Under-fire White House releases Benghazi ‘talking points’ emails

President Barack Obama speaks at a Democratic Party fundraiser at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York, May 13, …Under heavy political pressure, the White House on Wednesday released 100 pages of internal Obama Administration emails in which senior officials debated what to tell Americans about the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Republicans have charged that the White House played down the role of suspected terrorists in the attack, which left four Americans dead including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. GOP lawmakers have said that President Barack Obama's reelection campaign did not want to undermine its message that al-Qaida was on the run. Obama has flatly denied any attempt to deceive the public, and on Monday he called the allegations a "sideshow" that dishonors the memories of those killed.

Some of the back-and-forth has centered on the email messages among top officials looking to craft "talking points" for members of Congress just a few days after the attack. The White House has accused Republicans of pushing "fabricated" messages to damage the administration.

On Wednesday, senior administration officials briefed reporters on the messages and provided binders of 100 pages of emails. The officials said the communications would show that the CIA led the changes to the talking points, including alterations that Republicans claim show a political motive. The officials went through the emails page by page.

View the original article here

After Benghazi, IRS tea party probe: Govt seized AP phone records

President Barack Obama welcomes British Prime Minister David Cameron in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, …Exactly ten days ago, President Barack Obama was piously telling reporters who cover him that free speech and an independent press are “essential pillars of our democracy.” On Monday, the Associated Press accused his administration of undermining that very pillar by secretly obtaining two months’ worth of telephone records of AP reporters and editors.

“We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news,” AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder.

The latest revelations are sure to pour fuel on the fire of Richard Nixon comparisons in the wake of revelations that the IRS may have improperly scrutinized the tax-exempt status of conservative, tea party-linked groups. This might, in order words, not be a great time to announce a groundbreaking trip to China.

And the news threatens to pile fresh political woes on a second term already burdened by a painful gun control defeat, a seemingly stalled economic agenda, and Republican rage at the botched response to the Sept. 12, 2012 terrorist attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

The revelations that the Justice Department may have sought AP phone records drew an angry response from Republican House Speaker John Boehner's office. “The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation," said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.

And Laura Murphy, a top American Civil Liberties Union official in Washington, D.C., condemned "unwarranted surveillance" of the press and urged Holder to explain what transpired "so that we can make sure this kind of press intimidation does not happen again.”

Holder was expected to face questions on the issue when he appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia did not answer a question from Yahoo News on whether other news outlets had been targeted. The spokesman, Bill Miller, did not confirm the AP allegations, but insisted in a statement that "we take seriously our obligations to follow all applicable laws, federal regulations, and Department of Justice policies when issuing subpoenas for phone records of media organizations."

Pruitt, in his letter to Holder, fiercely disagreed.

He said that the Justice Department had obtained telephone records for more than 20 separate phone lines assigned to the AP -- the world's largest wire service -- and its journalists. The records cover a two-month span in early 2012 and cover phones lines for AP in New York City, Washington D.C., Hartford, Conn., and one line at the AP workspace in the House of Representatives.

"This action was taken without advance notice to AP or to any of the affected journalists, and even after the fact no notice has been sent to individual journalists whose home phones and cell phone records were seized by the Department," Pruitt wrote.

"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters," Pruitt wrote. "These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."

Pruitt called it "particularly troubling" that the Justice Department "undertook this unprecedented step without providing any notice to the AP, and without taking any steps to narrow the scope of its subpoenas to matters actually relevant to an ongoing investigation."

In his statement, Miller said DoJ regulations "require us to make every reasonable effort to obtain information through alternative means before even considering a subpoena for the phone records of a member of the media."

And "we must notify the media organization in advance unless doing so would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation," he said. "Because we value the freedom of the press, we are always careful and deliberative in seeking to strike the right balance between the public interest in the free flow of information and the public interest in the fair and effective administration of our criminal laws."

