Gov’t defends Benghazi audit
By BRADLEY KLAPPER
WASHINGTON — A State Department audit found Wednesday that an investigation into last year’s deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was unbiased, countering claims from GOP members of Congress that it lacked independence. But the audit says weaknesses persist in how the State Department identifies threats overseas.
The assessment by the department’s inspector general backs up the Benghazi review chaired by former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, who were the subjects of a sharp examination from Republicans on the House oversight committee last week.
“The Accountability Review Board process operates as intended — independently and without bias,” according to the 43-page report, which looked at State Department reviews from 1998 through Benghazi last year.
A spokesman for Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the oversight committee chairman, noted that the independence and effectiveness of the State Department inspector general’s office, too, has been the subject of bipartisan concern.
Assertions that the Benghazi review by Pickering and Mullen “was fully independent are contradicted by the facts and amount to little more than repackaged talking points from the State Department’s political appointees,” Frederick Hill said.
The audit also criticized the State Department’s risk management and incomplete implementation of security recommendations after previous embassy and consulate attacks.
It said some progress has been made since Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.
More than a year later, congressional investigations continue into how the Obama administration handled security in the run-up to the attack and explained its circumstances afterward in the heat of a presidential campaign.
“This independent report underscores that the partisan and political assault on the Accountability Review Board must end,” State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach said. He accused Issa of “slandering” the integrity of Pickering and Mullen, and cited the audit’s finding that their Benghazi review established a model for future such inquiries.
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.