House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa has issued a subpoena to depose the ambassador charged with leading the review of the attack in Benghazi that killed four Americans.

Issa announced Friday that he will demand a deposition from Thomas Pickering, who along with Adm. Mike Mullen led the Accountability Review Board that did a report on security at the diplomatic post in Benghazi.

The subpoena requires Pickering to appear for a deposition on May 23.

Pickering has volunteered to testify publicly in front of the Oversight Committee. Issa says that isn't enough, and wants to interview Pickering before the committee holds a hearing with him.

In a May 16 letter to Issa, Pickering and Mullen wrote that the Oversight Committee's request for private interviews ahead of a hearing were "highly unusual in the context of senior officials who are not in fact witnesses but instead are reporting on their own independent review." 

In the letter, Pickering and Mullen said they would be willing to testify in Congress on May 28, June 3 or another date of Issa's choosing.

A request to a State Department spokesperson for comment on the subpoena was not immediately returned.

This story was originally published on Wed May 15, 2013 5:01 PM EDT

President Barack Obama on Monday derided the controversy over inter-agency talking points drafted in the wake of last year’s Benghazi attack, saying that charges of a politically motivated cover-up are a “sideshow” and  little more than a “political circus.” 

Jim Bourg / REUTERS

President Barack Obama talks about the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya as Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron listens during a joint news conference in the East Room of the White House, May 13, 2013.

“The whole thing defies logic,” Obama said at a White House event with British Prime Minister David Cameron. “And the fact that this whole thing keeps getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.” 

The president  defended his administration against persistent allegations that it tried to disguise the Benghazi attack as a spontaneous riot instead of an act of terror – charges Obama dismisses as little more than a “political circus.” 

Those accusations again dominated headlines last week, when leaked emails showed that State Department officials suggested changes to the official talking points crafted after the Sept. 11, 2012 incident. That attack on the diplomatic compound left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Those changes included the deletion of mentions to specific terrorist groups. 

On Monday, Obama said those edits reflected the intelligence agency’s lack of immediate clarity about exactly what prompted the attack, which occurred at the same time that a video offensive to Muslims had prompted spontaneous riots elsewhere in the Middle East. 

“The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process has been a sideshow,” he said. “What we have been very clear about throughout was that immediately after this event happened, we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were.” 

“There’s no there, there,” he said of the leaked emails, which congressional investigators reviewed earlier this year but which were not reported on until last week. 

Noting that National Counterterrorism Center chief Matt Olsen specifically labeled the assault “an act of terrorism” just days after attack, Obama said Republicans who characterize the administration’s response to the attack as anything other than due diligence on the part of intelligence officials are merely trying to exact political damage on their Democratic opponents. 

“Who executes some sort of cover up or effort to tamp things down for three days?” he asked. 

Despite the president’s evident frustration with the GOP’s line of questioning on Benghazi, the administration will get little respite from congressional skeptics, who have pledged to keep probing its response to the Libya attack. 

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has asked that Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Admiral Mike Mullen – the two officials who conducted an independent review of the incident on behalf of the State Department – be interviewed by investigators. 

Issa has said that the independent review failed to adequately question top State Department officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. 

Senators John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire have called for a Joint Select Committee to investigate the matter. 

The three Republicans said that the president's statements Monday run counter to his public descriptions of Benghazi in the weeks after the deaths. 

Obama "repeatedly and specifically refused, in the heat of his re-election campaign, to label Benghazi a terrorist attack," they wrote in a statement Monday afternoon. 

This story was originally published on Mon May 13, 2013 3:42 PM EDT

A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year's Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"Hillary Clinton's not a target," said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC's Meet the Press. "President Obama is not a target."

Issa,  who heads a panel probing the assault on the diplomatic outpost that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, said he will seek depositions from Benghazi review board heads Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  

The interagency process of modifying talking points in the wake of the attack scrubbed the fact that the incident was "a terrorist attack from the get-go," Issa said Sunday. 

"The American people were effectively lied to for a period of about a month," he charged. "That's important to get right."

Issa's committee held a high-profile hearing last week on the Benghazi attack. The California Republican claimed Sunday that Pickering - the man who led an independent review of the attacks on behalf of the State Department - refused to testify at that hearing.

Pickering flatly denied that he was unwilling to appear.

