ChrisWeigant.com

Benghazi Conspiracy Theories Definitively Debunked. Again.

[ Posted Monday, November 24th, 2014 – 18:29 UTC ]

All of the Benghazi conspiracy theories have now been completely debunked. Again. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence just publicly released its report, which systematically knocks down pretty much every paranoid theory over the tragedy which happened in Benghazi, Libya and what happened immediately afterwards. For those of you who are counting, this is the seventh such report that has come to exactly the same conclusions. The House committee was led by a Republican, but the report itself was a bipartisan effort.

That we have had seven thorough investigations of this tragedy is apparently not enough for some folks, since an eighth investigation was recently launched by House Republicans. They refuse to accept the conclusions of these prior investigations -- all seven of them -- that there simply was no nefarious plot from the White House to "spin" the tragedy for political gain. In fact, the mere existence of seven investigations (with the eighth already underway) should indicate to the objective observer that only one party is "playing politics" with the Benghazi tragedy -- and it is not President Obama's party who is doing so.

The new House report repeatedly asserts that it should be seen as the "definitive" report on Benghazi. Here is the concluding paragraph, for example:

This report is the result of nearly two years of intensive investigation. The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed thousands of pages of intelligence assessments, cables, notes, and emails; held 20 Committee events and hearings; and conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials and eyewitnesses to the attacks, including eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night. Members and Staff spent thousands of hours intensively looking at every aspect of the tragedy. The report is therefore meant to serve as the definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community's activities before, during and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans. Despite the highly sensitive nature of these activities, the report has endeavored to make the facts and conclusions within this report widely and publicly available so that the American public can separate actual fact from rumor and unsupported innuendo. Only with a full accounting of the facts can we ensure that tragedies like this one never happen again.

The report contains 17 "findings," each of which might be summarized as: "That thing you heard about on Fox News? It didn't actually happen, because we fully investigated and debunked that theory." Think this is cynically overstating the case? Here is "Finding #16" in full, addressing a specific instance of all that "rumor and unsupported innuendo" (emphasis in original):

Finding #16: There is no evidence that the CIA conducted any unusual polygraph exams related to Benghazi.

CIA witnesses consistently testified that they had not undergone a polygraph examination following the Benghazi attacks. CIA confirmed that it had not conducted a polygraph examination of any officer following their assignments in Benghazi.

That's just a sample. The biggest conspiracy theories that were debunked (again) by this report: the White House did not exert any political influence over the talking points Susan Rice used in her Sunday interviews; the C.I.A. made the "substantive changes" to the talking points, not anyone in the White House; there was no "stand down" order given at any time during the attacks; there was no air support available; and there was no "coverup" after the fact. In other words, all those incredible theories the right wing has been pushing ever since are simply not true. And this, mind you, is from a Republican-led House committee.

This report was released just before Congress left for one of their extended holiday vacations, right when President Obama was making news on immigration policy. The timing of the release pretty much guaranteed that few in the media would notice it or adequately report on it. For all the thousands of breathless Benghazi news stories we've been subjected to over the past two years, there were few reporters interested in standing up before a camera to now say: "All that stuff we hyped previously was just flat-out wrong, folks. Sorry about that."

Congress has spent untold millions of dollars of taxpayer money to reach the same conclusions the first six definitive reports on the tragedy reached. The House of Representatives continues to spend millions on an eighth investigation, because Republicans cannot accept reality. The questions have all been asked, repeatedly. They have all been answered, each and every time. But the answers aren't what the Republicans want to hear (again), so they are charging into yet another investigation. They cannot believe that anything involving the nexus of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Islamic terrorists, and Susan Rice could not have some nefarious Democratic plot buried deep within it. They keep searching for smoke to prove the fire in their imagination, and they will likely keep this fervid search up right through Hillary Clinton's expected run for the presidency. The process of investigation has taken on a life of its own, out of all proportion to the fact that nothing -- that's not one single thing, folks -- has been uncovered so far which would prove the looniest of the Republicans' theories. There is no smoke to be seen, but that's not going to stop them from looking, once again.

The Benghazi attacks were a tragedy. Four brave Americans died, including a United States ambassador. In saner and more normal times, any investigation into this tragedy would focus almost completely on what went wrong with the security, and how that could be improved in the future so such an attack never happens again. This has been almost completely lost in the partisan witchhunt.

