Jos.
R. Walsh 8/19/16
I
understand that this is a topic that’s been covered extensively and may seem to
be Old News. I’m personally confident though, as November 8th draws
ever closer, we’ll be hearing plenty more of this conversation.
In
comparison of various Official and Semi-Official findings, one thing is clear.
And that is that not everything is clear.
Unfortunately,
but none too surprisingly given the present Toxic Political Climate,
Congressional Reports on the incident are Partisan. The Congressional
Democratic participants state that this Partisan response is the result of
exclusion of the Minority party in the final findings.
Giving
credence to Democrat’s claim of partisanship is observation of a public comment
by Republican Committee Member Mike McCarthy (R –California): “Everybody
thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable right? But we put together a Benghazi
Special Committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers
are dropping," McCarthy said. "Why? Cause she’s untrustable. But no
one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that
happen,” he told Fox News host Sean Hannity. Wednesday Sep 30, 2015 ·
So, Rep. McCarthy, the point of the House
Select Committee on Benghazi was to ‘Drop Hillary Clinton’s Numbers’?
‘the minority report released June 27,
the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi said that “it remains unclear to
this day precisely what motivated all of the individuals in Benghazi on the
night of the attacks.” The report quoted former CIA Director David Petraeus
as saying, “I’m still not absolutely certain what absolutely took place …
and to be candid with you, I am not sure that the amount of scrutiny spent on
this has been in the least bit worth it.”
From
The Minority Report: “We deeply regret that this report is not
bipartisan. In May, we asked Chairman
Trey Gowdy to work with us on a joint report with conclusions we could all
agree on, followed by areas on which we may disagree. We also offered to provide him with a draft
of our report in advance. But Chairman
Gowdy mocked our request as “mildly amusing.”
“We
are issuing our own report today because, after spending more than two years
and $7 million in taxpayer funds in one of the longest and most partisan
congressional investigations in history, it is long past time for the Select Committee
to conclude its work. Despite our
repeated requests over the last several months, Republicans have refused to
provide us with a draft of their report—or even a basic outline—making it
impossible for us to provide input and obvious that we are being shut out of
the process .
In
Fairness, The House Select Committee on Benghazi Report:
The
main focus of the Report is on Communication. And not just necessarily the all-important
communication among The White House, State Department, and the State Department
Benghazi Mission Compound,(a Temporary State Dept. Office), the U.S. Embassy in
Tripoli, and various Defense Dept., State Dept., CIA, and other Security
Agencies in Libya and Europe. A
concentrated focus, amounting to a majority of the Committee’s Time and Effort,
was placed on internal communication among The White House, State Dept., and
various other Government Officials, After the Attack. The focus of this avenue
of inquiry was to discredit initial statements by the Officials, that the
Attack was a response to an offensive YouTube Video which inspired protests
elsewhere in the Muslim World, most notably, but not exclusively, Egypt.
The
overriding aim of the Select Committee’s Investigation appears to be, proof,
that the Obama Administration, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton lied to
the public about the precise cause of the Attack: early on, several key
Administration Officials, and indeed the Secretary of State herself, expressed
the opinion that the Attack sprung from a mass protest over the Muslim-
offending video.
Congressional
Republicans adopted the stance that this amounted to Government Officials lying to
the Public about the exact nature of the deadly Attack. Administration
Officials responded to these charges stating that there were in fact, other
violent incidents across the Region, including just a week prior in Benghazi,
regarding the video. The Obama Administration, including Sec. Clinton, said this
was the basis of their initial statements.
In
her first public statement, the Secretary of State referred to the video,
but made no mention of terrorists or a terrorist attack. An hour later, she
sent an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that made no reference to the
video, and blamed “an al Qaeda-like group.”
Therefore,
actual proof that Sec. Clinton said one thing in Public, and something else in
‘Private’ conversation with her daughter. (Ooohh –‘Lock Her Up’!)
The
value of Hillary Clinton’s after-the-fact opinion of what exactly sparked this
deadly attack, and what she said to whom about it, after-the-fact, is
debatable. Some say it is highly relevant as it exposes her as being
‘untrustworthy’. Others, like Former Army Command General and CIA Director
David Petraeus, say entirely too much time and effort and money has been spent
on investigating and broadcasting the finer points of who opined what to whom,
after the Attack.
