Senate intelligence report takes GOP tirades about Benghazi head-on

By David Ignatius/Washington Post

The Senate intelligence committee made headlines this week by reporting that the 2012 attack in Benghazi was preventable. But frankly, we knew that. The deeper message of the bipartisan report was that Republicans in Congress wasted a year arguing about what turned out to be mostly phony issues.

The Republican Party’s Benghazi obsession was the weird backdrop for foreign-policy debate through much of last year. Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) used it as a pretext for blocking administration nominations. Rep. Darrell Issa (Calif.) used the issue to impugn the integrity and independence of a review conducted by retired Adm. Mike Mullen and former ambassador Thomas Pickering.

Driving the Republican jihad was a claim,first reported in October 2012 by Fox News, that CIA personnel had wanted to respond more quickly to the Benghazi attack but were ordered to “stand down,” perhaps by political higher-ups. Although this claim was promptly rebutted by CIA officials, it was repeated by Fox News at least 85 times, according to a review by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters. This barrage fueled Republican charges that the Democrats were engaging in a coverup.

The Senate intelligence report addressed this inflammatory charge head-on. “The committee explored claims that there was a ‘stand down’ order given to the security team at the annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the mission compound, the committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the chief of [the CIA] base or any other party.”

The Senate panel also rejected the insinuation, made repeatedly by Republicans, that the Obama administration failed to scramble available military assets that could have defended the Benghazi annex and saved the lives of the four American victims. “There were no U.S. military resources in position to intervene in short order in Benghazi,” the report says flatly. “The committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel . . . prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.”

These are bipartisan findings, mind you, endorsed by the panel’s Republican members as well as Democrats. GOP members offered some zingers in their additional minority views, but the Democrats rightly credited their colleagues for standing up to the right-wing spin machine: “We worked together on a bipartisan basis to dispel the many factual inaccuracies and conspiracy theories related to the Benghazi attacks.”

The Obama administration’s supposed coverup on Benghazi became a crusade for leading Republicans. A low point came when Issa’s Committee on Oversight and Reformissued a report last September questioning “the independence and integrity of the review” by the Mullen-Pickering group. These were extraordinary charges to make against a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former ambassador to six countries — especially since Issa didn’t present any conclusive evidence to back up his allegations.

The Republican tirades about Benghazi were unfortunate not just because they were based on erroneous speculation but also because they distracted policymakers from the real challenge of framing coherent policy in the Middle East. Sometimes, it seemed as if Benghazi finger-pointing was the only issue that leading Republicans cared about.

In fact, the Senate intelligence report echoes many of the themes of the earlier report by the Accountability Review Board, which noted “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies.” Warnings about deteriorating conditions in Benghazi were ignored; proposals to add more security there were rejected; even as evidence mounted of al-Qaeda’s growing power in Benghazi, the State Department failed to respond adequately. The Senate report makes clear that some important security mistakes were made by Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the courageous but sometimes incautious diplomat who was among those who died in the attack.

Perhaps the silliest aspect of the Benghazi affair was the focus on the errant “talking points” prepared for Congress, which cited incorrect intelligence about “spontaneous demonstrations” in Benghazi that wasn’t corrected by the CIA until a week after the points were delivered on Sunday talk shows by Susan Rice, then U.N. ambassador. Rice is still under a cloud because she repeated the CIA’s “points” prepared at Congress’s insistence.

Next time, the Senate report notes, the intelligence community should just tell Congress what facts are unclassified — and let the legislators do the talking.

What Would Dan Rather Do? With Benghazi Debacle, 60 Minutes Faces Another Crisis of Credibility

ERIC BOEHLERT/Media Matters For America:

On September 10, 2004, CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather dedicated five minutes of the telecast to address the brewing controversy around a 60 Minutes II report he had aired two days earlier. Featuring disputed documents from a former commander in the Texas Air National Guard, the 60 Minutes II report detailed the lingering questions about President Bush's service in a coveted state-side Guard unit during the height of the Vietnam War and how, despite his no-show service, Bush was awarded an honorable discharge.

Within hours of the report, conservative bloggers raised doubts about the documents' validity. The next day, mainstream outlets began airing their own doubts. With the network's credibility on the line, less than 48 hours after the initial report, Rather and CBS responded with a detailed defense of their reporting on its evening newscast, even though the Guard report aired on a different program, 60 Minutes II.

