[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 11, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H1765-H1768]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, ATTACK ON BENGHAZI

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
(Mrs. Bachmann) for 30 minutes.
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me for 30 
minutes to speak on a topic, no matter where I go or what I speak on or 
if I am being interviewed somewhere, I am not the only one, it is other 
Members of Congress, too. This isn't a Republican issue. This is a 
bipartisan issue that Republicans and Democrats, Mr. Speaker, confront 
wherever we go across the United States. I think that it has to do with 
the fact that Americans cannot countenance the fact that, when we had 
people who are serving us in harm's way, it appears that the United 
States of America, in one of the rarest occasions that anyone can 
recall, wasn't there for those who were serving us on foreign lines.
  What I am speaking of, Mr. Speaker, is the night of September 11, 
2012, what is known as ``Benghazi.'' People still say to us, Mr. 
Speaker--again, Republicans and Democrats alike, because this is 
clearly a bipartisan issue. They say to us, when will we get the 
definitive report on Benghazi? When will we get some answers on what 
happened on that night, September 11, 2012? Because no American citizen 
should go and serve her country and not be protected by the Nation that 
sent her there.
  Those who were killed that evening: Ambassador Chris Stevens, the 
first American ambassador to be killed in 30 years in the line of duty; 
Sean Smith, who was there that evening with our ambassador; and then 
also two men who gave their lives trying to protect our ambassador, 
Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. They weren't on the scene very long when 
they finally arrived in Benghazi.
  The Senate intelligence report that came out said that perhaps 15 
minutes had lapsed by the time they arrived on the scene until they 
were murdered by a sophisticated mortar fire on the roof of the annex.
  Well, let's go back a little bit, Mr. Speaker. Let's take a look of 
what we know to be true so far.
  We have had two reports that have been issued. One is from the Senate 
Intelligence Committee. I commend every American to go to the Senate 
Intelligence Committee Web site and download that report, read it for 
yourself, share it with your friends, share it with your family, and 
you will be shocked at what you find in these findings.
  The media didn't pick it up. The report came out, it is true. It was 
reported in the media, it is true, that there had been a report, but 
what the findings said about the lack of management and the lack of 
accountability coming out of the White House and the State Department, 
quite literally coming to the very doorstep of the President of the 
United States and of the Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is shocking, and shocking is the fact that to 
this day there have virtually been no firings at the State Department 
for what happened at Benghazi, despite the fact of the report that was 
issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee and despite the fact that 
this week the House Foreign Affairs Committee issued another report 
after another investigation of what occurred at Benghazi. You see, 
there was a report, Mr. Speaker, that was issued prior to this one. It 
was the Benghazi Accountability Review Board.
  It is very curious that this Benghazi Accountability Review Board 
failed to interview the senior-most decisionmakers in the Department of 
State. The facility in Benghazi, the compound where Chris Stevens and 
Sean Smith lost their lives, that particular compound is managed by the 
State Department; it is run by the State Department.

