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/2013/05/09/us/questions-and-answers-on-benghazi-and-the-fallout.html
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| House Holds Hearing on Benghazi Attack | House Holds Hearing on Benghazi Attack |
| (8 days later) | |
| Eight months after four Americans died in a terrorist attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a House committee held another hearing on Wednesday to examine whether the Obama administration mishandled the tragic events. What follows is an update on what is known about the Benghazi episode and why it has become such a political flash point: | Eight months after four Americans died in a terrorist attack on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, a House committee held another hearing on Wednesday to examine whether the Obama administration mishandled the tragic events. What follows is an update on what is known about the Benghazi episode and why it has become such a political flash point: |
| Q. Why is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform holding a new hearing on Benghazi? | Q. Why is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform holding a new hearing on Benghazi? |
| A. Committee investigators found two State Department officials who previously had not spoken publicly — though their testimony has been previewed in the news media in recent days — and who are scathingly critical of the administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack. Gregory Hicks, who was serving as deputy chief of mission at the American Embassy in Tripoli at the time, is expected to testify that a far more aggressive American military response could have been mounted on the night of the attack. Mark I. Thompson, the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau, has told committee staff members that he argued unsuccessfully that an emergency support team should be dispatched. Some of their colleagues disagree with their views on what more could have been done. | |
| Q. But haven’t the inadequacy of security measures at Benghazi and other shortcomings already been addressed in a major report? | Q. But haven’t the inadequacy of security measures at Benghazi and other shortcomings already been addressed in a major report? |
| A. Yes. In December, an independent review led by a retired veteran diplomat, Thomas R. Pickering, and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, was severely critical of the State Department. “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies resulted in a security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the report said. But a more recent “interim progress report” by the Republican leaders of five House committees, released on April 23, suggested that Obama administration officials had covered up the truth about the failures, and that the Pickering-Mullen report had misleadingly blamed lower-level officials while shielding their superiors. “The committees’ review shows that the leadership failure in relation to security and policy in Benghazi extended to the highest levels of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton,” the interim report said, referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who left her post in February. | A. Yes. In December, an independent review led by a retired veteran diplomat, Thomas R. Pickering, and a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, was severely critical of the State Department. “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies resulted in a security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place,” the report said. But a more recent “interim progress report” by the Republican leaders of five House committees, released on April 23, suggested that Obama administration officials had covered up the truth about the failures, and that the Pickering-Mullen report had misleadingly blamed lower-level officials while shielding their superiors. “The committees’ review shows that the leadership failure in relation to security and policy in Benghazi extended to the highest levels of the State Department, including Secretary Clinton,” the interim report said, referring to Hillary Rodham Clinton, who left her post in February. |
| Q. So how great a role is partisan politics playing in the Benghazi debate? | Q. So how great a role is partisan politics playing in the Benghazi debate? |
| A. A big role, it is fair to say. Mrs. Clinton, who is at the center of the controversy, is, of course, the leading Democratic prospect for president in 2016. A lethal terrorist attack on Americans overseas — and the accusation that the Obama administration has tried to hide the truth about it — has struck a powerful emotional chord, at least with Republicans and conservatives. Fox News and conservative talk radio continue to give the issue intensive coverage. Especially since the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon on April 15, which killed three people and wounded more than 200, the alliterative pairing of Benghazi and Boston have been featured in attacks on the Obama administration for counterterrorism failures. | A. A big role, it is fair to say. Mrs. Clinton, who is at the center of the controversy, is, of course, the leading Democratic prospect for president in 2016. A lethal terrorist attack on Americans overseas — and the accusation that the Obama administration has tried to hide the truth about it — has struck a powerful emotional chord, at least with Republicans and conservatives. Fox News and conservative talk radio continue to give the issue intensive coverage. Especially since the terrorist attack on the Boston Marathon on April 15, which killed three people and wounded more than 200, the alliterative pairing of Benghazi and Boston have been featured in attacks on the Obama administration for counterterrorism failures. |
| Q. What about the dispute over whether President Obama and his aides refused to apply the “terrorism” label to the attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans? | Q. What about the dispute over whether President Obama and his aides refused to apply the “terrorism” label to the attack, which killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans? |
| A. Mr. Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect. “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 said. “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” He repeated similar phrasing the next day. | A. Mr. Obama applied the “terror” label to the attack in his first public statement on the events in Benghazi, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House at 10:43 a.m. on Sept. 12, though the reference was indirect. “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 said. “Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” He repeated similar phrasing the next day. |
