- Best company ever? Veteran Beer Co. exists to employ vets, provide quality beer
- Iran official: Sanctions ‘utterly failed’ to stop nuclear program
- ‘Black Santa’ display at IU sparks student outrage
- Joint Chiefs chair Dempsey: Pentagon, VA too slow in merging medical systems
- Sen. Ben Cardin hits Ukraine for crackdown on Kiev protests
- Drone technology turns South, targets feral pigs to kill
- Puerto Rico caravan honoring Paul Walker ends in 6 drunken-driving arrests, 72 speeding tickets
- Better pack a lightsaber: House told space explorers could find alien life in 10 years
- Selfies gone too far? N.Y. woman snaps photo in front of suicidal man on bridge
- High times on D.C. radio: Toronto’s crack-addled Mayor Ford gets sports spot
White House tries to deflect criticism from Benghazi whistle-blowers
Question of the Day
The White House on Monday attempted to deflect new criticism on the administration’s handling of the Benghazi attacks from a firsthand witness and an additional whistle-blower, arguing that an internal State Department review charged with investigating the September attacks was led by an “unimpeachable” team.
When confronted with reports of new complaints by whistle-blowers preparing to testify Wednesday before a House committee looking into the Benghazi attacks, Mr. Carney repeatedly touted the credentials of the two men charged with conducting the State Department's Accountability Review Board and called their investigation “unsparing” and “highly critical.”
Retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Michael Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led the review, which faulted leadership and management deficiencies in two State Department offices in allowing the U.S. diplomatic post to become vulnerable to the attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
“There was an accountability review board led by two men of unimpeachable expertise and credibility,” Mr. Carney said, “who oversaw a process that was rigorous and unsparing, that was highly critical in some areas and that produced a series of recommendations that have all been acted on by the State Department, as the president insisted be the case.”
Gregory Hicks, Mr. Stevens‘ deputy and one of the top American diplomats in Libya during the attack, has criticized that review, saying it let people “off the hook.” The State Department's Office of Inspector General now is investigating the findings of the review board, Fox News has reported.
Mr. Hicks also told congressional investigators last month that a special forces team in Tripoli, Libya, was told to stand down and not respond to the attack at a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi despite its close proximity. In Mr. Hicks‘ estimation, a second wave of attacks on a nearby CIA annex in Benghazi could have been prevented if the U.S. military could have scrambled a flight when it first learned of the attacks, which would go on for seven hours.
Pentagon officials have said they didn’t have military assets in position to launch such an air assault, and Mr. Hicks has acknowledged concerns that refueling tankers were not close enough to the nearest fighter jets.
He also repeated an assertion first made last week, arguing that the White House is “not aware of anyone being blocked from talking to Congress if they chose or wanted to speak to Congress.”
Mark. I. Thompson, a former Marine who now serves as the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism, also has told congressional investigators that then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton effectively cut the bureau out of the decision-making loop that night. Mr. Thompson also is set to testify Wednesday.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has called the allegation “100 percent false,” and Daniel Benjamin, who ran the department’s Counterterrorism Bureau at the time, also put out a statement Monday morning strongly denying the charges.
“I ran the bureau then, and I can say now with certainty, as the former coordinator for counterterorrism, that this charge is simply untrue,” he said. “Though I was out of the country on official travel at the time of the attack, I was in frequent contact with the department. At no time did I feel that the bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Susan Crabtree is an award-winning investigative reporter with more than 15 years of reporting experience in Washington, D.C. Her reporting about bribery, corruption and conflict-of-interest issues on Capitol Hill has led to several FBI and ethics investigations, as well as consequences for members within their caucuses and at the ballot box. Susan can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- GOP senators want IG probe of Sebelius' 'Obamacare' fundraising
- Teaming up with Christie, Obama says Jersey shore 'back in business'
- No Moore: Obama flubs name of Oklahoma city devastated by tornado, calls it 'Monroe'
- Obama to Okla. tornado victims: 'We have got your back'
- Amid his own challenges, Obama calls on Navy grads to hold themselves accountable
Latest Blog Entries
By Tom Harris and Madhav Khandekar
Bad science puts rich nations on the hook for trillions in climate liabilities
- Hola: Boehner prepares to push amnesty bill through House
- Kill team: Obama war chiefs widen drone death zones
- U.S. drops 2,000 mice on Guam by parachute to kill snakes
- Doctors say profound new HIV treatment may prove the cure
- Inside China: Nuclear submarines capable of widespread attack on U.S.
- EDITORIAL: Motor City meltdown
- CARSON: Getting to the top by starting at the bottom
- Last call: State Dept. bought $180,000 in liquor before shutdown
- MILLER: Obamas EPA closing smelter will not affect ammunition supply
- Obama: Growing income inequality 'defining challenge' of this generation
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Headlines from Associated Press and around the Internet