At the end of April, the conservative legal group Judicial Watch, which made its

name in the 1990s as one of the chief legal antagonists of the Clinton administration,

unveiled the results of a supposedly significant Freedom of Information Act request.

Judicial Watch claimed that the documents it had obtained showed that “then-White

House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes and other Obama

administration public relations officials attempt[ed] to orchestrate a campaign to

„reinforce‟ President Obama and to portray the Benghazi consulate terrorist attack as

being „rooted in an Internet video, and not a failure of policy.‟ ”1

Conservative media outlets were up in arms, and they were soon followed by

mainstream reporters. According to this new right-wing narrative, the White House had

been withholding these emails from the public and congressional committees. But what

did these emails actually demonstrate?

Rhodes‟ job on the National Security Council was to provide communications

guidance to administration officials speaking on foreign policy issues. In the wake of

upheaval across the entire region, with violent protests taking place in Cairo and the

attack on the United States‟ diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, Rhodes was

tasked with preparing messaging guidance for then-national security adviser Susan Rice.

In the emails unveiled by Judicial Watch, Rhodes took CIA-authored talking points --

whose creation had been made public in detail a year earlier -- and turned them into a

messaging document.

That no new information was revealed mattered little. Simply the perception that the

Obama administration was hiding something from the public created a media firestorm.

House Speaker John Boehner sensed an opening. For two years, the Tea Party wing

of his caucus had been pressing for the appointment of a select committee focused only

on investigating Benghazi. Boehner, on the advice of his committee chairmen, had

resisted such calls. However, the failure to repeal Obamacare along with capitulation in

the debt-ceiling fight had resulted in problems on his right flank. The creation of a select

committee could help tamp down some of the anger from his most important

constituency, Republican House members.

A secondary benefit to Republican leadership was the disempowering of Darrell Issa,

whose antics as chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

had been a consistent thorn in the side of Republican leadership. One senior Republican

lawmaker described him to The Hill in the following way: “You can be firm without

being nasty; you can be effective without being snide -- this is Darrell's personality. He is

not the guy that you'd move next door to."2 Issa had led the Benghazi investigation for

House Republicans, launching hearings less than one month after the initial attack. While

other committees held hearings and issued reports, Issa set the tone of the entire

investigation.

Boehner appointed South Carolina‟s Trey Gowdy, a conservative former prosecutor

elected during the Tea Party wave in 2010, as chairman of the select committee. Issa,

however, wouldn‟t relent. While Republican leadership said that all Benghazi

investigations would be handled by the select committee, Issa insisted he would hold a

hearing with Secretary of State John Kerry. The State Department agreed to make Kerry

available to Issa in early June but said he would testify before Congress only once on

Benghazi. Therefore, testimony before Issa‟s committee would prevent Gowdy from

calling Kerry if he desired to do so.

Ultimately, Issa relented and released Kerry from testifying. In a statement canceling

the hearing, he said, “Seeing Secretary Kerry and others, who have worked to obstruct

critical oversight of Congress‟ investigations into Benghazi, attempt to use the upcoming

June 12 hearing as a shield against the Select Committee tells me it‟s time to reassess.”

So, according to Issa, Kerry was somehow obstructing the investigation by agreeing to

testify at the hearing.

Boehner‟s decision to appoint a Benghazi Select Committee was not without risk.

Republican committee chairs warned Boehner3 that a new committee under new

leadership would have to replicate much of the work that they had been doing for nearly

two years -- and that this new investment of time was unlikely to uncover anything new.

Their concerns are easy to understand. Over the course of 2013, three journalists did

varying levels of damage to their reputations in pursuit of the Benghazi scandal. First,

ABC‟s Jonathan Karl published a story claiming he had reviewed emails showing that the

White House had heavily edited the Benghazi talking points, contradicting prior public

statements. It turned out he had never seen the emails in question, merely summaries that

were clearly inaccurate. His reputation took a hit but did not suffer a fatal blow.

In the fall, star 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan ran a story whose focus was a

former British soldier named Dylan Davies. During her report, he told an incredible story

about scaling the wall of the Benghazi compound during the attack and knocking out a

terrorist with the butt of his gun. He claimed that he later saw Chris Stevens, the U.S.

ambassador to Libya killed in the attack on the Benghazi compound, dying in a hospital.

It soon emerged that this account was contradicted by the story Davies had told his

employer and the FBI. CBS was soon forced to retract the story, and Logan was

suspended and didn‟t air another report during the rest of 60 Minutes‟ season. (She is

slated to return to air in the fall of 2014.)

CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson was a long-time investigative correspondent for CBS

News. She became obsessed with pursuing Obama administration scandals, including

Benghazi and Operation Fast and Furious, the failed gun-trafficking sting conducted by

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. She became a favorite

recipient of leaks from Darrell Issa. Her obsessions began to irk network management.

According to a report by Politico, CBS News grew “increasingly frustrated with

Attkisson's Benghazi campaign” and saw her “wading dangerously close to advocacy on

the issue.”4 Over time, fewer and fewer of her stories made it to air on the CBS Evening

News. She eventually left CBS before the expiration of her contract, decamping for the

conservative Heritage Foundation‟s news website, The Daily Signal, among other outlets.

With the Benghazi Select Committee set to begin its work, Gowdy would now take

up an investigation that riles up the Republican base. He pledged to pursue his job in a

serious and straightforward manner, stating that he believed there were unanswered

questions about Benghazi. The Huffington Post distilled Gowdy‟s statements to the

media into three questions he promised to pursue:

1. Why was security lacking during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in

the U.S.?

2. Why weren't military units moving to support consulate personnel?

3. Why were references to "terrorist" and "attacks" edited out of the

Obama administration's talking points?5

All of these questions have been repeatedly answered over the past two years.

Recognizing that this is the case with every question about Benghazi that has been raised

by conservatives, Media Matters for America has created a user‟s guide to the Benghazi

Select Committee called All Questions Answered that functions as a supplement to our

best-selling e-book The Benghazi Hoax. In part to make our point regarding the

unnecessary nature of the Benghazi Select Committee, all of our answers are based on

publicly available sources including the Accountability Review Board report,

congressional testimony, interviews given by key figures, and media reports.

1. Why was security lacking in Libya during the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in

the U.S.?

The U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi was protected that night by several layers of

security. First, according to the Accountability Review Board report, unarmed guards

manned the compound‟s gate. They were backed up by armed protection provided by a

Libyan militia known as the February 17 Brigade, one of the largest and best-armed pro-

government militias in Libya, contracted by the State Department to provide security.

Additionally, Ambassador Chris Stevens traveled with four guards who were members of

the State Department‟s Diplomatic Security Service.

The Accountability Review Board Report ultimately found:

[The Benghazi] Post and the [State] Department were well aware of the

anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks but at no time were there

ever any specific, credible threats against the mission in Benghazi related to the

September 11 anniversary. Ambassador Stevens and Benghazi-based DS agents

had taken the anniversary into account and decided to hold all meetings on-

compound on September 11.6

2. What did the YouTube video have to do with the Benghazi attack?

One of the principal complaints from conservative lawmakers and media figures about

the administration‟s response to the attack was that the White House misled the public

when it blamed the attack on an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

The video sparked a wave of violent protests across the Middle East, including an assault

on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that resulted in a black Islamist flag being flown over the

facility.

Over several weeks in September 2012, heated anti-American demonstrations were

staged in response to the video in more than 20 countries, including outside U.S.

embassies and consulates in Tunisia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Across the

Middle East, Africa, and South Asia, there were numerous reports of fatalities (although

none involving Americans).7

The video at the center of the protests had been produced by Nakoula Basseley Nakoula,

an Egyptian Coptic Christian. In 2010, he had pleaded no contest to charges of bank

fraud after opening fraudulent accounts with stolen Social Security numbers. He would

be arrested again soon after September 11, 2012, for probation violations and be

sentenced to one year in prison.8

His video -- supposedly a short trailer for a longer film called Innocence of Muslims,

which was never released -- seemed designed to do little besides agitate Muslims.

Initially, the CIA said in its talking points on the attack that the “demonstrations in

Benghazi” were inspired by the “protests” in Cairo, which many understood to be a

reference to the video.

It has since become clear that there were no protests outside the diplomatic compound in

Benghazi. However, in an unreleased report on Benghazi, the House Intelligence

Committee reportedly concluded that “no one was deliberately misled” about the attack.9

Additionally, the attack‟s relationship to the video is still a matter of discussion. The New

York Times reported after the capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, who is suspected of

leading the attack:

On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the

United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking

Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy‟s walls — images

that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.

As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told

fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same

insulting video, according to people who heard him.10

3. Did Hillary Clinton see Ambassador Chris Stevens’ requests for additional

security?

An April 23, 2013, report from five House Republican chairmen included two documents

described as “critical cables” dealing with security in Benghazi.

The first was a March 28, 2012, cable that then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz

sent “to Secretary Clinton” seeking additional security resources in Libya. The second

was the April 19, 2012, response to Cretz, “bearing Secretary Clinton‟s signature,” that

“acknowledged then-Ambassador Cretz‟s formal request for additional security assets but

ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned” from the U.S.

mission in Libya, including in Benghazi.11

However, this is not evidence that Clinton had seen the cable.

Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post, who covered the State Department for nine years,

pointed out that in the modern era, “cables” are really “group emails, which are stored in

a database and made available to people with proper security clearances.”

As part of State Department protocol, Kessler explained, “every single cable from

Washington gets the secretary‟s name at the bottom, even if the secretary happens to be

on the other side of the world at the time.”12

Kessler quoted a State Department spokesman‟s explanation that under this protocol,

Clinton “ „signed‟ hundreds of thousands of cables during her tenure as secretary. ... As

then-Secretary Clinton testified, the security cables related to Benghazi did not come to

her attention. These cables were reviewed at the assistant secretary level.”

Additionally, Richard Shinnick, a 27-year veteran of the foreign service, told Media

Matters that “the Secretary of State was never in that chain of responding to Benghazi, it

just wasn't so." He said that any attempt to pin blame for the attack in Benghazi on

Clinton was “total bullshit.”13

4. Why were security requests made by the diplomats in Libya denied?

The Accountability Review Board report authored by retired Adm. Mike Mullen and

former Ambassador Thomas Pickering goes into great detail about the security failures

that led up to the Benghazi attack. This is an area that was fully investigated and on

which there is no disagreement.

As the ARB concluded, “[s]ystemic failures and leadership and management

deficiencies” resulted in a situation in which our diplomatic facility in Benghazi did not

receive adequate protection. The board placed the blame for this failure not on the

president or secretary of state but instead on “stove-piped discussions and decisions on

policy and security.”

The report also noted that the embassy in Tripoli “did not demonstrate strong and

sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security for Special Mission

Benghazi.”14

Ambassador Chris Stevens himself turned down additional military security in Benghazi.

According to a report from McClatchy News, “In the month before attackers stormed

U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher

Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military

official in the region.”15

These offers were made directly by Gen. Carter Ham to Stevens by phone and in

person.16

5. What was Chris Stevens doing in Benghazi?

Conservatives have continually attempted to cast suspicion on Ambassador Chris

Stevens, claiming that there was a nefarious, hidden reason behind his decision to go to

Benghazi in September 2012.

In fact, the Accountability Review Board‟s report stated that the timing for Stevens‟ trip

to Benghazi was based on scheduled meetings and staffing decisions at the U.S. Embassy

in Tripoli and the compound in Benghazi. 17

Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, explained in his testimony

before the House Oversight Committee the reasons behind Stevens‟ trip:

According to Chris, Secretary Clinton wanted Benghazi converted into a

permanent constituent post. Timing for this decision was important. Chris needed

to report before September 30th, the end of the fiscal year, on the physical and the

political and security environment in Benghazi to support an action memo to

convert Benghazi from a temporary facility to a permanent facility.

In addition, Chris wanted to make a symbolic gesture to the people of

Benghazi that the United States stood behind their dream of establishing a

new democracy.18

6. Why we were still in Benghazi despite the fact that there was an escalation in

violence?

This question has been posed by Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy as

one of the important issues he will be seeking answers to. Like other questions

conservatives are posing, this has been asked and answered repeatedly.

In the year leading up to the attack in Benghazi, there was a bombing on the perimeter of

the U.S. facility and an attack on a British diplomat in the city.

Hillary Clinton answered this question during an appearance before the House Foreign

Affairs Committee in January 2013. Clinton said that while she was aware of security

incidents in Benghazi, the State Department team, “led by security professionals, but also

including intelligence professionals and others, did not recommend, based on those

incidents, abandoning Benghazi. In part, because over the last years we have become

accustomed to operating in dangerous places, in Pakistan, in Iraq -- excuse me -- in

Afghanistan and Yemen and elsewhere.” 19

7. Why did the U.S. not heed warnings about a September 11 attack on Benghazi?

Two days after the attack, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) told Fox News, "As chairman of the

Intelligence Committee, I have seen nothing yet that indicates that they had information

that could have prevented the event."20

No evidence has emerged that there were any specific warnings about attacks in

Benghazi. The Accountability Review Board “found that intelligence provided no

immediate, specific tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.” 21

Additionally, media reports on the content of the House Intelligence Committee‟s report

on Benghazi state that while intelligence agencies were "warned about an increased threat

environment,” they “did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before

it happened.”22

8. Did the United States have the “last flag flying in Benghazi?”

After being appointed chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee, South Carolina Rep.

Trey Gowdy told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, “We were the last flag flying in

Benghazi, and I would like to know why.”23

Gowdy meant that the United States was the

last entity with a diplomatic presence in Benghazi.

