text: A US soldier from 632th Maintenance Company of 87th Supply Battalion of 3rd Infantry Division, distributes new uniforms in 2005. | Getty State worried about Marine uniforms during attack 
   
   State Department officials on an emergency conference call during the Benghazi attack brought up concerns about whether Marines that might have been deployed should wear uniforms — something officials previously said could hurt diplomacy in the region, according to House Benghazi investigators. 
   
   The final GOP-authored House Benghazi report released Tuesday included new details of a two-hour video teleconference call the night of the attack, a session led by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. Clinton and top Defense officials were also on the call, which was supposed to center on how to get Americans out of harm's way. 
   
   But a substantial part of the discussion, GOP investigators said, centered on how and why the attack happened rather than narrowly examining potential rescue plans. Half of the action items people wrote down in the meeting didn't have to do with evacuation; many of them were about an anti-Islam video, which the administration would incorrectly blame for the violence. 
   
   The report also found that a State official brought up a question about whether Marines should wear civilian clothing instead of their uniforms. Under secretary of State for management Patrick Kennedy told investigators he wanted to ensure that security was enhanced, not hurt by flags on the uniforms of any U.S. military presence. 
   
   But, one commander told the committee that as they were readying themselves to deploy they kept having to change in and out of their uniforms four times. 
   
   The military never deployed to Benghazi. 
   
   State Department deputy spokesperson Mark Toner in a statement said the clothing issue did not affect the speed or timeliness of any possible military response. 
   
   “We are aware that the committee is critical of these issues, but we are not aware of any finding that they had any impact on the attacks or our ability to send help," the statement says. "The fact is, we did not cause a delay.... Concerns about what they wore had no bearing on the timing of their arrival.” ||||| The final majority report of the Benghazi Select Committee is set to be released later Tuesday morning. Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo have signed onto the official majority document and authored a supplemental, 51-page "additional views" report of their own. 
   
   Among the most interesting aspects of their "additional views" is a timeline that contrasts the story top Obama administration officials were telling in public with the very different story some of those same officials were sharing with one another in private emails, conversations and documents. The timeline reinforces in a compelling way what will be one of the most significant takeaways from the committee investigation: The Obama administration knowingly provided the American people a false story about the Benghazi attack, its causes and its consequences. 
   
   Read the excerpt below: 
   
   Public vs. Private Timeline 
   
   9/11—Public Statements 
   
   Secretary Clinton's 10:08 p.m. Statement on the Attack in Benghazi: 
   
   "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. * * * Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." 
   
   9/11—Private Statements 
   
   Secretary Clinton's Call Sheet for call with President of Libya Mohammed al Magariaf at 6:49 p.m.: 
   
   Under heading "Purpose of Call" notes that "Secretary should urge Mr. Magariaf to respond urgently to the attack against the U.S. Mission Benghazi, and security threats against U.S. Embassy Tripoli." No mention of a protest or video. 
   
   Summary of Call between Secretary Clinton and President Magariaf: 
   
   "[O]ur diplomatic mission was attacked[.] . . . [T]here is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for." No mention of protest or video. 
   
   Secretary Clinton's E-mail to daughter at 11:23 p.m.: 
   
   "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Quedalike [sic] group[.]" 
   
   9/12—Public Statements 
   
   Secretary Clinton's Remarks on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya morning of September 12, 2012: 
   
   "We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet." 
   
   9/12—Private Statements 
   
   Summary of Discussion between Acting Assistant Secretary Beth Jones and Libyan Ambassador Aujali at 9:45 a.m.: 
   
   "I told him that the group that conducted the attacks—Ansar Al Sharia—is affiliated with Islamic extremists." 
   
   Jacob Sullivan in e-mail to embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan: 
   
   "There was not really violence in Egypt [and] "we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted 'over inflammatory videos.'" 
   
   Secretary Clinton's Statements to Egyptian Prime Minister Kandil at 3:04 p.m.: 
   
   "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest. . . . Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda." 
   
   Under Secretary Patrick Kennedy to congressional staff briefing: 
   
   When asked whether "this [was] an attack under the cover of a protest" Kennedy said, "No the attack was a direct breaching attack." More to the point, he was then asked whether "we believe [this was] coordinated with [the] Cairo [protests] to which Kennedy responded, "Attack in Cairo was a demonstration. There were no weapons shown or used. A few cans of spray paint." 
   
   9/13—Public Statements 
   
   Secretary Clinton's Morocco Remarks: 
   
   "I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. * * * 
   
   To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. * * * 
   
   Violence, we believe, has no place in religion and is no way to honor religion. Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace. It is especially wrong for violence to be directed against diplomatic missions. . . . 
   
   *** 
   
   I wanted to begin with this statement, because, as our Moroccan friends and all of you know, this has been a difficult week at the State Department. I very much appreciate, Minister, the condolences your government expressed to our Embassy in Rabat. And even though that tragedy happened far away in Benghazi, we found a reminder of the deep bounds that connect Morocco to the United States." 
   
