There were other people but wanted to go. I wish you had spoken to them. We did not even tried, we did not asked for permission, we did not asked for flight clearances. I disagree with what you are saying. You just told me they did not get to the ready. , you never asked those nato partners. I commanded nato forces and the likelihood that nato could respond was absolutely zero. I am so outraged by the conduct of this committee today. 83 years worth of service to this country by these two men and they are being treated shabbily and i apologize to you. It is totally unnecessary. We are trying to get facts and where trying to prevent this from happening again and badgering you does not achieve that goal. There also point out that has been a classified briefing, mr. Chairman, on the whole issue of whether Lieutenant Colonel gibson was told to stand down. There was an Armed Services committee needing. I was there. There was a press release put out by the subcommittee after that classified briefing. I want to read to you what was posted. Attack, colonel bristol was traveling in africa. Unreliable communications prohibited from participating in the attack response beyond and a National Initial conversation. He confirmed to committee that in his role, he gave Lieutenant Colonel gibson initial freedom of action to make decisions in response to the unfolding situation him and ghazi. Benghazi. Contrary to some reports, he was at no point ordered to stand remain inrather to tripoli to defend American Embassy there in anticipation of possible additional attacks and to assist the survivors as they returned from benghazi. The colonel confirmed this account of events. When i asked will we ever listen to the facts . This came out of the subcommittee of the Armed Services committee chaired by a republican colleague. These are the facts. Let me move on and asked admiral mullen the question. Another allegation has been made by many republicans, including that the military should have sent the fighter planes to fly over benghazi. You still have to say, why werent there aircraft it capability heading towards them . The next time this happens, it can we count on this secretary to care about people in harms way . There are some things wrong with this statement. I do not even know where to start. Do you agree the president and caretary of state do not about people in harms way . I do not agree with that. 32 of our report includes an excerpt from your interview transcript where you explain that these planes would have needed we fueling twice. Is that correct . That is the same thing general dempsey said in his testimony four months earlier. Is that correct . That is correct. After conducting your independent review how did you reach the same conclusion . I did. Quote from31, we your interview transcripts. There is no one ive ever met and the military that would not want to get help there instantly. The physics of it, it it just for 1220ng to happen hours. I validated that in my review when i went to the pentagon to look at every single asset that was postured in theater. Is that correct . Correct. Both the former secretary gates and panetta raised other concerns about sending aircraft to fly over benghazi. Are you familiar with their concerns . I am familiar with their concerns and you always have to take assess the risks. Our military is prepared to go into high risk environments if theyre able to do that. There was an awful lot that night. That precluded that. It was not for lack of desire to do that or help someone in harms way. The other thing i would talk ruefully about is the issue of talked briefly about is the issue under the circumstances under which they gave their lives. Toere killed in a very individuals on top of the building shortly after that. There were three mortar rounds that landed very accurately in a very short. Of time in the middle of the night from a place nobody really knew where that mortar fire was coming from. That is how they lost their lives. Even the likelihood that we could have provided some kind of overflight over a long period of time for the likelihood that would have sorted out that mortar fire is virtually impossible. Thank you for your service and to the families of those who lost their loved ones. How did you choose who you interviewed . Basically, as mr. Of the interviews, as the start of the interviews, we took the ascess based on the facts been covered them over time. I did not feel compelled to interview a chain of command in south africa. I know it they were doing that night. I was very comfortable. We interviewed those we thought we needed to interview. I recognize the gentleman from michigan. Sullivan, the arb report discussed stove piped discussions by the state department. Regarding decisions on policy and security. To ensure thene security decisions are not stove piped and the individuals making the decisions have access to the necessary security information . One of the things we recommended that i mentioned earlier was to create or to elevate the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security to an undersecretary. Secretaries the in charge of security for the department and that authority is delegated down to the assistant secretary. What we found is that that has led to a little bit of some confusion. When we spoke to people in the embassies, to the ambassadors, to the deputy chief, it seems like the lines of cavitation, the lines of authority an indication, the lines of authority are pretty well understood. At the headquarter level, that was not as well understood. We believe by creating this new undersecretary, it there will be clear lines of authority. Undersecretary would be involved in the policy decisions and we believe that would go a long way toward creating clear lines of communication. Find thatt practice a briefing of key participants in a critical event. What is the purpose . That happens at the department. It is to gain critical information as quickly as possible before memories start to fade. We did not find any process