According to PolitiFact, the “last flag” comment can be sourced to Lt. Col. Andrew

Wood, a “site security team commander” who served in Libya in 2012 but had left prior

to the September 11 attack. From Wood‟s testimony before the House Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform:

WOOD: The Red Cross was attacked with rocket-propelled grenades in early

June. When it was attacked a second time, I believe they made the decision they

were going to give up and leave Benghazi. When that occurred, it was

apparent to me that we were the last flag flying in Benghazi. We were the last

thing on their target list to remove from Benghazi.24

But the Senate Intelligence Committee‟s report on Benghazi contradicts this, noting that

“although some countries and international organizations had reduced their presence in

Benghazi, the United States maintained a diplomatic presence there similar to the UN, the

European Union, and other Western countries such as Italy, France, Turkey, and

Malta."25

PolitiFact interviewed Wood, who explained the contradiction. According to the fact-

checking website, “Wood didn‟t literally mean there was no other western presence in

Benghazi -- rather, he was referring to the United States as the last of the three

specifically cited targets to be attacked.”26

9. How did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton respond when they heard about the

September 11, 2012, attack on our compound in Benghazi, Libya?

Contrary to the suggestions of critics, Obama and Clinton were both actively engaged in

the response to the Benghazi attack.

Obama was meeting with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey when they learned about the attack on our diplomatic

compound in Benghazi. The president instructed them to respond immediately and

deploy all available forces as quickly as possible.

Later, Dempsey gave testimony under oath that addressed accusations from conservatives

that the White House was disconnected from the response to the attack: “I would, if I could just, to correct one thing. I wouldn't say there was no follow-up from the White

House. There was no follow-up, to my knowledge, with the president. But his staff was

engaged with the national military command center pretty constantly through the period,

which is the way it would normally work.”27

Panetta agreed with Dempsey, telling members of Congress, “The president is well-

informed about what is going on; make no mistake about it.”28

Clinton was also deeply engaged in the response to the Benghazi attack. Clinton,

according to her Senate testimony, “spoke to the national security adviser, Tom Donilon,

several times. I briefed him on developments. I sought all possible support from the

White House, which they quickly provided.”29

Clinton said she spoke with CIA Director David Petraeus and also “participated in a

secure video conference of senior officials from the intelligence community, the White

House, and DOD. We were going over every possible option, reviewing all that was

available to us. Any actions we could take.”30

Clinton testified that following the conference call, “I spoke with President Obama later

in the evening, to, you know, bring him up to date, to hear his perspective. Obviously, we

kept talking with everyone during the night. Early in the morning, on the 12th, I spoke

with General Dempsey, again, with Tom Donilon.”31

Benghazi “whistleblower” Gregory Hicks, who served as deputy chief of mission in

Libya, also testified to Clinton‟s engagement that night. He said that at 2 a.m., “Secretary

of State Clinton called me along with her senior staff -- were all on the phone -- and she

asked me what was going on, and I briefed her on developments. Most of the

conversation was about the search for Ambassador Stevens. It was also about what we

were going to do with our personnel in Benghazi, and I told her that we would need to

evacuate."32

Questions have also been raised about where Obama and Clinton were on the night of

September 11, 2012.

Obama was in the White House on the night of the attack. A photo of the president‟s

whereabouts on September 11, 2012, has been publicly available on the White House‟s

Flickr page for months.

The photo clearly shows White House chief of staff Jack Lew, deputy national security

adviser Denis McDonough, and national security adviser Tom Donilon briefing Obama

and Vice President Joe Biden.

Clinton testified that she was at the State Department‟s headquarters in Foggy Bottom

when she was informed of the attack and stayed there “late into the night.”33

10. Why did Hillary Clinton issue a press release the night of the attack referencing

the video?

Conservatives have accused Hillary Clinton of being the source of the notion that an anti-

Muslim YouTube video was the catalyst for the attack on our compound in Benghazi.

The text of the release read, in part:

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.34

This statement should be viewed in the context of the totality of events that occurred on

September 11, 2012. In addition to the attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi,

violent protests had broken out across the Middle East in response to the video, which

aired on Egyptian TV. At the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, protesters raised a black Islamist

flag, and dozens ultimately died in the protests.

Clinton‟s statement came after widely criticized comments issued by the U.S. Embassy in

Cairo that condemned the video in what many viewed as a violation of principles

contained in the First Amendment. Clinton and the State Department, in a rare move,

disavowed the embassy‟s words. Her statement on Benghazi should be viewed in that

context.