This is the seventh report to come to the same conclusion: all the conspiracy theories are just plain wrong. The eighth investigation is now underway. This all shows, with crystal clarity, that there indeed has been manipulation of this tragedy for crass partisan purposes. The public has indeed been misled, often by governmental officials who should really know better. But this misleading didn't come from the White House, or from the Democrats. Only one political party has shamelessly exploited this tragedy -- over and over again -- in nothing more than an attempt to score cheap political points.

But I guess, somehow, that's not newsworthy these days. I'm still waiting to see a mainstream media headline which finally tells the public the unvarnished truth: "Republican Benghazi Conspiracy Theories All Debunked -- Again." Or maybe just: "Wrong All Along."

 

[Note: The full declassified House committee report is available in PDF format on the committee's website. I encourage everyone interested in Benghazi to read it in full (it is only 36 pages long). Because some people don't like dealing with PDF files, I have reproduced below the entire two-page "Executive Summary" which prefaces the rest of the report. This overview shows the breadth of the investigation, and how every single conspiracy theory they looked at proved to be completely and utterly wrong.]

 

Executive Summary

The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence ("HPSCI" or "the Committee") conducted a comprehensive and exhaustive investigation into the tragic attacks against two U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on September 11-12, 2012. The nearly two-year investigation focused on the activities of the Intelligence Community ("IC") before, during, and after the attacks. During the course of thousands of hours of detailed investigation, HPSCI reviewed thousands of pages of intelligence assessments, cables, notes, and emails; held 20 Committee events and hearings; and conducted detailed interviews with senior intelligence officials and eyewitnesses to the attacks, including eight security personnel on the ground in Benghazi that night.

This report details the findings and conclusions of HPSCI's investigation. In summary, the Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi and, without a requirement to do so, ably and bravely assisted the State Department on the night of the attacks. Their actions saved lives. Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support. The Committee, however, received evidence that the State Department security personnel, resources, and equipment were unable to counter the terrorist threat that day and required CIA assistance.

Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al-Qa'ida, participated in the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, although the Committee finds that the intelligence was and remains conflicting about the identities, affiliations, and motivations of the attackers.

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the [Obama] Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contrary intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence. There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke), and after the FBI began publishing its interviews with U.S. officials on the ground on September 22, 2012.

Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for -- and which were used for Ambassador Rice's public appearances -- was flawed. HPSCI asked for the talking points solely to aid [Committee] Members' ability to communicate publicly using the best available intelligence at the time, and mistakes were made in the process of how those talking points were developed.

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.

This report, and the nearly two years of intensive investigation it reflects, is meant to serve as the definitive House statement on the Intelligence Community's activities before, during, and after the tragic events that caused the deaths of four brave Americans. Despite the highly sensitive nature of these activities, the report has endeavored to make the facts and conclusions within this report widely and publicly available so that the American public can separate the actual facts from the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations. Only with a full accounting of the facts can we ensure that tragedies like the one that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty never happen again.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

20 Comments on “Benghazi Conspiracy Theories Definitively Debunked. Again.”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh puulleeeze....

    How many committees did Democrats field on Iraq war II??

    And which political Party exploited THAT for cheap political points???

    Seriously...

    If one is going to point to the dirty hands of their opponents....

    It behooves one to make sure their own hands are clean first....

    Right???

    The simple fact is....

    Benghazi was a terrorist attack... And the Obama administration spent TWO WEEKS telling the American people it wasn't..

    I can even point to comments here in Weigantia who swore up and down the Party line....

    You can't re-write history, regardless of what political morons state for the record...

    Michale

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't re-write history, regardless of what political morons state for the record...

    Those "political morons" being in DC and NOT here in Weigantia....

    Had to make that clear.. :D

    Michale

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Benghazi Hoax is old news. The Gruber Hoax is breaking now.

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Benghazi Hoax is old news.

    Hoax, eh??

    It sure decimated the ranks of the Democrat Party in the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...

    Some "hoax".... :D

    Michale

  5. [5] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Benghazi conspiracy theory has followed the classic pattern: draw your curve, than pick (or manufacture) data to fit it. The process never ends, but most people eventually get bored with it.

    The latest report appears thorough and well reasoned, but I do wish the last sentence in the executive summary and the conclusion of the main body wasn't there.

    "Only with a full accounting of the facts can we ensure that tragedies like this one never happen again."

    The above notion is pious fantasy. Mistakes will always happen in the real world. The best way to minimize mistakes is stop taking calculated risks, but if you do that over the long haul, you lose to an opponent who is willing to take them and play the percentages. That's encapsulated in the old Special Air Services motto: "Qui audet adipiscitur." Who Dares Wins.

    My rewrite:

    "Only with a full accounting of the facts can we learn from mistakes and continue to improve our operational responses to constantly evolving threats." That's a realistic goal.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Hoax, eh??