An Associated Press news story on the Justice Department's actions noted:

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

Ever since the days of his history-making 2008 presidential campaign, Obama has repeatedly cast himself as a champion of open government and reform. Aides are fond of praising "the most transparent administration in history" -- a moniker that might be accurate, but mostly because of poor standards set by his predecessors. It's like being the most powerful cricket team in Alaska.

And the Obama administration has not been shy about taking steps to deny Freedom of Information Act requests on national security grounds.

Just ten days ago, on May 3, Obama noted during a visit to Costa Rica that it was "World Press Freedom Day."

"So everybody from the American press corps, you should thank the people of Costa Rica for celebrating free speech and an independent press as essential pillars of our democracy," he said.

On Monday, Obama was scooping up cash for Democrats in New York City. His spokesman, Jay Carney, referred questions about the AP letter to the Justice Department.

View the original article here

Obama denounces Benghazi cover-up charges as ‘political circus’

President Barack Obama gestures during a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, Monday, …
President Barack Obama on Monday furiously dismissed as a "political circus" Republican charges that his administration had misled Americans about the Benghazi, Libya. Obama said the suggestion dishonors the memory of the four U.S. citizens killed last September.

"There’s no there there,” Obama said during a joint question-and-answer session with British Prime Minister David Cameraon at the White House. "And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations."

The president’s angry words came after news reports surfaced Friday that the White House had overseen a process that repeatedly watered down Administration talking points on the attack, removing references to possible involvement by al-Qaida and to prior warnings about threats in Benghazi. Republicans have charged that the White House was worried about the potential political fallout from the spectacular terrorist attack in Obama's re-election campaign. The White House has repeatedly denied that it deliberately misled the public.

"The whole issue of talking points frankly throughout this process has been a sideshow," Obama said.

The talking points, which portrayed the attack as evolving from a demonstration of anger at an Internet video that mocked Islam, "pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing," he added, referring to his top-secret morning intelligence review with the CIA.

While protests against the video in Egypt led to an assault on the American embassy in Cairo, officials in Libya never reported a demonstration outside the compound in Benghazi before the assault that claimed the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Obama aides have said that the decision to scrub references in the talking points to al-Qaida and another extremist group, Ansar al-Sharia, reflected the intelligence community's uncertainty about the role they played.

"Immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were," Obama said. "It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on US embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film. And nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days."

The president also pointed to his first public remarks on the attack, in the Rose Garden on Sept. 12, 2012, when he lumped the events in Benghazi in with the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes as "acts of terror."

But he and other senior officials declined in subsequent days to label the attack the work of terrorists. And U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice linked the Benghazi assault to the Internet video when she appeared on morning news shows the first Sunday after the attack.

"I’ve just got to say, here’s what we know: Americans died in Benghazi," Obama said. "What we also know is clearly they were not in a position where they were adequately protected.

"The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism and what I pledged to the American people was we would find out what happened we would make sure that it did not happen again and we would make sure that we held accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime. And that’s exactly what we’ve been trying to do," he said.

Obama praised the work of envoys like Stevens and diplomats and other personnel serving overseas today, and declared: "We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus."

View the original article here

From Benghazi to Syria: Obama’s Bush-league mistakes in foreign policy

By Walter Shapiro

Most second-term presidents become fixated on global affairs because the world beyond our shores, with all its strife and misery, often seems more malleable than life in Washington, with its fractious Congress and waning electoral mandate. The trick, though, for a foreign policy president, is to be good at it—and these days those skills appear to be eluding Barack Obama.

This week’s biggest rebuke to Obama foreign policy was not Wednesday’s House hearing on Benghazi with its wrenching narrative of the September night that Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed in Libya. Nor was it Friday morning’s revelation  of new Benghazi-related documents. More embarrassing was a front-page article in last Sunday’s New York Times detailing how Obama erred last August when he impetuously declared that Syria’s use of chemical weapons in its civil war would be a “red line.”

It’s a simple rule: Presidents should never make threats until they have worked out how they would enforce them. But Obama violated it with his stern, but ill-considered warning to Syrian strongman Bashir Assad. The Times article quotes one anonymous top government official claiming, “What Obama said in August was unscripted” and “nuance got completely dropped.” Barry Pavel, a former national security adviser to Obama, said flatly, “I’m not convinced it was thought through.”

