Benghazi Report’s Most Egregious Error


The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee recently released a report on Benghazi that was a mix between a whitewash, a rote list of damning facts, and a mildly-expressed repudiation of the press. The most serious error of the report, however, lies in the fact that it makes liars of the men who were on the ground, who risked their lives and who are true American heroes.

The mainstream media, almost to a man, claimed the GOP-led committee debunked Benghazi, but it hardly did that. Maybe they should have read the report.

We have politicians who don’t read bills and we have reporters who report on reports they haven’t read.

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee from whence the report came is Mike Rogers. He comes with conflicts of interest because of his ties to defense contracts through his wife.

Rogers also wanted no part of Benghazi, a fact known for months.

Daily Beast national security correspondent Eli Lake reported that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers had “warned his colleagues about the upcoming select committee to investigate Benghazi.” In interviews Rogers “downplayed” the testimony CIA contractors gave in closed session.

The “downplaying” Mr. Lake refers to was actually to ignore it. The committee relied on testimony from people like the self-confessed liar, Mike Morell. They relied on witnesses who were hundreds and thousands of miles away, not bothering to give as much credence to the people on the ground who actually knew what was going on.

The chairmen of the House Intelligence, Armed Services, and Government Reform committees — Reps. Rogers, Buck McKeon, and Darrell Issa, respectively — all opposed the formation of a select committee on Benghazi.”

The report exonerates the entire intelligence community despite the fact that there was a clear intelligence failure. It does seem as if the committee was protecting them.

Did you know that there was a huge convoy near Benghazi that didn’t come to help until it was about over?  The contractors mention that in the video as well as the fact that the security at the consulate was handled by the February 17th Brigade. The Brigade is and has been associated with Ansara al-Sharia, an arm of al-Qaida. Certainly that was a failure in intelligence. The report mentions that security at the consulate was inadequate – isn’t that a lapse in security?


The handling of this significant event was a betrayal to people like Gregory Hicks who stuck his neck out and had nothing to gain by doing so.

The administration refused to allow the emergency support team to move forward but that was also ignored by the committee. They betrayed Mark Thompson.

The report is replete with inaccuracies.  Rogers didn’t even bother to get the details correct.

The report misquotes the security officers regarding the time of the explosions; it claims a DS (diplomatic security) agent went in and out of the window with terrorists within ten feet; it downplays the ferocity of the assault; there was only one team member who aided the wounded not the remaining team members as the report indicates; all were in defensive positions but Rogers’ report states only one DS agent participated in the defense of the Annex; the time of the first call was incorrect; Rogers incorrectly states that the Chief of Base made the decision to commence the operation when in fact the Chief – Bob – and GRS staff team leader never commenced anything but rather gave stand down orders; et cetera.

The full details of the multitude of errors can be read at Breitbart.

Rep. Rogers was sick of Benghazi. He said Benghazi was in the past, had little to do with the intelligence community today.

There are parts of the report that are clear, such as the statements that the attack was a terror attack and had nothing to do with the video. It does criticize the media who refused to do their job as watchdogs. The report only reviewed CIA conduct but the media reported it as if it was the quintessential review of Benghazi.

The report does show the egregious errors in the process of developing the talking points, something the media chose to avoid discussing.

Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist posted an article titled, 20 Ways Media Completely Misread Congress’ Weak-Sauce Benghazi Report you might want to read. It provides a thorough and intelligent analysis that you won’t find elsewhere in the mainstream media.

The Rogers’ report does lay the failures of Benghazi at the feet of the State Department and as much as Hillary Clinton would like to pretend she had nothing to do with any of it, except tangentially, Secretary of State is the most significant position she has held. As a short-term senator, she did not submit one bill.

Benghazi should be her Waterloo.

The report ignored most of what went on after the attack. The administration, including James Clapper, continued to attribute the attack to the video, at least in part, long after the truth was known. The fact that the report states the groups involved were almost all al-Qaida and then downplays the role of al-Qaida should be a dead giveaway as to the accuracy of the report.

The report argues throughout that the attacks were not pre-meditated or planned, and rather represented an “off-the-shelf” operation which can be disproven just by reviewing the sophistication of the weapons used.

The report which the committee members say is not at all political is a thoroughly political report. Another committee under the leadership of Trey Gowdy will be more thorough. 

The inaccuracies and the glossing over the truth over Benghazi can be mind-boggling.

The Gowdy committee will prove to be a more thorough and sincere effort to get to the truth.

Listen to the concerns about General Petraeus:

It’s not over. The contractors are men of honor and will not rest until the truth is known.