This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/us/politics/state-dept-official-to-testify-on-benghazi-attacks.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
State Dept. Official to Testify on Benghazi Attacks State Dept. Official to Testify on Benghazi Attacks
(about 1 hour later)
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans, who have been aggressively pursuing information about how the Obama administration responded to the attacks last September on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, say the testimony that a State Department official will give Wednesday will be a damning indictment.WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans, who have been aggressively pursuing information about how the Obama administration responded to the attacks last September on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, say the testimony that a State Department official will give Wednesday will be a damning indictment.
It will show, they say, what they have been claiming all along: that President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state, did not do all they could to stop the attack, and then misled the public about what they knew.It will show, they say, what they have been claiming all along: that President Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state, did not do all they could to stop the attack, and then misled the public about what they knew.
But much of what the witness, Gregory Hicks, is expected to say — that he appealed in vain for fighter jets to buzz the besieged compound, and that other American officials sought to send a small group of commandos to the rescue but were told to stand down — would raise questions that have already been addressed in hearings and in a critical report by the State Department. But much of what the witness, Gregory Hicks, is expected to say — that he appealed in vain for fighter jets to buzz the besieged compound, and that other American officials sought to send a group of commandos to the rescue but were told to stand down — would raise questions that have already been addressed in hearings and in a critical report by the State Department.
Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the military’s Africa Command, has said American F-16 fighters in Europe were not on alert the night of the Benghazi assault, and would not have been useful anyway in a confused situation in a major Arab city. The four Special Operations troops would have been sent on a Libyan aircraft from Tripoli, the capital, said Mr. Hicks, who was serving as deputy chief of mission at the American Embassy in Tripoli at the time, but they would not have arrived until after the second attack on a nearby Central Intelligence Agency annex. Gen. Carter Ham, the head of the military’s Africa Command, has said American F-16 fighters in Europe were not on alert the night of the Benghazi assault, and would not have been useful anyway in a confused situation in a major Arab city. Mr. Hicks, who was serving as deputy chief of mission at the American Embassy in Tripoli at the time, is expected to testify that the four Special Operations troops would have been sent on a Libyan aircraft from Tripoli, the capital. But they would not have arrived until after the second attack on a nearby Central Intelligence Agency annex.
Far from bringing any resolution to the questions over how the Obama administration handled the attacks, the hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee may serve only as the prelude to a longer investigative process that could lead to subpoenas for Mrs. Clinton and others.Far from bringing any resolution to the questions over how the Obama administration handled the attacks, the hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee may serve only as the prelude to a longer investigative process that could lead to subpoenas for Mrs. Clinton and others.
“Anybody who was personally involved is somebody I think we’d ultimately like to hear from,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah.“Anybody who was personally involved is somebody I think we’d ultimately like to hear from,” said Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah.
“I think there will be additional hearings,” he added. “I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. And we’ll see how cooperative the administration is going to be. It’s up to them.”“I think there will be additional hearings,” he added. “I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. And we’ll see how cooperative the administration is going to be. It’s up to them.”
At the center of the controversy is Mrs. Clinton, who once deplored the machinations of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” out to destroy her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and now finds herself at the center of a controversy that in many ways echoes her fight with the political right in the 1990s. This time there are accusations of lying to investigators and a broader cover-up by the administration to further Mr. Obama’s political ambitions and her own, since she is frequently mentioned as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.At the center of the controversy is Mrs. Clinton, who once deplored the machinations of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” out to destroy her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and now finds herself at the center of a controversy that in many ways echoes her fight with the political right in the 1990s. This time there are accusations of lying to investigators and a broader cover-up by the administration to further Mr. Obama’s political ambitions and her own, since she is frequently mentioned as a likely 2016 presidential candidate.
No fewer than five House committees are looking into what she knew at the time of the attack and how she might have contradicted herself in testimony before Congress. Some House Republicans and a number of influential conservative groups like Citizens United have called for a select committee to pursue its own investigation, a move that Speaker John A. Boehner has resisted.No fewer than five House committees are looking into what she knew at the time of the attack and how she might have contradicted herself in testimony before Congress. Some House Republicans and a number of influential conservative groups like Citizens United have called for a select committee to pursue its own investigation, a move that Speaker John A. Boehner has resisted.
Many Republicans say they have unearthed a scandal bigger than Watergate. Or, in the words of Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, “If you link Watergate and Iran-contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is.”Many Republicans say they have unearthed a scandal bigger than Watergate. Or, in the words of Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, “If you link Watergate and Iran-contra together and multiply it times maybe 10 or so, you’re going to get in the zone where Benghazi is.”
