When it comes to the Benghazi attack, the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs have spoken: the terrorist attack is the State Department's fault.
And the report says that the State Department failed to adequately respond to mounting security threats prior to the assault according to Fox News. But they might as well have pointed a finger directly at Hillary Clinton, since the Secretary of State has even acknowledged that when it comes to her department and any failure, the buck stops with her.
Yet two other entities bear some of the responsibility according to the Committee members, and they say so in at least two of the 10 findings the report reveals. But they could have added at least two more responsible parties and been a little more accurate: the White House and Congress.
Senator Joseph Lieberman, the committee chairman, and Susan Collins, the ranking Senate member, opened their investigative report findings with a reference to "September 11," wanting to drive home the point that American security should absolutely never be lax, and never be lax on that date in particular. And what American can argue with that?
However, their effort to point the finger mostly at Hillary Clinton and the State Department as the fall guy (or gal) for the Libya embassy attack lets other entities off the hook that really should not be given that pass if one reads the Senate report on the Benghazi attack for themselves.
Hillary Clinton is but one person, and the State Department is but one entity involved in national security for the United States. Thus a quick look at the 10 findings the Senate committee listed in their report shows that there were more people (and agencies) to blame other than Hillary Clinton and the State Department when it comes to the attack that claimed the life of a U.S. ambassador and three others.
First, the Libyan government did not meet their responsibility to secure the facility. And second, the U.S. Department of Defense failed to assess that they did not have available U.S. firepower assets sitting near enough to respond and assist in a last minute crisis.
The State Department may be the diplomatic face of America, but the Department of Defense is her protector on foreign soil. The two entities should have been on the same page together, and the Senate Committee investigating the embassy attack feels the same way, saying so in their "Finding 8."
And in all honesty, the Libyan government can't be expected to prepare as well for such a crisis possibility as America's armed forces and leaders, but the U.S. Department of Defense certainly should be expected to, especially after September 11. Yet they did not ever jointly meet with the State Department and assess the availability of assets near the U.S. Embassy in Libya--even after four serious incidents that occurred earlier in the year in that area.
And that brings up the responsibility of the Executive Branch of government, as well as Congress, since one of the Senate committee's findings faulted the State Department for not adequately meeting requests for an increase in security and protection measures in advance of the attack. Yet if Pres. Obama and his White House administration holds the position that defense spending should be on the cutting block, or the Congress refuses to pass legislation that would allocate more defense spending dollars for overseas diplomatic efforts, then how can Hillary Clinton or the State Department be held liable for refusing to beef up security at the embassy?
(Hillary Clinton Photo Credit: Christian Science Monitor)
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 6
"The attacks on our embassies and diplomats are a result of perceived American weakness. Mitt Romney is right to point that out."
So with her health issues, which I'm sure some 'quack' will say it was there we just didn't know it, and whatever happened brought it to our attention and it has effected her work for _________ amount of time........Nothing like making someone out to be the fall person just because she's on her way out and is suffering from a health crisis....
Yeah.....
It does not appear this was a last minute crisis. From what I am reading there where government leaders who knew hours and even days before hand that there was a crisis building. Why was this intelligence ignored? Why didn't the US respond in the hours that it took place. There was no rescue mission whatsoever. It was a recovery mission.
How did the US respond in 1983 to the US barracks bombing in Beruit?
How did the US respond in 2000 with the death of US soldiers on the attack of the USS Cole?
There really was no significant respons, only lipservice.
Then we had 9-11.
The appearance of weakness to our enemies only encourages them.
Now once again the US has not responding in a meaningful way to the attack in Bengahzi. The US had the chance to respond before the attack, during the attack and after the attack. So far nothing has happened but finger pointing. What message does this send to the terrorists who consider the US "The Great Satan" who needs to be wiped off the face of the earth?