  I would like to go over some of the findings this evening. In the 
minutes that we have together, I would like to go over some of the 
findings that were issued in this report. As I urge my fellow citizens 
in the United States to go to the Senate Intelligence Committee and 
read the damming report and the conclusions of that report, I also 
encourage my fellow citizens to go to the House of Representatives 
Committee on Foreign Affairs and download the report that was just 
issued this week also on Benghazi. The report is entitled, Mr. Speaker, 
Benghazi: Where is the State Department Accountability? Majority Staff 
Report, House Foreign Affairs Committee.
  The chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is a 
Representative from the State of California, Mr. Ed Royce. Mr. Ed Royce 
said in September of 2013, the State Department cannot have a culture 
of accountability if no one, literally no one, is held accountable for 
the mismanagement and poor leadership of the Accountability Review 
Board it self-identified. In other words, a report which, in my mind, 
Mr. Speaker, was woefully inadequate in investigating Benghazi, what we 
will call the ARB, the Accountability Review Board, even that report 
said there were deficiencies in accountability at the State Department. 
We know there was woeful inadequacy, and this is something that has to 
be addressed.
  I call on members of the media, Wake up. Take a look at what the 
American people want to know, and that is answers, answers about what 
led up to the night of September 11, 2013, in Benghazi. Were there 
alerts? Were there reports? Did we have any idea that this tragedy was 
going to occur? Absolutely we do. That is what this report shows from 
the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
  What happened that night? What did the President of the United States 
do? Why is it that the media has absolutely no curiosity when it comes 
to where the President of the United States was that evening when the 
battle ensued? It actually wasn't evening. In Washington, D.C., it was 
3:40 in the afternoon.
  In the election that occurred in 2008, there were two Democrat 
candidates. There was Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who were 
vying to become the nominee of the Democrat Party. One particular 
commercial was aired by Hillary Rodham Clinton. It was famously called 
``the 3 a.m. commercial,'' and the question that the ad asked is: Who 
would be the person that you want to answer the phone at 3 in the 
morning if a call comes for a tragedy?--inferring a foreign policy 
tragedy.
  Well, the call did come, unfortunately, tragically, but it didn't 
come at 3 in the morning. It came at 3 in the afternoon. To be precise, 
Mr. Speaker, that call came in at 3:40 in the afternoon from a 
desperate security officer in Benghazi inside the U.S. compound who 
picked up the phone and made a call to the desk that he was to report 
to. That call immediately was transferred to the appropriate channels. 
Literally, Mr. Speaker, within minutes of the attack on the compound in 
Benghazi the President of the United States was informed not only that 
our American compound was under attack in what can only be called one 
of the greatest hellholes of the world, but he was also informed that 
our ambassador went missing and other Americans, as well.
  What would a Commander in Chief do? What did our Commander in Chief 
do? I don't know. As a Member of Congress, I don't know where our 
Commander in Chief was that night. I don't

[[Page H1766]]

know as a Member of Congress what our Commander in Chief was doing that 
night.
  I do know, again, in 2008 Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would be 
the individual who should appropriately take that call. She was the 
Secretary of State at that time on September 11, 2012. Where was the 
Secretary of State? She was here in Washington, D.C. What did she do 
when that phone call came in? She has testified before the United 
States Congress and answered questions.
  But let's take and review again, for the few moments that we have, 
what this report states about that infamous evening. To understand 
anything this tragic, Mr. Speaker, we need to understand the context of 
the time. That is what this report begins to lay out, the context.
  We know that in 2011, in May, our brave United States Special Forces 
took out the menace and the head of the al Qaeda organization, Osama 
Bin Laden. We are extremely grateful for the work that they did.
  But despite that blow to al Qaeda's network, al Qaeda wasn't done, 
and al Qaeda still isn't done today. Al Qaeda's influence continued to 
spread, and it spread well beyond Afghanistan and well beyond Pakistan. 
It had spread into the area of northern Africa.
  There is a disturbing trend that occurred in Libya. There was a 
concern led by our President of the United States, Barack Obama. He 
stated that the United States needed to unilaterally go in to Libya and 
begin bombing.
  The leader of Libya was a man named Muammar Qadhafi. He had been the 
head of Libya for a number of years. He is not a good actor. He is not 
someone that the United States would consider a friend. As a matter of 
fact, we had discovered that Qadhafi was hoping to start a nuclear 
program in Libya. Events ensued and that program was stopped.
  Qadhafi changed his ways, so to speak, and Qadhafi actually became a 
partner in fighting the global war on terror and was, in fact, jailing 
Islamic terrorists in parts of Libya. Qadhafi was acting in this 
manner, and yet at that time, President Obama felt that he needed to go 
in and bomb Qadhafi.
  I severely disagreed with President Obama at the time, Mr. Speaker. 
This was the wrong action for the United States to take. President 
Obama didn't come to this body. He didn't seek permission from the 
United States Congress to declare war on Libya, Libya which had not 
declared war on the United States. But President Obama literally sent 
in United States airplanes and began bombing Libya.
  At the time, Mr. Speaker, I was running to become President of the 
United States. At that time, I stated I was unalterably opposed to 
President Obama's policy. We should not be bombing in Libya, Mr. 
Speaker. That is what I said at the time. Why? Because we already knew 
that, especially in the eastern part of Libya, this was the number one 
area where people were recruited, terrorists were recruited, to come 
and kill American soldiers in Iraq. This was also training grounds and 
training camps for al Qaeda and other terrorist forces in eastern 
Libya.