in the state department. There is no Lessons Learned process at the department of state. Your opinion, what should the Department Due to create an effective Lessons Learned process . From a tactical and Strategic Perspective within the bureau of Diplomatic Security. Any indication that that is being done . Not that i know of. Thank you. With all due respect, you have answered it already. Want to asked this question to bring the context back again. Why should we not conclude that they had set up a heads up is not a desire to coach a witness action,ion or an especially in the context of an independent panel . The intent was to get the best possible witness identified for the state department. An independent panel, coaching the witness. There was no coaching. Ambassador pickering, why did the board decide not to administer oaths . No arm had done that in the past and we have no reason to believe that we would not a truthful testimony. This was consistent of the practice . Nothy were interviews recorded or transcribed . Interviews were recorded on that previous had followed. It was a pattern the federal bureau of investigation adopted in its reports as well. We felt it was more than sufficient to record the key points that we would have to take into account in preparing our report. Could you see a benefit of adopting this practice . This panel has found it impossible of getting full information. Between is a difference your access to documents and the question of the type of documents it should be prepared. Believe that transcribed interviews would have created the kind of attitude and approach of give and take which we found with the witnesses which was useful and relevant. The formal process of taking a inhibiting ofis the kind of information we were soliciting, the kind of use we wanted to get on the open character of the kind of approach we were taking. The American Public and this panel does not feel like we have that access to information necessary to make the decisions about the movement forward. We talk about stovepipes and all of these things that are done at other levels of government. We have information lacking to us because there is not information that we can read or bring out to the American Public. Committee will not have chummy discussions that are friendly and cordial in lieu of the kind of interviews that we make available on the record. We will continue to use our process even if others think conversations on recorded arent more and. Are important. The American Public deserves it. Especially these the family sitting in this room. Thank you. Both of you testified it prior proceedings, closeddoor depositions. I had the privilege of helping conduct some of that questioning. We have spoken quite a bit at length already. Thank you for coming back again today. On this terribly sad chapter in american history. I will start with you, ambassador. Usyour deposition, you told to the best of your knowledge, no other arb was so extensive and farreaching in its findings of personal responsibility or personal accountability or made such farreaching recommendations at such high levels in the state department. You also told us that in writing this report, you did not want to pull any punches and that you felt that you had a serious obligation under the law and from the secretary to do that. Werelso explained that you deeply concerned that previous arbs had been excellent in the that but the followthrough had dwindled away. Clintonor, secretary immediately adopted all 29 recommendations in the arb report and the state department is making progress on all of them. Is that true . Yes. I believe they are. If implemented, your recommendations will make u. S. Facilities abroad and the people served in them safer the people who serve in them safer. Would you explain to us how the recommendations will make us safer . They will in the cases of posts like benghazi stop the personnel churn which allowed deficiencies to develop, both in continuity and focus and size of personnel. We believe they will provide a better system for the Decision Making and respect to the improvement of physical security are the application of higher standards. We believe the Training Programs that we recommend will improve the capacity of both Security Specialists and nonsecurity specialist. The serious fire safetybetween preparations and security safe havens illustrated in benghazi will be ended and there will be appropriate equipment to deal with fire safety and safe haven areas. Those are a few of what i think are the most salient points. If i could asked permission to make one brief statement. The chairman implied our interviews and our work was not recorded. The chairman knows and i know that is not the case. I want to give you the chance to weigh in on this question. Inside the nea bureau of a senior individual with respect to Diplomatic Security, with the establishment of a separate Diplomatic Security focused on high threat posts. One of the things i thought was helpful in your report was this focus on diplomacy. It would be in places like benghazi. In confluence in iraq and afghanistan that we all need and consulates like iraq and afghanistan. Think the changes that were recommended will have a substantial impact on how the state department moves forward, how we move forward as a country and these very difficult times. The world has changed and we need to adapt to that. In many ways, we have. Thank you for that, gentlemen. Ambassador, we will disagree on what a record is. This Committee Makes an accurate for bait him record verbatim record as possible. I appreciate the fact that the atlomatic service looks impressions of what was said as a record and i know it is helpful, but it is a different standard in investigations. One of the things this committee is considering, the level of investigation done of any incident, no matter what part of government, needs to be considered for how it will be recorded. That is not to disparage you of the history of how they have been done. I appreciate that you recorded