Current and former foreign policy advisers usually fall on their swords to protect a president’s reputation for sagacity. Only long afterwards, when the “if only he had listened to me” memoirs are published, do we finally get a glimpse of what really happened in the White House. That’s why it’s telling that Obama insiders are already willing to trash the president for his all-bluster “red line” rhetoric.

The reason for the finger-pointing at Obama is that America is now caught in a loose-lips-create-slips dilemma. Without any good policy options available and a growing isolationist mood among voters, Obama must decide what to do in response to highly probable evidence that forces loyal to Assad used banned chemical weapons. Arming the rebels, many of whom are Islamic militants, carries its own risk, yet doing nothing makes American appear feckless and irresolute.

Playing for time, Obama has been reduced to linguistic hair-splitting. Asked at a Tuesday press conference about perceptions that Syria has crossed his supposed red line, Obama said lamely, “I don't make decisions based on ‘perceived.’ And I can't organize international coalitions around ‘perceived.’ We've tried that in the past, by the way, and it didn't work out well.”

That, of course, was a reference to George W. Bush and his fallacious weapons-of-mass-destruction pretext for the Iraq War. As a presidential candidate, Obama presented himself as the antithesis of this kind of shoot-first foreign policy impetuousness. But, as president, it’s startling how much Obama resembles Bush in many aspects of national security policy.

Take Guantanamo, where currently about 100 of the remaining detainees are waging a hunger strike. Asked at a recent press conference about the Bush-era Cuban detention camp that he has repeatedly vowed to close, Obama sounded more like an outside critic than a president: “It hurts us in terms of international standing. … It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed.”

Despite intermittant efforts by Obama since taking office, Congress has refused to allow the president to close Guantanamo. But that does not make Obama a helpless bystander with no control over this symbolic blot on America’s international reputation.
 
The president has refused to use his existing legal authority (using waivers from the Defense Department) to repatriate 86 low-risk detainees, mostly from Yemen, whose cases have been reviewed by American authorities. Some of these prisoners were rank-and-file al-Qaida soldiers back in 2001 and others were probably picked up by mistake. But today these detainees would be less of a threat sent back in their home countries then they are as enduring symbols of an American Gulag on Guantanamo.

Then there are the drones. Bush may have initiated the airborne assassination program in  2004, but Obama has made it a hallmark of his response to terrorism. With his drone policy, Obama has embraced three of the worst aspects of Bush-era national security policy: an obsession with secrecy; a contorted view of legal norms, especially the definition of “imminent threat”; and a refusal to consider that American tactics may create more terrorists than they kill. In Pakistan alone, based on the best independent statistics, Obama has ordered six times as many drone strikes as ever Bush did.
 
The silence from most Democrats on these troubling aspects of Obama foreign policy has been dispiriting. Had Bush made toothless threats to Syria, force fed prisoners in Guantanamo or rained death from the air in Pakistan on a weekly basis, liberals in Congress would be sputtering with outrage. Instead, with a few conspicuous exceptions—like Oregon Senator Ron Wyden on drones—the dominant feeling appears to be that if Obama does it, it has to be right.

Ever since George McGovern lost 49 states to Richard Nixon in 1972, Democrats have cowered in terror at the thought of being branded as soft on national security. This may partly explain Obama’s timorousness on Guantanamo and the president’s embrace of drone strikes as a way of being tough against terrorists without risking American casualties.

The Republican obsession with Benghazi is rooted in the belief that the Obama administration was reluctant to label the 2012 Libyan attacks as “terrorism” because that would undermine the president’s narrative in an election year. Wednesday’s hearing—built around the testimony of three mid-level State Department officials—failed to prove anything close to causation. On Friday morning, however, ABC News reported that the State Department had insisted references to prior warnings on terrorism should be airbrushed out of the initial CIA talking points on the Banghazi attack.