"I said the day before the hearings I was willing to appear, to come from the very hearings [Issa] excluded me from," Pickering told NBC's David Gregory. "We were told the majority said I was not welcome at that hearing; I could come at some other time."

Issa said he was unaware of Pickering's late notice, which the ambassador said he communicated through the White House, but added that a private deposition - which he intends to formally request Monday from the ambassador - is the more appropriate way to begin the inquiry.

"The fact is we don't want to have some sort of a stage show," Issa said.

Issa spokesman Frederick Hill said in a statement that Oversight committee Republicans never received a request for Pickering to testify. 

"We challenge him to name the White House official who he was in contact with and the White House official whom he falsely says relayed his interest in testifying to Chairman Issa," Hill said. 

Republicans have been dogged in their questioning of the administration's response to the attack, with leaked documents revealing last week that officials at the State Department suggested edits to talking points that erased references to terrorist groups.

While Hillary Clinton has stated publicly that she was not involved in that editing process, criticism of the former State Department chief and much-discussed possible presidential candidate has been a strong subtext of the Benghazi debate.

Senate Intelligence Committee chair Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, said on Meet the Press that Issa's panel has deliberately put Clinton's ambitions in its crosshairs.

"My concern is when Hillary Clinton's name is mentioned 32 times in a hearing, then the point of the hearing is to discredit the Secretary of State, who has very high popularity and may well be a candidate for president," Feinstein said.

Likely 2016 Republican candidate Sen. Rand Paul excoriated Clinton in a speech Friday in key campaign state Iowa, saying her role in the Benghazi episode "should preclude her from holding higher office."

"I think that's nonsense," Feinstein said of Paul's claim. "And I think the American people will think that's nonsense." 

This story was originally published on Sun May 12, 2013 11:28 AM EDT

In a day of congressional testimony that once again found the Obama administration under fire, a trio of whistleblowers expressed frustration toward the government’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012 assault against a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and its subsequent investigation into that incident.

The diplomatic officials appeared on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to describe a hasty and chaotic response to the attack, which left four Americans – including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens – dead.

The witnesses said that the government was poorly prepared to weather the attack and was hesitant to respond, also contending that a subsequent review of the incident ordered by the State Department came up woefully short.

The testimony included new details from Gregory Hicks, a career foreign service officer who served as the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attacks.

He painstakingly recounted frenetic efforts to communicate between besieged individuals in Benghazi, and the governments of Libya and the United States. And he relayed the frustration of special forces who were told to stand down in Tripoli – Hicks said he did not know who gave the order – from deploying to Benghazi.

“They were furious,” Hicks told lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I will quote Lt. Col. Gibson. He said, ‘This is the first time in my career that a diplomat has more balls than somebody in the military.’”

IN DEPTH: Official: US Special Forces team wasn't allowed to fly to Benghazi during attack

Hicks joined two other witnesses in a hearing driven primarily by Republicans, who have zealously pursued the Benghazi incident based on suspicions that President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been caught flat-footed by the attack, or worse, orchestrated a cover-up about the attack to benefit the president’s re-election bid.

At no point did Hicks or his fellow witnesses – Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism, and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer and former regional security officer in Libya – accuse the president or Clinton of having halted forces that might have assisted besieged diplomats in Benghazi. Democrats repeatedly pointed to testimony suggesting that reinforcements would have not have arrived in time, anyway.

But Republicans seized on several morsels of information, in particular Hicks’s incredulity toward the administration’s initial explanation, voiced by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was the spontaneous outgrowth of protests related to an anti-Islamic video.

“I was stunned. My jaw dropped, and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said of his reaction to Rice’s appearances on a series of Sunday talk shows following the attack. He further testified that there were no indications of protests in Libya, and that at no time did they suspect that the Benghazi attack was related to protests.

Republicans also homed in on suggestions by Hicks that a top Clinton aide had reacted angrily when Hicks agreed to speak privately with GOP investigators looking into the Benghazi attack. Hicks said that Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, called him “upset” about his conversation with the GOP lawmakers.

The witnesses also expressed their misgivings about the Accountability Review Board’s (ARB) findings in a subsequent investigation into the government’s response to the attacks. The ARB, the witnesses said, failed to interview senior enough leaders in the State Department.

The testimony prompted pointed responses from Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who co-authored the ARB, and allies of Clinton, the popular former secretary of state who’s seen as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

“I believe the Accountability Review Board did its work well,” Pickering, a coauthor of the report, said Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC. “I think the notion, quote, of ‘a cover-up’ has the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.”

