A report capping a two-year investigation by the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee was released in November. It repudiated ”the swirl of rumors and unsupported allegations” over the Benghazi assault, and found there was never a “stand-down” order blocking rescue efforts, though other Republicans questioned the report’s accuracy. The newest investigation, by the House Benghazi select committee, held its first hearing Sept. 17, 2014. Republicans plan to look into why Ambassador Chris Stevens was in Benghazi despite known dangers from militant groups. Republican leaders say they also want to know why the U.S. military didn’t rescue Stevens and the others. These issues have already been reviewed by Congress, news organizations and the State Department’s independent Accountability Review Board, which blamed mid-level officials for inadequate security measures.
In August 2011, Muammar Qaddafi was driven from power with the help of NATO airstrikes. In June 2012, Stevens, who had been in Benghazi as the U.S. liaison to the rebels during the uprising, took up his post as ambassador in the capital, Tripoli. He traveled to Benghazi in September to meet with militia leaders to discuss security — and died of smoke inhalation in the safe room of the U.S. diplomatic compound. In a series of television interviews on Sept. 16, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, said the “best information” available showed that the attack began as a “spontaneous reaction” to the anti-Muslim video, as had been the case earlier that day at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. In fact, intelligence agencies had preliminary evidence that individuals linked to al-Qaeda were involved, but wanted that withheld from the talking points prepared for Rice to protect classified sources and to avoid compromising any FBI investigation into the attack on Americans, according to the findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a conclusion disputed by the panel’s Republicans. A definitive account of what happened and why remains elusive. Investigations by Congress and news organizations suggest that the attacks were the work of Islamist militias including Ansar al-Sharia, a militant group inspired by al-Qaeda, and involved a combination of planning and spontaneous anger over the video.
Initially, Congress united in bipartisan demands for accountability and changes to safeguard diplomatic missions. That quickly gave way to partisan skirmishing, as “Benghazi” evolved into Republican political shorthand for suspected duplicity by the administration. Dissenting Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that officials sought to “frame the story” in a way that wouldn’t contradict the president’s campaign claim that al-Qaeda “had been decimated and was on the run.” Obama has accused the Republicans of pushing “phony scandals.” The American public is likewise divided: Polls show most Democrats disapprove of the Congressional hearings on Benghazi while Republicans are for them, though only one-fifth of respondents say they’re following them closely. In the meantime, Congress has paid scant attention to events in Libya, a nation that appears to be headed toward anarchy.
The Reference Shelf
- The U.S. House Intelligence Committee report on the attacks.
- The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s review of the attacks.
- The U.S. House Armed Services Committee report on Benghazi.
- The U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report on Benghazi, “Flashing Red.”
- A New York Times article, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi,” based on several months of investigation.