    It sure decimated the ranks of the Democrat Party in the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...

    argumentum ad populum, aka bandwagon fallacy. I don't know whether or not most people believe the Benghazi conspiracy is real, but even if they do, that doesn't make it true. based on all the evidence that's been gathered, with very little likelihood of any additional information coming out, it's false.

    How many committees did Democrats field on Iraq war II??

    the senate intelligence committee on the second Iraq war found that president Bush and VP Cheney's statements on Iraq's nuclear capacity were incorrect. I realize this must irk you something fierce, but the chief distinction between those two scenarios is that Bush was wrong and Obama was right.

    JL

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    argumentum ad populum, aka bandwagon fallacy. I don't know whether or not most people believe the Benghazi conspiracy is real, but even if they do, that doesn't make it true. based on all the evidence that's been gathered, with very little likelihood of any additional information coming out, it's false.

    It depends on how you define "conspiracy"...

    Was there a concentrated effort by Obama officials to explain away Benghazi as something other than a terrorist attack so as not to conflict with Obama's message that "Al Qaeda is on the ropes"??

    Of course there was.. That fact is not indispute..

    the senate intelligence committee on the second Iraq war found that president Bush and VP Cheney's statements on Iraq's nuclear capacity were incorrect. I realize this must irk you something fierce, but the chief distinction between those two scenarios is that Bush was wrong and Obama was right.

    Obama was right???

    So, Benghazi WAS nothing but a protest gone bad based on a Anti Islam YouTube video???

    Shirley, you jest.. :D

    I know this must irk you something fierce :D but Obama was as wrong as wrong can be...

    People died and Obama lied...

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    the senate intelligence committee on the second Iraq war found that president Bush and VP Cheney's statements on Iraq's nuclear capacity were incorrect.

    I am also constrained to point out that the hysteria from the Left that exists even to this day is that Bush and Cheney LIED...

    It's always been my contention that Bush and Cheney did not LIE but that they were simply wrong...

    Ergo, the Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed that *MY* position was correct and that ya'all's position was in error...

    Talk about irking and fierce!!! :D

    Michale

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    argumentum ad populum, aka bandwagon fallacy.

    Further, it has been established by WEIGANTIANS that any leader who has wrongdoing going on in their administration and only learns about the wrongdoing from the Media is an incompetent leader..

    Practically every debacle that has involved this administration, Obama et al learned about it from the media...

    Ergo, simply by not being AWARE of the wrongdoing, that makes Obama incompetent.

    At least, according to Weigantians...

    Also, the sheer NUMBER of debacles that has come out of this administration simply precludes the idea that there isn't SOMETHING going on...

    If the American people smell smoke time and time and time and time and time again.......

    Well, it's a pretty safe bet that there IS a fire, even if the exact details don't line up here or there...

    The idea that ALL of the debacles can be explained by coincidence and misunderstandings is ludicrous...

    Contrary to the general belief from the Left, the American people are NOT "stupid"...

    We know when we are being lied to and we KNOW when we are being sold a crock o crap....

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Was there a concentrated effort by Obama officials to explain away Benghazi as something other than a terrorist attack so as not to conflict with Obama's message that "Al Qaeda is on the ropes"??

    not according to the house committee report. according to the report, the administration was repeating what the CIA told them, and found out a week later that it was mistaken.

    That fact is not indispute..

    whether the administration's aim was to "explain away" cannot be a fact, regardless of what most members' motives actually were.

    in order to be factual, a statement must be falsifiable. although all the evidence verified by the house committee tends to suggest that the mistake was unintentional, and there's a strong case for that hypothesis, i can't prove you're wrong either. people's motives are ultimately a matter of opinion, not fact.

    JL

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    or to be more exact, i can't prove your statement of "fact" inaccurate, precisely because it isn't a fact.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    or to be more exact, i can't prove your statement of "fact" inaccurate, precisely because it isn't a fact.

    Yer right..

