Benghazi Timeline
The long road from "spontaneous protest" to
premeditated terrorist attack
Summary
The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and
administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that
the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began
“spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?
The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks
after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the
State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar
al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.
We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally
misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information
to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and
Congress, which has been holding hearings.
But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the
administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause
for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S.
Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a
premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have
been.
What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help
put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key
facts:
- There
were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even
though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob
that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered
protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact
Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
- Libya
President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the
attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration
officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a
planned attack.
- Magariaf
also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just
spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too,
was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident
in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18
appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
- Matt
Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first
administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19
congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on
Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist
attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping
of “The View” on Sept. 24.
Here is the
timeline:
Sept. 11: The Attack
2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time):
U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say
goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time.
(“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at
an Oct. 9
background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has
been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)
3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for
the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)
Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the
Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire
and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing
says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a
large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”
About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack
that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department
background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior
administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the
consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The
official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire
from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this
timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The
exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)
About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the
compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The
Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time,
there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our
regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”
Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found
dead.
About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to
the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took
heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”
About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel
… regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”
Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under
fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for
about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel
were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”
6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center
sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies
that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and
Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters
reported it on Oct. 24.)
About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to
assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this –
and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out
of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any
information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to
U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”
About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues
a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack
on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at
10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this
vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.
The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious
beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very
beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification
for violent acts of this kind.
11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an
email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were
killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked
and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young
children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was
discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to
“Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)
Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not
‘Terrorism’
Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming
that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent
attack.”
Clinton: All the Americans we lost in
yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and
violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the
Libyan people reach for a better future.
Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at
the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the
victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in
similar language.
Clinton: 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.
America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of
our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.
Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in
the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “No
acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that
character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He also makes
reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “Since our founding, the
United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts
to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no
justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses the term “act
of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign
event in Las Vegas.
Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes
an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word
“terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly
how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack
could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily
armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved
in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”
Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went
out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the
Libya attack.
Obama: Right.
Kroft: Do you believe that this was a
terrorist attack?
Obama: Well, it’s too early to know exactly
how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on
Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make
sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.
Kroft: It’s been described as a mob action.
But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades. That
doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.
Obama: As I said, we’re still investigating
exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But you’re right
that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in
Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were
looking to target Americans from the start.
Sept. 12: Senior administration officials, who did
not permit use of their names, hold abriefing with
reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice officials characterize
those involved in the attack as “extremists.” In one case, an official
identified only as “senior administration official one” is asked by Fox News
reporter Justin Fishel if the administration had ruled out the possibly that
the attack was in response to the anti-Muslim video. The official says, “We
just don’t know.”
Senior administration official one: With
regard to whether there is any connection between this Internet activity and
this extremist attack in Benghazi, frankly, we just don’t know. We’re not going
to know until we have a chance to investigate. And I’m sorry that it is
frustrating for you that so many of our answers are “We don’t know,” but they
are truthful in that.
NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asks officials to address news reports
that the attack has been “linked to a terror attack, an organized terror
attack,” possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a “complex attack,”
but says it is “too early to say who they were” and their affiliation.
Senior administration official one:
Frankly, we are not in a position to speak any further to the perpetrators of
this attack. It was clearly a complex attack. We’re going to have to do a full
investigation. We are committed to working with the Libyans both on the
investigation and to ensure that we bring the perpetrators to justice. The FBI
is already committed to assisting in that, but I just – we’re – it’s just too
early to speak to who they were and if they might have been otherwise
affiliated beyond Libya.
Sept. 12, 3:04 p.m.: Clinton calls then-Egyptian
Prime Minister Hisham Qandil and tells him, “We know the attack in
Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a
protest.” An account of that call was contained in an email written by State
Department Public Affairs Officer Lawrence Randolph that
summarizes the call between the two leaders. The email was released by the
House Benghazi committee.
Sept. 12, 4:09 p.m.: At a press
briefing en route to Las Vegas, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
is asked, “Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned
and premeditated?” He responds, “It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I
think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the
Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate
on that at this time.”
Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London,
Ahmad Jibril, tells the
BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group
issues a statement that
says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying
the report.
Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting
assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department
officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar
al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email
was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)
Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,”
Reuters reports that
“the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of
Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S.
officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”
Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?
Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali —
the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to
mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called
“this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in
Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack.
She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any
justification for violent acts of this kind.”
Clinton: Religious freedom and religious
tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and
violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and
good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not
honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than 1 billion
Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support
during this time.
Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have
also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a
response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said
earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of
that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the
religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the
foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because
they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.
But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount
message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we
look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence,
and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.
Sept. 13: At a daily press
briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the
Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She
declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to
conclusions.”