The story of what might have happened inside the Obama White House on the night of the attack and the administration’s response in the days that followed has captivated conservatives on Capitol Hill and beyond for almost eight months now. It is a subject of continuous debate and coverage on Fox News, among conservative talk show hosts and bloggers, and at town hall-style meetings with members of Congress.The story of what might have happened inside the Obama White House on the night of the attack and the administration’s response in the days that followed has captivated conservatives on Capitol Hill and beyond for almost eight months now. It is a subject of continuous debate and coverage on Fox News, among conservative talk show hosts and bloggers, and at town hall-style meetings with members of Congress.
The questions that have been raised fit neatly with conservative portrayals of a president and an administration indifferent and disengaged when it comes to terrorism. They include why the president hesitated to call the attack terrorism outright and whether or not he went to bed that night knowing the compound was under assault or ordered his aides to rewrite the explanation of the attacks that Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, gave on television to deceive the country about their cause.The questions that have been raised fit neatly with conservative portrayals of a president and an administration indifferent and disengaged when it comes to terrorism. They include why the president hesitated to call the attack terrorism outright and whether or not he went to bed that night knowing the compound was under assault or ordered his aides to rewrite the explanation of the attacks that Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, gave on television to deceive the country about their cause.
Indeed, a report released last month by the five House committees investigating Benghazi determined there was “a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department” about how dangerous the situation in Libya was. The report said the administration had “willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video.”Indeed, a report released last month by the five House committees investigating Benghazi determined there was “a fundamental lack of understanding at the highest levels of the State Department” about how dangerous the situation in Libya was. The report said the administration had “willfully perpetuated a deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a political demonstration caused by a YouTube video.”
Much of the controversy revolves around whether deploying other forces faster might have saved lives. J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and another State Department official, Sean Smith, were killed in an initial attack on the lightly defended diplomatic mission that started about 9:45 p.m. on Sept. 11.Much of the controversy revolves around whether deploying other forces faster might have saved lives. J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, and another State Department official, Sean Smith, were killed in an initial attack on the lightly defended diplomatic mission that started about 9:45 p.m. on Sept. 11.
The Americans eventually retreated to a nearby C.I.A. annex, where they fended off sporadic small-arms fire. About the same time, reinforcements arrived at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli, including two commandos. That team first tried to find Mr. Stevens but, learning he was almost certainly dead, arrived at the annex just after 5 a.m., moments before mortar rounds hit the annex, killing two C.I.A. security officers, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, former members of the Navy SEALs.The Americans eventually retreated to a nearby C.I.A. annex, where they fended off sporadic small-arms fire. About the same time, reinforcements arrived at the Benghazi airport from Tripoli, including two commandos. That team first tried to find Mr. Stevens but, learning he was almost certainly dead, arrived at the annex just after 5 a.m., moments before mortar rounds hit the annex, killing two C.I.A. security officers, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen A. Doherty, former members of the Navy SEALs.
Mr. Hicks, a 22-year diplomat who was in Tripoli the night of the attacks, told committee staff members that the four commandos were ready to board an aircraft from there but were ordered to stand down. That plane, however, was not supposed to leave for Benghazi until well after the attack on the annex had ended. Mr. Hicks, a 22-year diplomat who was in Tripoli the night of the attacks, told committee staff members in a five-hour interview last month that the four commandos were ready to board an aircraft from there but were ordered to stand down. That plane, however, was not supposed to leave for Benghazi until well after the attack on the annex had ended.
Another official expected to testify is Mark I. Thompson, who was the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau. He told committee staff members that he was in communication with American officials in Libya that night, urged that an emergency support team be dispatched and then was locked out of the room during deliberations as the attack unfolded.Another official expected to testify is Mark I. Thompson, who was the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau. He told committee staff members that he was in communication with American officials in Libya that night, urged that an emergency support team be dispatched and then was locked out of the room during deliberations as the attack unfolded.
In response to Mr. Thompson’s comments, his former boss, Daniel Benjamin, the department’s senior counterterrorism official, said in a statement, “At no time did I feel that the bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.”In response to Mr. Thompson’s comments, his former boss, Daniel Benjamin, the department’s senior counterterrorism official, said in a statement, “At no time did I feel that the bureau was in any way being left out of deliberations that it should have been part of.”