This was the briefing document that UN Ambassador Susan Rice, who drew the short straw as the administration’s TV talker, relied on when she made the rounds of Sunday-morning interviews the week of the attacks. Now, based on the ABC News story,  it seems clear that Victoria Nuland, a career foreign service officer who was Hillary Clinton’s spokesperson at State, had insisted to the White House that these talking points be watered down.

Even now, so much about Benghazi remains murky, including how big a scandal it will actually prove to be. Were Nuland’s editing suggestions primarily designed to politically protect Obama and Clinton? Or was this, at its core, a Washington bureaucratic battle over which agency should be blamed for the deaths in Libya—State or the CIA?

Security was obviously lax in Benghazi. But was that because Stevens was a fearless diplomat who hated hunkering down behind concrete walls? Or was this related to the CIA’s still-mysterious role on the ground in Benghazi? And did the administration’s self-congratulatory belief in the Libyan revolution play a role in the relaxation of vigilence? Remember, Libya was Obama’s success story from the Arab Spring—the nation where a dictator was toppled by America boldly leading from behind.

Despite the documents discovered by ABC News, my guess is that the tragedy in Benghazi and its muddled aftermath had far more to do with human error than major-league conspiracy. In fact, given the way that Obama has handled his “red line” in Syria, the case for human error seems quite compelling.

View the original article here

McCain calls for select committee to investigate Benghazi ‘cover-up’

McCain (ABC News)

Sen. John McCain continued his criticism of the White House's handling of the Sept. 11 attacks in Benghazi, Libya, calling for a select committee to investigate what he called the Obama administration's "cover-up."

"Now, what you’ve got to look at this in the context of the times there," McCain told Martha Raddatz in an interview that aired on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "We are in the midst of a presidential campaign. The narrative by the Obama campaign is that bin Laden is dead, that al Qaeda is on the run, not to worry about anything, and her comes this attack on Benghazi. And there are so many questions that are unanswered. We need a select committee."

"The president didn’t call it an act of terror," the Arizona Republican continued. "In fact, two weeks later, before the U.N., he was talking about hateful videos and spontaneous demonstrations. What he did say the day after was he condemned acts of terrorism, but then that night ... and throughout the next two weeks, he kept saying that it was caused by a spontaneous demonstration sparked by a hateful video. He kept saying that over and over again and condemning that."

McCain repeated his assertion that the administration is guilty of a "cover-up."

"I’d call it a cover-up," he said. "I would call it a cover-up to the extent that there was willful removal of information, which was obvious."

[Related: McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi]

Last week, fellow Republican Sen. James Inhofe suggested President Obama could be impeached for his role in the case.

"Of all the great cover-ups in history—we’re talking about the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra, Watergate and all the rest of them—this is going to go down as the most serious, most egregious cover-up in American history," Inhofe said.

In the interview that aired Sunday, McCain did not invoke the "i-word."

"With all due respect, I think this is a serious issue," he said. "I will even give the president the benefit of the doubt on some of these things. [But] we need a select committee."

McCain said he'd like to see former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—who testified before Congress on Benghazi before leaving her post—testify again. Emails, uncovered last week, suggested the White House's talking points on Benghazi underwent 12 revisions.

"She had to have been in the in the loop some way, but we don’t know for sure," McCain said. "What I do know is that her response before the Foreign Relations Committee—'Who cares?' Remember when she said, 'Well, who cares how this happened?' in a rather emotional way? A lot of people care, I say with respect to the secretary of state."

Clinton, though, is not McCain's only target.

"We need a select committee that interviews everybody," McCain said. "I don’t know what level of 'scandal' this rises to, but I know it rises to the level where it requires a full and complete ventilation of these facts. Now, here we are, nine months later, and we’re still uncovering information which frankly contradicts the original line that the administration took. And so, we need the select committee and I hope we’ll get it. And the American people deserve it."

View the original article here

Kerry says he'll answer questions on Benghazi

WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday he's determined to answer any questions related to the deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, as the House Republican leader pushed for more information from the Obama administration.