Rather's public defense was just one of many, high-profile actions the embattled network took in an effort to answer critics at the time. By September 20, CBS stopped defending the Guard report. It apologized for airing the segment and announced the creation of an outside panel to investigate what had gone wrong in the reporting process. In the end, four senior CBS producers were let go, 60 Minutes II was canceled, and Dan Rather was soon out as the Evening News anchor. (Rather still stands by his memo reporting.) However, CBS' independent review could not determine if the controversial Guard documents were forged. It did conclude however, there was no evidence the Guard story was driven by partisan considerations inside CBS.

CBS's frantic corporate response to the Guard controversy (which included blatant kowtowing to its partisan critics; see more below) stands in stark contrast to the network's utterly passive, non-response to thewidening controversy surrounding the heavily-hyped 60 Minutes report that aired on October 27 about the terrorist attacks on the U.S. compound in Benghazi in 2012.

That report has been plagued by problems, including obvious conflicts of interest and the more recent revelation that its star witness told contradictory tales about the terror attack and what he did as it unfolded that night.

The difference in the two crisis responses is striking in part because the underlying Guard story that CBS told about Bush failing to serve his duty has been proven to be true: In the spring of 1972, with 770 days left of required duty, then-Lt. Bush unilaterally decided that he was done fulfilling his military obligation and walked away from the Guard. That means CBS could have omitted the disputed documents from its Guard report and still told an accurate story about Bush's non-service.

But CBS's dubious Benghazi report revolved around already debunked allegations about why no U.S. military forces from outside Libya were sent to save the Americans at the besieged Benghazi compound. In other words, CBS's witness controversy is attached to an-already inaccurate Benghazi report, which makes the recent 60 Minutes' transgression more serious than the one that triggered the Guard frenzy.  

Journalism veterans tell Media Matters that CBS must address the glaring problems with its Benghazi report and the growing newsroom scandal. Yet the silence persists. So it's worth pondering why CBS responded so quickly, and energetically, to conservative critics in the wake of the Guard story, and why CBS feels comfortable ignoring those who point out gaping holes in its politically charged Benghazi report.

If CBS appointed another review panel this week, it would have a lot to examine.

On October 27, 60 Minutes featured a supposed "eyewitness" of the September 2012 attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities; one who claimed that during the attack he heroically scaled a wall of the U.S. compound, knocked out a terrorist with his rifle butt, and later traveled across town to the Benghazi hospital to see Ambassador Chris Stevens' dead body.

The story Dylan Davies told CBS though, was wildly different than the far more subdued account he gave his superiors, according to an incident report that was obtained by The Washington Post. According to the Post, Davies had previously filed a report with his security contractor employer saying that he "could not get anywhere near" the compound the night of the attack.

Davies now claims he lied to his employer because he didn't want his boss to know he'd disobeyed strict orders that night to stay away from the Benghazi compound. While acknowledging that deceit, Davies claims he was telling the truth on 60 Minutes. 

But how are viewers to know? And why weren't they made aware of the contradictory version of events that the witness has given about Benghazi? Was CBS aware of the flagrant contradiction and didn't tell viewers?  And if CBS wasn't aware, what does that say about the brand of journalism its reporters practice considering 60 Minutes  correspondent Lara Logan and her producer bragged that the Benghazi story was a year in the making and involved "dozens and dozens and dozens" of interviews?

Quite simply, how is it possible to spend a year checking out a story only to have it completely implode within five days of airing on CBS?

Keep in mind that on Fox News, reporter Adam Housley claimed that Davies asked for money in exchange for an interview. (Davies has since denied that claim.)  Foreign Policy reported that Davies' memoir is being published by Threshold Editions, a conservative imprint of Simon & Schuster, which is a part of CBS Corporation, which owns 60 Minutes. Yet that fact was not disclosed in the 60 Minutes story. Nor was the fact that the rights to Davies' book have already been sold to a Hollywood producer.

All in all, the 60 Minutes report can now be accurately described as a train wreck.

CBS's response since the deeply flawed report was aired? Silence punctuated by a boilerplate announcement that it stands by the story. (Actually, during last night's 60 Minutes telecast, three viewer letters were read on-air praising the report, one calling it "amazing.") Contrast that with the all-hands-on-deck approach CBS took following its disputed Guard report from September 8, 2004:

September 9, 2004: A CBS spokesperson responded to early right-wing allegation by insisting, "As is standard practice at CBS News, each of the documents broadcast on '60 Minutes' was thoroughly investigated by independent experts, and we are convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified people who saw them "at the time they were written."

September 9: "CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its reporting, saying that each of the documents "was thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to unidentified people who saw them "at the time they were written."

