House narrowly approves spending bill, legislation heads to Senate

The House narrowly approved a sweeping spending bill Thursday night despite deep misgivings among liberals and conservatives alike, sending the measure to the Senate as lawmakers averted a partial government shutdown.
The bill passed on a 219-206 vote, following an intense lobbying effort by House Republican leaders and the White House.
Current government funding technically runs out at midnight Thursday, but lawmakers late Thursday approved a stopgap measure to keep the government running through midnight Saturday as the Senate considers the main $1.1 trillion spending package. That debate could last through the weekend and potentially into Monday.
"We will not have a government shutdown," Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., pledged.
Passage in the House followed hours of urgent appeals from an unlikely alliance: President Obama and House GOP leadership.
Obama and Vice President Biden worked the phones to sway Democratic lawmakers. White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough also met on the Hill with the Democratic caucus. Despite sources inside the meeting initially saying he did little to persuade lawmakers, a rift emerged in the Democratic leadership late Thursday. As House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi continued to oppose the bill, her deputy, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., urged passage.
Meanwhile, House GOP leaders did what they could to sway conservative members who, for different reasons, were opposed to the package.
In the end, 67 Republicans defected, but 57 Democrats voted for it.
Many conservatives opposed the bill because it does not attack Obama's immigration executive actions, while liberal Democrats were angry over provisions dealing with campaign spending and financial regulation.
The debate saw Pelosi flexing her clout, recognizing that House Speaker John Boehner needed Democrats to pass the bill.
She pushed back not only against GOP leaders but Obama's lobbying effort.
In a rare public rebuke of the president,  Pelosi said she was "enormously disappointed" he had decided to embrace the bill, which she described as an attempt at legislative blackmail by House Republicans.
Pelosi, D-Calif., sent an email note to colleagues in the afternoon saying they had "leverage" to make demands -- namely, to remove two provisions her party doesn't like. They are: a provision rolling back one of the regulations imposed on the financial industry in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008, and one that permits wealthy contributors to increase the size of their donations to political parties for national conventions, election recounts or the construction of a headquarters building.
Right before the vote, according to a source in the room, Pelosi told lawmakers: “We have enough votes to show them never to do this again.”
But perhaps an overriding desire on both sides not to risk another government shutdown prevailed.
The current plan would fund the government through September 2015, but immigration services only through late February, teeing up a battle over immigration for early 2015.
Earlier in the day, the bill narrowly cleared an important procedural hurdle, on a 214-212 test vote. But the tight vote, which almost failed, exposed serious problems. GOP leaders then delayed a final vote and spent hours trying to round up support, as the White House did the same with Democrats.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said earlier that Obama supports the bill and would sign it -- despite having reservations about certain provisions.Hoyer ultimately took a similar position.
The bill’s fate in the Senate remains unclear.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., now a member of leadership, has fought the bill in an effort to preserve the financial regulatory policy known as Dodd-Frank. Debate in the Senate on the main spending bill could easily last several more days.

Stupid and Stupider Cartoon.

Georgetown basketball players sport 'I Can't Breathe' shirts in warm-ups

Stupid.

