Benghazi Senate Hearing: Cover Up the Big Problem, Not Lack of Resources, Jim Inhofe Says

Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey are testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on last year’s terrorist attack in Benghazi. Doing his part to pass the buck, Panetta noted that “DOD does not have the primary responsibility for the security of U.S. diplomatic facilities around the world. We do work closely with the State Department and support them as requested,” saying that the president “ordered all available DOD assets to respond to the attack in Libya and to protect U.S. personnel and interests in the region.”

Senator Jim Inhofe, while acknowledging these may not be the right witnesses for the issue, did focus in his opening statement as ranking Republican on the official narrative immediately after the attack, saying: “We sit around all day long and talk about the resources that we should have and don’t have, not just here, not just in this part of the world, but all over the world, and that’s fine, I think we all understand that. But that’s not the big problem here. The big problem here is the cover up that nobody talks about and that’s the tragedy.”

Why lack of resources aren't really to blame for Benghazi.

Watch the hearing live here or below:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • geekster||

    "What difference, at this point, does it make?"

  • DJF||

    Your a heartless monster !!!!

    Oops, wait, I did not know it was you Hillary.

    Never mind.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Foreign policy by Morrissey. Hillary truly is a monster.

  • juris imprudent||

    General Jack Dempsey?

  • Almanian.||

    General Jack DempseyD. Ripper?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I suppose blaming Hillary is supposed to seem even more plausible coming from Clinton's former Chief of Staff?

    They're still talking about why our ambassador, et. al., died in the consulate, but of the questions I have about Benghazi, that isn't even in my top three.

    Here's my numero uno:

    1) Why did the Obama Administration spin this as a bunch of Muslims overreacting to a YouTube video?

    Until we get a valid response from the Obama Administration on that question, the most plausible explanation I see is that at a critical moment in Obama's reelection campaign, he exploited bigotry against Muslims in order to distract voters away from an incident that might hurt his chances of being reelected.

    And using bigotry to distract people away from your own incompetent behavior, that's not just disgraceful coming from a president. That's disgraceful behavior, period.

  • Almanian.||

    You think the President used bigotry?

    That's just RACIST, straight up, Ken.

  • T o n y||

    They've explained it multiple times, you just aren't listening.

    Several riots were happening around the Muslim world simultaneously, some of them using the video as the excuse. The administration got some details wrong when it made its initial statements to the press, then fixed them when they learned more.

    Now you explain how you can keep a straight face claiming that the tragedy has been more politicized by the Obama administration (to what end is never explained) than Republicans who have been trying their absolute hardest to squeeze a scandal out of it?

  • wareagle||

    the video had no connection to THIS incident and by the time Rice made the Sunday rounds, that was rather well established. But she was told to go out and push the story anyway.

  • T o n y||

    So what would the administration have to gain from that?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Why would the Obama Adminsitration--at a crucial moment in his reelection campaign--want to defelct criticism away from himself and foist it onto Muslims everywhere?

    To get himself reelected--that's why?

    How could anybody be as stupid as you pretend to be?

  • T o n y||

    Obama caused the terrorists to attack the outpost?

  • Jordan||

    Holy hell. you are truly beyond help.

  • Jordan||

    My comment was directed to Space Tony.

  • Ken Shultz||

    How could anybody be as stupid as you pretend to be?

    Obama blamed the assassination of our ambassador on the Muslims of Benghazi--because they were crazy Muslims, who couldn't deal with free speech...

    That was bullshit. The assassination attempt of our ambassador had nothing to do with a YouTube video, and its success had everything to do with the incompetence of the Obama Administration.

    Exploiting bigotry to distract away from the Obama Administration's own incompetence at a crucial point in the election cycle--yeah, that's fucking disgraceful. ...especially when it involves repeatedly lying to the American people.

  • T o n y||

    And there's been a whole giant investigation. You have any evidence for your claims of lying, btw?

    Partisan witch hunt. Hardly the first one. The only one exploiting the dead are Republicans and their media mouthpieces.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "You have any evidence for your claims of lying, btw?"

    Yes, I saw the Obama Administration repeatedly claim that the attack on our consulate was a riot over a YouTube video--for weeks--after they already knew by way of the State Department that the attack had nothing whatsoever to do with a YouTube video.

    They lied over and over again.

  • R C Dean||

    So what would the administration have to gain from that?

    Covering up the following:

    (1) Their failure to heed multiple warnings beforehand.

    (2) Their failure to respond.

    (3) What was really going on at that compound in Benghazi.

  • wareagle||

    that these things need to be pointed out is all one has to know about Tony.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Benghazi attack was on September 11, 2012.

    What's that, six weeks before the election?

  • T o n y||

    Romney was never going to win the election Ken.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And you think Obama knew that in September?!

