Was Benghazi a Cover Up? What We Know So Far


Complaing about the Benghazi attack has become the House Republicans favorite pastime in the past few weeks. House Republicans have insisted that there was some kind of cover up, although they have provided no details  what it could be. And they insist that the past investigation was insufficient.

What was the past investigation exactly?

According to the AP it involved an independent nonpartisan review, unlike the current review, which is entirely initiated by the House Republicans. It looked of 25,000 pages of documents and had hours of testimony from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey.

The independent review issued a blistering indictment of the security at the diplomatic compound, calling it “grossly inadequate.” It criticized the State department saying that it did not respond to requests for more guards and safety upgrades along with failing to adapt the security plan for the deteriorating security situation. Four State Department Official resigned in the aftermath of the report.

However it also states “there simply was not enough time for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.”

Some argue that this was the fault that the Obama administration should be blamed for but there are those who disagree. Former admiral and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen told the New York Times “It is not reasonable nor feasible to tether U.S. forces at the ready to respond to protect every high-risk post in the world.” Mullen served as vice chairmen of the independent review.