[dead]

The Republican-authored report’s findings are, by no means, a love letter to President Obama or then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. For example, the report concludes that U.S. personnel in Benghazi were woefully vulnerable in September 2012 because a) the administration did not direct a change in military force posture; b) there was no intelligence of a specific “imminent” threat in Libya; and c) the Department of State, which has primary responsibility for diplomatic security, favored a reduction of Department of Defense security personnel in Libya before the attack.” The balance of the report contains many such harsh judgments of the Obama administration, the State Department, and the intelligence community. However, as ThinkProgress notes, the report does undermine

It sounds like ThinkProgress scanned the report looking for any sliver of good news, and people around here are helping them trumpet that over the whole of the report.

I think I'll read the report myself before I let ThinkProgress and Mediaite make me their Pavlovian dog.

[Williams]

Exactly. The military may not have been “positioned” at Benghazi but I think some jets attacking the Jihadists might have made a heck of a difference.

[lepton]

They also are confusing by using the term “stand down”, which has military connotations that aren’t readily apparent. The report said that the military was ordered to remain in place, rather than affirmatively ordered to stand down. They were told to, instead of go to help, to stay put. To stand down would be to cease all operations, which is beyond telling them to not go and assist.