    Obama lost the first debate in October miserably--and that was after the Benghazi attack, you hack.

    Do you ever think about anything you write before you write it? If you're gonna write such stupid shit, why ever bother?

  • Almanian.||

    Choney forgot:

    /Administration Talking Points

  • ||

    Several riots were happening around the Muslim world simultaneously, some of them using the video as the excuse. The administration got some details wrong when it made its initial statements to the press, then fixed them when they learned more.

    Citation required. Preferably one showing why this was the narrative nearly two weeks after the truth was known.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The administration got some details wrong when it made its initial statements to the press, then fixed them when they learned more."

    That's completely bogus.

    Why did the Obama Administration keep repeating the bogus story for weeks after the fact?

    Why did they keep repeating the same bogus story--long after the State Department told them the truth?

    That's bullshit. ...which is exactly what we've come to expect from you on anything that might reflect badly on Barack Obama.

    The most reasonable explanation is that Obama exploited bigotry against Muslims in an attempt to keep his reelection chances as high as possible--and exploiting bigotry like that is disgusting.

  • T o n y||

    How is blaming a bigoted video exploiting bigotry? I thought your guys' grievance was that they attacked free speech in going after the video... I'm not seeing dots being connected here. The video was implicated in some of the riots, but Obama explicitly defended the right to free speech and said that it was absolutely not an excuse for terrorism.

    You're being suckered by FOX News scandal mongers Ken. People who want you to be outraged over something, even if neither they nor you can articulate just what it is.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Obama explicitly defended the right to free speech."

    You're a lying sack of shit.

    Obama pressured Google to take down the YouTube video, and he had the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff call Terry Jones and ask him to renounce his support for the video.

  • wareagle||

    How is blaming a bigoted video exploiting bigotry?/i

    who is in jail? The guy who made the movie, and the story that the video caused everything was intentional - deflect from the Administraiton by manufacturing outrage over a prejudicial video. Just stop.

    Hillary spoke for the whole of Camp Obama in asking why it even matters. Translated: who the fuck are you to question us on anything we do?

  • Ken Shultz||

    What difference does it make if Americans needlessly die because of the Obama Administration's incompetence?

    What difference does it make if the Obama Administration lies through its teeth to the American people?

    What difference does it make if the Obama Administration blames Islam for what's really the result of its own incompetence?

    I don't know what difference it makes to other people, but I'd like to think it does. I really would. And I'd like to think it'll make a difference in what they think of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

  • T o n y||

    If you're proportional in your outrage over government incompetence with respect to not preventing terrorist attacks and responding poorly to them, then you shouldn't even be here because your head should have exploded somewhere in 2001 or 2002.

    There is no scandal here. You just want there to be one.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Hey dumb shit,

    I'm on the record denouncing the Bush Administration for their incompetence--here on this very site--every day from 2003, when I found the place, through and beyond the end of the Bush Administration.

    Just because you spend on all day on your knees in front of Obama--doesn't mean anyone else is a hypocrite. Actually your refusal to denounce Obama for engaging in the same behavior as his predecessor is what makes you a disgrace to honest liberals everywhere.

  • T o n y||

    Positing this false equivalence is the essence of pro-Bush partisanship. It's not like he has a lot of defenders. Just people who try to absolve him of his massive incompetence by claiming Obama is just as bad.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I haven't tried to absolve Bush or Obama of anything.

    You're the one claiming that because Bush was incompetent, Obama's incompetence is somehow acceptable.

    Again, if you're not going to think about what you write before you write, then why bother to write it at all.

    Not everyone is as partisan blind and partisan stupid as you are. They just aren't!

  • Drake||

    Why was Africom Commander relieved and arrested during the attack?

    My #1 since the answers expose the rest of the lies.

  • Bam!||

    They pulled a Wag the Dog. All they needed was to distract for two weeks and they'd get the office.

  • T o n y||

    The actual problem is people in serious positions of power now have joined their low-information voter brethren in the FOX News bubble from which they never venture out.

    Do they even bother explaining on FOX News what the scandal is supposed to be, or what is alleged to have been covered up? Or is it just another ACORN or Solyndra--repeat enough and you have a ready-made information-free disgust reaction from cranky old idiots?

  • Cytotoxic||


  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Damn you, I was going to skip Tony's comment because I was assuming it was completely worthless, but now you are implying that it has some comedy value.

    Nonetheless, I'm going with my first instinct.

  • Brandon||

    Is there any number of bodies that would make you question the Obama administration?

  • ||

    It's not the number of bodies, but who's doin' the killin'. This troll is like those chicks that follow serial killers. He's soooooo dreeeeaaaammmmy!