Nuland: Well, as we said yesterday when we
were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with
regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it
was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any
link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know
that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we
do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions.
That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around
the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating.
As the Secretary said this morning, while we as Americans, of course, respect
free speech, respect free expression, there’s never an excuse for it to become
violent.
Sept. 13: Clinton met with Moroccan
Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what she called the
“disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it
triggered. She said, “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 religion, the name of God, the
world will never know a true and lasting peace.”
Sept. 13: At a campaign
event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I
want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no
act of terror will go unpunished.”
Sept. 13: CNN reports that
unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a
“clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.
CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one
senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be
fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type
attack.”
Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at
Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in
Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the
Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act
of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a
terrorist attack and neither
did the president.
Sept. 14: At a State Department
press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer
answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you
need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their
investigation.”
Sept. 14: At a White
House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a
preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong.
We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on
the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.”
Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed
members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a
planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but
White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest
that this was not in reaction to the film.”
Question: Jay, one last question — while we
were sitting here — [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of
the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators
came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was
a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was
premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin — I think
it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used
was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you
can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there
anything more you can tell us?
Carney: Well, I think we wait to hear from
administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the
Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have
and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to
the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly —
I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places
will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.
Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with
the Senate Armed Services Committee.Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that
Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi
attack was a planned terrorist attack.
The Hill: Senators spoke with Panetta about
the response to the situation in Libya. Four Americans were killed in an attack
Tuesday on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Senators said it has become clearer the attack was
coordinated, although they would not say anything specific about any connection
to the broader protests that came after an anti-Muslim video was released.
“I think it was a planned, premeditated attack,” Senate
Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. He added he did not know the
specific group responsible for the assault on the complex.
[Sen. John] McCain expressed a similar view.
“People don’t go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and
automatic weapons,” he said, adding that the facts suggest “this was not a
‘mob’ action [or] a group of protesters.”
Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President
Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly
address. He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does
talk about the anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in
pockets of the Middle East.
Obama: This tragic attack [in Benghazi]
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.
Yet there is never any justification for violence. There
is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is
no excuse for attacks on our Embassies and Consulates.
Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS
News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was
planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present
that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says
it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours
earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was
later learned that Rice
received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)
Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice
were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The
original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties
to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press
reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and
Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began
“spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack,
Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking
points.
Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on
the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic
Communications Ben
Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with
Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s
TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted
in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained
a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi
attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly
word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available
information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously
inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct
assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email
was released
April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41
State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
Schieffer: Was this a long-planned attack,
as far as you know? Or what– what do you know about that?
Magariaf: The way these perpetrators acted
and moved … this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined–
predetermined.
Schieffer: And you believe that this was
the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that —
is that what you are telling us?
Magariaf: It was planned — definitely, it
was planned by foreigners, by people who — who entered the country a few months
ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their
arrival. …
Schieffer: And joining us now, Susan Rice,
the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, [Magariaf] says
this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand
you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same
page here?
Rice: Bob, let me tell you what we
understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as
you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United
States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and —
They are not on the ground yet, but they have already
begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available
to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the
investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw
any definitive conclusions.
But based on the best information we have to date, what
our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in
Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo
where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our
embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous
protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks
like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy
weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya
post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more
violent.
Schieffer: But you do not agree with him
that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?
Rice: We do not– we do not have information
at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.
Schieffer: Do you agree or disagree with
him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
Rice: Well, we’ll have to find out that
out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined
in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether
they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the
things we’ll have to determine.
Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an
interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a
spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and
preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned
attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”
Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’
Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman,
is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk
shows. Nuland says, “The
comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial
assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when
discussing Rice’s comments.
Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’
Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack
on “The
Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what
happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then
said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of
our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive
as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States
government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”
Sept. 18: Asked about Magariaf’s assessment that the
video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the
White House spokesman says Obama “would rather wait” for the
investigation to be completed. “But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and
as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is
it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest
in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and
elsewhere,” Carney says. “What other factors were involved is a matter of
investigation.”
Sept. 18: After meeting with Mexican Secretary of
Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, Clinton speaks with
reporters and is asked if the Libyan president is “wrong” that “this
attack was planned for months.” Clinton says, “The Office of the Director of
National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack
on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She does not say if Magariaf
is right or wrong.
Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National
Counterterrorism Center, tells
a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State
Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist
attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled
it a “terrorist attack.” But he also tells the senators that he has no
“specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”
Olsen: Yes, they were killed in the course
of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … The best information we have now, the
facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunist attack on our
embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours. … [I]t
appears that individuals who were certainly well armed seized on the
opportunity presented as the events unfolded. … What we don’t have, at this
point, is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning
or coordination for this attack.