September 10: CBS released another statement: "CBS released another statement: "This report was not based solely on recovered documents, but rather on a preponderance of evidence, including documents that were provided by unimpeachable sources, interviews with former Texas National Guard officials and individuals who worked closely back in the early 1970s with Colonel Jerry Killian....  In addition, the documents are backed up not only by independent handwriting and forensic document experts but by sources familiar with their content. Contrary to some rumors, no internal investigation is underway at CBS News nor is one planned. We have complete confidence in our reporting and will continue to pursue the story."

September 10: Rather's rebuttal aired on The CBS Evening News.  

September 11: The CBS Evening News aired an update about the memo controversy, which contained yet another statement from the network: "We believe the documents to be genuine. We stand by our story and will continue to report on it."

September 14: CBS Evening News again revisited the story, reporting that in a radio interview Laura Bush suggested the disputed Guard documents were "probably" forgeries, while noting "CBS News continues to stand by its reporting."

September 20: CBS News chairman Andrew Heyward issued an apology: "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret." Dan Rather added, "If I knew then what I know now -- I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question."

September 20: CBS announced the creation of the review panel.

September 22. CBS announced Richard Thornburgh, who served as President George H.W. Bush's attorney general, and Louis Boccardi, former executive editor and CEO of the Associated Press, would led the review panel.

Incredibly, it was later discovered that CBS officials were so spooked by the conservative attacks on the network in 2004, that when it came to assembling its "independent" panel the network did the following:

*Included Rush Limbaugh, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes and Matt Drudge on a list of possible review panel candidates.

* Conceded the list of panel candidates tilted towards the right in order to "open itself up to its harshest conservative critics and to ensure that the Panel's findings would be found credible."

*Reached out to "GOP folks" prior to assembling its "independent" panel and took their temperature on who should oversee the work.

*CBS insiders were concerned that former GOP senator Warren Rudman would not "mollify" the network's right-wing critics; he was not selected for the "independent" panel.

Earlier this year in an interview with USA Today, CBS CEO Les Moonves reflected on his tenure at the network and singled out the Guard memo "mess" as among the most difficult situations he had to deal with. It "was extremely trying," Moonves said. "We had to protect the integrity of CBS News, which had this great legacy, and I wanted to make sure we did it properly so that CBS News could thrive again, which I think they've done."

As 60 Minutes' Benghazi scoop continues to implode, the network has shown no such interest in protecting the integrity of CBS News.

Report: Benghazi witness was nowhere near diplomatic compound during terrorist attack

By Travis Gettys/Raw Story

A security subcontractor who gave his account to CBS “60 Minutes” of the events leading up to the fatal attack at Benghazi had previously told his employers he was nowhere near the diplomatic compound at the time, according to a Washington Postreport.

The Oct. 27 television report was based on a yearlong investigation by reporter Lara Logan and producer Max McCellan and featured an interview with a man identified by the pseudonym “Morgan Jones,” who was described as “a security officer who witnessed the attack.”

A Fox News correspondent said the following day that the network had been working on a story with the same security officer, but those efforts ended when he asked for money in exchange for his participation.

Threshold Editions, which specializes in “conservative non-fiction,” published a bookTuesday by the same source, called The Embassy House: The Explosive Eyewitness Account of the Libyan Embassy Siege by the Soldier Who Was There.

The Washington Post report, published Thursday, said the book largely backs up the account provided to “60 Minutes,” but the newspaper says the source provided a written account to his employers three days after the attack that he’d spent the night of the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attack at his own beachside villa in Benghazi.

“We could not get anywhere near (the diplomatic compound) as roadblocks had been set up,” said the security contractor, whose real name was confirmed as Dylan Davies by officials who’d worked with him in Libya.

The newspaper reported that Davies provided a 2 ½-page incident report to his employer, Blue Mountain, the British contractor hired by the State Department to guard the compound’s perimeter.

Davies said he learned U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens had been killed in the raid showed him a cell phone photo of the diplomat’s charred remains, and the security officer visited the still-smoking compound the following day to photograph what was left.

The “60 Minutes” report claimed the security officer had scaled a 12-foot wall while it was still overrun with Al Qaeda forces, and Davies said on the program that he’d personally struck one of the terrorists in the face with the butt of his rifle.

He also told “60 Minutes” that he’d gone to the hospital and seen Stevens’ body.
Davies told CBS that he and a Foreign Service officer had been worried about security at the compound.

The security officer’s co-author told The Washington Post that Davies may have been dishonest in his incident report because his employer had asked him to stay away from the compound after he was told of the attack by telephone.