    I guess it all comes down to what the definition of 'is' is... :^/

    "I might not be able to define what pornography is, but I sure know what it is when I see it."
    -Unknown NYPD officer

    :D

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I guess it all comes down to what the definition of 'is' is

    I think http://www.thefreedictionary.com can clear that one up for you:

    To be (third person singular present indicative "is")

    1. To exist in actuality; have life or reality: I think, therefore I am.
    2.
    a. To occupy a specified position: The food is on the table.
    b. To remain in a certain state or situation undisturbed, untouched, or unmolested: Let the children be.
    3. To take place; occur: The test was yesterday.
    4. To go or come: Have you ever been to Italy? Have you been home recently?
    5. Used as a copula in such senses as:
    a. To equal in identity: "To be a Christian was to be a Roman" (James Bryce).
    b. To have a specified significance: A is excellent, C is passing. Let n be the unknown quantity.
    c. To belong to a specified class or group: The human being is a primate.
    d. To have or show a specified quality or characteristic: She is witty. All humans are mortal.
    e. To seem to consist or be made of: The yard is all snow. He is all bluff and no bite.
    6. To belong; befall: Peace be unto you. Woe is me.

    v.aux.
    1. Used with the past participle of a transitive verb to form the passive voice: The mayoral election is held annually.
    2. Used with the present participle of a verb to express a continuing action: We are working to improve housing conditions.
    3. Used with the infinitive of a verb to express intention, obligation, or future action: She was to call before she left. You are to make the necessary changes.
    4. Archaic Used with the past participle of certain intransitive verbs to form the perfect tense: "Where be those roses gone which sweetened so our eyes?" (Philip Sidney).

    that's only 10 definitions and 7 sub-definitions. [/snark]

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Touche' :D

    But I was thinking more along these lines...

    "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
    -Bill Clinton

    :D

    Regardless of all of that, Obama and his officials for two weeks, claimed that the Benghazi terrorist attack was nothing more than a protest of an Anti-Islam video gone bad...

    At the time, they KNEW that this was not the case..

    Hell, at the time, even *I* knew that this was not the case and made that abundantly and unequivocally clear here in Weigantia..

    Now, you may argue the definition of "claim" and "bad" and "two weeks" and "knew" and even "anti-islam video".

    But the simple fact is, intelligence assets (including your's truly) determined that it was a terrorist attack right at the outset..

    But the administration stuck to it's protest-gone-bad story for two weeks after the attack..

    This is an indisputable fact..

    That is all I am saying...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012"

    that's also a fact. therefore, the administration repeated exactly what the CIA told them. I would posit the most likely reason for doing so was that the administration believed what the CIA told them was true.

    Hell, at the time, even *I* knew that this was not the case and made that abundantly and unequivocally clear here in Weigantia..

    so in this case, it seems you were smarter than the US intelligence services. perhaps they should hire you; i hear tell there's a vacancy...

    JL

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012"

    Yea, that's one story.. Another SIX stories is that CIA and DIA officials put in memos that it was a terrorist attack. The White House returned those memos and wanted a re-assessment that was more in line with their spin...

    so in this case, it seems you were smarter than the US intelligence services. perhaps they should hire you;

    Not at all, as what I was saying is exactly what Intelligence and Military officials were saying at the time...

    In other words, we all came to the same conclusion independently of each other, based on the intel and the facts..

    Obama and the Democrats can re-write recent history to their hearts content...

    It won't change the fact that they were wrong and I was right..

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Not at all, as what I was saying is exactly what Intelligence and Military officials were saying at the time...

    that's like those people who say bush should have read and taken more seriously reports before 9/11 that bin laden was determined to strike. in hindsight it's easy to criticize someone for not believing those people who later turned out to be right. the report said that intel was conflicting. should obama and bush both have been expected to show better judgment? absolutely. but that's a far cry from saying the president (either president) intentionally misled the nation after a tragedy to serve his political needs. if i had to assess probability, i'd say the likelihood is much higher that bush did so than obama, and that the repercussions for it in bush's case were much more severe.

    JL

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    the report said that intel was conflicting.

    There was no conflicting "intel"...

    The politicians were saying one thing and the intelligence community was saying another..

    It turns out that the intelligence community was relying on, well ya know... INTELLIGENCE...

    The politicians were just relying on spin and wishful thinking...

    I know we'll never come to a meeting of the minds on this... Mainly because there is no commonality of experience that allows us to see, or more accurately, understand the other's viewpoints..

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It was interesting that the election cured our country of Ebola and Benghazi for at least a couple weeks.

    Both of them almost completely disappeared from the airwaves right after the election. I guess it really is that easy to manipulate Republicans.

    :)

    -David

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was interesting that the election cured our country of Ebola and Benghazi for at least a couple weeks.

    Ebola was "cured" long before the election. The Obama Administration asked the MSM AKA Obama's Lapdogs to quit reporting on it and the lapdogs quickly obliged...

    We're still going to keep hearing about Benghazi once the GOP is in total control of Congress.. You can take that to the bank....

    Other than being a legitimate concern, it's also a great way to keep chipping away at the "Inevitable" candidate...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.