Looks like the end of the BENGHAZI wet dream ~ ~ emphasis/bolding below is mine ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

GOP Report Acknowledges That The U.S. Military Couldn’t Have Changed Benghazi Outcome
By Hayes Brown on February 11, 2014 at 10:04 am

In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.

For months after the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, conservative media was awash in reports that on the night of the assault the Obama administration at some point ordered the military not to take action that would have saved lives. This supposed “stand down order” led to a bevy of right-wing conspiracies about why the President and his administration had let the Americans die.

“Who told the SEALs to stand down?” Rep. Steve King asked in Nov. 2012, in just one of many interviews with Republicans referring to the response to Benghazi as “worse than Watergate.”

As Media Matters reports, Fox News cited reports of a stand-down order no fewer than 85 times during prime-time segments as of June 2013. As the new report — which the Republican majority of the committee authored –makes very clear in its findings, however, no such order ever existed. “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” the report says, noting that the military was not positioned to respond to the attack.

“Given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack,” the report concludes.

This tracks with the repeated insistence from the White House and Pentagon over the months that everything possible had been done once the military assets in the region had mobilized. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, in the first Senate hearing on the military response, told panel members that it’s impossible to prepare for every possible contingency when planning, accusing the panel of believing the military was akin to a “911 service.”

While Senate Republicans chided Panetta at the time, it seems Republicans on the HASC now agree with the secretary’s assessment. “Majority members believe the regional and global force posture assumed by the military on September 11, 2012 limited the response,” the report continues. “Majority members recognize, of course, that it is impossible for the Department of Defense to have adequate forces prepared to respond immediately to every conceivable global contingency. Ensuring that preparations exist for some likely possibilities is not to be confused with the ability to anticipate all prospective circumstances, especially in highly volatile regions.”

The night of the attack, the United States had few military assets within the region, the report reads, requiring the transport of soldiers from U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) stationed in Germany to Libya, a trip that took several hours. Once there, the majority of the reinforcements were given the order to remain in Tripoli to prevent a possible attack on the U.S. Embassy itself, a distinct possibility in the eyes of the Pentagon. The Pentagon also confirmed to the HASC that there were no AC-130 gunships or armed drones within the region that night, another topic of speculation from right-wing media outlets.

The Democrats on the panel asked their Republican colleagues if they could finally move on from Bengahzi. “This report, produced by House Armed Services Committee Republicans, should finally bring an end to the politicization of the heinous attacks on brave Americans in Benghazi,” HASC Ranking Member Rep. Adam Smith (D-CA) and Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-MA), the HASC Oversight and Investigations subcommittee’s ranking member, said in a statement. “It is time to move forward, take the real conclusions we have arrived at and establish how to best protect our citizens around the globe. It is our hope that today’s report, which was authored by Republicans, finally brings this attempt to manufactured scandal to an end.”

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/02/11/3276171/gop-benghazi-military-hasc/

I hate to have to say this, but it won't be the end.

The far right will continue to refer to the 'Benghazi scandal'.

Even if it dies down, it will be resurrected when Hillary runs.

And they'll be ridiculed even more than they are now.

it was always a stupid meme. it will forever be a stupid meme.

i doubt they are done with it.

It's only a "scandal" because they call it a scandal. It plays well to their base regardless of whether it's true or not.

I don't believe the White House ordered the military not to intervene, but the author of that paragraph has faulty reasoning. The fact that there was no way the military would have had time to respond does not prove the White House didn't order the military not to intervene.

It's still possible the White House ordered the military not to intervene.

How does the fact that intervention would not have been effective prove that the White House didn't order intervention?1

Come on, folks, don't let faulty reasoning cloud your mind. I I know you're smarter than that.

Come on, folks, don't let faulty reasoning cloud your mind. I I know you're smarter than that.

Unless you have read and understood every detail of the entire report you are basing your criticism on an assupmtion.

I'm not basing anything on an assumption. It's all the folks here who are making the assumption. They are assuming that because military intervention would have been been effective, the proves the White House gave no order to intervene.