A CBS spokesman told the newspaper that the network stands firmly behind its story as it aired Sunday.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) used the “60 Minutes” report to justify calling Monday for additional hearings into Benghazi and threatened to block Senate appointments until lawmakers had heard from all the surviving witnesses to the attack.

However, Graham conceded Wednesday that witnesses have already been questioned by members of Congress, but their testimony hasn’t been publicly released because the investigations are still ongoing.

David Brock, chairman of Media Matters, has called on CBS to retract its Benghazi report based on the security officer’s comments.

CNN Benghazi Special Pushes Debunked And Deceptive Claims

ZACHARY PLEAT/Media Matters For America:

CNN's special The Truth About Benghazi pushed long-debunked myths about the September 2012 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya, with host Erin Burnett and CNN correspondent John King asking questions that were answered months ago -- often by CNN itself -- and leaving important context out of many claims.

 

 

 

 

 

00:00

 

00:00

 

 

 

 

 

 

CNN: Was The Removal Of Terrorist Group Names From Benghazi Talking Points 'Nefarious'?

CNN: Couldn't U.S. Military Have Responded To Attacks More Quickly?

CNN: Why Didn't U.S. Heed Warnings Of Benghazi Attacks?

CNN: Was The Removal Of Terrorist Group Names From Benghazi Talking Points 'Nefarious'?

CNN Recklessly Speculated About Why Terrorist Groups Were Removed From Benghazi Talking Points. During The Truth About Benghazi special, CNN chief national correspondent John King questioned why the names of specific terrorist organizations were removed from the unclassified talking points on the Benghazi attacks that were provided to then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. King asked whether the editing was done "to protect the investigation" or whether "it was done just politically to protect the department? Or more nefariously" to protect the State Department or President Obama. During a prepared video package, CNN played haunting music behind their description of the talking points edits before King noted that the first draft "referenced Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda," but that former State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland "objected to naming terror groups" in an email discussion about the talking points without providing the reasoning behind her objection. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi, 8/6/13]

Answer: Talking Points Altered For Security Purposes, As CNN Itself Has Reported

Former CIA Director David Petraeus: Names Of Terrorist Groups Were Removed To Avoid Tipping Them Off. In November, former CIA Director David Petraeus explained to lawmakers in congressional testimony that the names of terrorist organizations suspected of participating in the attacks "were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them." [The New York Times, 11/16/12]

Former State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland Was Concerned Naming Terrorist Groups Could "Prejudice The Investigation." In emails exchanged between the CIA, State Department, and other administration officials concerning the drafting of the talking points on Benghazi -- emails made public by CNN in May -- Nuland expressed concern that publicly naming specific terrorist organizations could "prejudice the investigation" into who was behind the attacks. [Media Matters, 5/15/13]

CIA's General Counsel: FBI Instructions Said Not To Reveal Names Of Terror Groups Due To Criminal Investigation. In another email released by CNN in May, the general counsel of the CIA expressed concerns that naming terrorist organizations in the talking points could "conflict with express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this." [Media Matters, 5/15/13]

CNN: Couldn't U.S. Military Have Responded To Attacks More Quickly?

CNN Special Pushed Republican Claim That Military Could Have Responded To Attacks Faster, Ignores Initial Assistance Sent To Benghazi. During CNN's special, John King highlighted a Republican congressman's claims, contrary to testimony from military officials, that military responses could have responded to the first Benghazi attack in time to assist with the second attack hours later at a nearby compound:

REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): The bottom line is there was not a force available that could get there in time. And that has been clearly and unequivocally established and answered over and over again.

KING: Republican Jason Chaffetz begs to differ.

CHAFFETZ: They're in Northern Libya, right there on the coast. That we couldn't get U.S. military there for 24 hours, that's embarrassing if it's true. But I really question whether or not that's the actual truth.

KING (on camera): So essentially you're saying General Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the highest-ranking uniformed officer in the United States of America, isn't telling the truth?

CHAFFETZ: I think there are other assets and other things that could have been put into motion. That cavalry never comes over the hill to help. That's just stunning to me.

Later, Erin Burnett expressed shock that the military could not respond faster:

BURNETT: So John, the military says, right, they couldn't have gotten to Benghazi in time, but the United States has the greatest military in the world. So, that seems shocking.