The first version of talking points on the attack prepared by the CIA stated: “We believe

based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously

inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault

against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex.”35

This sentiment remained

unchanged in the final version of the talking points distributed by White House:

The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi

were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and

evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post and subsequently its

annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent

demonstrations.36

11. Why were available assets not sent to Benghazi?

Conservatives have raised a series of questions about why a variety of different assets,

including F-16s, commandos, and the State Department's Foreign Emergency Support

Team (FEST), were not deployed to Benghazi.

Wired magazine summed up the facts:

[T]op Pentagon officials have previously testified that they could not get

commandos or fighter planes into Benghazi in time to save the lives of Amb.

Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. There was an unarmed

surveillance drone over Benghazi, but Air Force fighters in Italy's Aviano air base

lacked refueling tankers to allow them to get to the scene. Special-operations

teams in the U.S. and Croatia were initially told to prepare for Benghazi, for a

possible hostage-rescue mission, but they ultimately didn't get closer than a

staging base in Europe before the attacks ended.37

In their book on Benghazi, Under Fire, former diplomatic security agent Fred Burton and

journalist Samuel M. Katz explained why the FEST team was not deployed. They noted

that FEST teams are usually deployed only "where local security arrangements can be

coordinated and generally assured."

According to the Burton and Katz, "a FEST response to Benghazi was possible only

when thinking of life inside the bubble of a perfect world."

Additionally, "FEST assets could not have gotten to Benghazi in time to do anything for

Ambassador Stevens or the [diplomatic security] agents under fire. It was doubtful, even

in a perfect world, if the package could have arrived in Benghazi by mid-morning (local

time) the following day."38

Critics have also asked why the military did not scramble F-16s or other fighter jets to fly

over the compound in Benghazi to scare away the attackers. Former Secretary of Defense

Robert Gates explained:

[F]rankly I've heard, well, why didn't you just fly a fighter jet over there to scare

'em with the noise or something. Given the number of surface to air missiles

that have disappeared from Qaddafi's arsenals I would not have approved

sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those

circumstances. ... [I]t's sort of a cartoonish impression of military capabilities and

military forces. The one thing our forces are noted for is planning and preparation

before we send people in harm's way, and there just wasn't time.39

12. Was there a stand-down order?

This lingering Benghazi myth has been repeatedly debunked by numerous investigations

into the September 11, 2012, attacks.

The most common version of this myth was that an order came from somewhere in the

military command instructing forces that could have responded to the attack in Benghazi

to “stand down.”

There was no stand-down order.

This pernicious rumor is based on the absurd premise put forward by some conservatives

that Barack Obama and, more recently, Hillary Clinton left Americans in Benghazi to die

for political reasons.

Most commonly, this claim revolves around a team of special operations forces in Tripoli

that had stayed behind when other reinforcements left for Benghazi. Though the team‟s

leader asked to go to Benghazi, survivors were on their way to Tripoli, and his unit‟s

orders were to provide them medical care when they arrived.

A February 2014 report from the House Armed Services Committee, which based its

conclusion on testimony from Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson, the officer on the ground in Tripoli

who purportedly received the stand-down order, concluded:

There was no 'stand down' order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli

who sought to join the fight in Benghazi.40

This followed a January 2014 report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that noted:

The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the

security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team

expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the

Mission compound, the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or

obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party. The Committee has reviewed

the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC (Intelligence Community)

or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks,

but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.

[...]

The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the

IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks,

but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated.41

According to August 2014 press accounts, the yet-to-be published House Intelligence

Committee report also debunks the notion of a stand-down order.

13. Why weren't military units moving to support diplomatic personnel?

Members of the media have claimed that there remains an open question as to why the

military could not respond to the attack in Benghazi on the night of September 11, 2012.

Senior military leadership has answered these questions, consistently explaining that

there were no forces in the region capable of responding to these attacks.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey explained in written testimony to

Congress:

Our military was appropriately responsive. We acted quickly once notified of the

attacks on the Temporary Mission Facility. ... We also repositioned forces based

on direction from the President of the United States and Secretary of Defense. We

deployed a Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team to Tripoli while a second team

prepared to deploy. We directed the deployment of a special operations force

in the United States and one already in Europe to intermediate staging bases.

We also provided C-17 airlift for medical evacuation. We did what our

posture and capabilities allowed.42

Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who co-chaired the Benghazi Accountability Review Board,

told a congressional committee that despite "questions being raised about it," "The

military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there

in time."