                              {time}  1845

  You see, Mr. Speaker, if President Obama went forward--I said at the 
time--and bombed Libya and created instability, the question would be: 
Who would take over for Muammar Qadhafi? Who would fill the leadership 
void? The only competing power structure was of terrorist forces. 
Arguably--I said at the time, Mr. Speaker--we could even conceivably 
see al Qaeda come in to fill the void.
  Libya is a nation that is not a poor nation. They have oil revenues 
that finance that country. I was there recently, speaking with the 
prime minister and with the head of the justice ministry and also with 
the foreign affairs ministry. This is a nation that has a great deal of 
infrastructure, particularly in the Tripoli area, and there are 
revenues that have come in.
  So, if the United States were to go in, as President Obama wanted to 
do and did, in fact, do in Libya, we could see that there would be 
bombing, destabilization and that there would be a fight for power. We 
could see terrorist elements come in, those elements that would be in 
line with the goals and objectives of al Qaeda, and we could see oil 
revenues used and go into the pockets of those engaged in terror in 
order to continue to finance global terrorist activities.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what has happened in this 
region. That is what President Obama's foreign policy in Libya led to--
to terrorists being on the march--and that is the context of the time 
that led up to that infamous night, September 11, 2012.
  In that disturbing trend that was occurring in Libya after a near 
total collapse after President Obama's ill-timed and unfortunate 
bombing in Libya, in June of 2012, there were nearly 1,000 Islamist 
militants who had converged on the courthouse in downtown Benghazi. 
They came in one night with 150 to 200 vehicles. For 2 days, they had a 
rally that was sponsored by the terrorist organization known as Ansar 
al-Sharia. This was in June of 2012, just a few months before September 
11.
  After this major rally that occurred and also in June of 2012, an 
improvised explosive device--what we call an ``IED''--blew a hole in 
the wall that surrounded this very same compound where Chris Stevens 
was tragically murdered on September 11. So, in June, there was a 
terrorist explosion that occurred just months before the attack on our 
compound, but that was the second explosion and attack that occurred on 
our compound. That was the second attack on that compound.
  Did we have notice? We absolutely had notice prior to that time with 
that second attack.
  Elsewhere in Benghazi, the United Kingdom--our closest ally and 
intelligence English-speaking partner--shuttered their office. Their 
staff withdrew after a rocket-propelled grenade attacked the British 
Ambassador's convoy and two security officers were injured. It wasn't 
just the U.K. that pulled out of Benghazi, Mr. Speaker. The United 
Nations pulled out, and the International Red Cross pulled out. The 
U.S. flag was one of the only Western flags that remained flying in 
Benghazi.
  Did we know? Did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton know? Did 
President Barack Obama know that Benghazi was in a terribly precarious 
state leading up to his reelection in the fall of 2012? Absolutely, 
they knew what a precarious situation this was, because it was our U.S. 
intelligence agencies that did their jobs.
  What have the investigations shown? U.S. intelligence agencies did 
their jobs. They extensively warned not only President Obama but also 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that there was a deteriorating 
security environment in eastern Libya, including the expanding 
operation of al Qaeda in that region and that it mounted a significant 
risk to United States' personnel and to United States' facilities.
  You see, this is the first question that needs to be addressed:
  Did the President of the United States know this was a volatile 
situation? The answer is, undoubtedly, ``yes.''
  Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have ample warning? Did she 
know that this was a real concern that Benghazi could potentially be 
under attack? The answer is, without a doubt, absolutely, yes, she did.
  As a matter of fact, it was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 
herself, who stated in testimony before Congress that she well 
understood and was certainly aware of this reporting by our 
intelligence community as well as the fact that extremists claiming to 
be affiliated with al Qaeda were active in the area in Benghazi. Still, 
after the United Kingdom pulled out and left, Secretary of State 
Hillary Clinton made the decision that the United States would remain. 
After the United Nations pulled out, Secretary of State Clinton made 
the decision the United States would remain. After the International 
Red Cross pulled out, Secretary of State Clinton made the decision the 
United States and our Ambassador would stay and remain in a facility 
that was not secure to vulnerable attacks.
  As a matter of fact, the United States taxpayers paid for hundreds of 
analytical reports that were done and completed by our intelligence 
services that provided strategic warning that militias and terrorists 
and affiliated groups had not only the capacity but the intent to 
strike the United States and Western facilities and personnel in Libya. 
They could, in fact, do that. In