KING: It does seem shocking -- 24 hours for the first boots on the ground, for the fire department to first make it to Libya, and then only to Tripoli? I think a lot of Americans are stunned by that. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi, 8/6/13]

Answer: Notion That U.S. Forces Could Have Assisted Sooner Shows "Cartoonish Impression" Of Military

Former Secretary Of Defense Robert Gates: Notion That Military Forces Could Have Assisted Sooner Shows A "Cartoonish Impression" Of U.S. Military. In an interview on CBS' Face the Nation in May, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained that claims that the military response to the Benghazi attacks could have arrived sooner than it did "would have been very difficult if not impossible" and shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces." [Media Matters, 5/12/13]

Decision To Not Send Second Force From Tripoli Was Made By The Head Of The Military's Africa Command, Who Was Concerned About Security In Tripoli. The commander of U.S. Africa Command during the attacks was concerned about threats to the Tripoli embassy complex, and a Pentagon spokesperson confirmed that the assessment of Special Operations Command Africa leadership at the time was that "it was more important for those guys to be in Tripoli" for embassy security. [Media Matters, 5/9/13]

Deputy Chief Of Mission In Libya: Additional Reinforcements Would Not Have Been Able To Get To Benghazi Before The Second Attack Was Concluded. In an interview with congressional investigators, Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks, stated that while a team of special forces troops in Tripoli had been told to protect the embassy in Tripoli instead of traveling to Benghazi, the flight they would have taken to Benghazi was scheduled to take off after 6 a.m. local time -- approximately 45 minutes after the attack at the CIA annex that killed two people. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), a member of the House Oversight Committee who has actively pursued investigations into the Benghazi attacks, also told The Washington Post that the special forces team that Hicks was referring to "would have arrived after the attack." [Media Matters, 5/7/13; The Washington Post, 5/6/13]

CNN: Why Didn't U.S. Heed Warnings Of Benghazi Attacks?

John King: U.S. Had "Warning After Warning That Benghazi Was A Disaster Waiting To Happen." King suggested that the U.S. had plenty of warning that the Benghazi attacks would occur, yet was caught unprepared:

KING: Michael Hayden is the former CIA director.

HAYDEN: Act one is, what were the intelligence estimates? What kind of warnings were given? What was the plan? Why do we have so few options in act two?

KING: Act one is numbing, warning after warning that Benghazi was a disaster waiting to happen.

[...]

KING: The evidence was overwhelming: attacks that convinced the British, the Red Cross and the United Nations to leave Benghazi; two prior attacks on the U.S. mission; an IED thrown over the fence by former security guards in April and another IED in June that blew a huge hole in a compound gate; and detailed warnings, CNN is told, in 4,000 classified cables, including updates on new Al Qaeda training camps near Benghazi.

CHAFFETZ: How come that didn't rise to the level where somebody said, "You know, we just can't operate in this environment"? It was a death trap. [CNN, The Truth About Benghazi,8/6/13]

Answer: Experts Say There Is No Known Intelligence Warning Of The Attacks

GOP Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers: No Evidence U.S. Had Information To Prevent Attacks. During an interview on Fox News days after the Benghazi attacks, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers was asked whether the U.S. had knowledge that could have prevented the attacks. Rogers responded: "As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I have seen nothing yet that indicates that they had information that could have prevented the event." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 9/14/12]

NY Times: No Evidence Of "A Warning That The Diplomatic Compound Would Be Targeted And That Was Overlooked By Administration Officials." The New York Times reported in October that there was no evidence that the government knew of an attack in Benghazi and ignored it:

Interviews with American officials and an examination of State Department documents do not reveal the kind of smoking gun Republicans have suggested would emerge in the attack's aftermath such as a warning that the diplomatic compound would be targeted and that was overlooked by administration officials.

[...]

State Department officials have asserted that there was no specific intelligence that warned of a large-scale attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which they asserted was unprecedented. The department said it was careful to weigh security with diplomats' need to meet with Libyan officials and citizens.

"The lethality of an armed, massed attack by dozens of individuals is something greater than we've ever seen in Libya over the last period that we've been there," Patrick F. Kennedy, the State Department's under secretary for management, told reporters at a news conference on Oct. 10. [The New York Times, 10/29/12]

State Department Accountability Review Board: There Was "No Immediate, Specific Tactical Warning" Of Benghazi Attacks. The State Department's Accountability Review Board's unclassified findings about the Benghazi attacks found that there was no specific warning of the Benghazi attacks:

The Board found that intelligence provided no immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. Known gaps existed in the intelligence community's understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist. [State.gov, accessed 8/7/13]

Fox News Continues To Push Phony Benghazi "Stand Down" Claim

ANDREW LAWRENCE/Media Matters For America:

Fox News host Martha MacCallum claimed that a "stand down" order was given the night of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi - an order that prevented U.S. troops from saving the lives of Americans stationed there. MacCallum's claim ignores the reality that no "stand down" order was ever given.

In the months following the September 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate, Fox hosts accused the Obama administration of ordering troops to "stand down" and not respond immediately to the attack. Media Matters analysis shows that on at least 85 different occasions Fox mentioned this accusation during segments in prime time.

On the July 26 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, MacCallum said, "My mind goes back to the order to stand down, and how none of this may have happened if that order to stand down had not been given.  And we still don't know who gave that order, so that remains a really serious question here as well."

MacCallum also claims that the source of the alleged stand down order is unknown. This phony assertion has been repeatedly debunked.

During May 8 congressional hearings into the Benghazi attacks, then Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli Gregory Hicks testified that Lt. Col. Gibson, who commanded special forces troops in Tripoli, was ordered to "stand down." Following that testimony, Gibson met with the House Armed Services Committee on June 26 and told the Republican-led committee that no "stand down" order was given:

In a closed-door session with the House Armed Services Committee, Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson said his commanders told him to remain in the capital of Tripoli to defend Americans in the event of additional attacks and to help survivors being evacuated from Benghazi.

"Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to 'stand down' by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other special forces soldiers to Benghazi," the Republican-led committee said in a summary of its classified briefing with military officials, including Gibson.

Additionally, in February Leon Panetta testified before Congress that President Obama "ordered that the Defense Department respond to the attack with 'all available DOD assets' and try to protect U.S. personnel." Fox's own Benghazi special which aired in late June reported that an April House GOP interim report into the attacks confirmed that the "Department of Defense officials and military personnel reacted quickly to the attacks in Benghazi."

Fox's Jonah Goldberg Lies About White House Benghazi Response

CONNOR LAND/Media Matters For America

Fox News contributor Jonah Goldberg perpetuated the right-wing smear that the White House "didn't respond" to the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, an accusation that ignores multiple military leaders and congressional testimony.

On the July 23 edition of Fox's Happening Now, National Review Online editor and Fox contributor Jonah Goldberg discussed remarks that General Carter Ham, commander of U.S. Africa Command during the September 11, 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya, had made days earlier at the 2013 Aspen Security Forum. When Ham was asked whether he initially believed terrorists were behind the Benghazi attacks, he had replied that he "started to gain [that] understanding within the hours after the initiation of the attack."

Co-host Patti Ann Browne asked Goldberg about Ham's statement, wondering "Why is it that this is being considered political when people try to complain about the spin being put out by the White House that it had to do with this video?" Goldberg replied, in part, by denying that the administration even responded to the attacks:

GOLDBERG: We basically know what the truth is. Is that the White House, or the administration, was ill prepared for an attack. We were attacked. It was a terrorist attack because spontaneous protesters don't bring RPGs and coordinate fire. And so it was a terrorist attack. The White House didn't respond to it. American -- brave Americans died and afterwards, the White House in the midst of a presidential campaign, particularly because Hillary Clinton wants to run in 2016, concocted essentially what they thought was a face-saving cover story about what happened -- partly out of politics, partly out of error. And the problem is most people now know this and what Carter Ham has just said basically confirms this. The problem is that you're never going to get the White House to admit it at this point. 

Goldberg's accusation blatantly ignores military leaders' congressional testimony, which detailed the White House's response to the attacks. On February 7, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that upon learning of the unfolding attack in Benghazi, President Obama "at that point directed both myself and General Dempsey to do everything we needed to do to try to protect lives there." Following Obama's directive, Panetta ordered nearby anti-terrorism teams in Spain to deploy to Libya. A six-man security team from Tripoli also deployed to Benghazi. Unfortunately, the units from Spain arrivedafter attacks on the consulate had ceased.

Other forces present in Tripoli during the Benghazi attack were ordered by General Ham to stay in Tripoli to protect the U.S. embassy and care for Benghazi survivors at the airport. Additionally, as Ham made clear in the very remarks Goldberg referenced, he rerouted a drone from eastern Libya to Benghazi once commanders learned of the fighting.

What's more, despite Goldberg's insinuation otherwise, the day after the Benghazi attacks President Obama addressed the nation from the Rose Garden about the "acts of terror" that had taken place in Libya. He remarked, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is down for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

In the ten months since the September 11, 2012 deadly attacks, Fox has habitually misled on theadministration's response to the Benghazi crisis.