The national Republican Party lost no time today in twisting and even whitewashing the facts on Benghazi to make partisan political fodder of the death of four Americans in service to their country. The Republican tactics are shameful.
The clear facts the RNC denies:
- Secretary Clinton took responsibility. In testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Secretary Clinton stated: “As secretary, I have no higher priority and no greater responsibility. As I have said many times, 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.” [Sec. Clinton testimony, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1/23/13]
- Secretary Clinton took action. Secretary Clinton appointed a non-partisan, independent Accountability Review Board to review what happened and began the process of implementing the 29 recommendations put forth by the Accountability Review Board. She took these steps in order to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again.
- Secretary Clinton was fully transparent. Hillary Clinton fully and publicly answered questions before Congress. She appointed an independent board to review what happened and publicly announced and began implementation of all 29 of the board’s recommendations. And as she testified, of the 19 Accountability Review Boards that have been held since 1988 only two have been made public, making this one of the most transparent internal reviews in State Department history. [Sec. Clinton testimony, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1/23/13]
The RNC’s false attacks:
FALSE ATTACK: CLINTON “MAINTAINS THAT THE YOUTUBE VIDEO WAS ‘INDEED A FACTOR’ IN THE BENGHAZI ATTACK”
FACT: Hard Choices – “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” “‘There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,’ she writes. ‘It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
NYT: “Anger at the video motivated the initial attack” in Benghazi. According to The New York Times, “The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras.” [The New York Times, 12/28/13]
NYT: “There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers.” According to The New York Times, “There is no doubt that anger over the video motivated many attackers. A Libyan journalist working for The New York Times was blocked from entering by the sentries outside, and he learned of the film from the fighters who stopped him. Other Libyan witnesses, too, said they received lectures from the attackers about the evil of the film and the virtue of defending the prophet.” [The New York Times, 12/28/13]
Documents released by Congressman Issa (R-CA) show the White House’s belief that the video contributed to the attacks in Benghazi. “A still-classified State Department e-mail says that one of the first responses from the White House to the Benghazi attack was to contact YouTube to warn of the ‘ramifications’ of allowing the posting of an anti-Islamic video, according to Rep. Darrell Issa, the Republican chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee… The subject line of the e-mail, which was sent at 9:11 p.m. Eastern Time on the night of the attack, is ‘Update on Response to actions – Libya.’ The e-mail was written hours before the attack was over… Asked about the document, a senior White House official told ABC News it demonstrates that the White House genuinely believed the video sparked the attack all along, a belief that turned out to be incorrect. ‘We actually think this proves what we’ve said. We were concerned about the video, given all the protests in region,’ the official said. And the intelligence community ‘was also concerned about the video.’” [ABC, 5/22/14]
FACT: On September 12, 2012, Clinton said the “assault” was committed by “heavily armed militants.” In remarks following the attacks in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton stated: “Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed… We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.” [Secretary Clinton remarks, 9/12/12]
FACT: Secretary Clinton’s statements matched intelligence assessments at that time.
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.” [Secretary Clinton remarks, 9/12/12]
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “The IC’s preliminary conclusion was that there had been a protest outside of the mission prior to the attack, making this assessment based on open source news reports and on other information available to intelligence agencies.” [Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 12/30/12, page 28]
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
FALSE ATTACK: “CLINTON DEFENDS SUSAN RICE’S SUNDAY SHOW ACCOUNT OF THE ATTACK”
FACT: Sec. Clinton correctly noted Susan Rice’s statements corresponded with current intelligence assessments. According to Politico’s coverage of the chapter in “Hard Choices” about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, “She defends then-United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice for describing the Benghazi attack as a ‘copycat’ of the video-spurred Cairo protests when she appeared on Sunday TV shows days later. Rice, Clinton writes, was relying on existing intelligence. And the talking points she used were written to help members of Congress address the attacks, and that the information began with and was signed off on by CIA officials. Intelligence officials didn’t know Rice would use them, Clinton writes. ‘Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time,’ Clinton writes. ‘That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “The IC’s preliminary conclusion was that there had been a protest outside of the mission prior to the attack, making this assessment based on open source news reports and on other information available to intelligence agencies.” [Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 12/30/12, page 28]
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
FALSE ATTACK: SEC. CLINTON’S “ALLIES ARE MOBILIZING A POLITICAL DEFENSE OF HER FAILED BENGHAZI EFFORTS”
FACT: Secretary Clinton – again – takes responsibility: According to Politico’s coverage of the chapter in “Hard Choices” about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, “Early on in the chapter, she describes her grief over losing American ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his diplomatic colleagues – ‘a punch in the gut,’ she writes — and says she takes responsibility. The deaths of ‘fearless public servants in the line of duty was a crushing blow,’ Clinton writes. ‘As Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
Politico article: “Clinton takes responsibility for the ‘horror’ of the loss of life in Benghazi.” “Her tone is less defensive than defiant: Clinton takes responsibility for the ‘horror’ of the loss of life in Benghazi, but puts it in the context of ‘the heartbreaking human stakes of every decision we make’ — and she accuses adversaries of manipulating a tragedy for partisan gain.” [Politico, 5/30/14]
FACT: Secretary Clinton took responsibility in front of congress: In testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Secretary Clinton stated: “As secretary, I have no higher priority and no greater responsibility. As I have said many times, 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.” [Sec. Clinton testimony, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1/23/13]
FACT: Secretary Clinton took action: Secretary Clinton appointed a non-partisan, independent Accountability Review Board to review what happened and began the process of implementing the 29 recommendations put forth by the Accountability Review Board. She took these steps in order to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again.
FACT: Secretary Clinton was fully transparent: Secretary Clinton fully and publicly answered questions before Congress. She appointed an independent board to review what happened and publicly announced and began implementation of all 29 of the board’s recommendations. And as she testified, of the 19 Accountability Review Boards that have been held since 1988 only two have been made public, making this one of the most transparent internal reviews in State Department history. [Sec. Clinton testimony, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1/23/13]