Benghazi report finally released, MSM wants you to yawn because there’s no new evidence
The long-awaited Benghazi report is out, and it catalogues a multitude of omissions and commissions that should outrage Americans of any party or persuasion.
Of course, it won’t. The CNN article I just linked which describes the content of the report has a title that is certainly correct but lets you know that the editors want you to look at the headline, yawn, and pass it by: “Benghazi panel caps 2-year probe: No bombshell, faults administration.” The New York Times is even more obvious in its emphasis: “House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton.” If you want to see the way this particular line of coverage generally went, see this. Other articles mention the lack of a “smoking gun” against Clinton.
But who expected a smoking gun to be revealed at this point? The report is a summary of several years of investigation, some of it involving public hearings and much of it discussed previously. There are indeed new details, but the idea that there should have been some sort of Perry Mason reveal is preposterous.
For some reason, however, NBC’s headline dissents from the common MSM line: “House Republicans’ Report Sheds New Light on Benghazi Attack.” New light? From the article you find this sort of thing:
Democrats accused Republicans of using the inquiry to hurt Clinton’s chances at the presidency. But after more than two years and an estimated $7 million, the report, released Tuesday, instead paints a more nuanced portrait of incompetence.
Just a little old-fashioned nuanced incompetence, folks.
It goes on:
…[O]ther Republican committee members criticized Clinton more directly, accusing her of prioritizing America’s relationship with Libya over security at the Benghazi compound, and of trying to spin the attack for political gain. Members Jim Jordan of Ohio and and Mike Pompeo of Kansas wrote their own report, labeled “additional views,” focuses on Clinton, accusing her of missing opportunities to protect American lives.
In that sense, the committee’s findings could underscore accusations that the Obama administration ”” and Clinton’s State Department ”” were more concerned with public perception than with acting decisively to save American lives.
There is really very little question about the truth of those accusations, because we know—and yes, we’ve known for a long time—that Hillary knew that the video had nothing to do with the attack and yet lied to the American people and to the families of the slain men for political reasons. And in this she was joined by most of the Obama administration in that fall of 2012, an election year.
But really—“what difference at this point does it make?” That’s Hillary Clinton’s famous quote from the Benghazi hearings, and in the case of this report it’s spot on. No, the report has no “new” smoking gun, nor should it. It contains enough information that in a sane world would preclude Clinton from running for president and certainly from being elected president. But as it is, it will change virtually no one’s mind.
By the way, I want to revisit that quote for just a moment more, because it galls me that no one seems to remember this aspect of it (which I wrote about thusly two years ago):
…[H]ere’s the [Clinton] quote:
With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?
So, was it “because of a protest”? Or was it some random chaotic act “because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans”?
Well, how about: “Neither, Hillary, and what’s more, you know it was neither. Both suggestions are absurd. It actually was a group of organized terrorists who planned an attack, and succeeded in killing not just ”˜some’ random Americans, but the ambassador and three protectors.”
I’ve long wondered why that part of the quote has been pretty much ignored.
So, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest (again), I’ll highlight a couple of revelations in the report that were news, at least to me:
The Republican majority’s report found that 35 Americans were saved not by a “quasi-governmental militia” as previous reports concluded, or even a group the U.S. saw as allies. Instead, the report determines that the Americans were saved by the “Libyan Military Intelligence,” a group composed of military officers under the Moammar Khaddafy regime, the Libyan dictator who the U.S. helped topple just one year earlier.
The February 17 Martyr Brigade, “recommended by the Libyan Government and contractually obligated to provide security to the Mission Compound,” had fled, the report found. “In other words, some of the very individuals the United States helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution were the only Libyans that came to the assistance of the United States on the night of the Benghazi attacks,” the report states….
The Republican majority of the committee also found that Stevens traveled to the U.S. mission that week to both fill a temporary staffing gap and to spearhead an effort to make Benghazi a permanent diplomatic post…
…”What was disturbing from the evidence the Committee found was that at the time of the final lethal attack at the Annex, no asset ordered deployed by the Secretary had even left the ground,” the report states.