One day after a lengthy House hearing on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, Kerry told reporters as he traveled overseas that anyone culpable of wrongdoing will be dealt with appropriately. But he's withholding judgment on testimony in Congress suggesting that senior State Department officials were pressured or demoted for objecting to the administration's initial and since-debunked explanations for the attacks.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died when insurgents attacked the facility in two night-time assaults several hours apart.

Top administration officials first said the attackers were spontaneous protesters, angry about an anti-Islamic video circulating on the Internet. But they later acknowledged the attackers were well-equipped terrorists acting under plans.

Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, on Thursday asked President Barack Obama to direct the State Department to release internal emails, sent the day after the Benghazi assault, that deal with the cause for the attacks.

Boehner told reporters that Republican investigators learned that "a senior State Department official emailed her superiors to relay that she had told the Libyan ambassador the attack was conducted by Islamic terrorists." Boehner said the State Department "would not allow our committees to keep copies of this email when it was reviewed."

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., read from the email during Wednesday's committee hearing.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell told reporters Thursday the department was following up directly with the House leadership and members about Boehner's request to publicize the emails that the committees saw privately.

Boehner and others have sharply criticized the administration's initial description of the Benghazi attacks by Libyan protesters, rather than a planned terrorist assault. Five days after the attack, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on the Sunday talk shows and cited the protests, statements that have been widely discredited.

National Intelligence Director James Clapper told a Senate panel earlier this year that the criticism was unfair because Rice was "going on what we were giving her." Officials in the intelligence community have said they were responsible for substantive changes in the talking points provided to Rice.

Boehner pointed out that an interim report by Republicans on five House committees suggests otherwise.

"Our committees' interim report quotes specific emails where the White House and State Department insist on removing all references to a terrorist attack to protect the State Department from criticism for providing inadequate security," Boehner said at his weekly news conference in the Capitol. While a few House members "were able to review these emails, they were not allowed to keep them or share them with others," the speaker said.

"Congress will continue to investigate this issue, using all of the resources at our disposal," Boehner said.

The White House dismissed Boehner's call for the document release, with spokesman Eric Schultz saying the administration has cooperated sufficiently with Congress.

"This administration has made extraordinary efforts to work with the five congressional committees investigating the Benghazi attacks — including, over the past eight months, testifying in what is now 11 congressional hearings, holding 20 staff briefings, and providing over 25,000 pages of documents," Schultz said.

Ventrell said part of an email that Gowdy read have been entered into the record incorrectly, so the department was working with the House to correct the record. The department's concern was over the use of the word "terrorist," he said.

Three State Department witnesses, including Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission who was in Tripoli, recounted the chaotic events during the deadly assault. But Ventrell said they had not revealed new information. He also said they wouldn't face retaliation for going public.

"We don't believe that new information was necessarily presented that hadn't been already either entered into the public record through congressional testimony or investigated by the ARB or otherwise looked at," Ventrell said, referring to the review conducted by former top diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The department has not and will not retaliate against Mr. Hicks," Ventrell said.

Hicks had told the committee on Wednesday that he had been essentially demoted.

___

Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper in Rome and Jim Abrams, Charles Babington and Matthew Pennington in Washington contributed to this report.

View the original article here

U.S. diplomat recounts frustration at lack of help during Benghazi attack

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former U.S. diplomat in Libya gave a dramatic account on Wednesday of the attack on the mission in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador, and told lawmakers that more could have been done to stop the assault by suspected Islamist militants.

Gregory Hicks, the second in command at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time, expressed his frustration in an emotionally charged congressional hearing that a U.S. military jet and special forces were not sent to help in Benghazi.

"They were furious," Hicks said of the four special operations members in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, who wanted to go to Benghazi, but were told not to.

As the first U.S. official who was in Libya during the attack to testify publicly, Hicks detailed a series of frantic phone calls to Washington and between Tripoli and Benghazi the night of the attack on September 11, 2012.

One call from U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was cut off after Stevens said, "Greg, we're under attack."

Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack by suspected Islamists linked to al Qaeda on a lightly defended U.S. diplomatic mission and a more fortified CIA compound in Benghazi.

