Senate panel on Benghazi: 'The attacks were preventable'

Imagine that....


By Carrie Dann, NBC News
A Senate panel faults the State Department and intelligence agencies for failing to thwart the September 11, 2012 assault on American outposts in Benghazi and says that the attacks were “preventable.”
In a statement on the declassified report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, lawmakers said that “the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya—to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets—and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission.”

The panel takes both the State Department and the intelligence community to task for failing to upgrading security despite the warning signs that an attack could happen. Its findings largely mirror those of an independent review board, which released its findings in December 2012.

"The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and [intelligence community] threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi," the Senate report states.
The bipartisan report includes over a dozen recommendations for the prevention of future security breaches.
Its findings are based on a series of hearings, staff briefings and in-person meetings, interviews with U.S. personnel on the ground during the attacks, and reviews of documents.
The Benghazi attack left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
While members of the committee stated they have "differing views" on the controversial talking points provided to lawmakers by the CIA in the wake of the attack, lawmakers agree that intelligence officials should simply provide lawmakers the facts in the future.
"In responding to future requests for unclassified talking points from Congress, the Intelligence Community should simply tell Congress which facts are unclassified and let Members of Congress provide additional context for the public," they write.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/15/22314076-senate-panel-on-benghazi-the-attacks-were-preventable

The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and [intelligence community] threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi," the Senate report states.

Absolutely!

The report also stated that Ambassador Stevens had turned down help with security from the general in charge of our forces in the area.

There's enough blame to go around. It's not all in HRC's lap, and the next presidential  election will prove that it's still mostly a Republican "talking point."
Jabber on about it if you like, but I'm sure enough about that that I'd make a bet on it at some point closer to the election.

This is a link to the article about Stevens refusing more security:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/05/15/official-amb-stevens-refused-additional-security.html

It was offered, He said no. He died.

That's what happened in Benghazi.

nochain wrote:

Imagine that....


By Carrie Dann, NBC News
A Senate panel faults the State Department and intelligence agencies for failing to thwart the September 11, 2012 assault on American outposts in Benghazi and says that the attacks were “preventable.”
In a statement on the declassified report released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, lawmakers said that “the attacks were preventable, based on extensive intelligence reporting on the terrorist activity in Libya—to include prior threats and attacks against Western targets—and given the known security shortfalls at the U.S. Mission.”

The panel takes both the State Department and the intelligence community to task for failing to upgrading security despite the warning signs that an attack could happen. Its findings largely mirror those of an independent review board, which released its findings in December 2012.

"The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and [intelligence community] threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi," the Senate report states.
The bipartisan report includes over a dozen recommendations for the prevention of future security breaches.
Its findings are based on a series of hearings, staff briefings and in-person meetings, interviews with U.S. personnel on the ground during the attacks, and reviews of documents.  
The Benghazi attack left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
While members of the committee stated they have "differing views" on the controversial talking points provided to lawmakers by the CIA in the wake of the attack, lawmakers agree that intelligence officials should simply provide lawmakers the facts in the future.
"In responding to future requests for unclassified talking points from Congress, the Intelligence Community should simply tell Congress which facts are unclassified and let Members of Congress provide additional context for the public," they write.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/15/22314076-senate-panel-on-benghazi-the-attacks-were-preventable

Of course it was preventable and those that had the authority to prevent the attacks/deaths are responsible....There are new time frames of when the attacks started and notifications/briefings...In these briefings/notifications immediately those in charge were told this was a premeditated terrorist attack and named those responsible---there was never a mention about the infamous internet movie at that time...Afterwards those in charge were the ones that spewed the internet movie as being responsible for the attacks...HRC did so as the caskets of those slain were in the background...don't know what you'd call this other than what it was...a lie...However HRC wasn't the only one that used this spin...To have no US protection and having unarmed civilians is not acceptable under any conditions...In the passing months when there was increased chatter about attacks being a possibility and embassies being the target...they were closed and personnel were protected...makes no sense that these folks were left to be murdered...

HRC has some tough questions to answer, I wonder if she will tell the truth the next time?

nochain wrote:

HRC has some tough questions to answer, I wonder if she will tell the truth the next time?

    ....Good one! HRC...telling the truth!...."At this point and time does it really matter?"...Of course she always has the 'right wing conspiracy' that she's used before...but she like MANY/MOST politicians...would they even recognized the truth?...

Otter, they obviously want to blame HRC and don't give a damn that Stephens refused extra security... twice.

It appears that some people have an agenda against HRC.

Eric wrote:

Otter, they obviously want to blame HRC and don't give a damn that Stephens refused extra security... twice.

It appears that some people have an agenda against HRC.

He refused military offers of an SST (twice) but also said he would submit his requirements SPECIFIC to Benghazi separately. Big difference. An SST is a set piece group that may not have worked in that location for reasons unknown to you or me.

An agenda against HRC? Why accept her now after the revelations of her strictly self-serving political decision to oppose BHOs plan in Afghanistan regardless of the merits of the plan to help the military? Her lies about Benghazi?

That's funny......an agenda.