And Philippe Reines, a senior aide to Clinton, told NBC News that accusations that Mills interfered in an investigation into Benghazi “completely and utterly false.”

Indeed, Democrats headed into the hearing warning against politicization of the Benghazi incident.

“I am not questioning the motives of our witnesses,” said Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the committee, at the outset of the hearings. “I am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes.”

His admonition didn’t stop many Republicans from plowing ahead with their questions.

“It's one of great mysteries,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, of questions as to why terror response forces were not ordered into action on Sept. 11. “Here we have this expertise, we've invested heavily in it, they tabletop it, they understand it, this is exactly what they train for and they were never asked to go into action.”

But while many Republicans appeared eager to keep Benghazi alive as a political issue, not all Republicans seemed as concerned about the issue, or the Obama administration’s forthcoming.

“I’ve been able to read all the cables, I’ve seen all the films. I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi; I’m fairly satisfied,” said Sen. Bob Corker, Tenn., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on MSNBC. “I’m fairly satisfied.”

This story was originally published on Wed May 8, 2013 11:02 AM EDT

Published at 1:55 p.m. ET: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sharply criticized Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for not deploying U.S. forces so they could rapidly respond to the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.

“It’s one of the more bizarre statements I have ever seen in my years on this committee,” McCain told Dempsey, accusing him of failing to place U.S. aircraft ahead of time at bases such as Suda Bay, Crete, where they could  have reached Benghazi within 90 minutes on the day of the attack.

Given the threats and attacks on foreign diplomats in the weeks leading up to Sept. 11, 2012, McCain contended, Dempsey ought to have placed forces closer to Benghazi.

McCain called Dempsey’s testimony "simply false" regarding U.S. deployments to deter or respond to an attack in Benghazi.

Dempsey “didn’t take into account the threats to that consulate—and that’s why four Americans died,” McCain angrily told the general. In the Sept. 11 assault on the facility, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, were killed.

Recommended: Drones take center stage

The Arizona Republican also contended that “it was almost predictable” that “bad things were going to happen in Libya” in the weeks leading up to the attack because the fledgling government was too feeble to maintain control of the country – and he blamed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and President Barack Obama for not deploying a strong U.S. military presence in the country to help keep order.

For his part Dempsey told McCain that “we never received” a request from the State Department to place forces closer to Benghazi to be poised to respond to an attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility.

“So it’s the State Department’s fault?” McCain asked.

“I’m not blaming the State Department,” Dempsey replied. But he said he was concerned on the day of the Benghazi attack about an array of possible assaults on U.S. facilities not only in Libya but in Afghanistan, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, and other locations in the Islamic world.

Dempsey, along with Panetta, was testifying Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Panetta told the panel there were two short-duration attacks that occurred six hours apart. “We were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response,” Panetta said.

Both Dempsey and Panetta said the best situation would have been to have had U.S. forces on the ground before the attack to defend the facility.

Two other Republican members of the committee, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, pressed Panetta and Dempsey on how many times they directly briefed Obama on the attack on the day it occurred – the answer was once.

Both Ayotte and Graham implied that Obama ought to have asked more questions and been more involved in keeping apprised of the events in Benghazi in real time. On her Twitter account, Ayotte said while the hearing was in progress, “POTUS outsourced #Benghazi response.”

While the attacks were underway, Graham asked, “did the president show any curiosity about how is this going, what kind of assets do you have helping these people?”

Recommended: Senators, John Brennan brace for national security showdown in CIA hearing

Panetta replied – citing his experience a former White House chief of staff, “The purpose of staff is to be able to get that kind of information and those staff (members) were working with us.” He added, “The president is well informed about what is going on.”

Graham also questioned Dempsey about Ambassador Stevens’s Aug. 15 cable warning the State Department that the facility in Benghazi couldn’t defend itself if it came under attack. Dempsey told Graham that he was surprised that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not know about that cable.

In his testimony, Panetta said the Department of Defense and U.S. armed forces “did all that we could do in response to the attacks in Benghazi.” He explained that “armed UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones), AC-130 gunships, or fixed-wing fighters with the associated tanking – you’ve got to provide air re-fueling-- armaments – you’ve got to arm all the weapons before you put the on the planes” -- were not in the vicinity of Libya.