| Q. So why was there such controversy over what Republicans call the administration’s deep reluctance to label the attack terrorism? | Q. So why was there such controversy over what Republicans call the administration’s deep reluctance to label the attack terrorism? |
| A. The “act of terror” references attracted relatively little notice at the time, and later they appeared to have been forgotten even by some administration officials. In the vice-presidential debate, for instance, Representative Paul D. Ryan declared, “It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack.” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did not directly contradict the charge. What attracted more attention was a series of statements by administration officials, notably Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, that appeared to link the Benghazi attack to a protest against a crude anti-Islam video made in the United States that was circulating on the Web. | A. The “act of terror” references attracted relatively little notice at the time, and later they appeared to have been forgotten even by some administration officials. In the vice-presidential debate, for instance, Representative Paul D. Ryan declared, “It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack.” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. did not directly contradict the charge. What attracted more attention was a series of statements by administration officials, notably Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, that appeared to link the Benghazi attack to a protest against a crude anti-Islam video made in the United States that was circulating on the Web. |
| Q. What exactly did the administration officials say that prompted the Republican criticism? | Q. What exactly did the administration officials say that prompted the Republican criticism? |
| A. Several officials emphasized that the attack appeared to be spontaneous, not planned, and linked it to the protests over the video that had taken place in Cairo and other cities. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” On Sept. 16, based on “talking points” supplied by the intelligence agencies, Ms. Rice said, “What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened, transpired in Cairo,” where protesters angered by the video stormed the grounds of the American Embassy. Hedging her remarks by saying that her information was preliminary, Ms. Rice also said, “We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people, came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather — to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.” That initial protest, she said, “seems to have been hijacked” by “extremists who came with heavier weapons.” | A. Several officials emphasized that the attack appeared to be spontaneous, not planned, and linked it to the protests over the video that had taken place in Cairo and other cities. Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said on Sept. 14 about the Benghazi attack, “We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.” On Sept. 16, based on “talking points” supplied by the intelligence agencies, Ms. Rice said, “What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what happened, transpired in Cairo,” where protesters angered by the video stormed the grounds of the American Embassy. Hedging her remarks by saying that her information was preliminary, Ms. Rice also said, “We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people, came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather — to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo.” That initial protest, she said, “seems to have been hijacked” by “extremists who came with heavier weapons.” |
| Q. Who wrote the “talking points” and how were they edited? | Q. Who wrote the “talking points” and how were they edited? |
| A. The talking points were prepared by American intelligence agencies, but exactly who may have edited them and why remains a point of dispute. David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director, testified in a closed-door hearing in November that intelligence officials wanted a reference to Al Qaeda dropped from the talking points to keep from alerting militants who were the subject of the investigation. But the Republican report last month declared, “In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.” | A. The talking points were prepared by American intelligence agencies, but exactly who may have edited them and why remains a point of dispute. David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director, testified in a closed-door hearing in November that intelligence officials wanted a reference to Al Qaeda dropped from the talking points to keep from alerting militants who were the subject of the investigation. But the Republican report last month declared, “In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community in order to protect the State Department.” |
| Q. Mr. Obama vowed last September that the perpetrators of the attack would be brought to justice. Has that happened? | Q. Mr. Obama vowed last September that the perpetrators of the attack would be brought to justice. Has that happened? |
| A. Not yet. Libya remains a volatile and dangerous place, and the F.B.I.'s progress in investigating the attack appears to be slow. Last week, the bureau released photographs of three men it was seeking for questioning; the F.B.I. did not call the men suspects but said they “were on the grounds of the United States Special Mission when it was attacked.” No one has been charged — at least publicly — with the murder of the four Americans. | A. Not yet. Libya remains a volatile and dangerous place, and the F.B.I.'s progress in investigating the attack appears to be slow. Last week, the bureau released photographs of three men it was seeking for questioning; the F.B.I. did not call the men suspects but said they “were on the grounds of the United States Special Mission when it was attacked.” No one has been charged — at least publicly — with the murder of the four Americans. |
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction: | |
| Correction: May 15, 2013 | |
An earlier version of this Q. and A. referred incorrectly to Mark I. Thompson. He is the current — not former — deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s Bureau of Counterterrorism. |
Previous version
1
Next version