He testified:

MULLEN: It goes to our core, when people are in trouble, to do everything we

possibly can to help them out. And there were many forces that moved that

night, including a special operation force in Europe that ended up in a base in

southern Europe, a large special operations force from the United States which

moved under direction as soon as -- as soon as they were given orders. A group

of Marines that essentially were sent in from Spain into Tripoli the next day. It

literally became -- this is not something you can just wish to happen

instantly. There's a lot of planning, preparation, as rapidly -- to do it as

rapidly as one can do it.43

Additionally, former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Congress that because there

was no specific intelligence warning of an imminent attack in Benghazi, "there was not

enough time, given the speed of the attack, for armed military assets to respond.”

He explained:

The bottom line is this: that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous

assault which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response.

Very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region, time, distance, the

lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground

prevented a more immediate response.44

14. Who wrote and edited Susan Rice’s talking points?

In the aftermath of the attack, Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows.

In the course of her interviews, she relied on talking points that wrongly suggested the

attacks began as a protest outside the diplomatic compound.

Over a period of 24 hours, the talking points were drafted by the CIA‟s Office of

Terrorism Analysis, and then altered multiple times through an interagency process

involving the State Department, the White House, and others. In the end, some of the

specifics that the CIA put forward about the suspected perpetrators were removed to

preserve the criminal investigation of the attack. For instance, Deputy CIA Director Mike

Morrell made an edit that removed an explicit reference to Al Qaeda. The result was a set

of talking points that stated:

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 diplomatic post in Benghazi and

subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the

violent demonstrations.

This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed

and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.

The investigation is on-going, and the US Government is working with Libyan

authorities to bring to justice those responsible for the deaths of US citizens. 45

While edits were made by members of the State Department and the White House staff,

the most controversial line in the document -- that the attacks in Benghazi “were

spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo” -- remained

consistent throughout the drafting of the talking points.

In May 2013, the White House eventually took the unusual step of publicly releasing

more than 100 pages of internal emails about the talking points to clear up any lingering

doubts. They provided proof that the intelligence community, not the White House, had

been the first to link the attacks with the video, debunking conservative claims that the

connection had been dreamed up by the administration for political reasons.46

15. Why were references to "terrorist" and "attacks" edited out of the Obama

administration's talking points?

One of the earliest accusations against the Obama administration was that it edited the

talking points given to Susan Rice before she was interviewed on the Sunday morning

talk shows the Sunday after Benghazi attack. Critics claim that because Barack Obama

sold the American people on a success story in which Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups

were on the run, it could have been a fatal blow to his re-election campaign if his

administration had admitted that Benghazi was a terrorist attack two months before

Election Day.

However, both the CIA and FBI wanted the names of terrorist groups struck from the

talking points, as they were part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Former CIA Director David Petraeus explained in congressional testimony that the names

of terror groups "were removed from the public explanation of the attack immediately

after the assault to avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law

enforcement agencies were tracking them."47

Furthermore, the CIA‟s general counsel also stated in an email released by the

administration that releasing the name of terrorist organizations could "conflict with

express instructions from NSS/DOJ/FBI that, in light of the criminal investigation, we are

not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this."48

16. Why did Ben Rhodes insert references to the YouTube video in a briefing memo

sent to Susan Rice?

In April 2014, a Freedom of Information Act request by the conservative group Judicial

Watch revealed an email from deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes briefing

Susan Rice in preparation for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows.

This new disclosure was used by congressional Republicans and House Speaker John

Boehner as a premise for launching the Benghazi Select Committee.

While hailed as new information, the document was simply a rehash of the CIA talking

points released a year before. The document contained only two references to the

Benghazi attack: one highlighted the Libyan government‟s support for diplomatic efforts

in the country, and the second reference stated that "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."49

This language was taken directly from the talking points

generated by the CIA.

In short, Rhodes‟ mention of the YouTube video was simply a restatement of talking

points prepared by the CIA.

17. Why did the president deny for several weeks that Benghazi was the result of a

terrorist attack and not a protest?

President Obama repeatedly called the attack on our compound in Benghazi “an act of

terror” on September 12 and 13, 2012.

These attacks reached their peak in October during a presidential debate at Hofstra

University. Republican nominee Mitt Romney accused Barack Obama of not referring to

the attack in Benghazi as an “act of terror.” Romney‟s assertion was challenged by the

debate‟s moderator, Candy Crowley. Regardless, these accusations remain in the

Benghazi mythology today.

On September 12 in the Rose Garden, Obama 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. 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."50

On September 12 at a campaign stop in Nevada, he said: "As for the ones we lost last

night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a

message all around the world -- anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will

dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act

of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."51

On September 13 at a campaign stop in Colorado, he said: "So what I want all of you to

know is that we are going to bring those who killed our fellow Americans to justice. I

want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of

terror will go unpunished."52

18. Why did Hillary Clinton callously ask “what difference” the Benghazi attack

made?