Sept. 19: At a State Department
briefing, the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the
attack was a “terrorist attack”? She says, “Well, I didn’t get a chance to see
the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but obviously we
stand by comments made by our intelligence community who has first
responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they believe that we
are seeing.”
Sept. 19: The White House spokesman does not call it
a “terrorist attack” in his press
briefing. Carney says, “Based on the information we had at the time — we
have now, we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or premeditated.
There’s an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts
that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that’s where the
investigation has led.”
Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ —
Not Obama
Sept. 20: Carney calls it
a “terrorist attack” after being asked how the White House now classifies the
attack. But he says the White House has no evidence that it was “a
significantly preplanned attack” and blames the video for igniting the incident
in Benghazi.
Carney: It is, I think, self-evident that
what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked
violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again,
that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen
said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different
elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to
militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.
He also made clear that at this point, based on the
information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date
intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was
a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism,
taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction
to the video that was found to be offensive.
Sept. 20: Obama, at a town
hall meeting, says “extremists” took advantage of the “natural protests” to
the anti-Muslim video to attack the consulate in Benghazi. He does not call it
a “terrorist attack.”
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?
Obama: Well, we’re still doing an
investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different
countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the
information. 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.
Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to
reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina
Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says,
“Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping
our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. 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.”
Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack
Sept. 24: Clinton meets with
the Libyan president and calls the Benghazi attack a “terrorist assault.” She
says, “As we all know, the United States lost a great ambassador and the Libyan
people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens and three other Americans were
killed in the terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi.”
Sept. 24: Obama tapes
an appearance on “The View,” and he’s asked by
co-host Joy Behar whether the Libya attack was an act of terrorism or caused by
the anti-Muslim video. He does not call it a terrorist attack and says, “We’re
still doing an investigation.”
Joy Behar: It was reported that people just
went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti-Muhammad, I
guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of
terrorism. Is it? What do you say?
Obama: Well, we’re still doing an
investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the
ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the
information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around
the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there. That’s why we have to
maintain the strongest military in the world, that’s why we can’t let down our
guard when it comes to the intelligence work that we do and staying on top of —
not just al Qaeda, the traditional al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. …
Sept. 25: Obama speaks at
the United Nations. He praises Chris Stevens as “the best of America” and
condemns the anti-Muslim video as “crude and disgusting.” He does not describe
the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack.
Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press
briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has
not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president
— our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist
attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a
prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a
terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”
Sept. 26: Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, in
an interview with Al
Jazeera, is asked whether he agrees with the president of Libya that the
Benghazi attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim
video. He said: “It’s clear that the attack which took the lives of Chris
Stevens and three other colleagues was clearly choreographed and directed and
involved a fair amount of firepower, but exactly what kind of planning went
into that and how it emerged on that awful night, we just don’t know right now.
But I’m confident we’ll get to the bottom of it.”
Sept. 27: When Did Administration Know?
Sept. 27: At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Leon
Panetta says that
“it was a terrorist attack,” but declines to say when he came to that
conclusion. “It took a while to really get some of the feedback from what
exactly happened at that location,” he said. “As we determined the details of
what took place there, and how that attack took place, that it became clear
that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, at the same briefing addresses what the U.S. knew in advance of the
Benghazi attack. He says there was “a thread of intelligence reporting that
groups in … eastern Libya were seeking to coalesce, but there wasn’t anything
specific and certainly not a specific threat to the consulate that I’m aware
of.”
Sept. 27: In a report on “Anderson Cooper 360
Degrees,” Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to President
George W. Bush, says the administration knew early on that it was a terrorist
attack. “The law enforcement source who said to me, from day one we had known
clearly that this was a terrorist attack,” she says.
Sept. 27-28: Intelligence ‘Evolved’
Sept. 27: The White House spokesman is asked
yet again why the president has refused to call the incident a
terrorist attack. “The president’s position [is] that this was a terrorist
attack,” Carney says.
Question: If the president does not call
it, label it a terrorist attack as you and others have, is there some legal or
diplomatic trigger that that brings? Why hasn’t he said that?
Carney: I think you’re misunderstanding
something here. I’m the president’s spokesman. When the head of the National
Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress answered a
question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by — this is me paraphrasing —
this was a terrorist attack — I echoed that, because this president, this
administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the
assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president’s position
that this was a terrorist attack.
Sept. 28: Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director
of national intelligence, says in astatement that
the office’s position on the attack evolved. It was first believed that “the
attack began spontaneously,” but it was later determined that “it was a
deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” he says.
Turner: In the immediate aftermath, there
was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously
following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that
initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who
used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as
they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize
that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.