As
far as the Obama Administration and Sec. Clinton saying certain things in
‘Private’, and other things to the Public, well, that’s been going on in
National Security matters since General, and then President, Geo. Washington.
Do we have any recent examples of a Secretary of State making Public Statements
that differed from the precise facts? Does the name Colin Powell ring a bell?
Mixed Message
It’s clear from the information contained in
the Select Committee Report that the White House, State Dept., FBI, CIA, and
others, were not entirely clear, or in synch about the relevancy of the impact
of the Anti-Muslim Youtube Video, leading up to, and at the time of the Attack.
It seems to me at least, that the Report indicates the cohesion around that
point occurred in the immediate aftermath, and subsequent to this dreadful
episode. It also seems apparent that Sec. Clinton, and those speaking publicly
on her behalf, failed to discard the inaccurate observation. To the point that
this is an indication of Sec. Clinton’s being “untrustable”, I think goes a bit
too far.
Also,
it should be noted here that the Select Committee did not focus entirely on the
controversy around the Youtube Video. Appropriately, the Committee made inroads
into causes and conditions surrounding the Attack. Inappropriately though, the
Committee engaged in a bit of a partisan witch- hunt to lay blame for the
Attack solely at the feet of the Obama Administration, while excusing the
Congress from any responsibility whatever. Congress is responsible for “timely
and appropriate funding” of Security for Foreign Embassies. Congress cut $270
Million from President Obama’s Budget for Embassy Security prior to the
Benghazi Attack. How much that contributed to the many failures at Benghazi is
an on-going debate. Either way, Congress does indeed play a significant role
here, but there is nothing about that mentioned in the Congressional Republican
Select Committee Report.
The Minority Report however, does address Congress’s
Role.
P. 313x314 Minority Report: Recommendations -
*Congress
should provide the State Department with funding, support, and authorities
sufficient to construct, maintain, and improve overseas diplomatic facilities
to meet security requirements and protect American diplomats in today’s
challenging security environments. * Congress should continue to provide
consistent, sufficient funding to ensure that the State Department can complete
construction of the Foreign Affairs Security Training Center in Fort Pickett,
Virginia in a timely manner, which will help ensure that Diplomatic Security
agents are well prepared to protect U.S. personnel and their families overseas.
* Congress should work with the State Department to approve new dual-compensation
waiver authorities to permit more experienced agents to fill staffing gaps to
help ensure that U.S. diplomatic facilities are fully staffed with security
personnel.
*
Congress should amend federal law to allow for “best value” contracting for
local guards, rather than the cheapest available alternative that meets minimum
standards, to improve the quality of contracted local guards protecting U.S.
facilities and diplomats abroad.
For
its part, the Select Committee’s Report made only one Congressional Funding
recommendation, that being that the Security Training Center at Fort Pickett,
VA, be appropriately funded in a timely manner.
Security Budget
An
additional issue adding to the confusion of the Benghazi Attack is that the
facility itself was a ‘Shared Facility’ by Dept. of State and CIA.
Following
the September 11, 2012 attack on U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya,
the independent Benghazi Accountability Review Board (ARB) on December 19,
2012, issued 29 recommendations (24 of which were unclassified) to the
Department of State. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/01/219760.htm
A key
finding in the ARB report was: “Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented
as a ‘shared responsibility’ by the bureaus in Washington charged with
supporting the post, resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on
policy and security. That said, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and
sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission
Benghazi.”
During
hearings into the attack last fall, (Oct.
10, 2012 hearing) https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/barbara-boxers-claim-that-gop-budgets-hampered-benghazi-security/2013/05/15/d1e295cc-bdb0-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_blog.html
State Department officials were specifically
asked if a lack of financial resources played a role in the attack. The answer
was no. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE CHARLENE LAMB
That
said, there is also Testimony in Committee Report that Ms. Lamb responded to
requests for additional Security in Benghazi with the Statement ‘There are no
available resources…’ for increased Security.
All
said and done, the conclusions come down to, as they do with most historic
failures, is that there’s plenty of blame to go around. Secretary Clinton most
certainly made some disturbing mistakes here, mostly after-the-fact. These
mistakes do not rise to the level of criminality. As to her ‘Trustworthiness’ I
think it lands squarely equal to most
Politicians: Typical.
No comments:
Post a Comment