Bachmann on Petraeus Hearing: Americans Deserve to Know What Happened in Benghazi Attack

"Two months after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, we have little knowledge of what the President knew and what his actions were," Bachmann said. Americans "deserve answers.”

Minnesota’s Sixth District Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, released the following statement today regarding the Committee’s hearing with former CIA Director General David Petraeus.

“Today’s hearing with General Petraeus further underscores the need for a thorough investigation of what happened during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. From beginning to end, the American people are still without knowledge of what happened on that tragic day. The hearings that we have held to this point have not produced answers to the questions that the victims’ families and the American people deserve to have answered. 

“The various committees with proper oversight of these matters in Congress have yet to hear from the principal decision makers who responded to what occurred September 11 and 12 when American lives were placed in peril. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, FBI Director Robert Mueller, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and their subordinates in their respective chains of command who carried out their directives all should testify before Congress so the American people get the answers they deserve. While DNI Chief Clapper and General Petraeus came before our committee, their respective remarks are only an introduction—certainly not rising to a full investigation—regarding the attacks that transpired in Benghazi.

“Three particular areas need further investigation. The first is the lack of security at the Benghazi mission prior to the September 11 attack. We now know there were numerous reports of a deteriorating situation with security in eastern Libya prior to the attack. With that knowledge, why were the repeated requests for additional security by the State Department employees at the Benghazi mission reportedly denied, leaving the protection of Ambassador Stevens placed primarily in the hands of local Libyan militia? We also need to address why UN Ambassador Rice was sent on Sunday television shows after the attack and stated that there was a “substantial security presence” with Ambassador Stevens when that was clearly not the case.

“The second line of investigation needs to be regarding the calls for security assistance from the American personnel in Libya to the Obama administration. Reports state that key decision makers knew almost immediately from cables, emails, and phone calls that Ambassador Stevens and other Americans were in peril at the Benghazi mission. Americans deserve to know why did it take 20 hours for the U.S. military to land at the Sigonella Air Base in Italy, and at what point was there a military presence on site securing the American mission and annex in Benghazi? The question needs to be answered why did it take the FBI until October 4 to get on the ground to secure the sovereign soil of the American compound. And why the delay in US access to the site of the deadly attacks, both at the mission and the annex, so much so that reports stated that CNN was able to secure Ambassador Steven’s personal diary. If CNN was able to obtain such a private document, what other sensitive documents went missing?

“Third, why did the White House consistently embrace the false narrative that the deadly attacks were a spontaneous event motivated by an anti-Islamic video? President Obama in his remarks before the United Nations on September 25 stated six times that the anti-Islamic video was the motivating factor behind the attack. Why did the President continue to give this false narrative on September 25 —two weeks after the attack—when our government clearly knew that the video was not the primary motivation for the attacks? Today, the Obama administration is trying to change their narrative and have it both ways on their story regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi. 

“These important questions and many additional ones have yet to be answered. Ultimately, President Obama is responsible for the actions of his national security team and it is incomprehensible that we have yet to hear what the President knew, when he knew it, and the specific orders he gave his team. 

“Almost immediately after Osama bin Laden was killed the Obama administration starting releasing specific details, including some classified information, about the operation and a timeline of events. By contrast, two months after the terrorist attacks in Benghazi with an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, we have little knowledge of what the President knew and what his actions were. The victims’ families, the American people, and Congress deserve answers.”