as per your 40 plus years of history. We were reviewing how we do it. If the fbi were investigating the death of four people, they would tend to want a very accurate record, which is what we are looking for. They can speak best for themselves, but our impression has been that the type of recording they provided to us in connection with their investigation of four dead americans was very much along the lines that we were preparing for our own use. Reasonable people can differ. Investigations and reviews have a different context and purpose. Cuba, ambassador. Thank you, ambassador. We now go to the gentleman from oklahoma. Thank you to all of you. You have done a tremendous amount of work in preparation. I am trying to gather a group of facts. Would you agree we had an overdependence on Libyan Security that night . We had an overdependence on them. We did not have a sufficient number of our own Armed Security forces on the ground. I believe the answer to that is yes. Your indication that dod was anywhere around benghazi at that time is a mistake. In august . Nnel there they served a few short period in benghazi, but their assignment was in tripoli. The majority was always in tripoli. Did they travel with the ambassador when they he was in benghazi . No. Took twosador department of state security agents with them. I think it is really important to focus on what the mission was. Months,e there for many the vast majority of the mission was training. They did make some security recommendations. From that perspective, they provided some input with respect to security. I think it is a reach to think they would have been there. Fair enough. You. E answer ird gave the answer i already gave you. Do you know how many posts worldwide at that time . The did not meet the minimum standard . I am only guessing, but somewhere between a third. 260 or so, it a third did not meet our standards . That is my best understanding. Principal recommendations was in the Building Program recommended in the nairobi along 10 years before, it it had dwindled away. To 10 ad to go back year at a cost beginning of 2. 2 billion a year. That is in recognition that probably among those that do not meet standards, there are urgent high risk posts that i get priority. What about the high risk posts . At the time of benghazi, the department of state had an emergency review of 19 posts, including visits to them, which was their judgment about what was high risk. Any special chain of authority to have actual personnel there . Who makes the decision . Made atecisions were the place we identified the Deputy Assistant secretary in Diplomatic Security makes the primary decisions. That would be charlene lamb, patrick kennedy. With the secretary of state have with theon that . Secretary of state have to sign off on that . No. And there was no one at the ready. Did you discover there was a contingency plan . We are at a high risk location. Did you see there was a contingency plan for response in case there was an emergency . I do not think there was one. Is that something we should recommend . X it goes back to available assets. 19 is not a small number when you Start Talking about forces. How are you going to distribute your forces . It is a worthy discussion. I know the pentagon has recalibrated that. The first line of defense is the local government. Second line of defense is our resources in place. Those are things we concentrated our attention on. The department of state is assigned an additional number of marines and Security Officers. That was our concern as well. The libyan militia was not sufficient. Enoughnot have a high rsonnel. We did not meet the minimum standards. We did not have a contingency plan. The individuals that were there were very naked. Exposed at this particular location. It was the deterioration of the numbers and the upgrades over time that did not prepare the benghazi compound. We twognificant and had or three times the number of people in place that night, i am not sure they couldve done much. We lost any kind of deterrent capability so that the enemy would think twice about whether do Something Like that. The gentlemans time has expired and i think the admiral for including the portion of this that talks about if you have a strong force, you often dont get attacked and that might have been the greatest benefit of additional forces. Fromw go to the gentleman wisconsin. Thank you to the witnesses. I knew it was not going to be exactly mr. Smith goes to washington but i did not expect groundhog day. I feel like i am watching another copy of groundhog day. We have had 12 congressional hearings on benghazi, three in this committee i have been on. There is three this week alone in the house. I know i sat through part of the closed deposition. We have gone through extensive conversations about benghazi. In the bubble of washington, having come from outside of the bubble railroa where real peopl. Members think they know more by visiting basis than the joint chiefs of staff. What im most concerned about is what were doing to make sure this never happens again will stop to make sure that we are actually honoring the lives of sean smith, tyrone woods,. Hristie vince Chris Stevens. So that they dont have to face another benghazi. The most important thing that we can do. We want to make sure that this never happens again. Number ofoutlined a recommendations. One of the areas perhaps we have been remiss on, in my opinion coming from the outside, is that we dont talk about what. Ongress has to do this congress has been pretty much failing to get much of anything done. When you look at the recommendations and most recently in the newest reports, there are specific things that congress should be doing. We should be poking and poking and hope we get a got you, which i think happens too often in congress. Lets figure out what happen said that this never happens again. Ask specifically, ambassador, you talked about the fact that the state department recognize those immediately. Have we moved at all on the recommen