The first major "I Can't Breathe" protest from college sports would naturally come from Georgetown, where societal statements are part of the school's DNA.
And what a powerful one it was. The entire roster emerged for the final warmups before the Hoyas' loss to No. 10 Kansas on Wednesday night wearing black short-sleeve T-shirts with the words "I CAN'T BREATHE" in bold white letters.
The players wore the T-shirts during the national anthem while lined up across the court, an image that could bring to mind protesters blocking traffic on a city street in silent, nonviolent defiance. Then they shook hands with the Jayhawks before taking off the shirts for the announcement of the starting lineups.
Many notable professional athletes — including LeBron James and Kobe Bryant — have written the message on their warmups or other equipment in recent days, echoing the last words spoken by Eric Garner as police were attempting to arrest him in New York in July. A grand jury decided last week not to indict the officers involved, spurring protests across the country.
It should be no surprise that coach John Thompson III would allow his players to make such a statement. His father, longtime Hoyas coach John Thompson Jr., was known for taking bold positions during a Hall of Fame career, especially in support of minorities. Most famously, the elder Thompson walked off the court before a home game in 1989 to protest NCAA Proposition 42, which restricted the criteria under which athletes could receive scholarships.
After the game, Thompson III gave a detailed, eloquent explanation for the T-shirts, saying it was a player-driven idea that had its origins after the team watched a similar grand jury decision concerning another shooting — that of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri — live on television while in the Bahamas for a holiday tournament.
The coach said the players initially wanted to wear the shirts at the Hoyas' previous game, but he first wanted to have more conversations with them to make sure they all understood the answer to the question: "Why do you want to wear this shirt?"
"You can go from Patrick Ewing wearing a T-shirt underneath his jersey, then it becomes something that everyone does," Thompson III said. "Allen Iverson braiding his hair and playing in the league, then it becomes something everyone does. Kobe wearing the tights and then everyone does it.
"And this isn't that. This isn't one of those things where you go along just because it's something that's trending. We have had a lot of discussions, and the emotions as it relates to the protest the guys wanted to do today, the emotions and the feelings in the locker room are all over the place, meaning not necessarily everyone feels the same way.
"The emotions are from fear to frustration to confusion to anger, and the reasons why every individual wanted to wear it is all over the place, too, which is probably pretty consistent with the emotions across the country right now. ... I think the group wanted to possibly put ourselves in the position to be a part of a process, to help where there's positive change, as opposed to just negative reactions."
Junior guard D'Vauntes Smith-Rivera referenced the names of Brown and Trayvon Martin as he spoke about the protest, saying it goes beyond one case in New York.
"We really wanted to represent those families that all lost (a loved) one," Smith-Rivera said.
Added senior center Joshua Smith: "We didn't wear the shirts to say that the cops were wrong or the system was wrong. We just wore the shirts just to show our condolences to the family because no matter how you look at it, we don't know who was right or wrong, but they still lost somebody. And they won't get that person back."
When Thompson III was asked about his father's legacy of speaking his mind, the elder Thompson spoke up from the back of the room.
"It's a (expletive) school, man," Thompson Jr. said. "That's your responsibility to deal with things like that. We're not a ... damn pro team."
Kansas freshman guard Kelly Oubre was impressed by the Georgetown players' stand.
"That's definitely a powerful statement that those guys collectively made," Oubre said. "I respect them for doing that, and they did it all as a team, too, so it was something good to watch."
Jayhawks coach Bill Self didn't see the protest because he was focused on preparing for the game, but he also supported the players' action.
"It's a pretty strong stance," Self said. "And I think it's pretty good, and it certainly shows a lot of solidarity amongst their unit. And I don't see anything negative with it at all."

Fox News Poll: Voters worry about checks and balances after Obama immigration action

Majorities of American voters think President Barack Obama exceeded his authority with recent executive actions on immigration -- and are worried he may be permanently altering the system of checks and balances established by the Constitution. 
That’s according to a new Fox News poll released Wednesday.
Click here for the poll results.
By an 8-point margin, more voters disapprove (51 percent) than approve (43 percent) of the specific policy changes Obama made that will, among other things, allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain temporarily in the United States to work. 
Meanwhile, nearly three quarters think this easing of immigration laws will encourage more people to enter the country illegally (74 percent).  That includes 50 percent who believe Obama’s actions are “very likely” to result in more people illegally entering the U.S. 
Even more voters are unhappy with how Obama made these changes.  By a 60-38 percent margin, voters disapprove of the president bypassing Congress to change how the government deals with illegal immigration. 
In addition, a 54-percent majority thinks Obama “exceeded his authority” under the Constitution by making the immigration changes unilaterally.  Thirty-eight percent say he “acted within his authority.” 
The poll goes on to ask what such actions mean for the country in the long term and finds more than two-thirds -- 68 percent of voters -- are concerned Obama’s use of executive orders and unilateral actions may be “permanently altering” our country’s system of checks and balances. That includes 42 percent of Democrats, 72 percent of independents and 93 percent of Republicans.
Hispanic voters -- who are almost twice as likely as white voters to approve of the recent changes Obama made on immigration (66 percent vs. 34 percent) -- like how the president went about making the changes as well.  Fifty-six percent of Hispanics approve of Obama bypassing Congress compared to 29 percent of whites.  Even so, views among Hispanics are about evenly divided over Obama’s authority under the Constitution: 48 percent say he acted within his authority, while 44 percent say he exceeded it.  By two-to-one white voters say Obama exceeded his authority under the Constitution (62 percent-31 percent). 
In general, a 63-percent majority wants the government to allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. and eventually qualify for citizenship after meeting certain requirements.  Some 16 percent favor a guest-worker program, while 17 percent say deport all illegal immigrants.  Despite the president’s recent actions and the reactions they have sparked, these sentiments are mostly unchanged since 2011. 
While Hispanic voters (77 percent) are more likely than white voters (59 percent) to think the government should allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country, majorities of both groups favor that option. 
Many lawmakers and commentators questioned the timing of Obama’s actions on immigration -- especially given the thumping his party received during the midterms. And voters certainly don’t think immigration should be at the top of the president’s to-do list.
The economy is the priority at 38 percent, followed by terrorism from groups like ISIS at 21 percent.  Next on the list is health care at 12 percent, immigration comes in fourth for voters at 10 percent and race relations follows at 9 percent.
Those voters saying immigration should be the president’s top priority are split on the changes Obama made:  48 percent approve and 48 percent disapprove. 
Thirty-six percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing on immigration, while 60 percent disapprove. Obama’s record-high approval on immigration was 47 percent in February 2013, around the time he was proposing a comprehensive immigration reform plan.
Hispanic voters (55 percent) are twice as likely as white voters (27 percent) to approve of Obama’s job performance on immigration.
Obama’s overall job rating held steady this week: 42 percent of voters approve and 53 percent disapprove.  Just before the midterms it was 41 approve - 54 disapprove. 
The average for Obama’s ratings since becoming president is now split: 46 approve - 46 disapprove. 
The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,043 randomly chosen registered voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from December 7-9, 2014. The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The poll includes additional interviews (an oversample) of randomly selected Hispanics to allow analysis of the subgroup.