After hours of congressional testimony, Hillary Clinton responded to a series of questions

from Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson about why the White House and more specifically

Susan Rice‟s talking points blamed a spontaneous protest as opposed to a planned

terrorist attack.

The exchange, which is often highlighted and taken out of context, went as follows:

JOHNSON: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and

that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was

easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have

known that within days and they didn't know that.

CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it

because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who

decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point

does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we

can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do

my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying

in real time to get to the best information. The [intelligence community] has a

process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these

talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective,

less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided

they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we'll

figure out what was going on in the meantime.53

Clinton‟s point, in context, was that what was most important was bringing the

perpetrators to justice and trying to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring again.

Clinton was pointing out something that has since become quite obvious -- that

conservatives‟ harping on talking points might be good politics, but that it is a distraction

from more important issues.

19. Did the State Department punish Benghazi whistleblowers?

In September 2013, appearing on ABC, Benghazi whistleblower Gregory Hicks, former

deputy chief of mission in Libya, said, “I feel that I have been punished [for speaking out

about Benghazi]. ... I don't know why I was punished" and "shunted aside."54

The accusation was that because he spoke out in a way that contradicted the official

narrative on the attack in Benghazi, he was punished by superiors and that his career

suffered as a result.

This directly contradicts Hicks‟ testimony before the House Oversight Committee.

Testifying in May 2013, Hicks said he did not resume his assignment in Libya because:

[M]y family really didn't want me to go back. We'd endured a year of

separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the

overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed -- I accepted an offer of what's

called a no-fault curtailment. That means that there's -- there would be no

criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions. And in fact

Ambassador Pope, when he made the offer to everyone in Tripoli when he arrived

-- I mean Charge Pope -- when he arrived, he indicated that people could expect

that they would get a good onward assignment out of that.55

Furthermore, in May 2013, The Washington Post quoted State Department spokesman

Patrick Ventrell:

“[T]he Department worked with him to find a suitable temporary assignment and

succeeded,” said Ventrell. “Mr. Hicks still receives the same salary and has the

same employment status and rank as before. Per standard procedure, Mr. Hicks

recently submitted a preference list for his next assignment and is under

consideration along with other Foreign Service employees.”56

20. Why haven’t survivors of the attacks and contractors on the ground testified

openly before Congress?

They have.

CIA officers on the ground in Benghazi, who continue to work overseas in classified

roles, have testified in closed-door congressional hearings.

As the Daily Beast reported in May 2013:

On Wednesday, Deputy CIA Director Mike Morell -- along with CIA officers

who were at the agency's Benghazi base on the night of the attack -- testified

at a classified hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence. In the closed hearing, according to U.S. officials with knowledge of

the proceedings, Morell was asked by Republican members about how the second

wave of attackers knew to go to the CIA annex, which was a mile away from the

diplomatic mission. Morell responded that at this point the CIA did not know

whether the attackers had known the location of the annex or learned about it on

the evening of the attack, according to these sources.57

Furthermore, survivors of the attack had been interviewed by FBI investigators, and those

transcripts were made available to the Senate Intelligence Committee.58

Survivors also

spoke with the Accountability Review Board.59

21. Why didn’t the Accountability Review Board Interview Secretary of State

Hillary Clinton?

Conservatives have attempted to undermine the Accountability Review Board report and

its chairmen, former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, by

attacking the body for supposedly failing to interview Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The chairmen have repeatedly responded to this accusation by explaining that they did, in

fact, “interview” Clinton and other senior officials, in addition to briefing them on the

contents of the report. However, they have said that a full interview was not necessary

because the ARB had already ascertained “where the responsibility rested.” 60

22. Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton taken responsibility for the Benghazi attack?

Conservatives have consistently claimed Hillary Clinton has failed to show sufficient

remorse over the Benghazi attacks and has not taken any responsibility for what took

place on her watch. This is flat-out false.

In October 2012, a little more than a month after the attack, Clinton said during an

interview with CNN:

CLINTON: I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-

plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president

wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security

professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the

needs and make a considered decision.61

In January 2013, Clinton reiterated this sentiment while testifying before Congress:

CLINTON: As I have said many times since September 11th, I take

responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am

determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and

more secure.