   9/13—Private Statements 
   
   Summary of call between State Department Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides and Egyptian ambassador to U.S.: 
   
   "Nides said he understood the difference between the targeted attack in Libya and the way the protest escalated in Egypt." 
   
   9/14—Public Statements 
   
   White House Spokesman Jay Carney during press conference answering question about Benghazi: 
   
   "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack. The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive. And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy." 
   
   E-mail from White House Advisor Benjamin Rhodes: 
   
   Under heading "Goals" he wrote "To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy[.]" 
   
   Return of remains ceremony statement to father of Tyrone Woods recorded in diary: 
   
   "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand, and she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son." 
   
   Return of remains ceremony statement to mother of Sean Smith: 
   
   "We were nose-to-nose at the coffin ceremony. She told me it was the fault of the video. I said 'are you sure?' She says 'yes, that's what it was . . . it was the video.'" 9/14—Private Statements 
   
   E-mail from State Department press officer in embassy in Tripoli, Libya: "Colleagues, I mentioned to Andy this morning, and want to share with all of you, our view at Embassy Tripoli that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions. . . . Relatively few [Facebook comments and tweets] have even mentioned the inflammatory video. So if we post messaging about the video specifically, we may draw unwanted attention to it. And it is becoming increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence. It is our opinion that in our messaging, we want to distinguish, not conflate, the events in other countries with this well-planned attack by militant extremists. I have discussed this with Charge Hicks and he shares PAS's view." 
   
   9/15—Public Statements 
   
   President's Weekly Address titled "Carrying on the Work of Our Fallen Heroes" muddles Benghazi and protests in other countries: 
   
   "This tragic attack takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries. I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths. We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion – including Islam." 
   
   9/15—Private Statements 
   
   Secretary Clinton's call with Prime Minister-Elect of Libya: 
   
   Makes no mention of either a protest or the video. 
   
   9/16—Public Statements 
   
   Ambassador Rice on Fox News With Chris Wallace: 
   
   "But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack." 
   
   9/16—Private Statements 
   
   Excerpt from Embassy Tripoli Media Report September 16, 2012: "[T]here is evidence that suggests that the second confrontation at the UM mission's safe house could not have happened without insider knowledge or some degree of organization. This goes against statements that the attacks were not carried out by a single group but by an angry multitude protesting[.]" 
   
   9/17—Public Statements 
   
   Excerpt from State Department Daily Press Briefing: 
   
   "Ambassador Rice, in her comments on every network over the weekend, was very clear, very precise, about what our initial assessment of what happened is. . . . I don't have anything to give you beyond that." 
   
   9/17—Private Statements 
   
   Excerpt from e-mail discussion between members of NEA press office about what to say about attack: 
   
   NEA Press Officer Suggested the following language: 
   
   "The currently available information suggests the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests of the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault[.]" 
   
   Senior Libya Desk Officer, Near Eastern Affairs Bureau responding to suggested language: 
   
   "I really hope this was revised. I don't think we should go on the record on this." 
   
   9/18—Public Statements 
   
   Excerpt from White House Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney: 
   
   . . . I would point you to what Ambassador Rice said and others have said about what we know thus far about the video and its influence on the protests that occurred in Cairo, in Benghazi and elsewhere." 
   
   9/18—Private Statements 
   
   Deputy Director of CIA Michael Morell in written statement to House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence: 
   
   "The critically important point is that the analysts considered this a terrorist attack from the very beginning." 
   
   E-mail exchange between State Department security officers commenting on news article titled "White House sees no sign Libya attack premeditated": 
   
   DS Agent #30: "Can you believe this?" 
   
   DS Agent: "Was there any rioting in Benghazi reported prior to the attack?" 
   
   DS Agent #30: "Zip, nothing nada" 
   
   9/19—Public Statements 
   
   From "ALDAC"—a worldwide cable—from Secretary Clinton to all U.S. Embassies drafted by Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan: 
   
   "Since September 11, 2012, there have been widespread protests and violence against U.S. and some other diplomatic posts across the Muslim world. The proximate cause of the violence was the release by individuals in the United States of the video trailer for a film that many Muslims find offensive. Diplomatic compounds have been breached in several countries including Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen. In Benghazi, Libya four U.S. personnel were killed in the violence[.]" 
   
   The administration, including Secretary Clinton, knew that Benghazi was a terrorist attack—from witness accounts, from their understanding of the history of violence in Benghazi, and from the nature of the well-planned, complex attack. Yet, they led the public to believe the video and a protest were to blame in Benghazi. 
   
   9/20—Public Statements 
   
   Excerpt from interview of the President on Univision Town Hall: 
   
   In response to the question, "We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?" the President answered, "[W]e're still doing an investigation[.] . . . What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests[.]" 
   
   Secretary Clinton has since blamed her statements on changing information received from U.S. intelligence reports. She and others have claimed that the 10:08 p.m. statement was not meant to ascribe a motive to the attack. Yet, Sullivan knew the morning of September 12th—based on the press release from the embassy in Kabul—that people had heard it exactly that way. Moreover, whether or not the intelligence information changed, Secretary Clinton's public and private statements remained unchanged—publicly tying Benghazi and Cairo together and privately recognizing the violence in Benghazi was a terrorist attack with nothing to do with a protest or video. 
   