State Department 'stonewalling' requests for Hillary Clinton's files

The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign. They include one request AP made four years ago and others pending for more than one year. 
The agency already has missed deadlines it set for itself to turn over the material. 
The State Department denied the AP's requests, and rejected the AP's subsequent appeals, to release the records sought quickly under a provision in the law reserved for journalists requesting federal records about especially newsworthy topics. 
In its requests, the AP cited the likely prospect of Clinton entering the 2016 race. The former first lady is widely considered the leading Democratic contender hoping to succeed President Obama. She has made scores of recent high-profile speeches and public appearances. 
On Wednesday, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips. 
Citizens United, which in 2009 mounted a legal battle that led to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning campaign finance limits, said the department unlawfully was withholding the records it sought nearly five months ago. 
The State Department is among the U.S. government's worst-performing federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no direct evidence that political considerations in a Democratic presidential administration have delayed the release of files about the party's leading contender for 2016. But the agency's delays, unusual even by government standards, have stoked perceptions about what could be taking so long. 
"There may not necessarily be political interference, but if the department went out of its way to speed these documents there would be no way for people to accuse them of it," said Thomas Blanton, who has previously sued the State Department for access to records as director of George Washington University's National Security Archive, a research organization. 
The department "is stonewalling us," said Citizen United's president, David Bossie. He asserted that "these decisions are being made with Hillary Clinton's intentions at heart," but acknowledged he could provide no evidence of political interference. 
Bossie, a former Republican congressional investigator who researched figures in the Clinton administration, said his group's film unit wants the records for a sequel to its documentary about Clinton, which spurred the Citizens United court decision. 
The group first asked Air Force officials for passenger lists from Clinton's overseas trips but was told all flight records were under the State Department's control. "These were Air Force flights and crews but State has the records?" he said, adding that his group has submitted 15 Clinton-related requests in the past six months. 
The AP's requests go further back. 
The AP requested copies of Clinton's full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; her department's decision to grant a special position for longtime aide Huma Abedin; Clinton's and the agency's roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor. The AP made most of its requests last summer, although one was filed in March 2010. 
State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach cited the department's heavy annual load of FOIA requests -- 19,000 last year -- in saying that the department "does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities." He said the department takes requests "first in, first out," but noted that timing depends on "the complexity of the request." He declined to comment on Citizen United's suit. 
In a previous communication, a State Department official apologized for its own delays responding to AP's records requests without offering any explanation for the delays. 
"We sincerely regret the delay," said Lela H. Ross of the Office of Information Programs and Services, which administers the agency's requests. The official did not explain the delays but cited the agency's "complex and lengthy administrative FOIA process." 
Last May, the State Department told the AP that its search for records pertaining to Clinton and the defense contractor would be completed by August. The agency said it now expects the files to be available later this month. Similarly, the agency said the Clinton and Abedin records would likely be completed in September. Now it says it will not finish until next April. The 4-year-old FOIA request still has no estimated completion date. 
The agency's pace responding to requests for Clinton-related files has frustrated news organizations, archivists and political groups trying to research her role at the State Department in the months before Clinton decides whether to formally enter the 2016 race. 
At stake is the public's access to thousands of documents that could help understand and define her activities as the nation's chief diplomat under Obama. 
Other major document repositories have released thousands of pages of files about Clinton's private and public life. 
Since February, lots of previously restricted records from her years as first lady to President Bill Clinton have been made public by the Clinton Presidential Library. Last month, the University of Virginia's Miller Center presidential oral history collection unveiled dozens of interviews with key players from the Clinton White House. 
The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30 times longer than the Treasury Department. 
An inspector general's report in 2012 criticized the State Department's practices as "inefficient and ineffective," citing a heavy workload, small staff and interagency problems. A study in March by the nonpartisan Center for Effective Government said the State Department was the worst-performing agency because of its delays and frequent failure to deliver the full number of files that people requested.