He said that even if he’d been able to deploy F-16 fighters or AC-130 gunships over Benghazi in time, “the mission still depends on accurate information about what targets they’re supposed to hit. And we had no forward air controllers there” and no communications with U.S. personnel on the ground.

He said, “because of the distance, it would have taken at least 9 to 12 hours, if not more, to deploy these forces to Benghazi. This was, pure and simple,  -- in the absence as I said of any kind of advance warning -- a problem of distance and time.”

Win Mcnamee / Getty Images

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testifies on the attack on U.S facilities in Benghazi, Libya before the Senate Armed Services Committee Feb. 7, 2013 in Washington, D.C.

He explained that “unfortunately there were no specific indications of an imminent attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi. Without adequate warning, there was not enough time given the speed of the attack for armed military assets to respond.”

In his testimony Panetta also warned about the effects of the automatic spending cuts – called sequestration - that are mandated by the 2011 Budget Control Act and are set to begin on March 1.

“If Congress fails to act and sequestration is triggered, and if we also must operate under a year-long continuing resolution (keeping spending at last year’s levels), we would be faced with a significant shortfall in operating funds for our active forces with only seven months remaining in the fiscal year,” he told the committee. “This will damage our national defense and compromise our ability to respond to crises in a dangerous world.”

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta came to the aid of former Sen. Chuck Hagel, the man President Barack Obama nominated to succeed him, saying on NBC’s Meet the Press, “The political knives were out for Chuck Hagel” during his confirmation hearing last week.

In nearly eight hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee on Thursday, Hagel spent much time revising and clarifying his previous remarks – including a spontaneous error at the hearing itself on whether United States policy toward Iran’s nuclear weapons program was one of containment.

Panetta complained that the members of the committee spent too little time questioning Hagel about the current challenges the Defense Department faces, such as looming budget cuts, and spent too much time examining statements Hagel made in the past.

Panetta insisted to NBC’s Chuck Todd that Hagel was “absolutely” prepared to take his place leading the Defense Department.

Panetta’s backing of Hagel was seconded by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Martin Dempsey, who said “in helping prepare him for his confirmation hearings, we had several opportunities to talk about strategy. And I found him well-prepared and very thoughtful about it.”

As the Armed Services Committee prepares to hold a hearing Thursday on last September’s attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Panetta said he looked forward “to presenting what we know about what took place.” Congressional Republicans have questioned why there were no U.S. military aircraft or other forces in proximity to Benghazi that could have been dispatched to help defend Ambassador Chris Stevens and other US personnel. Stevens and three others were killed in the attack.

Addressing the Defense Department’s airlift and intelligence-sharing role in assisting the ongoing French military intervention in the North African nation of Mali, Panetta said, “We are now working with France to make sure that al Qaida has no place to hide, even in North Africa.”

Dempsey added that in North Africa “the regimes that you used to maintain control over that space that would, in fact, be part of the solution of keeping al Qaida and its affiliates at bay are no longer there.”

The popular uprisings of the 2011 Arab Spring, Dempsey said, “stripped that away” leaving “ungoverned space” or “a period at which geography is less governed than it used to be.” That lack of control has allowed jihadist groups such as al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) to flourish.

Turning to Iran and its nuclear program, Panetta said, “The intelligence we have is they have not made the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon. The regime in Tehran is enriching uranium.  They continue to do that.”

He added, “I can't tell you they are, in fact, pursuing a weapon, because that's not what intelligence says they're doing right now. But every indication is they want to continue to increase their nuclear capability. And that's a concern. And that's what we're asking them to stop doing.”

Vice President Joe Biden said Saturday that the Obama administration is “would be prepared to meet bilaterally with the Iranian leadership,” but that talks would need to be serious, have an agreed-upon agenda, and not be merely an exercise.

On the threat of spending cuts, known in Capitol language as “sequester,” scheduled to start on March 1 that are mandated by the Budget Control Act, Panetta said, “If Congress stands back and allows sequester to take place, I think it would really be a shameful and irresponsible act.”

He added that the spending cuts this year – amounting to about 12 percent of Pentagon outlays apart from overseas operations – would “badly damage the readiness of the United States of America.”

Panetta, who served as head of the Office of Management and Budget under President Clinton and as chairman of the House Budget Committee in the late 1980s, said, “As somebody who's worked with budgets throughout my life, in order to deal with the deficit problem, you've got to deal with entitlements. You have to deal with revenues. And you have to deal with discretionary (spending).”