  • T o n y||

    Here's what I want: an opposition party that is sane and not trapped in a propaganda bubble so that in the event of actual wrongdoing by the administration, level-headed adults will be able to credibly challenge them. See also: the parable of the boy who cried wolf.

    But let's talk about body count. When about 3000 Americans were killed on another 9/11, it was no time to blame the administration. It was time to wrap ourselves in the flag, mourn, and then make war against a country that had nothing to do with it, getting even more Americans and countless others killed for no legitimate purpose.

    Terrorists want to kill Americans. Sometimes they succeed. That is not a scandal. Scummily politicizing the deaths of those Americans is what should be.

  • Brandon||

    I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN. Bush was a horrible fuckup, Iraq was a massive waste of time, money and lives, and the succeeding administration declined to investigate or prosecute Bush or anyone in his administration for getting us into it. This BUUUUTTTT BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSCH red herring is getting really old and pathetic, Tony. This is not about Bush, Tony. This is about Obama. And "Scummily politicizing the deaths of those Americans" is EXACTLY what Obama did to keep himself and his administration from having to admit any fault in the incident. Or do you think the very public arrest of the filmmaker after the administration blamed a fucking Youtube video and the subsequent weeks of MSM articles decrying the abuse of the first amendment were all made up by Fox News? Are you even capable of an honest argument, or do you not know anything but straw men and red herrings?

  • T o n y||

    So what was the wrongdoing?

  • ||

    Um, LYING to the American people so as not to impede his reelection chances.

  • ||

    Um, accusing an innocent man of wrongdoing to cover his own ass?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Smearing Muslims generally for something they didn't do isn't wrong?

    This actually lent to the inertia against free speech here at home.

    People were attacking the right to put up controversial subway ads that might be offensive to Muslims! no small part because people still thought the Benghazi attack was all about a YouTube video.

    And why wouldn't they think that it was because of a YouTube video? The Obama Administration told the American people that more often than George W. Bush told them that Saddam Hussein was looking for yellocake in Niger.

  • T o n y||

    Erroneously implicating an inflammatory YouTube video (which was cited as a motivation for other riots at the same time), while explicitly standing up for free speech is, what, an impeachable offense? You're grasping at partisan straws. Everyone who doesn't live in the FOX News bubble knows this already.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "explicitly standing up for free speech"


    Obama pressured Google to take down the video.

    Obama sent the Chairman of the Join Chiefs to lean on Terry Jones--in an attempt to intimidate him into keeping his mouth shut.

    Obama didn't explicitly stand up for free speech. He blabbed about whatever--it's his actions people who aren't brain dead judge him by. And what he do? He did everything he could to suppress free speech.

    Barack Obama is a fucking disgrace.

  • Jordan||

    Tu Quoque. Fail.

  • Almanian.||

    I hear stupid on the internet - what is that? Oh, it's Choney asking rhetorical questions that assume the answer and lash out at stereotyped Strawmen (RACIST!) and creating a lot of bluster, but no real thought.

    A tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury - signifying nothing.

    The Bard knew of the Choney back in the day...

    That is all.

  • West Texas||

    Why should they talk about the coverup?

    It's fairly clear that there was one at this point and 50%+ of Amercians clearly don't give a shit.

  • Almanian.||

    Again I ask: what difference, at this point, does it make?

    *gives disbelieving shocked look*

  • ||

    The big problem here is the cover up that nobody talks about and that’s the tragedy.


    The Chief Executive attempted to cover up the entire indecent, blaming the attack on a video for nearly two weeks.

    The media...crickets.

    Can't help but wonder what the media narrative would have been if it was a Republican running for reelection at the time?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    "Bush leaves ambassador to die; rumored to have alerted terrorists to lax security"

  • ||

    Don't forget "gay" ambassador. Why isn't Tony making a stink about this homophobia either? Is this permissible only because of TEAM BLUE?

    You know if it was TEAM RED running, Amb. Steven's sexuality would have been much more lampshaded.

  • Drake||

    "CIA may have been conducting illegal operation nearby"

  • Bardas Phocas||

    I still want to know who they'll make the next ambassador.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, I want some hazard pay for that job. And I get to pick my own security detail!

    Where's kwais?


    In USA Today =

    Panetta tells committee he backed arming Syrian rebels
    Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also told the committee they were among a group of national security advisers who recommended the United States arms rebels fighting the Syrian government of Bashar Assad but were overruled by President Obama.

    "Obviously there were a number of factors that were involved here that ultimately led to the president's decision to make it nonlethal," Panetta said. "I supported his decision in the end."

    Hold on a fucking second here.

    WHY would there be a question about arming Syrian rebels in a Q&A regarding Libya??

    Is there a transcript out there? This seems a denial of a connection no one had suggested. The connection between the CIA op collecting arms in libya and Syria seems to get a little stronger every time these idiots open their mouths


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.