Cheney defends CIA interrogation techniques, calls Senate report 'deeply flawed'

WASHINGTON –  Former Vice President Dick Cheney slammed the recently released Senate report on CIA interrogation techniques Wednesday, calling it “full of crap,” and a “terrible piece of work” that was “deeply flawed.”
Cheney, speaking on Fox News' “Special Report with Bret Baier,” said some of the controversial techniques used on militants had been previously tested and the interrogations produced results.
Cheney acknowledged he had not read the entire 500-page report summary. He strongly defended the tactics, including waterboarding and rectal hydration.
“What are you prepared to do to get the truth against future attacks against the United States?” Cheney asked.
Cheney also refuted claims that President George W. Bush was kept in the dark about the interrogations.
“I think he knew everything he wanted to know and needed to know,” Cheney told Baier.
A Democrat-led Senate panel released a scathing report Tuesday on CIA interrogation practices amid warnings from lawmakers that the findings could "endanger the lives of Americans" -- a concern the Obama administration apparently shared as it put more than 6,000 Marines overseas on high alert.
The report, from the Senate intelligence committee, claimed the interrogation techniques used were "brutal and far worse" than the CIA represented to lawmakers. Further, the report claimed the tactics were not effective and the spy agency gave "inaccurate" information about it to Congress and the White House.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the head of the intelligence panel who ordered the release of the report, alleged on the Senate floor on Tuesday that the CIA techniques in some cases amounted to "torture."
"History will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say 'never again'," she said on the floor. "There may never be the right time to release this report. ... But this report is too important to shelve indefinitely."
The White House and President Obama backed the decision to release the report, despite warnings from lawmakers and some inside the administration that it could lead to a backlash against Americans.

Relation's Cartoon

Israel indicts American over plot to bomb Muslim holy sites

An American Christian is facing charges in Israel of plotting to blow up Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, Israeli authorities said Tuesday.
Adam Everett Livix, 30, was identified by the Israeli Police and the Justice Ministry. Livix faces drug charges in the U.S. and that he once turned down an offer from a Palestinian to assassinate President Obama during a visit to Israel in 2013.
The Justice Ministry said the man they identified as Livix underwent a psychiatric evaluation Tuesday after his indictment Monday on charges of illegal weapon possession and overstaying his visa by more than a year. Operating in cooperation with Israel's Shin Bet security service, police went to arrest Livix last month at his 7th-floor apartment, the ministry said, but he initially tried to escape by leaping down to a patio on the floor below.
Livix, posing as an ex-Navy SEAL, was asked by a Palestinian to assassinate Obama with a sniper rifle in March 2013 when Obama was making a trip to the region, Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfield said. Livix did not go through with it and the FBI ended up investigating the matter.
Later that year, Livix entered Israel, the Justice Ministry said, and told Israeli friends he had strong anti-Arab sentiments. The ministry said Livix later cooperated with his roommate, a serving soldier in the Israeli military, to obtain 3 pounds of explosive material to blow up the unidentified Jerusalem holy sites. The ministry said police discovered the plot in October.
Livix's indictment comes at a time of rising tensions in Jerusalem, mostly over a disputed holy site known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and Jews as the Temple Mount. It is the third holiest site in Islam and the holiest in Judaism.
As members of the Israeli government demand that Jews be allowed to pray at the Muslim-run site, Palestinians fear it is a pretext to a Jewish takeover.
This isn't the first time there have been allegations of a foreigner threatening a holy site in Jerusalem. In 1969, an Australian Christian started a fire at the complex's Al-Aqsa Mosque in hopes that it would hasten the second coming of Jesus Christ. The man, Denis Michael Rohan, was subsequently committed to a mental institution.