Nick November 25, 2012 at 03:09 AM
You lose all credibility the second you compare the Jewish people to Nazis. Israel is not wrong and they are not engaging in "land grabs". Until the Jews came back to the area formerly known as the British Mandate of Palestine, most of it was either a desolate desert or swampland. While building Tel Aviv, many Israelis died of malaria because they were building in a wilderness swamp. It was not occupied. A huge aquifer was discovered after Israel was founded for the 3rd time, making the desert habitable and farmable, because the aquifer is being pumped for irrigation. The Palestinians never did that. They didn't occupy the land because it was not habitable at the time. Most of the refugees created by the founding of Israel had to move less than 30 miles and still lived among people of the same language, culture and religion. Approximately 750,000 refugees were created, and most of them became refugees voluntarily. They could have lived under Israeli governance. In fact, the freest, most affluent Palestinians that exist are those who live under Israeli governance, not Hamas or Fatah. The West Bank belonged to Jordan after the Brits gave it up. They didn't want it and didn't fight for it.
Nick November 25, 2012 at 03:20 AM
If you think that 750,000 is a lot of refugees, one other country was created in 1948 that no one ever mentions as not having the right to exist. Pakistan. Pakistan was carved out of India the same year, and created 20 times the number of refugees, and those refugees had to move hundreds of miles and live in a foreign land, not 30 miles. Why does Pakistan never have to justify its existence? Why do you think Israel boxed Gaza in in 2007? Maybe because of the rocket attacks? After Bush pressured Israel to give up Gaza in 2004 and forcibly remove Israeli citizens from their homes the Palestinian extremists took it over and now are using it as a base from which to launch attacks. Israel had to stop weapons from getting into Gaza. Prior to 2004, Israelis and Palestinians lived together in Gaza and that wasn't good enough, so there were rocket attacks and suicide bombings. In 2004, Israel gave up Gaza, the attacks continued. In 2007 Israel clamps Gaza shut, the attacks continued. Now it is the clamping shut that caused the attacks? What?! There are over 200 countries on Earth, all of which displaced people when they were founded, and in most of those, the displacees were displacers at one time. Why is that the one Jewish State in the world, a tiny country the size of New Jersey, is the only country that constantly has to justify its existence and give up land? Maybe because it's Jewish? Naah, that couldn't be it.
Nick November 25, 2012 at 03:31 AM
If you think Israel is wrong and does not have exclusive right to that land, you should know that the only independent countries that have existed there are Israel, Israel, and now Israel again. If the land doesn't belong to Israel, who exactly does it belong to? After the second Israel was destroyed in 70 AD by the Romans, it was occupied by the Roman Empire, then the Ottoman Empire, then the British Empire, then parts of Egypt and Jordan, now Israel is back in its homeland. It is THEIR homeland. Not the Palestinians. That identity never existed as a national identity until Israel came home, made the desert flourish, and built cities where swamps were. Now the Arabs want it just because the Jews are there. Where were they between 70 AD and 1948? Before you think that the Palestinians are some kind of victim group, remember this: The Jews have suffered more than any other people in history. They have suffered three major captivities, a dozen occupations, genocide, being expelled from country after country, all culminating in the Holocaust. Now they are finally back in their homeland and just want to be left in peace. If the Palestinians want peace, they will have it. If they don't, we will continue to see what we see today.
Why Good November 25, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Before there was the first Jewish Person, there was an Egypt, and a Iraq and Turkish Empire that ruled the areas now under dispute. Your time line is one of mere convenience as it disregards ancestral claims prior to the first Jewish Male, Abraham, who was born not in Israel, but Iraq, near the Euphrates and Tigress Rivers. Do you know why Abraham's Tribe left modern day IRAQ? Do you know why half of the Jews went into Egypt and became slaves? Do you know about the Jewish Mafia, or Jewish International Crime? Do you know about the Jewish Terrorists oh You'd call them the Jewish Underground of WWII. Do you know the conditions under the Jewish State of Israel restrict the residents and citizens of Gaza and the West Bank live? Do you not know that the "Original Jew was of Iran, and the Original Christian a Jew, and oh how about the fact there is not a Jewish Race, any more than there is an American Race. Do you know that the Jewish people kicked Palestinians out of their homes, forced relocation, and do not have open land markets, and even if your a Citizen of Israel if your not Jewish your not quite a whole person under their law. As far as swamps being re-claimed. You need to study geography and understand that IF they converted swamp land they befouled the very environment that provides fish for the Mediterranean.
Nick November 25, 2012 at 04:40 PM
All I'm reading here are a lot of "justifications" for Antisemitism. Apparently all of this is justification for Islamic terrorism being inflicted day and night on the Jewish people? I just don't see it. There are several conditions that must be met for a Palestinian State to be acceptable. They are: 1. Acceptance of Israel's right to exist. 2. Denouncement of terrorism and violence against civilians in any form. 3. Banning of Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, and any other terrorist organization from any role in the Palestinian State. 4. The Palestinian leadership must stop being patsies for Iran and Syria. 5. The Palestinian leadership must work for the peace and prosperity of the Palestinian people. 6. The Palestinian leadership must stop working to keep their own people in destitution and poverty, which they do in order to blame Israel for their people's condition. A Palestinian State is impossible unless these conditions are met. To have one without these conditions will result in a rogue state whose solitary goal is the complete destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »