Episode 4: Meanwhile, In Washington

In the days following the attack, the Obama Administration rushed to address the events in Benghazi. The statements made by Administration leaders would be the source of much controversy in the months and years to come.

On September 12, the day after the attack, President Barack Obama addressed the nation from the Rose Garden of the White House. He referred to the attack as “acts of terror.” “The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking act,” he said. “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” Later in the day, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her own statements on the attack. Her comments were vague, offering no definitive information on the details of the events, but briefly mentioning that some suspicion has been pointed toward the protest of the inflammatory film. These two sets of comments quickly came under fire from mainly conservative critics who believed that the Administration failed to significantly acknowledge that the attack was a terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton has also been harshly criticized for what many believe to be an effort to blame the attack on the film and subsequent protests and cover up possible Al Qaeda involvement.

Both Hillary Clinton and then Press Secretary Jay Carney were careful to point out that the protests were not of any specific U.S. policy and that the United States is in no way connected to the film Innocence of Muslims.

Over the next couple of days, messages out of the White House were mixed. Jay Carney remained vague, stating that the State was not aware of any “actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” In contrast, a senior White House official, in an interview with CNN, claimed that the events were “clearly a planned military-type attack.” On September 16, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on CNN’s “State of the Union” and stated that the protests played a role in the violence against the embassy in Benghazi. She also said that there was no evidence that the attack was premeditated or planned. Her statements on “State of the Union” have been the subject of much criticism; some felt that her words were misleading and called for her resignation. Others defend her, saying that she was pushed out into the public eye, uninformed and unprepared. The Administration continued to state that there was not adequate evidence to declare the attack a terrorist attack.

It was not until September 21 that Clinton directly referred to Benghazi as a terrorist attack, saying, “What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

Following investigations of the attack have found that extremist groups were involved. Clinton has come under strong fire because of emails uncovered during the House Select Committee’s 2015 investigation in which she referred to the attackers as an “al-Qaeda-like group” in an email to her daughter, Chelsea Clinton. The investigation also uncovered transcripts of a phone conversation between Clinton and Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Qandil in which she said, “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” She then continues to say that they believe the attackers to be affiliated with al Qaeda. To some, these documents were further evidence of a supposed intention to cover up what they believed to be al Qaeda’s role in the attack.

The Republican Congress played a significant role in these accusations, pointing fingers at the Obama Administration. On the other hand, Democratic leaders, most notably then Vice President Joe Biden, found Republicans at fault for their 10 percent budget cut for embassy security.

The Washington Post estimates that there have been at least ten inquiries or investigations on the Benghazi attack and its surrounding issues have been opened by various agencies and Senate and House committees. The fallout from the investigations has included the removal of four State Department officials in response to criticisms of “grossly inadequate” security and failures of leadership.

Despite the removal of these individuals, many still find extreme fault with the heads of State in the Obama Administration. These ideas and criticisms have had extraordinary effects on politics for years after the attack.

Works Cited

Fisher, Max. “Who’s to Blame for Benghazi? A Layman’s Guide.” The Washington Post. Nov 6, 2012, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2012/11/06/whos-to-blame-for-benghazi-a-laymans-guide/?utm_term=.49a3f567bf95.

Gordon, Michael R. and Eric Schmitt. “4 Are Out at State Dpt. After Scathing Report on Benghazi Attack.” New York Times. Dec 19, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/politics/3-state-dept-officials-resign-following-benghazi-report.html?hp.

“Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the September 11, 2012 Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.” House Republican Conference. n.d., http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Libya-Progress-Report-Final-1.pdf.

Kiely, Eugene. “The Benghazi Timeline, Clinton Edition.” FactCheck.Org. June 30, 2016, http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/the-benghazi-timeline-clinton-edition/.

Pearson, Michael. “What the Obama Administration Has Said about the Libya Attack.” CNN. May 8, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html.

Ross, Janell. “The Benghazi Controversy, Explained by 7 Numbers.” The Washington Post. Oct 22, 2015, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/22/the-benghazi-controversy-explained-by-7-numbers/?utm_term=.99fbf57064a9.