Senate panel releases scathing report on CIA interrogations amid security warnings

A Democrat-led Senate panel released a scathing report Tuesday on CIA interrogation practices amid warnings from lawmakers that the findings could "endanger the lives of Americans" -- a concern the Obama administration apparently shared as it put more than 6,000 Marines on high alert. 
The report, from the Senate intelligence committee, claimed the interrogation techniques used were "brutal and far worse" than the CIA represented to lawmakers. Further, the report claimed the tactics were not effective and the spy agency gave "inaccurate" information about it to Congress and the White House. The report called CIA management of the program "deeply flawed" -- though agency officials have staunchly defended the program and credited it with helping track down Usama bin Laden and other terror leaders. 
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the head of the intelligence panel who ordered the release of the report, alleged on the Senate floor on Tuesday that the CIA techniques in some cases amounted to "torture." 
"History will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the willingness to face an ugly truth and say 'never again'," she said on the floor. "There may never be the right time to release this report. ... But this report is too important to shelve indefinitely." 
The White House and President Obama backed the decision to release the report, despite warnings from lawmakers and some inside the administration that it could lead to a backlash against Americans. More than 6,000 U.S. Marines overseas have been put on "high alert" over the report's release, Fox News is told. 
In addition, a official confirmed to Fox News Tuesday that the FBI and the DHS sent out a joint bulletin to law enforcement in the U.S. surrounding the report's release. The bulletin warned that the report could spark violence.
Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Jim Risch, R-Idaho, called the move a "partisan effort" by Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They said the report is not "serious or constructive" and "could endanger the lives of Americans overseas." 
Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., the top Republican on the intelligence committee, slammed the release in a joint statement on Tuesday. 
"As we have both stated before, we are opposed to this study and believe it will present serious consequences for U.S. national security," they said. "Regardless of what one's opinions may be on these issues, the study by Senate Democrats is an ideologically motivated and distorted recounting of historical events. The fact that the CIA's Detention and Interrogation program developed significant intelligence that helped us identify and capture important al-Qa'ida terrorists, disrupt their ongoing plotting, and take down Usama Bin Ladin is incontrovertible. Claims included in this report that assert the contrary are simply wrong."
The roughly 500-page report, a summary of a still-classified 6,000 page study, amounts to the fullest public accounting from Congress -- at least from Democrats -- of the CIA's alleged use of torture on suspected Al Qaeda detainees held in secret facilities in Europe and Asia in the years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. 
Obama said the Senate report documents a "troubling program" and pledged to make sure "we never resort to those methods again." 
He said in a statement: "We will rely on all elements of our national power, including the power and example of our founding ideals. That is why I have consistently supported the declassification of today's report. No nation is perfect. But one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better." 
The CIA, in a statement responding to the report, acknowledged the agency made "mistakes" with its detention and interrogation program but disputed claims that the interrogations were not effective.
"Our review indicates that interrogations of detainees on whom [enhanced interrogation techniques] were used did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack plans, capture terrorists, and save lives," the agency said, also disputing that the agency intentionally misled lawmakers and other officials on the program. 
CIA officials tell Fox News that the interrogation program produced valuable and actionable intelligence. They specifically cite the identification of the courier who led to bin Laden and his compound in Pakistan. CIA officials say the courier's name was first revealed by Amar al-Baluchi while in the CIA interrogation program, though he was not subjected to waterboarding. 
When detainee Hasan Gul was subjected to the enhanced interrogation program, he is said to have provided specific information about the courier -- after initially giving "confusing signals" about the individual. 
After 9/11, CIA officials say the program provided the "bedrock" understanding of Al Qaeda network and it is still being drawn on today. One former CIA officer told Fox News that once accused Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's will was broken, he generated more than 2,000 intelligence reports. 
In addition, former CIA officers from the program told Fox News they believe the Senate report seeks to minimize intelligence that led the U.S. to bin Laden's courier. 
Another former officer told Fox News that the CIA was encouraged by lawmakers "to do whatever it takes" to prevent another attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. The former officer said that Hill leadership was briefed more than three dozen times before the program was shuttered. 
According to the report, the CIA tactics included weeks of sleep deprivation, slapping and slamming of detainees against walls, confining them to small boxes, keeping them isolated for prolonged periods and threatening them with death. Three detainees faced the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding. 
The report detailed sleep deprivation that involved keeping detainees awake for up to 180 hours, "usually standing or in stress positions." It claimed many detainees provided "fabricated information, resulting in faulty intelligence" as a result of these methods. 
President George W. Bush approved the program through a covert finding in 2002, but he wasn't briefed by the CIA about the details until 2006. George Tenet, CIA director when the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks occurred, said the program saved "thousands of American lives." 
After Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah was arrested in Pakistan, the CIA received permission to use waterboarding, sleep deprivation, close confinement and other techniques. Agency officials added unauthorized methods into the mix, the report says. 
At least five men in CIA detention received "rectal rehydration," a form of feeding through the rectum. Others received "ice baths" and death threats. At least three in captivity were told their families would suffer, with CIA officers threatening to harm their children, sexually abuse the mother of one man, and cut the throat of another man's mother. 
Zubaydah was held in a secret facility in Thailand, called "detention Site Green" in the report. Early on, with CIA officials believing he had information on an imminent plot, Zubaydah was left isolated for 47 days without questioning, the report says. He wasn't alone. In September 2002, at a facility referred to as COBALT-- understood as the CIA's "Salt Pit" in Afghanistan -- detainees were kept isolated and in darkness. Their cells reportedly had only a bucket for human waste. 
The White House on Monday reiterated its support for the report's release, despite the warnings it could provoke violence. Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration has been preparing "for months" for the report's release. 
However, Secretary of State John Kerry last week asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to "consider" the timing of the release. 
The administration's stance was criticized by GOP Sen. Richard Burr, the prospective new chairman of the Senate intelligence committee. Burr, R-N.C., said that Kerry's suggestion that the report be delayed didn't jibe with Earnest's comments. 
"It's dumbfounding they can call and ask for it to be delayed and then say they want it out. You can't have it both ways," Burr told Fox News. 
U.S. officials have confirmed to Fox News that an advisory has been sent urging U.S. personnel overseas to reassess security measures in anticipation of the release. The message directs all overseas posts, including those used by CIA personnel, to "review their security posture" for a "range of reactions that might occur." 
A similar statement was being sent to military combatant commands to assess their readiness. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Tuesday he's ordered all combatant commanders to be on "high alert."