[[Page H1767]]

fact, we even had a report that was entitled in June of 2012: ``Libya 
terrorists now targeting U.S. and Western interests.''
  Could we have been any more clear? Could the Intelligence Committee 
have been any more clear? They issued a bulletin to our President and 
to our Secretary of State, ``Libya terrorists now targeting U.S. and 
Western interests,'' and still they made the decision that our 
vulnerable facility would remain open.
  What happened?
  Before and after these attacks, a lieutenant colonel in our military 
named Andrew Wood appealed to Washington for added security in 
Benghazi. He knew. He was a military man. Lieutenant Colonel Andrew 
Wood led a U.S. military team. He asked for supplemental diplomatic 
security in Libya, and he recommended that the State Department 
consider pulling out of Benghazi altogether after the U.K. left and the 
U.N. left and the International Red Cross left--but his warnings 
weren't heeded. In fact, tragically, his warnings went unheeded.
  Despite the growing danger in Libya, State Department officials in 
Washington denied the request made by Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood. 
When Andrew Wood said that we should get out of Benghazi, he was told 
no. He said, If we are going to stay in Benghazi, at least add more 
security. Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Wood was denied. He was told, No, 
we are not going to give you more security in Benghazi. In fact, they 
took away security in Benghazi. This was after the compound was 
attacked with an IED explosive device. This was after a rocket-
propelled grenade was fired at the British Ambassador's convoy and the 
U.K. left and the International Red Cross left.
  Numerous incidents--in fact, 16 different terror incidents--occurred 
in 2012. Despite the pleas from the military for more security, 
Secretary of State Clinton, as the Secretary of State, did not give in 
to those requests. The President of the United States did not give in 
to the requests for additional security, and yet our Ambassador 
remained on that infamous night of September 11, 2012, without adequate 
security. It was a tragic loss of life, I believe a preventable loss of 
life.

  What is even worse from that consequence, if there can be anything 
worse than this loss of life, is that that very action emboldened 
America's enemies. Our adversaries saw what we did. In the midst of 
this heightened terrorist activity, they saw we did nothing to protect 
our Ambassador. When they killed our Ambassador that night, they saw 
exactly how the United States responded. We did not have military on 
the ground.
  I am not faulting our military. Mr. Speaker, what I am faulting and 
what I am suggesting is that the President of the United States and the 
Secretary of State, despite ample warning, did not put the United 
States military on high alert in this volatile region. What other 
region of the Earth besides Afghanistan would have had this level of 
violence on that particular night, especially after there were already 
protests going on in nearby Cairo and especially after threats had been 
made by terrorists of retaliatory actions in the Libya region?
  It is shocking to me, Mr. Speaker--shocking--that the President of 
the United States, despite this knowledge, failed to do anything in 
response to the pleas for additional security or, at a minimum, pull 
our Ambassador out of that region. Yes, we have answers. We have 
answers, and we still have more questions.
  Committee members on the Foreign Affairs Committee demanded that 
appropriate State Department officials be held accountable for these 
decisions, as they rightly should, so that these mistakes wouldn't be 
repeated, yet neither the White House nor the State Department has 
stepped up to the responsibility. Instead, the accountability review 
board, which did the first review, was seriously deficient. It failed 
to even comment on the actions of our Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton or of the most senior officials in the State Department.
  Now, why is this? Could it be because Secretary of State Hillary 
Clinton, herself, selected four out of the five review members?
  You see, isn't it convenient, Mr. Speaker, when it is our Secretary 
of State who gets to decide who sits on her own accountability review 
board, overlooking the actions of what happened on that infamous night? 
She selected four out of the five who sat on that phony review board.
  Those are my words, no one else's.
  So, when she is selecting four out of five of those who are going to 
review potentially her actions, is it any wonder then, Mr. Speaker, 
that this accountability review board, if that is what you want to call 
it, decided: ``We don't think that we will even interview Secretary of 
State Clinton. We don't think we need to talk to her. We don't think we 
need to talk to any of the senior decisionmakers in the State 
Department. Oh, no.'' So they chose to bypass even interviewing those 
who were the decisionmakers.
  Mr. Speaker, that sounds a lot to me like the IRS, after this 
terrible scandal that is going on in the IRS. Where they appear to be, 
in a corrupt manner, trying to deny to conservative tea party 
organizations their tax-exempt status, the IRS also decided not to 
interview any of the victims.
  How can you have an investigation of the IRS when they don't even 
interview the victims? How can you have an accountability review board 
if you don't even interview the decisionmakers in the State Department, 
including the Secretary of State and her top advisors?
  This is embarrassing, if it weren't even more tragic, because, again, 
we are talking about the unprecedented loss of life of four Americans, 
including our Ambassador.
  Secretary of State Clinton, herself, championed the United States' 
going into Libya going back to as early as 2011. She testified before 
the committee that she was engaged in the issues relating to the 
deteriorating threat environment in Libya.
  That is pretty interesting, Mr. Speaker. You see, both Hillary Rodham 
Clinton--the Secretary of State--and President Obama believed that the 
United States of America unilaterally needed to go into Libya and start 
bombing.

