Timeline: How the Benghazi Controversy Unfolded

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at Andrews Air Force Base on September 14 during the return of the remains of four Americans killed in Benghazi three days earlier.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/8077972177/">The White House</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Today, the House and Senate intelligence committees are starting hearings on the September 11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including Ambassador Chris Stevens. At the heart of the issue is the allegation, embraced by conservative pundits and echoed by Republicans including Mitt Romney, that Obama adminstration has covered up what they knew about the true nature of the assault and when they knew it.

Here’s a blow-by-blow look at how the events and statements under scrutiny unfolded. Kevin Drum has more on why the Benghazi controversy has been overblown. And for a more extensive, detailed timeline, visit FactCheck.org.

September 11

  • A protest breaks out at the US embassy in Cairo in response to Innocence of Muslims, an anti-Muslim film advertised on YouTube that was created by a real estate developer in California. The film’s trailer was first posted in July.
  • The US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, is attacked by “unidentified Libyan extremists,” who kill US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American officials.
  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement acknowledging the death of one State Department official during Benghazi attack. The statement references the anti-Muslim video, condemning “any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others,” but stops short of blaming it for the attack.

September 12

  • Clinton confirms that four US officials were killed in the Benghazi attack.
  • During a morning speech at the Rose Garden, President Obama condemns the attack, saying, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation.” He also echoes Clinton’s acknowledgment of the anti-Muslim video, saying, “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
  • Obama is asked during a 60 Minutes interview whether terrorists were behind the attack and replies that “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Reporters later ask White House press secretary Jay Carney if the attack had been preplanned. Carney replies, “It’s too early for us to make that judgment.”
  • The BBC talks to Ahmad Jibril, Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, who says that the militant group Ansar al-Sharia launched the Benghazi attack.
  • Citing anonymous government officials, Reuters reports that the attack may have been preplanned and Ansar al-Sharia may be to blame.

September 13

  • At a State Department function, Libyan Ambassador to the United States Ali Suleiman Aujali speaks to Clinton, apologizing for “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton again condemns the anti-Muslim video but does not refer to the attack as an act of terror. (Clinton later meets with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine al-Othmani, saying much the same thing.)
  • During a Colorado stump speech, Obama says, “To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”
  • Citing anonymous State Department officials, CNN reports that the Benghazi attack was a “clearly planned military-type attack” and not related to the anti-Muslim video.

September 14

  • At an Andrews Air Force Base ceremony honoring the officials killed in Benghazi, Clinton quotes from a letter that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas sent her, in which she says he praised Stevens and called the attack “an act of ugly terror.”
  • At a White House press briefing, Carney says the CNN report that the US government has evidence the attack was preplanned “is false.”
  • Roll Call reports that during a Senate Armed Services Committee meeting, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta leaves committee members with the impression that the attack was a premeditated act of terror.

September 15

  • In his weekly address, Obama mentions the Benghazi attack. He does not refer to it as an act of terror, but mentions “every angry mob” that had reacted to the anti-Muslim video.

September 16

  • Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, speaking to Bob Schieffer on CBS’s Face the Nation, suggests that the attack began “spontaneously” in reaction to the Cairo embassy protest that was “sparked by this hateful video.”
  • Libya President Mohamed Magariaf, also speaking to Schieffer, says the attack “was planned by foreigners…who entered the country a few months ago.” He later tells NPR that Rice’s suggestion that the protest began spontaneously “is completely unfounded and preposterous.”

September 17

September 18

  • Obama tells David Letterman that extremists used the anti-Muslim video “as an excuse” for several attacks including the one in Benghazi.
  • Carney tells reporters that the video “precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere.” Later, Clinton says she was told that “we had no actionable intelligence that an attack…was planned or imminent.”

September 19

  • National Counterterrorism Center Director Matt Olsen, speaking to a Senate subcommittee, says that the American officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy” but that there was “no specific evidence of significant advanced planning.” Olsen is the first administration official on record using the phrase “terrorist attack.”
  • Nuland tells reporters that she stands by Olsen’s words, but Carney balks, just repeating that “we do not yet have indication that [the attack] was preplanned or premeditated.”

September 20

  • Carney refers to the Benghazi incident as a “terrorist attack” for the first time. Asked about Carney’s remarks on the stump, Obama says only that extremists had taken advantage of “natural protests” that arose from the anti-Muslim video.

September 21

September 24

  • Asked on The View if the Benghazi incident was a terrorist attack, Obama replies, “We’re still doing an investigation.” At a UN address the next day, Obama condemns the anti-Muslim video but doesn’t refer to a terrorist attack.

September 27

  • Panetta tells reporters that Benghazi “was a terrorist attack” and that it “took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location.”
  • Carney tells reporters, “The president’s position [is] that this was a terrorist attack.”

October 9

October 10

  • Asked about discrepancies in the various responses to the attack, Carney replies, “Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available.”

October 15

October 16

October 24

October 26

  • A conspiracy theory begins to circulate that General Carter Ham, the head of the US command in Africa, was “relieved of his command” after refusing orders to stand down as he attempted to dispatch a rescue unit to the Benghazi consulate.

November 9

November 14

  • Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who both sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee, announce that they would oppose a nomination of Susan Rice to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Graham justifies his position, saying that “either [Rice] didn’t know the truth about Benghazi—so she shouldn’t have been on TV—or she was spinning it.”

November 15

  • The House and Senate Intelligence Committees begin holding hearings on the Benghazi attack. Petraeus, scheduled to testify on November 16, says his resignation had nothing to do with Benghazi.

This article has been revised.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate