Background: In Rand Paul’s latest book of misinformation, there are several passages that wrongfully attack Secretary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department and make unsubstantiated claims about the tragedy in Benghazi. This is unsurprising of Rand Paul, who holds extreme isolationist views and believes that the United States should not be involved in foreign affairs, no matter the consequences.
FICTION: Paul argued that the White House politicized the Benghazi tragedy when it contended that a protest over an anti-Islam movie sparked the attack.
FACT: Initial intelligence assessments suggested that the attacks evolved out of a protest in Benghazi.
- The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence concluded in a report that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessment and the Administration’s initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate.
- The Committee also found there was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks, including intelligence to support the CIA’s initial assessment that the attacks evolved out of a protest.
- The Senate intelligence committee found that “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”
FICTION: Paul suggested that there may have been a stand down order issued.
FACT: No stand down order was issued – military leaders and Congressional investigations back that up.
- Congressionalinvestigations, including those by the House and Senate intelligence committees, have determined that no stand down order was issued that night.
- As Secretary Clinton recounted in her book Hard Choices, America’s “civilian leaders and uniformed commanders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others from his team, have repeatedly testified under oath both in public and in closed classified hearings that assets were immediately mobilized, but none could quickly reach Libya…”
FICTION: Paul: The State Department pulled funding for a DC-3 plane that could have transported Special Forces from Tripoli to Benghazi and helped save lives.
FACT: The Accountability Review Board determined that the “interagency response” to the attack “was timely and appropriate.”
- “Dempsey said he stood by the conclusion of an independent review board, which concluded the “interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time, given the speed of the attacks, for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference.’” [CNN, 2/7/13]
FACT: The DC-3 was borrowed from Iraq, and was meant to support Libya until commercial airline service was re-established.
- “Last October, a senior State Department official downplayed the importance of the denied request, saying that ‘the DC-3 was pulled from Iraq and moved to support Libya early on when there was no commercial airline service into Libya. When commercial service was re-established in Libya, the aircraft was reassigned to other State Department business. We use our aircraft when no commercial flights exist.’” [CNN, 5/7/13]
FACT: Washington Post Fact Checker previously graded Paul’s claim that “a plane could not be found for Special Operations forces in Tripoli” worthy of 4 Pinocchios.
- “There are certainly a number of outstanding questions about the Benghazi incident, but it’s important to get the facts straight when asking such questions. Paul asserted that a plane could not be found for Special Operations forces in Tripoli, but that’s clearly incorrect. Moreover, it’s a bit ridiculous to assume that such a level of detail would be left to White House staff, or even the president, rather than the commanders on the ground. (For more fact checks on Benghazi, check out our comprehensive round-up.) Four Pinocchios.” [Washington Post Fact Checker, 5/28/14]
FICTION Paul laments the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on trivial items by the State Department, while Sec. Clinton “repeatedly turned down requests for diplomatic security in Benghazi.”
FACT: Sec. Clinton did not see requests for additional security, nor did she know of requests being declined.
- As she testifiedto Congress, Secretary Clinton did not see, approve, or deny any requests for additional security at the Benghazi compound in Libya.
- Secretary Clinton further noted in her book Hard Choicesthat it is “rare that such a cable would come to the Secretary of State’s desk. First, that’s not what the sender intended… Second, it wouldn’t make sense. The professionals charged with security should be the ones making security decisions.”
FACT: As Secretary, Clinton worked to strengthen embassy security by beginning implementation all of the Accountability Review Board’s security recommendations.
- Secretary Clinton accepted and began implementation of all the Accountability Review Board’s 29 recommendations.
FICTION: Paul argues that Hillary Clinton personally ignored cables from diplomats in Benghazi warning about the security situation.
FACT: Secretaries of State do not read or write each of the more than two million diplomatic cables every year.
- The notion that Sec. Clinton personally received or sent every diplomatic cable has been debunked by the Washington Post, which concludedthat such a charge is “absurd” and a “whopper.”
Politifact previously ruled Paul’s claim that Secretary Clinton personally ignored or rejected requests for security in Benghazi “mostly false.”
FICTION: Paul: The ARB was headed up by people hand-picked by Mrs. Clinton—who never interviewed her for the report.
FACT: The Review Board had unfettered access for its investigation and it operated without bias.
- Following an examination of the Accountability Review Board process, the Inspector General concludedthe Board operated “independently and without bias.”
- In Hard Choices, Secretary Clinton recounted that she “ordered everyone at the State Department to cooperate fully and urged the board to leave no stone unturned. They had unfettered access to anyone and anything they thought relevant to their investigation, including me if they had chosen to do so.”
FACT: The Review Board operated independently and it strongly criticized the State Department.
Press accounts at the time noted that the results of the Board “sharply criticized the State Department.”
FICTION: Paul implied that the CIA annex and Benghazi mission were involved, and Sec. Clinton was complicit, in an operation to supply arms to Syrian rebels.
FACT: The bipartisan House Intelligence committee report determined that the U.S. did not use the mission in Benghazi to engage in illegal arms transfers to Syria.
- “Republicans and Democrats on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence determined that the United States did not use the mission in Benghazi to facilitate illegal arms transfers to Syria. The Committee’s bipartisan report “found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria.’” [Benghazi on the Record: Asked and Answered, accessed 5/17/15]