1717/tobacco-smoking.aspx (2/3 the way down page). Why are we so slow to respond to the majority opinion and a genuine public health threat? Two answers: Conservatives and campaign money.

    What’s also amazing was that we didn’t even figure out that smoking was harmful until the 1960’s even though the evidence was so abundant that it could have easily been discovered in the 1800’s. Of course, without government funding, who would ever have done the studies? If Conservatives had run the country, we would STILL be in the dark. Another reason it took so long was because of the tobacco industry’s now famous disinformation campaign. Millions have died because of our refusal to look at the facts.

  68. Steve says:

    You blame conservatives…then you show the real cause…an industry with money…today’s analogy would be wind power.

  69. Rincon says:

    Conservatives generally support industry’s right to unlimited campaign contributions, so although industry with money may be the culprit, Conservatives are the enablers. Many Conservatives also would not support government funded research. They also support tobacco’s free speech rights in their disinformation efforts.

    Conservatives also believe the market forces should be sufficient to restrict smoking in public places. According to Athos: “Restaurant owners are in business to bring people in to eat. If there had been a market for non smoking restaurants, then the owners THEMSELVES would have provided the smoke free environment in their establishment.”

    Conservatives were a major force in stalling antismoking efforts.

  70. Rincon says:

    Come to think of it, they are still a major force, as evidenced by the fact that even today, 20% of us live where there are no smoking bans.

  71. I thought this was a nation built on individual liberty, not blind subservience to public opinion polls.

  72. Athos says:

    Conservatives issued the smoking ban in Nevada? And here I thought it was all the Cali transplants that forced that ballot initiative to law!
    Or is this the “winners get to write their version of history” dictum?

  73. Winston Smith says:

    Let’s see here, conservatives believe it is up to the individual, not government, to decide whether or not to smoke tobacco, or whether to allow smoking in their establishments, which may harm some people because smoke is bad for you.

    Liberals believe it is up to the individual, not government, to decide whether or not to have an abortion, which kills people because they get ripped into pieces.

    Hmmm, who’s got the moral high ground here?

  74. Rincon says:

    Individual liberty taken to its logical extreme is called anarchy. I assume this is not what you advocate. Unless you can find something in the Bill of Rights that allows people to smoke in public places, I believe the majority in a representative republic has the right to exclude certain behaviors in public places. Polls show what a large majority says they desire. The severe disconnect between the desires of the American people and the rights given to smokers suggests that we don’t have a very responsive representative republic.

    Abortion isn’t about individual rights vs. government control; it’s about whether or not killing a fetus is murder.

  75. The Bill of Rights prohibits government from telling private property owners of public places what they can do on their own property when it “takes” value from that property, such as the money of banned smokers.

  76. Rincon says:

    Now who’s stretching the Constitution? That logic could be used every time the government puts in a new road or bridge. Nevertheless, as soon as you can show substantial loss of income for any businesses, then we could always tax the businesses that benefited to reimburse the losers 🙂

  77. Rincon says:

    I read it Winston, but it sounds like the usual political backstabbing to me. Seems to me that the Democrats might have had a similar complaint when the barracks in Lebanon were blown up. For that matter, wasn’t there “substantial” evidence that the World Trade Center was blown up by the administration in cooperation with Israel? Finding the truth in this country is like navigating a house of mirrors.

  78. Winston Smith says:

    That’s why I’m pretty much sick of both major parties.

    Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  79. Winston Smith says:

    Oh yeah…which thread was that about Athos and racism? I need a spreadsheet to keep track. Oh well…

  80. Steve says:

    Nyp won’t do video’s….to hard to take words out of context.

  81. Athos says:

    Was that man a vile racist? Is that possible? Why do I have the feeling that he is on to the truth?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s