Report reveals flaws in U.S. diplomatic facilities

State Department investigators found problems with five newly opened 2012 U.S. diplomatic facilities, including irregularities in security standards and construction flaws.
Such problems would compromise the safety of personnel and property, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
The review was part of seven audits conducted by State Department Inspector General Steve Linick. It was undertaken from April to October 2012 during the end of Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State.
The review best describes the security when Benghazi was attacked in September 2012 leading to the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, the report says.
Investigators concluded the Benghazi attacks occurred because officials did not step up security despite repeated requests from diplomats in Libya.
The findings pose a serious obstacle for Clinton as she mulls a presidential run in 2016. GOP lawmakers seek to tie Clinton to the security failures.
“The inspector general’s findings reveal that on Secretary Clinton’s watch, security lapses were widely prevalent in the most dangerous posts in the world, not just isolated to the failures that precipitated the attack in Benghazi,” Tim Miller, executive director of America Rising, a group that opposes a potential Clinton candidacy, told the journal.
The report did not reveal the location of the facilities and many deficiencies were fixed after the review started.
In a 2013 report, which had not been made public, investigators said the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Pakistan did not have a solid emergency plan in the event of a terrorist attack or political unrest. Many of the flaws were fixed after the review was underway.
During the Pakistan inspection, secret files were left on the floor because of the shortage of file cabinets, the paper says. The findings were similar to the inspections in Libya and Afghanistan.