Accuracy in Media

The Democratic members of the Select Committee on Benghazi, Elijah Cummings (MD), Adam Smith (WA), Adam Schiff (CA), Linda Sanchez (CA) and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), issued their own report on their findings in investigating the terrorist attacks at the Benghazi, Libya consulate on September 11, 2012 and the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. Their findings are similar to Democratic Party talking points:

  • “The Defense Department could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks that would have saved the lives of the four brave Americans killed in Benghazi, and although the military’s global posture prevented it from responding more quickly that night, improvements were made years ago.
  • “The State Department’s security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate as a result of decisions made by officials in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, but Secretary Clinton never personally denied any requests for additional security in Benghazi.
  • “Administration officials did not make intentionally misleading statements about the attacks, but instead relied on information they were provided at the time under fast-moving circumstances.”

The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi disagrees with these findings and believes the Democratic members’ rebuttal is anything but a rebuttal, but it is a political ploy. The Commission points out the following:

  • A U.S. Air Force source told Fox News that the military (i.e. Department of Defense) could have sent forces from their base in Italy to Libya and would have made it to Benghazi during the siege of the consulate compound, contradicting the Democrats’ point of how the Department “could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks.”
  • Contrary to the Democrats’ report, we have found that there were at least 20 security incidents between international organizations and al-Qaeda-type groups in Libya before the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012, which involved the United Nations, International Committee of the Red Cross, and other countries’ diplomatic missions. Of 234 security incidents compiled by then-Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, 50 of these incidents occurred in Benghazi before the attack. Here are examples of these security incidents:
    • The Red Cross was hit by RPGs in May 2012
    • In June, a car bomb hit the hotel where Ambassador Chris Stevens was staying, an IED blew open a hole in the consulate’s wall, and the convoy of the British ambassador was hit by RPGs. Both the Red Cross and British mission left Libya soon after.
  • Blaming the administration’s statements on the reliance of information provided “under fast-moving circumstances” detracts from the reality that in Hillary Clinton’s private, secret and illegal e-mails, she e-mailed her daughter Chelsea about how the attack was terrorist in origin:
    • “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow. Let’s try again later.”
    • This e-mail contradicts her statements, and the statements of the Obama administration, that a video caused these “spontaneous” protests and the resulting attack on the consulate.
  • Also, Hillary Clinton furthered this video-causing-the-attack narrative and told the father of one of the murdered Americans, Charles Woods, that “we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.”

The Democratic members’ report on Benghazi is another list of Democratic Party talking points meant to shield Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.

 

Our press release for our new report and press conference can be found here.

You can read the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi report here:

AIM Citizens Commission on Benghazi FINAL REPORT June 2016





Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • Dave

    Having had prior experience with USAF Spec. Ops. capabilities and fairly good understanding of SOCOM improvements since I was active duty leads me to suspect that several military units could have responded “within the time frame”. I believe the testimony of experienced and commited operators that reported they were ready, never given “green light” and ultimately even told to “stand down” instead of “stand by”. I believe the political decision makers in D.C. never even entertained the possibility of military response. Our military assets and individual operators are committed and would deploy even into hostile environments where their likelihood of success was marginal. “Any Time / Any Place” is on the USAF Spec. Ops. patch for a reason. Insertion of special operators or quick reaction teams and extraction of QRF and rescued citizens under hostile fire is their business.