While the USA was still at war, in 2010, Congressional Republicans set their sites on government spending. As a result every Executive Branch Cabinet Department was issued cuts in spending. The State Department was one of them. The cuts to security in Libya were established by the Congress, not the Secretary of State.
The cuts to the nation's security continues under "The Sequester" furthering the dangers to our diplomatic missions. So, the Republicans need to step up to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for the increased dangers to our national security.
This report was directed to be done by the House Speaker. Basically, "Go ahead and spend the bucks and travel to place far and wide to nail it down so we have a better 2014 election and a shot at 2016."
From Page 4 "...The Committees paid particular attention to investigating allegations receiving public attention after the attacks and associated findings are included in the report...."
Populous politics. This is a waste of money and a dangerous practice. It could ultimately even cause war if populous opinion is raised to a prominence in official documents. These reports are suppose to be based in factual evidence without priority to political populism. Additionally, this is now precedence that could require every citizen with a question have it answered through a US House Committee costing trillions over time.
The USA has about 150 embassies around the world. What is happening to the rest of them because of cuts to their budgets by the Republican political fervor topic of MONEY to win elections?
This report also seeks to blame President Obama for not micromanaging the activities of the Libya mission. That is not remotely appropriate, adds to the political directive of the report. The Speaker and the Committees need review for ethics violations.
They spent taxpayer money for this junk! I suppose their excuse is that it is an Interim Report. Releasing an interim report is a politically strategic plan to 'get it right' in the final report. They want to know what they can get away with for 2014 and 2016.
Give me a break, this Committee report lead by Issa wanted President Obama to anticipate attacks on September 11th and DO SOMETHING more than self-defense. I suppose President Obama was suppose to attack the Libyan people first. He wanted APPROPRIATELY deployed military assets to have been stationed to defend embassies. If military assets were appropriately deployed what difference would it have been to tell them to 'defend diplomatic facilities' RATHER THAN 'self - defense.' Did I miss something in those semantics? Is "self-defense" not "defending?" I mean the only other possibility is aggression and not self-defense.
It is amazing the chaos Republicans seek to cause in manipulating language. The Speaker needs to ask for a Congressional Conference to share information between the House and the Senate and at least look competent enough to discern political hazing of the Executive Branch.
At this point the House Committees seem to focused on their political agenda for the interim report and come to conclusions. At this point I don't know if they actually used good information available to them. I suggest the Senate Committees issue a comprehensive report so the House Speaker has a compare and contrast of their focus. I can't believe I am wishing Boner finished the eighth grade.
The Interim Report deliberately seeks to divide the response to Benghazi into Democratic and Republican values.
Page 6:
During the attacks: ...U.S. security teams on the ground in Benghazi exhibited extreme bravery...Department of Defense and military personnel reacted quickly to the attacks in Benghazi... But, they needed orders to defend and not simply self-defense. Those are attempts at pure confusion of the facts for political gain and what to include in this Interim Report to enhance their political prowess. This report is not credible.
After the attacks: In this report it is stated the intelligence agencies were spot on. Therefore, the intelligence talking points would have been as spot on. But. While Secretary Rice used the talking points of the intelligence services: The administration willfully perpetrated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a You Tube video. So, the Speaker's commissioned Committees states the intelligence agencies are good, but, the UN Ambassaor is bad. Got it.
The Interim Report contains too much subjective information. Issa's leadership does not set definitions and/or standards for their statements.
Example: "...Email exchanges during the interagency process (modified to protect classified information) do not reveal any concern for protecting classified information. What criteria did the Committees use to determine concern for classified information. Did the Administration have to use the words, "...we are concerned for classified information..." or did they have to use the words, "...define classified information so we know what words to use.". This report is worthless and I refuse to spend any more time on it.If the Republicans are trying to impeach President Obama and malign Secretary Clinton, they have a long way to go. Those hanging their hats on this report for 2014 or 2016 have a high rate of failure to achieve their goals.
Based on this Interim Report the final report's title should be: "Kudos to everyone with all the funding they needed, except, for two people namely dim witted President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton."