As we learned more about the attack, we revised our
initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a
deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains
unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the
attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.
Oct. 2-3: Clinton Cites ‘Continuing Questions’
Oct. 2: White House spokesman Carney at a press
briefing in Nevada: “At every step of the way, the administration has
based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the
intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information
they updated Congress and the American people on it.”
Oct. 3: Clinton tells reporters after
a meeting with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov: “There are
continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi on that night
three weeks ago. And we will not rest until we answer those questions and until
we track down the terrorists who killed our people.”
Oct. 9: ‘Everything Calm’ Prior to Benghazi Attack,
No Protests
Oct. 9: At a background briefing,
senior state department officials reveal
there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S.
consulate in Benghazi — contrary to what administration officials have been
saying for weeks. A senior department official says “everything is calm at 8:30
p.m.” (Libya time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor
goodbye. The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The
calm was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when “loud noises” and “gunfire and an
explosion” are heard. (The background briefing provided on Sept. 12 also
said the attack began at about 10 p.m., or about 4 p.m. EDT, but it did not
provide information about what happened prior to the attack.)
A senior official says it was “not our conclusion” that the
Benghazi attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video. He
also said “there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent
attack.”
Question: What in all of these events that
you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this
was prompted by protests against the video?
Senior state department official two: That
is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.
I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The
Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street
at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras
the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.
Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public ‘Best
Information’
Oct. 10: Carney, the White House spokesman, is asked
at a press
briefing why the president and administration officials described the
anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause of the attack on Benghazi when the
State Department “never concluded that the assault in Benghazi was part of a
protest on the anti-Muslim film.” He replied, in part: “Again, from the
beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they
became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community — not
opinions — assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community. And we have
been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts
became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done
that.”
Oct. 10: After testifying before
a House committee, Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy is asked at a press briefing what
the State Department should have done differently in releasing information
about the Benghazi attack. He said, “We are giving out the best information we
have at the time.”
Kennedy: [T]his is obviously an incredibly
complicated situation. We’ve always made clear from the very beginning that we
are giving out the best information we have at the time we are giving it out.
That information has evolved over time. For example, if any Administration
official, including any career official, had been on television on Sunday,
September 16th, they would have said the same thing that Ambassador Rice would
have said. She had information at that point from the intelligence community,
and that is the same information I had and this – I would have made exactly the
same points. Clearly, we know more today, but we knew what we knew when we knew
it.
Oct. 10: The House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform releases State Department
memos requesting additional security in Libya. Charlene Lamb, a State
Department official who denied those requests, tells the committee that the
State Department had been training local Libyans for nearly a year and
additional U.S. security personnel were not needed. As
reported by Foreign Policy: “We had the correct number of assets in
Benghazi on the night of 9/11,” Lamb testified. Others testified differently.
“All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” testified Eric
Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Foreign
Policy reported.
Oct. 15: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’
Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN,
blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the
attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never
reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war,
there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say
that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke
tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information
has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always
happens.”
Oct. 15: The New York Times reports that
the Benghazi attack came “without any warning or protest,” but “Libyans who
witnessed the assault and know the attackers” say it was “in retaliation for
the video.”
Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar
al-Sharia
Oct. 24: Reuters reports the
White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into
the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had
“claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from
the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy
Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and
has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted,
“Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack
or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first
reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia
may have been involved.)
Oct. 24: Clinton warns at a
press conference that you cannot draw conclusions from the leaked emails
because “cherry-picking one story here or one document there” can be
misleading. She said, “The independent Accountability Review Board is already
hard at work looking at everything — not cherry-picking one story here or one
document there — but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the
appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this. Posting
something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just
underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time
to be.”
Oct. 24: Carney, the White House spokesman, says that
“within a few hours” of the attack Ansar al-Sharia “claimed that it had not
been responsible.” He added, “Neither should be taken as fact — that’s why
there’s an investigation underway.”
May 8, 2013: At a hearing of the House Committee on
Oversight & Government Reform, Rep. Trey Gowdy reads
excerpts of a Sept. 12, 2011, email written by Acting Assistant
Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones. According
to Gowdy, Jones wrote, “I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the
importance of Libyan leaders to continue to make strong statements,” and “When
he said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried
out the attack, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar
al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” Gowdy said the email was
sent to several top State Department officials, including Under Secretary for
Management Patrick Kennedy. The committee did not release the full contents
of the email. House
Speaker John Boehner saidthe State Department did not allow the House to
keep a copy of it.)
May 15, 2013: The White House releases 100
pages of emails regarding the CIA’s original talking points that were
developed for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and used by
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice during her Sept. 16 Sunday
talk show appearances. The emails show there were extensive changes made at the
request of the State Department. (See “Sept. 16″ in our timeline for more
information.)
