[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 11664-11665]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




SECOND MAJOR UNANSWERED QUESTION ABOUT THE TERRORIST ATTACK IN BENGHAZI

                                  _____
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 17, 2013

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I came to the floor to announce that 
in the remaining legislative days before the August recess, I will be 
speaking out daily to remind the American people about the key 
questions that remain to be answered. I will also be sending a series 
of letters to a number of agencies responsible for the failures leading 
up to, during and in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks.
  Yesterday, I raised the question of why no survivors, whether State 
Department, CIA or private security contractor employees--have been 
asked to testify publicly before Congress. Today, I am raising 
questions about whether there were intelligence failures in the vetting 
of the Libyan militias hired to provide security for the consulate, 
which agency official was responsible for vetting these militias and 
which insider source provided the terrorists with details about the 
U.S. compound in advance of the attack.
  These are serious questions that deserve clear answers. After nearly 
a year of committee investigations, I believe the House should be able 
to provide this information to the American people. Additionally, to 
the best of my knowledge, no official has been held accountable for any 
intelligence failures with regard to vetting the loyalty of the Libyan 
militias.
  I raise these questions today in the context of the piece recently 
published by Vanity Fair, which is an excerpt from one of the books 
being written by the Benghazi survivors who have yet to appear before 
Congress. The book, Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in 
Benghazi, provides a blow-by-blow account as seen from the eyes of the 
Diplomatic Security Service agents on the ground that night. The take 
away: this was a well-planned attack by terrorists who knew what they 
were doing and who clearly had help from the local militias contracted 
to provide ``security.''
  How else, as the piece points out, would the attackers seem ``to know 
there were new, uninstalled generators behind the February 17 Martyrs 
Brigade command post, nestled between the building and the overhand of 
foliage from the western wall, as well as a dozen jerry cans full of 
gasoline to power them.'' This gas was used to set the fires in the 
compound.
  There are additional concerns about the security guards outside the 
consulate who left in a car moments before the assault on the consulate 
began. According to the Vanity Fair piece:

       The feeling of security was enhanced at 2102 hours when an 
     SSC (Supreme Security

[[Page 11665]]

     Council--a coalition of individual and divergently minded 
     Libyan militias) patrol vehicle arrived. The tan Toyota Hilux 
     pickup, with an extended cargo hold, decorated in the colors 
     and emblem of the SSC, pulled off to the side of the road in 
     front of Charlie-1. The driver shut off the engine. He wasn't 
     alone--the darkened silhouette of another man was seen to his 
     right. The pickup sported twin Soviet-produced 23-mm. anti-
     aircraft guns--the twin-barreled cannons were lethal against 
     Mach 2.0 fighter aircraft and devastating beyond belief 
     against buildings, vehicles, and humans. The two men inside 
     didn't come out to engage in the usual small talk or to bum 
     some cigarettes from the guards or even to rob them. The 
     Libyan guards, after all, were not armed.
       ``Suddenly the SSC militiaman behind the steering wheel 
     fired up his engine and headed west, the vehicle crunching 
     the gravel with the weight of its tires.
       ``Later, following the attack, according to the 
     (unclassified) Accountability Review Board report, an SSC 
     official said that ``he ordered the removal of the car 'to 
     prevent civilian casualties.' This hints that the SSC knew an 
     attack was imminent; that it did not warn the security assets 
     in the Special Mission Compound implies that it and elements 
     of the new Libyan government were complicit in the events 
     that transpired.''

  Why, indeed, did the SSC guards not notify the consulate that an 
attack was imminent? And why were they allowed to leave as the 
terrorists gathered outside the compound? Again, these questions are 
essential to learning exactly who was responsible for the attack on the 
consulate.
  According to an article by Eli Lake published in The Daily Beast 
earlier this year, the CIA was ``responsible in part for one major 
failure the night of the Benghazi attack: his officers were responsible 
for vetting the February 17 Martyr's Brigade, the militia that was 
supposed to be the first responder on the night of the attack, but 
melted away when the diplomatic mission was attacked.''
  The article continued, ``Another U.S. intelligence official . . . 
said the failure for the CIA at Benghazi was the mistaken assumption 
that the Zintan tribe in Benghazi--that provided many of the fighters 
for the February 17 Martyr's Brigade--would have the same loyalties as 
the Zintan tribe in Tripoli, which had protected several senior U.S. 
officials including Hillary Clinton in her visit last year to Libya. 
`The CIA failed at mapping the human terrain,' this official said. 
`They did not understand the politics in Benghazi and we paid the 
price.'''
  These are important issues for the Congress to address and we have an 
obligation to ensure that reforms are made to prevent similar failures 
in the future. However, to the best of my knowledge, neither the State 
Department nor the CIA have disclosed who was responsible for vetting 
the militias, whether there was an intelligence failure or what reforms 
may have been implemented in the way of the militia's betrayal last 
September.
  To summarize, I ask my colleagues if the Congress can answer these 
questions and, if not, why?
  Was there an intelligence failure in vetting the true loyalty of the 
Libyan security guards for the U.S. consulate? Which agency was 
responsible for vetting the militias?
  Who provided the terrorists with details of the consulate property? 
Was it the security guards or someone in the Libyan government who was 
notified about the ambassador's visit?
  Why did the guards in the car outside the consulate not warn the U.S. 
staff of the gathering terrorists as they drove away a minute before 
the assault began? Were they complicit in the plot?
  When the Congress departs for the August recess in two and a half 
weeks, will the American people know why, after a year of 
investigations, who provided the terrorists with insider information 
about the consulate property and the ambassador's location?
  Again, this is why I believe a House Select Committee is the best way 
forward to ensure that these and other unanswered questions are 
resolved. To date, 160 House Republicans--nearly three quarters of the 
entire Republican Conference--have cosponsored H. Res. 36 to create a 
Select Committee on Benghazi to ensure the American people learn the 
truth.

                          ____________________