Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published May 10, 2013 at 9:05 PM | Page modified May 11, 2013 at 12:28 AM

  • Share:
             
  • Comments (14)
  • Print

State Department sought to change Libya talking points

Emails show political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya.

The Associated Press

Most Popular Comments
Hide / Show comments
Obama and Clinton lied and people died. They knew it was a terrorist attack, they... MORE
Was this article approved by Clinton. ABC is starting to get it right. ... MORE
Jay Carney says the Republicans don't know what they want to prove by "politicizin... MORE

advertising

WASHINGTON — Political considerations influenced the talking points that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice used five days after the deadly Sept. 11 assault in Benghazi, Libya, with State Department and other senior administration officials asking that references to terror groups and prior warnings be deleted, according to department emails.

The latest disclosures Friday raised new questions about whether the Obama administration tried to play down any terrorist factor in the attack on a diplomatic compound just weeks before the November presidential election.

Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed when insurgents struck the U.S. mission in two nighttime attacks.

The White House has insisted that it made only a “stylistic” change to the intelligence-agency talking points from which Rice suggested on five Sunday talk shows that demonstrations over an anti-Islamic video devolved into the Benghazi attack.

Numerous agencies had engaged in an email discussion about the talking points that would be provided to members of Congress and to Rice for their public comments. In one email, then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland worried about the effect of openly discussing earlier warnings about the dangers of Islamic extremists in Benghazi.

Nuland’s email said such revelations “could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to (Central Intelligence) agency warnings,” according to a congressional official who reviewed the 100 pages of emails.

The final talking points that weekend reflected the work of several government agencies — CIA, FBI, State Department, the office of the Director of National Intelligence — apparently determined to cast themselves in the best light as the investigation was just getting under way.

A scathing independent report in December found that “systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” of the State Department meant that security was “inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

Eight months after the attack, the long-running and bitter dispute between the Obama administration and congressional Republicans on the subject shows no sign of abating.

The GOP argues that the administration deliberately tried to mislead Congress and the American people. The White House insists that Republicans are trying to politicize the issue.

“There’s an ongoing effort to make something political out of this,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Friday of the disclosure of the emails, which the administration had provided to lawmakers. “The problem with that effort is that it’s never been clear what it is they think they’re accusing the administration of doing.”

Republicans have complained that the administration was trying to conceal that the attack was the work of terrorists and not a protest over an anti-Islamic film that got out of hand.

Such revelations just before the election perhaps could have undercut President Obama’s record on fighting terrorism, including the killing of 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, one of his re-election strengths.

The State Department emails and other internal administration deliberations were summarized last month in an interim investigative report by Republicans on five House committees.

New details about political concerns and the names of the administration officials who wrote the emails concerning the talking points emerged on Friday.

After Capitol Hill briefings in the days after the attack, members of Congress asked the CIA for talking points to explain the assault, and the CIA under the direction of David Petraeus put together an assessment.

Rice appeared on the talk shows and said evidence gathered so far showed no indication of a premeditated or coordinated strike.

She said the attack in Benghazi, powered by mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, appeared to be a copycat of demonstrations that had erupted hours earlier outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, spurred by accounts of a YouTube film attributed to a California man mocking the Prophet Muhammad.

Libya’s Interim President Mohammed el-Megarif said at the time there was no doubt the perpetrators had predetermined the date of the attack.

The White House also said it made just one “stylistic” change to the talking points, which was to change the reference to the Benghazi compound from a “consulate” to a “diplomatic mission.”

News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon

The Seattle Times wins top award for multimedia storytelling

The Seattle Times wins top award for multimedia storytelling

Our Sea Change series received a prestigious 2015 DuPont-Columbia award for showcasing the power of storytelling on the Web. Experience the report here.

Advertising

Partner Video

Advertising

Career Center Blog

Career Center Blog

Looking for joy on the job


Advertising
The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►