Now, taking responsibility meant not only moving quickly in those first uncertain

hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis, but also to make sure we were

protecting our people and posts in high-threat areas across the region and the

world. It also meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly

what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement. And it also

meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and support emerging

democracies in North Africa and beyond.62

1 http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-benghazi-

documents-point-white-house-misleading-talking-points/ 2 http://thehill.com/homenews/house/200162-issa-hands-dems-the-mic

3 http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/14/new-benghazi-investigation-spooks-

gop-leaders.html 4 http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/05/the-posts-sharyl-attkisson-piece-

163496.html#.UYp1Jwdm8y8.twitter 5 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/trey-gowdy-benghazi-

questions_n_5283863.html 6 http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

7 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/anti-american-protests-over-

film-enter-4th-day.html?pagewanted=all. 8 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/maker-of-anti-islam-video-gets-prison-

term.html. 9 http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-

5663509.php?cmpid=twitter 10

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/khattala-benghazi-video-new-york-times 11

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/23/house-gop-benghazi-report-says-clinton-

signed-off-on-security-reduction/ 12

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/issas-absurd-claim-that-

clintons-signature-means-she-personally-approved-it/2013/04/25/58c2f5b4-adf8-11e2-

a986-eec837b1888b_blog.html 13

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/25/benghazi-review-panel-member-fox-

promoted-gop-c/193773 14

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf 15

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-

military.html#.UZN4TbVO-d4#storylink=cpy 16

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/14/191235/amb-stevens-twice-said-no-to-

military.html#.UZN4TbVO-d4#storylink=cpy 17

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf 18

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/06/10/fox-news-swaps-fact-with-fiction-on-

amb-stevens/199665 19

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/cnr.14.html 20

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/08/foxs-bolling-cites-repeatedly-debunked-

benghazi/195304 21

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf 22

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/House-panel-No-administration-wrongdoing-in-

5663509.php?cmpid=twitter 23

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/16/trey-gowdy/trey-

gowdy-says-we-were-last-flag-flying-benghazi/ 24

ibid.

25

ibid. 26

ibid. 27

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/11/facts-mia-in-right-wing-medias-latest-

benghazi/192620 28

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/leon-panetta-benghazi_n_2638283.html 29

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/cnr.02.html 30

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/cnr.02.html 31

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/cnr.02.html 32

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hicks-clinton-called-me-at-2-am-the-night-of-

benghazi/ 33

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2013/01/live-blog-clinton-faces-congress-about-

deadly-benghazi-attack/ 34

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/12/us/politics/libya-statements.html 35

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/07/fox-news-falsely-suggests-cia-never-linked-

beng/193953 36

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Benghazi%20Talking%20Points%20Timeline.p

df 37

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/bengazi-pentagon/ 38

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/04/right-wing-benghazi-myths-come-under-

fire/195720 39

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/12/robert-gates-criticizes-conservatives-

cartoonis/194023 40

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-

releases?ContentRecord_id=E5190F13-2D77-4242-8D7F-A7C05D7DEF5B 41

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/01/15/fox-benghazi-myths-dispelled-by-new-

bipartisan/197609 42

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/60-minutes-pretends-there-is-a-lingering-

questi/196619 43

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/19/watch-conservative-medias-favorite-

benghazi-myt/195971 44

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/28/60-minutes-pretends-there-is-a-lingering-

questi/196619 45

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57550337/cia-talking-points-for-susan-

rice-called-benghazi-attack-spontaneously-inspired-by-protests/ 46

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/15/nation/la-na-benghazi-emails-20130516 47

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/world/africa/benghazi-not-petraeus-affair-is-

focus-at-hearings.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 48

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/08/07/cnn-benghazi-special-pushes-debunked-

and-decept/195272 49

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/29/the-ben-rhodes-email-foxs-new-false-

benghazi-at/199067 50

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-

embassy-staff-libya 51

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/19/foxs-word-games-create-parallel-

universe-of-oba/190781

52

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/10/19/foxs-word-games-create-parallel-

universe-of-oba/190781 53

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/se.01.html 54

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/08/on-abcs-this-week-gregory-hicks-contradicts-

him/195772 55

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/08/on-abcs-this-week-gregory-hicks-contradicts-

him/195772 56

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-disputes-

diplomats-charges-of-retaliation/2013/05/08/60ee1cd8-b833-11e2-b94c-

b684dda07add_story.html 57

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/24/who-outed-the-cia-annex-in-

benghazi.html 58

https://twitter.com/SharylAttkisson/status/307992225218969602 59

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/benghazi-attack-report-state-

department_n_2326637.html 60

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-may-12-2013-gates-

pickering-ayotte-durbin-and-angelou/ 61

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/15/us/clinton-benghazi/ 62

http://www.kctv5.com/story/20658944/secretary-clintons-remarks-benghazi-the-

attacks-and-the-lessons-learned