Although Republicans such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona have accused Obama of failing to take the lead in finding a way to avoid the cuts required by the Budget Control Act, Panetta said, “I think he's pushing as hard as he can…. The president of the United States has indicated the concern about sequester. He's indicated his concern about maintaining a strong national defense.  And he's proposed a solution to this. The ball is in Congress's court. They have got to take action to delay sequester.”

Updated at 2:20p.m. ET: In a hearing marked by sometimes sharp and pointed exchanges, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee she took responsibility for not adequately protecting U.S. personnel in the Sept. 11 attack on a diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. 

Defending the administration’s immediate handling of the attack, Clinton clashed at times with Republicans over the account the administration gave in the initial days after Sept. 11.

Clinton said the Obama administration did not try to mislead the American people about the cause of the attacks. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” she said as she sparred with Sen. Ron Johnson, R- Wisc.

She angrily told Johnson that at this stage it did not really matter what the precise origins or motives of the attack were: “What difference at this point does it make?”

She told Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake, a Republican, “we did not have a clear picture” of all that was going on in Benghazi although she did acknowledge that senators had “legitimate questions” about the administration’s account.

Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., -- after telling Clinton “we are proud of you” and that all over the world “you are viewed with admiration and respect” -- delivered a blistering criticism of the Obama administration’s handling of the events in Libya.

“There are many questions that are unanswered and the answers you’ve given this morning are frankly not satisfactory to me,” McCain told Clinton. He added “the American people and the families of these four brave Americans still haven’t gotten the answers they deserve.”

He asked Clinton whether she was aware of numerous warnings from Stevens and other Americans in Libya that the facility in Benghazi was not capable of resisting a sustained assault. He also said there had been other warning signs such as an attack on the British ambassador to Libya.

He angrily asked Clinton why Defense Department forces were not nearby to defend the Benghazi facility.

Last month a report issued by the Accountability Review Board (ARB) appointed by Clinton, blamed State Department officials for “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” that led to protection for the Benghazi facility that was “grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

In her response to McCain, Clinton said, as she did to other senators on the panel, that some additional information on the causes and circumstances of the attack is in the classified portions of the report issued by the ARB. Senators and Senate staff can read the classified portions of the ARB report, but the public cannot.

And she blamed members of Congress for holding up additional aid to Libya that might make the country more secure and less chaotic. 

Clinton was testifying Wednesday afternoon on Benghazi before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In his questioning of Clinton Wednesday morning, Sen. Rand Paul, R- Ky., told her, “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”

He added, “It’s a failure of leadership” which cost the Americans in Benghazi their lives. “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility-- because no one else is.”

Paul also argued that U.S. personnel ought to never have been sent to Benghazi “in a war zone” without a military guard. “You shouldn’t send them in with the same kind of embassy staff that you have in Paris,” he added. 

Clinton replied that all four State Department officials criticized in the ARB report for their roles on the Benghazi events had been removed from their jobs and placed on administrative leave. “The ARB (report) made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below.”

The furor over the Benghazi attack helped derail one possible nominee to replace Clinton at the State Department, UN ambassador Susan Rice, whom Republicans assailed for using administration talking points that portrayed the incident as a spontaneous response to an inflammatory anti-Islamic video.

But Clinton told the committee that in the hours and days after the attack, “I was not focused on talking points” and “I wasn’t involved in the talking points process.”

Recommended: Biden not shying away from 2016 speculation

In her opening statement, Clinton told the committee, “As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility.  Nobody is more committed to getting this right.  I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”

Clinton's voice choked with emotion as she recalled the return of “those flag-draped caskets” from the Americans killed in Benghazi and put her arms “around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” of those killed. 

Clinton also used her testimony to deliver a vigorous call for continued U.S. involvement in the North African nation of Mali where the Obama administration is aiding French efforts to defeat Islamic jihadist forces.

She told the committee that the United States cannot allow Mali to become a safe haven for the group Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), warning of the risk of AQIM attacks on the United States itself.

Clinton also said she could not confirm reports that some of the terrorists involved in last week’s Algeria hostage taking were also involved in the Benghazi attack but called it a "new thread" to follow.

She did say that there is no doubt that Algerian terrorists have weapons they obtained from depots in Libya that were opened up and “liberated” after the dictator Moammar Gadhafi was toppled, with U.S. and NATO help, in 2011.