The testimony from Hicks and two other U.S. officials gave Republicans new fuel to assail President Barack Obama's administration over security lapses in Benghazi as well as early, conflicting accounts of what happened there.

The Benghazi incident followed Obama as he campaigned for re-election, with Republicans accusing him of being weak on foreign affairs. But after months of criticism, there is little sign it posed a serious threat to his reputation or his poll numbers.

Hicks gave an emotional account during the hearing of the House of Representatives Oversight Committee. His eyes grew teary and he choked up, collecting himself by sipping water as he gave a minute-by-minute description of the hectic night.

Hicks learned of Stevens' death in a 3 a.m. call from the Libyan prime minister. "I think it is the saddest phone call I have ever had in my life," he said.

If a U.S. jet had been scrambled and sent over the eastern Libyan city when the assault on the diplomatic facilities began, Hicks said, it might have deterred the assailants.

He was asked at one point how he responded to news that more resources would not be sent to Benghazi to help. He answered: "My reaction was that, 'OK, we're on our own. We're going to have to try to pull this off with the resources that we have available.'"

PARTISANSHIP

Democrats charged Republicans during the hearing - the latest of a series - with politicizing the attacks and making false accusations about members of the Obama administration.

"What we have seen over the past two weeks is a full- scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan way, but rather to launch ... unfounded accusations to smear public officials," said U.S. Representative Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee.

Republicans focused their criticism on security, early accounts of the report and the conduct of the investigation, such as witness Eric Nordstrom not being questioned by the board probing Benghazi, although he had first-hand knowledge of the attacks.

"The witnesses before us are actual experts on what really happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks," said Representative Darrell Issa, chairman of the Oversight Panel, who referred to Hicks, Mark Thompson and Nordstrom as "whistleblowers."

"These witnesses deserve to be heard on the Benghazi attacks, the flaws in the accountability review board's methodology, process and conclusion," he said.

Democratic members of Congress closely questioned Hicks and the other two witnesses: Thompson, the acting deputy assistant secretary for counterrorism at the State Department; and Nordstrom, a regional security officer in Libya.

Some noted, for example, that Hicks' assertion that a U.S. military plane could have been sent from Italy to help contradicted testimony by U.S. military commanders, including General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"I have seen nothing to make me question the truthfulness of our nation's military commanders," Cummings said.

Benghazi became the topic of the day in Washington, featuring in media briefings at the State Department, Pentagon and White House as Obama administration officials tried to get out ahead of Republican criticism.

"It is a simple fact that from first hours of Benghazi attack there have been attempts by Republicans to politicize it," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

A State Department official said the department had participated in eight hearings, more than 20 inter-agency briefings and responded to more than 100 letters and questions since September 11.

Republicans deny that they are motivated by a desire to discredit a Democratic White House or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, considered a favorite to be the party's presidential nominee in 2016.

An official inquiry into the incident released in December concluded that "leadership and management failures" in two State Department bureaus led to a security posture "inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria; Editing by Alistair Bell, Jim Loney and Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

FBI releases photos of three men from Benghazi attack site

May 1 (Reuters) - Post position for Saturday's 139th Kentucky Derby at Churchill Downs after Wednesday's draw (listed as barrier, HORSE, jockey, trainer) 1. BLACK ONYX, Joe Bravo, Kelly Breen 2. OXBOW, Gary Stevens, D. Wayne Lukas 3. REVOLUTIONARY, Calvin Borel, Todd Pletcher 4. GOLDEN SOUL, Robby Albarado, Dallas Stewart 5. NORMANDY INVASION, Javier Castellano, Chad Brown 6. MYLUTE, Rosie Napravnik, Tom Amoss 7. GIANT FINISH, Jose Espinoza, Tony Dutrow 8. GOLDENCENTS, Kevin Krigger, Doug O'Neill 9. OVERANALYZE, Rafael Bejarano, Todd Pletcher 10. PALACE MALICE, Mike Smith, Todd Pletcher 11. ...

View the original article here