   Moreover, to the extent any intelligence analysis incorrectly reported on a protest or a video in connection with Benghazi, Secretary Clinton and other State officials, who knew better, simply ignored them. As just one example, in her conversation September 15, 2012 with the president of Libya, Secretary Clinton made no mention of anything in the CIA talking points that administration officials later claimed were the best assessment available at the time, and those talking points made no mention of a video in connection with Benghazi. In short, Secretary Clinton and the administration knew better than to rely on flawed intelligence reports. Intelligence assessments may have changed. News reports may have changed. But the eye witness accounts remained same—and not one said a protest had occurred. Yet, once Secretary Clinton and Ben Rhodes set the message, the truth became an afterthought. ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) ranks his time on the House Select Committee on Benghazi among the lowest points of his career. 
   
   “This has been one of the saddest exercises I’ve ever engaged in in my 20 years in Congress,” he said Tuesday on MSNBC. 
   
   ADVERTISEMENT 
   
   “It’s been very partisan,” added Cummings, the panel’s ranking Democrat. "We’ve been locked out of so many things. 
   
   “Witnesses interviewed and we’re not told about it. Exculpatory evidence found out by the Republicans [and] they don’t tell us about it. A failure to allow us to have free access in regard to transcripts.” 
   
   Cummings accused Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy Trey GowdyChatter grows that Ryan could step down Lawmakers press Lynch for briefing on Yahoo secret email scanning reports Clinton IT aide pleads Fifth, skips hearing MORE (R-S.C.) of trying to prevent accountability for the panel’s GOP lawmakers. 
   
   “He is still not releasing certain transcripts,” he said. "I don’t think he wants the American people to see every syllable that has been talked about with regard to this issue. 
   
   “And I don’t think they want to be fact-checked,” Cummings added of Republicans. "That’s why they didn’t want us to have the report, because they knew we would fact-check it. 
   
   "They basically hid the report from us. It’s supposed to be a bipartisan effort. We literally got the report about three hours ago.” 
   
   Cummings added the panel’s report Tuesday does not alter the public’s understanding of the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. 
   
   “All I want to say is that there’s been a lot of granularity that has been added, but the facts remain the same. There was no stand-down order. There was no effort to politicize the right’s talking points. And there’s no evidence of gun trading.” 
   
   The Benghazi panel on Tuesday released an 800-page report filled with new criticism of former secretary of State Hillary Clinton Hillary Rodham ClintonTrump bullish on Minnesota as campaign hops to blue states Clinton makes no mention of FBI news in Cleveland rally Conway: Comey mishandled Clinton investigation from beginning MORE. 
   
   It concludes that Clinton and other officials did not adequately heed concerns about growing extremism in Libya. 
   
   The summary also accuses Clinton, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, of falsely blaming the violence on an anti-Muslim video behind unrest elsewhere. 
   
   Cummings and other panel Democrats on Monday released their rebuttal to the GOP’s report in an attempt to debunk its findings. 
   
   “We are issuing our own report today because, after spending more than two years and $7 million in taxpayer funds in one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history, it is long past time for the select committee to conclude its work,” they said.
target: – The Republican-led House Benghazi committee released its final report Tuesday after two years of investigations. The 800-page report lays out the committee's findings on the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead. Here's what you need to know: Benghazi is "unlikely to be a potent tool for weakening Clinton" in the general election, as the committee and report have little credibility and aren't seen as serious by many, the Los Angeles Times reports. Easily distilling the massive report, the Washington Post lays out its five "most serious accusations," including that the CIA "missed warning signs" and "misread how dangerous Libya ... was at the time." New evidence of “culpability or wrongdoing” on Clinton's part is lacking in the report, despite it being “one of the longest, costliest, and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history," according to the New York Times. Given a lack of new evidence against Clinton, the Weekly Standard uses the report as a tool for blaming Obama. “The Obama administration knowingly provided the American people a false story about the Benghazi attack, its causes, and its consequences," the Standard states. How various government agencies responded to the Benghazi crisis is one of the more interesting aspects of the report. According to Politico, a conference call in the midst of the attack included a conversation about whether Marines should wear their uniforms if deployed. Marines changed in and out of their uniforms multiple times while waiting for an answer and were never deployed. According to the Hill, a Democratic lawmaker on the House Benghazi committee calls it "one of the saddest exercises I've ever engaged in" during 20 years in Congress. He accuses Republicans of hiding the final report from Democrats to avoid having it fact-checked. Zeroing in on what it calls the "most revealing paragraph" in the report, Vox concludes there's a pattern of spinning "non-damning facts as damning" for the Obama administration. The paragraph in question admits there were no US forces close enough to prevent the attack but insists that, in itself, was a failure on the part of the White House. "I think it's time to move on," the AP quotes Clinton as saying after the release of the report, which she says includes nothing not previously discovered by an accountability board.