I heard on the news last night that a special forces (detail?) was to be stationed in Benghazi but Stevens said that wasn't necessary.

It still looks like and agenda to me.

Eric wrote:

I heard on the news last night that a special forces (detail?) was to be stationed in Benghazi but Stevens said that wasn't necessary.

It still looks like and agenda to me.

What kind of agenda? Opposing her running for President? Why? I have no idea who is going to run - and don't see any real good choices from among those rumored to be considering. My poor little opinion would hardly impact a presidential race anyway. So I disagree with her statements about Benghazi and what she knew/when but I also have too little information about Stephens decisions about the SST's other than what I already posted. I can make an assumption that Stephens didn't want a full blown military SST on site - more than likely wanted State Dept security to stay under the belligerents radar somewhat.

And this is exactly why a full scale investigation should have been done long ago. The Navy is investigating the recent crash of an F-18 during a training exercise over the VACAPES harder than this administration has done for the entire Benghazi fiasco. Politics......

Nochain, I believe that HRC conspired to whitewash the investigation, too. But she is no different than any other politician who wants to keep their job and perhaps get elected to a higher office. They all lie. That is nothing new or unique to HRC.

What they said after the fact doesn't change the fact that a good ambassador and his staff were killed. Stevens was well-liked by the locals and perhaps there was an erroneous assumption that, because he was so well-liked by the populace, that he wouldn't be targeted for assassination, I dunno.

Investigations are used as witch hunts. They are vindictive and I think our elected officials waste a tremendous amount of time and our money ONLY for political gain. Instead of spending millions of dollars trying to find out who knew what and when did they know it, I would prefer that plans be put into place to prevent such events from happening again.

I would prefer that our elected officials not grandstand before the cameras and do the damn job they were elected to do... namely, create legislation to protect the interests of the citizens of the USA. My stomach turns every time I hear about another Congressional Hearing. Congressional members grandstand for the cameras, witnesses either take the 5th or dodge the questions, a lot of bluster ensues and our tax dollars are not spent wisely.

Eric wrote:

Otter, they obviously want to blame HRC and don't give a damn that Stephens refused extra security... twice.

It appears that some people have an agenda against HRC.

LOL- no surprise there Eric.
I can't say the Clintons are perfect people either, but they're not the monsters the conservatives have tried to make of them since 1992.

Trust HRC you must. All politicians lie so keep electing the liars you will. The forces of the dark side influence you they must not. Facts not important, ignore them you will. Mistakes, repeat them you must for that is the way of the force. Give in to the force, sheeple you must be, disagreements you must not have. Blinders you must wear to not see the dark side. The force is strong in the dark side but the sheeple must be led to the other side. Obedient they will be, free stuff you must give them. The only path to progressivism this is.

"nattering nabobs of negativism" - Spiro Agnew

This poster is not an advocate for HRC. Nochain, your post makes it sound like I am hell-bent on her, come hell or high water. Not so. Since it seems that some posters want to do a hatchet job on her, I am just trying to put things into perspective.

How about some positive choices for POTUS... and why?

Eric wrote:

"nattering nabobs of negativism" - Spiro Agnew

This poster is not an advocate for HRC.  Nochain, your post makes it sound like I am hell-bent on her, come hell or high water.  Not so.  Since it seems that some posters want to do a hatchet job on her, I am just trying to put things into perspective.

How about some positive choices for POTUS... and why?

Wish I could see one out there - so far no luck. If HRC had been elected in 2008 - with Wild Bill advising - I have a feeling things would be a a lot better now. But she has changed over the past few years IMHO, and not for the better.

Joanimaroni wrote:

The State Department should have increased its security posture more significantly in Benghazi based on the deteriorating security situation on the ground and [intelligence community] threat reporting on the prior attacks against Westerners in Benghazi," the Senate report states.

Absolutely!

There are some times when common sense should be the rule rather than the politics....coverups...and lies...There is no defense for this administration allowing not only this embassy but any embassy to open to attacks especially when
this was no surprise...There are times when the attacks are a surprise but this was not one of those times...

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

"nattering nabobs of negativism" - Spiro Agnew

This poster is not an advocate for HRC.  Nochain, your post makes it sound like I am hell-bent on her, come hell or high water.  Not so.  Since it seems that some posters want to do a hatchet job on her, I am just trying to put things into perspective.

How about some positive choices for POTUS... and why?

Wish I could see one out there - so far no luck. If HRC had been elected in 2008 - with Wild Bill advising - I have a feeling things would be a a lot better now. But she has changed over the past few years IMHO, and not for the better.

After seeing the media frenzy with Christie....it sends the message to anyone as to why they would subject themselves and their families to this crap....It wasn't that long ago that the 'professional?' media broke the huge story about Romney and his behavior in HS in the sixties...No matter how empty someone may believe there closet is empty of skeletons...there's someone out waiting for their big day or payoff with a story....It's funny really...the media has tried and convicted Christie over the bridge scandal before there's a shred of evidence suggesting he had knowledge or participated...maybe it was an internet video here too... and yet look on the national level and the free passes given to the cowh and his administration...