Report blames poor security, inadequate response in Benghazi attack
December 31st, 2012
09:39 AM ET
1 year ago

Report blames poor security, inadequate response in Benghazi attack

(CNN) - Terrorists in Benghazi, Libya, "essentially walked right into the Benghazi compound unimpeded and set it ablaze," a special Senate report on the September 11 attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans says.

The bipartisan report, "Flashing Red: A Special Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi," released Monday by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, cites "extremely poor security in a threat environment that was 'flashing red.' "

FULL STORY

Filed under: Congress • Hillary Clinton • Libya
soundoff (12 Responses)
  1. Randy

    Are you kidding me? This is it on your report? We knew this since day one. You and those just like you just blow me away with your ....

    December 31, 2012 09:42 am at 9:42 am |
  2. Rudy NYC

    People should not lose sight of the fact that the Benghazi compound was not the official embassy or Ambassodor's residence in Libya. That is located in Tripoli, which is several hundred miles to the west. The Benghazi location was an "embassy annes" mostly serving the eastern portion of the country.

    December 31, 2012 09:43 am at 9:43 am |
  3. Name

    Really CNN everybody else has a five or six page story on this. Why do you keep covering for this guy.

    December 31, 2012 09:53 am at 9:53 am |
  4. Pete

    Quit blaming Hillary and Rice when it was your junk yard dog in Issa and his committee that cut 400 billion from defense spending and a big portion of that was embassyy security,just read before spouting off because as usual republicans have a habit of sticking their feet in their mouths don't they..And quit your witch hunts because there's more blood on Bushs hands than could ever be on any democrate and you know I'm right unless you want to compare unfunded wars created with lies and more deaths at embassies under republicans watch then anyone else..Just read Reagan lost over 300 in his term alone,so zip it unless you can prove different!!!

    December 31, 2012 10:00 am at 10:00 am |
  5. Chipster

    Does the report say exactly how much security would have been enough and how much it would cost to do provide that level of security? Does the report say how fast would have been fast enough and how quickly it would have been humanly possible to provide it? What a waste of time and money to determine what we already know and what we also know is the case at every embassy and consulate around the world! The report will not change anything at any of those embassies and consulates because there isn't enough money to adequately protect every embassy and consulate!

    December 31, 2012 10:03 am at 10:03 am |
  6. S.B. Stein E.B. NJ

    Rudy from NYC states the point that people are forgetting - this wasn't the main embassy for the US in Libya. Unless each ambassador that is in a country with questionable security goes around with a group of Marines, there are going to be risks just being there. Given the group that attacked the consulate, I think, in terms of numbers only, losing 4 wasn't too bad taking into account everything. The problem is that losing anyone is bad.

    December 31, 2012 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  7. Gurgyl

    Time to tighten security all over the world. Obama needs high security too.

    December 31, 2012 10:28 am at 10:28 am |
  8. Rick McDaniel

    It has become clear, that the facility was being used for a clandestine operation, that the administration wants covered up.

    December 31, 2012 10:42 am at 10:42 am |
  9. Anonymous

    If the issue about it not being the 'main embassy" completely changes the discussion, wouldnt that have been addressed as the main talking point in the main stream media?? To help defend the administration? It definitely was NOT used as a main argument. Since it was an annex, is the official security policy,"enter at your own risk"? So our ambassador only gets official security at the embassy? Is this why there was no immediate response to assist during the attack? People were watching in real time and did not send re enforcements because ? ? we only try to protect our diplomats when they are at the "Main" embassy? Thats very interesting. Somehow, something does not seem correct. Our annex is attacked and we know within minutes, we sit around and only watch, we dont respond and then we tell the world that it was a video- for weeks afterwards. Cmon! We the people cannot believe that the state dept is that incompetent. Clearly something is being hidden.

    December 31, 2012 10:58 am at 10:58 am |
  10. sammy

    Happy New Years, The Tea Party is giving you a big send off to the New York, destroying the nation. with Boehner and McConnell helping.

    December 31, 2012 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  11. KJ

    Will anyone be there to protect the US Ambassador to Yemen or other Americans .... this from Reuters: "The Yemen-based branch of al Qaeda has offered a bounty for anyone who kills the U.S. ambassador to Yemen or an American soldier in the impoverished Arab state, a group that monitors Islamist websites .... AQAP will also pay 5 million rials ($23,350) to whoever kills any American soldier in Yemen, it said. The offer, valid for six months, was made "to encourage our Muslim Ummah (nation), and to expand the circle of the jihad (holy war) by the masses," SITE said, citing the audio.

    The story is much longer ... but worth a read. Let's not let it happen again.

    December 31, 2012 11:05 am at 11:05 am |
  12. Rudy NYC

    Anonymous wrote:

    If the issue about it not being the 'main embassy" completely changes the discussion, wouldnt that have been addressed as the main talking point in the main stream media?? To help defend the administration? It definitely was NOT used as a main argument. Since it was an annex, is the official security policy,"enter at your own risk"?
    ---------------------–
    Do you expect foreign ambassadors to travel around in foreign nations with a platoon of troops from their country of origin? Does not the host country bear some of the burden to protecting consulates and those with diplomatic immunity?

    If you want to know why the media has not reported on this, then I suggest that you listen to more than a single news media source. Various media outlets have pointed out these facts.

    You can be confident that the right wing media entertainment complex will make no mention of the real circumstance behind embassy security at all.

    December 31, 2012 11:22 am at 11:22 am |