To everyone: Let's say that you and I are sitting on my front lawn and I happen to glance up the street and see a car rolling backwards down a hill. I say to you, "Quick, grab this tree branch and stick it on the street. The car's tires will hit it and that will stop the car rolling." But you don't have time to react and the car whizzes by and hits a parked car in the street. Later it is proven that even if the tree branch had been placed in the street, it wouldn't have been effective in stopping the car. Does the fact that the tree branch would not have been effective in stopping the car prove that I never gave the directive to place a tree branch in the street?!

no. but it proves that that action would have been of no consequence. therefore, it proves that all of your hemming and hawing and concern and fretting over whether you should have done that or not is immaterial. therefore, you are not guilty of negligence.

capice?

Again, I don't believe that Obama gave an order to the military to not intervene, nor does it mean that the order (if it was given) is immaterial.

But I do think it's important that we keep tabs on what the office of the President does or does not do. Otherwise we end up with a regime.

The fact that an action would have been ineffective does not prove that an order was not given.

The Bay of Pigs was an ineffective military action. Does that prove that the White House gave no order to invade Cuba, or that the ineffective action was immaterial?

Exactly, Mac ~

SciFi, the entire Benghazi "scandal" is ... man-made and imaginary ~ the GOP/TPers are desperate to pin something/anything on Obama and to undermine Hillary as a 2016 candidate ~ the IRS is another man-made and imaginary "scandal" ~ there are lots of them out there floating around ~ and while I agree that "... it's important that we keep tabs on what the office of the President does or does not do. Otherwise we end up with a regime.", it's also important we don't just assume the worst ... especially since all the evidence is coming back clearing both Obama and Hillary ~

Sooz

Isn't it interesting that the deaths of four Americans (an incident that may or may not have been preventable) is a scandal while an invasion of Iraq that caused thousands of deaths (and for which the WMD's that the government told us were a threat to our country never existed) was never a scandal.

Valid analogy, John ~ but an even better analogy is that, if memory serves, there were 12 or 13 embassy attacks during gwb's two terms, with more than 4 people killed ~ and I don't remember any D spending millions of $$$ to "investigate" but rejecting all the evidence ~

Sooz

Of course you're basing your criticism on assumption(s).
You assume the writer of the OP read and understood the entire report, reported it accurately and didn't make any grammatical errors that could lead to wrong conclusions.

It would be tempting to think, "hey, where there's smoke there's fire", except we know there's a big campaign to generate as much smoke as possible, so as to impugn the integrity of the fire chief.

It would also help if you read the whole article:

As the new report — which the Republican majority of the committee authored –makes very clear in its findings, however, no such order ever existed. “There was no ‘stand down’ order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi,” the report says.

So I don't get the argument SciFi is trying to make. I mean:
They are assuming that because military intervention would ...(not) ... have been been effective, the proves the White House gave no order to intervene.
doesn't really jell with what the report apparently says. So "come on folks . I know you are smarter than that" is just a wee bit confusing ......

I'm also rather puzzled by this:
But I do think it's important that we keep tabs on what the office of the President does or does not do. Otherwise we end up with a regime.

You already have a "regime" and always have had ......What in the hell is it supposed to mean?????????

Regime is the word the right wing radio kooks are using to refer to the Obama administration, trying to thereby associate it with the Brezhnev regime and the Castro regime, etc. It's normal propaganda technique. Actually reminiscent of the old soviet regimes.

I don't believe the White House ordered the military not to intervene, but the author of that paragraph has faulty reasoning. The fact that there was no way the military would have had time to respond does not prove the White House didn't order the military not to intervene.

Has it crossed any of your arrogant American minds that ordering a small contingent of your forces to commit what would have been an invasion of a sovereign country would probably have simply resulted in the lot of them being killed and America with another enemy in the region.

Just checked ...... WHEW!!!!!!!
My mind is still Australian.

The world is a dangerous place. An ambassador is at the mercy of the government of the host country. And if that government is too weak to provide protection, the ambassador needs to skedaddle. If the state dept. was guilty of anything, it was in not overriding Stevens's obstinance, and forcing him to get his ass out of there.

This whole Issa thing is 100% bullshit and everybody knows it.

It keeps the base fired up against tyrant Obama and the Democrats.

not ordering an ineffective action is the best thing a CIC can do.

this is precisely it. if we don't like the risk, there is a viable option: withdraw. Russia only has ONE foreign embassy. the US has 294.

Well, you need to keep an eye on everyone Mac!