Previous accounts blamed the “tyranny of time and distance” plus the failure to have airplanes ready for the significant delay in moving military assets. But the report states conflicting orders from State Department and Pentagon officials over whether Marines should wear military uniforms or civilian attire also played a role…
State Department officials raised concerns about the diplomatic sensitivities of the attire to be worn by assets launched…
According to one commander, the report states, as forces prepared to deploy, “during the course of three hours, he and his Marines changed in and out of their uniforms four times.”
Further, several witnesses told the committee that despite Panetta’s orders, the operating plan was not to insert any asset into Benghazi. “Their understanding was that the assets needed to be sent to Tripoli to augment security at the Embassy, and that the State Department was working to move the State Department personnel from Benghazi to Tripoli.”
Republicans on the committee were critical of high-level officials in Washington for mistakenly thinking that the attacks were over and the crisis had passed by the time the emergency video conference convened, which the report alleges contributed to the confusion.
Much more reporting and commentary can be found here. Here’s a summary drawn up by the committee itself that lists some (not all) of the “new information” the Benghazi report actually does contain. And you can find the full report in the links after that summary.
[NOTE: See also this from Powerline.]
And where was Obama? Sec of Defense ordered a response but jets in Italy and people sat for hours. Our people changed in and out of their uniforms four times.
Someone ordered our military to stand down and we still don’t know who issue that order and why.
As I read someone comment elsewhere:
Are you telling me that departure for an evening’s engagement was held up by a woman’s indecision over what to wear?
It’s a shame we didn’t have a commander with enough honor to say “let’s roll” and face the court-martial.
Everything about Benghazi I pretty much picked up from online open sources in the first month of its happening, and the rest I picked up from the primary eyewitness testimonies.
I had direct information on Benghazi from super-secret informants so I had more information quicker than Ymarsakar did.
The bread crumbs lead directly to the Oval Office.
The ONLY authority that had command authority over the non-rescue.
Clinton’s cover story was orchestrated with the Oval Office.
The PRIMARY goal of the assault was the CIA STATION.
In spook-speak intelligence outposts are known as ‘stations.’
You can view “13 Hours” from front to back and the term is never used. (IIRC,… I was looking for it. )
The assault was not launched by terrorists — in the classic sense — at all.
It was manned by mercenaries — in the pay of Hamas and Tehran.
Hamas is the Sunni city-state in Gaza.
Hamas was launched by the Iranian Shi’ite government — decades ago.
So, any time Tehran wants to use a ‘cut-out’ ( more spook speak ) it uses its Hamas connection.
The US is STILL ‘invested’ in denying that Tehran is behind a HUGE slew of unrest in across the Sunni world.
The incredibly slow roll-out of this report — especially its current timing — is designed to move the entire matter off of page one.
&&&&
The latest fraudulent tale being run up by the NY Times: that Jordanian rogue agents have been diverting weapons to the fanatics.
That’s a HOOT.
Such ‘rogue elements’ diverted the ENTIRE anti-Assad ‘army’ that the CIA was building in the Jordanian desert — along with Jordan and Britain.
Today those rogues are known as ISIS.
Barry attempted to craft a Sunni Islamic ‘army’ that he figured he could ‘aim’ just like the mullahs have done.
It blew up from the start.
As for the Pentagon, its attempt, ‘Division 30’ — was an even WORSE farce.
Yes, all of Division 30 went rogue, too.
No Muslim is going jihad to promote Jeffersonian ideals.
Only the bitter clingers care about Benghazi. After all it was just 4 dead adult Americans. The left have babies to abort, time to roll up sleeves and bathe in the blood of innocents in Texas.
blert,
Fast and Furious Middle East version.
Harry The Exremeist Says:
June 28th, 2016 at 4:02 pm
I had direct information on Benghazi from super-secret informants so I had more information quicker than Ymarsakar did.
There are no super secret informants given the vast power of the internet’s open sourcing protocols.
For example, when did Harry know 50/50, that Benghazi was the result of an arms deal and stand down order?
The left have babies to abort, time to roll up sleeves and bathe in the blood of innocents in Texas.
They never stopped doing that, since Waco 1, after all.
A populace willfully blind to evil will fall prey to it.
A public that rejects moral rectitude will fall prey to moral depravities.
We have reached the point where a substantial percentage of the American public are no longer our countrymen.
“Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution”
That man can wear many labels but “American” is NOT one of them. And there are millions who share his POV.
Ymarsarker:
“There are no super secret informants given the vast power of the internet’s open sourcing protocols.”
My sources were ultra-super-secret. I had all my information virtually hours before you did.
People will hang on and be dead-enders if the person accused does not admit guilt. My brother maintains that of all the accusations against Clinton have all amounted to NOTHING. (And yes, he went all-caps on me.)
Whatever she is accused of, she simply says, “No, that’s not true,” or “I’m sorry, I don’t recall” and moves on to another topic. Most of her supporters then turn and say “SEE? SEE? there’s nothing there.”
Dr. Charles K on Fox just made my point: Where was Obama?
Dr. K said Obama was indifferent. He gave an order and nothing happened.
AVI, exactly! The Clinton formula has always been deny, stall (especially stall – people have short memories), dissemble, spin, and when finally pinned down to the facts of their lies, to declare, “At this point, what difference does it make anyway?” They have perfected and gotten away with this routine from their Arkansas days beginning in 1979 all the way to today. 37years of public mendacity.
The Benghazi debacle was a major screw up by the Obama administration. HRC failed to provide the security the ambassador asked for in Benghazi. Obama/SECDEF failed to act when the station was under attack. Then the whole thing was covered up by blaming the video. Yet it worked. Obama was re-elected and HRC is now leading in the polls for the next election. This report won’t have any effect on her campaign or Obama’s legacy. Mendacity works, especially when the MSM is on your team.
A new book, “Crisis of Character,” is due to be released today — a month before Hillary Clinton will take the stage to accept the Democratic presidential nomination in Philadelphia. Written by ex-Secret Service Officer Gary J. Byrne, who was “posted directly outside President Clinton’s Oval Office,” the 285-page book describes Hillary Clinton’s “appalling leadership style” as being “volcanic, impulsive, enabled by sycophants, and disdainful of the rules set for everyone else.” This is the second book written by a Secret Service man detailing HRC’s bad manners, abuse of employees, and disdain for rules that others abide by.
The first one was by Ronald Kessler in 2014. In that book Kessler described these incidents and more:
“Agents confess that being on Hillary’s security detail is the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service
If agents driving her went over a bump, she’d swear at them
‘When she’s in front of the lights, she turns it on and when she’s not she’s a totally different person,’ says one agent
Arriving at a 4-F Club in upstate New York while campaigning, she saw cows and people in jeans. She was enraged She asked a staffer, ‘What the f*** did we come her for? There’s no money here’
She insulted White House counsel Vince Foster (who later committed suicide.) and told him that he would never be more than a hick-town lawyer and wasn’t ready for the big time.”
Both these books will be ignored by the MSM and most voters will never hear about what a disaster Hillary is as a person, much less a leader..
Harry and Y,
Avoid contests that involve pissing up a rope. 😉 Clever insults accompanied by humor are more the hallmark of gentlemen. 😉
Sometimes I would learn the secrets before my ultra super secret sources knew them.
They have released their own report, and here’s all you need to know about it: “A 339-page report released by Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi mentions Donald Trump 23 times.” Donald Trump wasn’t even on the public scene when Benghazi happened. He might have been on TV commenting about it as an infrequent guest, but what did Trump have to do with Benghazi? Nothing. But that’s not the point. The reason the Democrats mentioned Trump 23 times in their report is to provide the media a highway. – rush limbaugh
Democrats’ Benghazi Report Mentions Donald Trump 23 Times For Some Reason
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/democrats-benghazi-report-mentions-donald-trump-23-times-for-some-reason/
A 339-page report released by Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi mentions Donald Trump 23 times.
That total is more than the combined number of references to Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, two of the former Navy SEALs killed in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks. Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was also killed during the onslaught, is mentioned 85 times in the report, according to Republicans on the Select Committee.
etc.
When Hillary receives the Democratic Party nomination at the convention, there needs to be a moment of silence, during which every Democrat in America apologizes to Richard Nixon. Because that’s who they will have nominated.
Harry,
Your super secret secret sources are awesome. I am a believer, not a trace of doubt in my mind. 😉
My sources were ultra-super-secret. I had all my information virtually hours before you did.
Are you joking or serious, H. Because I don’t see the point of your claim there either way.
Think of the possibilities here for the domestic judicial system. A murder trial finally goes before the jury 2 years after the event. The defense’s summary is simply, “There is no new evidence of my client’s guilt.” Case dismissed.