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/politics/official-offers-account-from-libya-of-benghazi-attack.html

The article has changed 13 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Line Went Dead as Ambassador Said, ‘We’re Under Attack’ Line Went Dead as Ambassador Said, ‘We’re Under Attack’
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A State Department official presented a minute-by-minute account on Wednesday of what happened during the seige of the diplomatic compound in Benghazi last Sept. 11, offering the first public testimony from an American official who was on the ground in Libya that night. WASHINGTON — A State Department official on Wednesday offered the first public testimony from an American official who was on the ground in Libya the night last September when the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi was attacked and also described how he was later demoted for raising questions about how the attack was handled.
The official, Gregory Hicks, described a frantic series of phone calls from the American Embassy in Tripoli to Washington and, ultimately, to J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, who was in Benghazi and whose line went dead right after he uttered, “Greg, we’re under attack.” The official, Gregory Hicks, described a frantic series of phone calls from the American Embassy in Tripoli, where he was stationed, to Washington and, ultimately, to J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador, who was in Benghazi and whose line went dead right after he uttered, “Greg, we’re under attack.” And he choked up as he recalled learning that Mr. Stevens was dead.
Fearing that armed Islamic militants might storm the embassy in Tripoli, staff members there hurriedly dismantled their sensitive communications equipment and got ready to evacuate to a more secure annex operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. One aide started smashing hard drives with an ax. Mr. Hicks was serving at the time as the embassy’s second-ranking official, but he said that since returning to Washington he had been demoted, and that he felt he had been punished for speaking out.
“None of us should ever experience what we went through in Tripoli and Benghazi,” Mr. Hicks, who was serving as the deputy chief of mission at the Tripoli embassy at the time of the attack, told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which was conducting a hearing into how the Obama administration handled its response to the Benghazi assault. “I’ve been effectively demoted from deputy chief of mission to desk officer,” he said during a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Ultimately, the hearing may resolve few if any of the questions that Republicans have raised about how robustly the military responded to the attack. The answers the witnesses provided Wednesday left both sides stuck where they were before: Republicans insisted that the military could have done more to scramble fighter jets and deploy combat forces to help fight off the militants, while Democrats were firm that the military did all it could in a confusing situation in which the closest help was too far away. Mr. Hicks described asking in vain for air support from Italy and being told that it could not make it there in time. Then, later, he pleaded for men who would never come. Fearing that armed Islamic militants might storm the embassy in Tripoli, staff members there hurriedly dismantled their sensitive communications equipment and got ready to evacuate to a more secure annex operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. One aide started smashing hard drives with an ax.
Mr. Hicks described asking in vain for air support from Italy, which he was told could not make it there in time. Then, later, he pleaded for soldiers who would never come. “None of us should ever experience what we went through in Tripoli and Benghazi,” Mr. Hicks said.
The low point in the attack, he said, came when the prime minister of Libya called to inform him that Mr. Stevens had died. “I think it’s the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life,” he said, fighting back tears as he described how he and his team in Tripoli then quickly began their efforts to evacuate. Mr. Hicks and two other State Department officials who were witnesses said they felt that the investigation of the episode undertaken by the department was inadequate because many people who were directly involved in the attacks — including some of them — were not interviewed.
Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the committee’s senior Democrat, sharply criticized Republicans and the committee chairman, Representative Darrell Issa of California, in particular, accusing them of distorting the facts of the investigation for their own partisan purposes. “They stopped short of interviewing people who I personally know were involved in key decisions,” said Eric Nordstrom, an official in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Noting that the nation’s top military and intelligence commanders have all said that American forces could not have reached Benghazi in time to save any of the four lives lost, Mr. Cummings, his voice rising, said he had seen no evidence that these officials should not be believed. The hearing into the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi episode became a political spectacle well before the panel’s chairman, Darrell Issa of California, gaveled it to order on Wednesday morning. Republicans promised damning revelations that could ultimately undo the Obama presidency. “Every bit as damaging as Watergate,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said this week.
