Nation

GOP panel chairman dismisses general’s criticism of Benghazi response

Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified at a House Government Oversight and Reform Committee hearing that US forces ‘‘should have tried’’ to get to the Benghazi outpost in time to help save the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Getty Images

Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell testified at a House Government Oversight and Reform Committee hearing that US forces ‘‘should have tried’’ to get to the Benghazi outpost in time to help save the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

WASHINGTON — A retired US general came under sharp criticism from a Republican committee chairman on Thursday after testifying that the Obama administration reacted weakly to the deadly 2012 attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya.

Retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, the star witness at a House Government Oversight and Reform Committee hearing, testified that US forces ‘‘should have tried’’ to get to the outpost in time to help save the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. He blamed the State Department for not making stronger requests for action.

Advertisement

A few hours later, the powerful chairman of the Armed Services panel, Representative Howard ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon, a California Republican, challenged the testimony of Lovell, who was in US Africa Command’s headquarters in Germany monitoring the attack.

The general ‘‘did not serve in a capacity that gave him reliable insight into operational options available to commanders during the attack, nor did he offer specific courses of action not taken,’’ McKeon said.

Get Ground Game in your inbox:
Daily updates and analysis on national politics from James Pindell.
Thank you for signing up! Sign up for more newsletters here

The disagreement muddied a Republican attempt to raise fresh questions about the Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, assault by armed militants. The GOP has accused the administration of downplaying a terrorist attack just weeks before the election.

Lovell testified that it was clear that the attack was hostile action and not a protest run amok, as the Obama administration initially described it.

‘‘Four individuals died. We obviously did not respond in time to get there,’’ he said.

Advertisement

Asked whether the military was allowed to adequately respond, Lovell said it was not. ‘‘The military could have made a response of some sort,’’ he said.

McKeon’s statement disputed Lovell’s assertions based on his committee’s interviews with more than a dozen witnesses in the operational chain of command and its review of thousands of pages of transcripts, e-mails, and other documents.

‘‘We have no evidence that Department of State officials delayed the decision to deploy what few resources the Defense Department had available to respond,’’ McKeon said. ‘‘Lovell did not further the investigation or reveal anything new. He was another painful reminder of the agony our military felt that night: wanting to respond but unable to do so.’’

Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.