Gary Cameron / Reuters, file

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks about the hostage situation in Algeria during a joint news conference with Japan's Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida (not pictured) after their meeting at the State Department in Washington Jan. 18, 2013.

Clinton said she had accepted the ARBs recommendations for improvements in security procedures and had asked her subordinates “to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely.” She said these changes are designed to “reduce the chances of another Benghazi happening again.”

On Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold its confirmation hearing for Clinton’s successor, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, who is the committee’s chairman and is likely to be confirmed without any opposition.

The assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security has resigned and three other officials have been relieved of duty after a report criticized the State Department over the attacks on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, the department said late Wednesday.

State Department spokesperson Victoria J. Nuland confirmed that Eric Boswell had resigned and said three other officials had been relieved of duties pending . Two of the others worked in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and one in the Bureau of Near East Affairs.

Nuland did not name the other three, but a U.S. official told NBC News that one was Charlene Lamb, Boswell’s deputy assistant secretary of state for international programs. Earlier reports had said that Boswell, Lamb and another unidentified official had resigned.

The resignations come after the release of the Accountability Review Board Report on the attacks on the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya, which faulted the State Department and specifically the Bureau of Diplomatic Security for "grossly inadequate" security.

Here’s Nuland’s full statement:

"The ARB identified the performance of four officials, three in the Bureau of the Diplomatic Security and one in the Bureau of Near East Asia Affairs.  The Secretary has accepted Eric Boswell's decision to resign as Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, effective immediately.   The other three individuals have been relieved of their current duties.  All four individuals have been placed on administrative leave pending further action."

Updated 5:20 p.m. - Senate Republicans managed to achieve their goal of blocking U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from becoming the next secretary of state after Rice, on Thursday, withdrew her name from consideration by President Barack Obama.

Republicans were more measured in their responses to the withdrawal than they had been in their earlier criticism of Rice, whose prospective nomination had come under fire for her role in publicly explaining the Obama administration’s assessment of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"I respect Ambassador Rice’s decision. President Obama has many talented people to choose from to serve as our next Secretary of State," South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement.

Related: Rice drops out of running for secretary of state

Graham, along with Sens. John McCain, Ariz., and Kelly Ayotte, N.H., had led an effort to pre-empt Obama from naming Rice as the successor to outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

"I respect Susan Rice's decision and appreciate her commitment to public service," Ayotte said in a statement. "However, my concerns regarding the terrorist attack in Benghazi go beyond any one individual."

Rice told NBC News in an exclusive interview on Thursday that she no longer wished for Obama to consider her for the position. In a letter to the president, Rice said she feared a confirmation fight in the Senate "would be lengthy, disruptive and costly."  The full interview with Rice will air tonight on Rock Center with Brian Williams at 10 p.m ET.

McCain’s office said: “Senator McCain thanks Ambassador Rice for her service to the country and wishes her well.”

Each of the Republicans, though, expressed continued concern about the Benghazi incident in their statements, and said they would continue their efforts to probe the matter.

Obama said he has accepted Rice's decision, hailing her as an "extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant." He said Rice would continue to serve as U.N. ambassador, and as a member of his national security team.

The trio of Senate Republicans had vowed to work to block Rice's nomination if Obama settled upon the United Nations ambassador as his nominee, stemming from her explanation for the Benghazi attacks. Rice had appeared on public affairs shows the weekend after the attack to assert that the assault -- which left four Americans dead, including Amb. Christopher Stevens – to assert that it was the outgrowth of a spontaneous rally to protest an American video that was offensive to Islam.

An investigation in subsequent weeks revealed that the attack in Benghazi was actually a coordinated terrorist attack, which prompted pointed questions from Republicans about why the administration had first put Rice forth to assert otherwise. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney tried for a series of weeks to effectively tarnish Obama politically with the mixed public explanation.

McCain, Ayotte and Graham pressed the matter further after the election, winning a meeting with Rice last month amid speculation that Obama wished to name the trusted adviser to fill the top diplomatic job.

"If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me," Obama said at a press conference following his re-election to rebuff the Republican troika. "And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi, and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and besmirch her reputation is outrageous."

But there were indications that the critiques had started to wear on the public perceptions of Rice. In the NBC/WSJ poll released Wednesday, Rice was rated positively by 20 percent of respondents, while 24 percent of said they had a negative perception of her.