“Our committee has a fundamental obligation to conduct responsible oversight,” he said. “But we also have a duty to thoroughly investigate these claims before we make public accusations.” The Benghazi inquiries have drawn the White House into a tense standoff with Congressional Republicans, who are threatening to subpoena witnesses, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former secretary of state, and Susan E. Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations.
He continued, “In contrast, what we have seen over the past two weeks is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan manner, but rather to launch unfounded accusations and to smear public officials.” “This is a subject that has, from its beginning, been subject to attempts to politicize it by Republicans,” the White House spokesman, Jay Carney, said Wednesday as the hearing was under way.
Ultimately the testimony seemed to resolve few, if any, of the questions that Republicans have raised about how robustly the military responded to the attacks. The answers the witnesses provided left both sides stuck where they were before: Republicans insistent that the military could have done more to scramble fighter jets and deploy commandos to help fight off the militants, and Democrats firm in their assertions that the military did all it could in a confusing situation in which the closest help was too far away.
But in other ways, the witnesses challenged the Obama administration’s version of events and its assertions that it had exhaustively investigated the attacks.
The most devastating moment in the attack, Mr. Hicks said, came at about 3 a.m., when the prime minister of Libya called to inform him of the death of Mr. Stevens. “I think it’s the saddest phone call I’ve ever had in my life,” he said, fighting back tears as he described how he and his team in Tripoli then quickly began their efforts to flee.
All three witnesses — Mr. Hicks, Mr. Nordstrom and Mark I. Thompson, the former deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s Counterterrorism Bureau — insisted that the inflammatory anti-Islamic YouTube video that the White House initially blamed for the attack was something they never considered a factor in the assault on the compound.
Republicans raised the question of the video again and again on Wednesday because it has become clear that American officials on the ground and in Washington immediately believed the attackers were terrorists, not demonstrators who turned violent, as Ms. Rice alleged in a series of Sunday talk show interviews shortly after Benghazi.
“I was stunned,” Mr. Hicks said when asked what he thought when he heard Ms. Rice’s explanation. “My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.”
“Why in the world would Susan Rice go on five talk shows and perpetuate a demonstrably false narrative?” asked Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina.
To Republicans the answer was obvious: the president, desperate to head off questions about why his administration failed to thwart a terrorist attack just weeks before the November 2012 election, wanted to cover it up.
The three witnesses said they repeatedly requested greater security before the attacks because they felt dangerously exposed in a corner of Libya that was especially lawless. When they pressed on, Mr. Nordstrom said, the response was “Why do you keep raising these issues? Why do you keep putting this forward?” In essence, he added, “So basically stop complaining.”
Republicans have zeroed in on why the military did not respond with greater force. But senior American officials have said that they decided against using what is known as the Foreign Emergency Support Team out of concern that the team would not have been able to effectively coordinate with their Libyan counterparts that night and following morning and because there was great concern for their safety.
What has emerged after months of investigations is a picture of poorly defended American facilities in Libya and military commanders grappling on the night of the attacks with a decision about sending more Americans into harm’s way.
Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, told the witnesses on Wednesday, “My concern is there was never an intention, there was never an attempt to actually get these military craft over there.”
Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the committee’s senior Democrat, unloaded on Republicans and Mr. Issa in particular, accusing them of distorting the facts of the investigation for their own partisan purposes.
“What we have seen over the past two weeks is a full-scale media campaign that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible and bipartisan manner, but rather to launch unfounded accusations and to smear public officials,” Mr. Cummings said.
For his part, Mr. Issa, one of the Obama administration’s biggest foes in Congress, kept his comments measured even as Democrats on the panel attacked him.For his part, Mr. Issa, one of the Obama administration’s biggest foes in Congress, kept his comments measured even as Democrats on the panel attacked him.
He said the White House had not been as forthcoming as it should have been. “The public has a right to hear their accounts,” he said of the witnesses like Mr. Hicks, “and we more than any other commitee in the Congress must respect whistle-blowers and work on a bipartisan basis to protect them.” As he banged the gavel to close the afternoon’s testimony, Mr. Issa said the hearing might havec oncluded, “But this investigation is not over.”