                              {time}  1900

  That was their agreed-upon decision, and when the chips were down and 
when the threat environment was deteriorating in Libya and Lieutenant 
Colonel Andrew Wood said, Hey, we've got a problem here in Benghazi and 
we've got to either pull out or we have to have more security, the 
Secretary of State and those who serve under her don't heed those 
warnings. Not only do they not pull out of Benghazi, but they don't 
give the increased security that was required to keep the Americans who 
were serving us safe. When they do that, then that is a problem.
  What is an additional problem, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that at the 
State Department not one employee was fired or even missed a paycheck 
over what happened in Benghazi. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, there are 
a lot of Americans that don't know that; that despite this tragedy, 
despite this lack of accountability, of anyone being held responsible--
Oh, yes, we heard that there were four people who were going to lose 
their jobs. My foot, Mr. Speaker. Four people didn't lose their jobs at 
the State Department. Two were reassigned, one retired, and another one 
had another similar situation. No one was fired. No one even missed a 
paycheck.
  What we need to do, Mr. Speaker, is listen to the good commonsense of 
the American people who are demanding answers.
  What in the world happened in this lead-up before Benghazi?
  We need to hold the Secretary of State and the President accountable 
for what they knew and why they failed to make the important 
commonsense decisions that any Commander in Chief should make.
  We need to ask that second question, What in the world was the 
President of the United States doing that night when the attack 
happened in Benghazi? For over 8 hours, Americans were under attack and 
no one came to their aid or assistance, other than those who were at 
the annex who came and were willing to lay down their lives, and those 
who came from Tripoli. It took them hours and hours, but they were 
finally able to come to assist their comrades in arms.
  Then also the third question that needs to be addressed, Mr. Speaker, 
is

[[Page H1768]]

this: What happened after that night in Benghazi? Why did Secretary of 
State Hillary Clinton, why did President Barack Obama continue to force 
the false fiction that there was a video that no one saw was the cause 
for a spontaneous outbreak that led to the deaths of these four 
Americans in Benghazi?
  We have listened to people who were on the ground in Benghazi. They 
stated overwhelmingly that this attack was not spontaneous. It was 
planned. Yet for weeks afterwards, the President of the United States, 
as late as September 25, when he went to the United Nations, made a 
statement--this was after four Americans were killed--the President of 
the United States said this at the U.N.:

       The future does not belong to those who insult the prophet.

  Those were his words.
  We need to get answers. Again, I encourage the American people, Mr. 
Speaker, to read this valuable report issued this week on Benghazi by 
the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the House of Representatives.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________