As the
House Committee Oversight and Government Reform hearing
(there is a link to the C-SPAN video of the proceedings at that post)
was getting underway on Wednesday October 10, references were made to a
background briefing the evening before.
The transcript of that briefing is now available at the State Department website and
provides the most complete account to date of events on the ground in Benghazi
on the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12.
All
over the internet, MSM and bloggers are referring to this text as well
as statements by Secretary Clinton and other State Department officials
as evidence that the Department of State never laid blame for the attack
in Benghazi on the notorious Youtube defaming Islam which was the
message put forth in Vice President Biden's remarks during Thurday's
debate with Paul Ryan (a segment during which neither candidate appeared appropriately
informed much less "presidential" in a heartbeat-away kind of way) as well as in U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice's remarks
on the Sunday morning talk circuit the weekend following the attack.
At
Friday's press availability with Italy's foreign minister, Secretary Clinton chose her words very carefully in response to a question from CNN's Jill Dougherty.
To
this day – to this day, we do not have a complete picture. We do not
have all the answers. No one in this Administration has ever claimed
otherwise. Every one of us has made clear that we are providing the best
information we have at that time. And that information continues to be
updated. It also continues to be put into context and more deeply
understood through the process we are engaged in. Ambassador Rice had the same information from the intelligence community as every other senior official did.
She did
not say that the information Ambassador Rice had was that the attack stemmed from a demonstration of any kind in Benghazi. In the
background briefing we see:
OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Brad Klapper with AP. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi,
yes. You described several incidents you had with groups of men, armed
men. What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to
believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests
against the video?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion.
I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened.
The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on
the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we
saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the
compound.
The hearing itself was purportedly held to
determine the nature and extent of security in Benghazi the night of
the attack. What we learned was that there was an interagency detail in
Tripoli into August and that although the tour had been extended
previously, it was withdrawn and replaced with a State Department detail
in Tripoli. Part of that detail accompanied Ambassador Stevens to
Benghazi.
OPERATOR: The next question comes from the line of David Lerman with Bloomberg News. Please go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Did the Ambassador – before the attack, did the
Ambassador request that security be increased in Benghazi? And if so,
did anything ever come of it?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL NUMBER TWO: The – when the
Ambassador traveled to Benghazi, he traveled with two additional
security agents over and above the complement of three who were assigned
to post. So there were five agents with him there rather than the two
who are normally assigned there – the three who are normally assigned.
So they were up two.
There remain voices demanding to know, as Paul Ryan
asked during Thursday's debate, why Ambassador Stevens was not given a
Marine Guard. At Friday's press briefing, Victoria Nuland remained
remarkably composed and patient as she addressed that issue for the Nth
time to a question from the aforementioned Jill Dougherty of CNN.
QUESTION:
There is something on the – that came up in the debate last night. It’s
more a kind of how do things work question. Congressman Ryan said that
Marines should have been sent – Marines exist, guard the Embassy in
Paris, and they should have been guarding the Ambassador when he went to
Benghazi. Is that correct? I mean, could they have sent Marines? Is
that the normal course?
MS. NULAND: Let me just stop
everybody here and remind you that we don’t do politics at this podium.
We don’t litigate the campaign on one side or the other.
QUESTION: No, I’m not saying it’s politics. I’m saying: How does it work?
MS. NULAND: If you’re asking me a factual question --
QUESTION: Exactly. How does it work? Where-- what do Marines protect? Would they in any case have protected that mission in Benghazi?
MS. NULAND:
We’ve talked about the role of Marines from this podium several times.
We talked about it in the days following the attack. I would refer you
back to what we said at the time, which is that – and I can get you the
precise numbers – but we have Marine security guards in about 60, 65
percent of our missions around the world. They are primarily assigned to
protect classified information, classified equipment, in those posts
that are classified. So – and I would also remind you of what Eric
Nordstrom said when he testified on the Hill, which was that in his
professional opinion, another foot of wall or another four, five, six – I
can’t remember the number that he used – of American security personnel
wouldn’t have been able to turn back or handle the assaults at the
level of ferocity and lethality that we saw that night.
In the
background briefing linked here, the reason why
Marine Embassy Security would never have been in Benghazi for any reason was made eminently clear.
OPERATOR: The next question is from the line of Margaret Brennan, CBS News. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi,
thanks for doing this. The timeline here begins around 8:30 p.m., but
we had heard in response to some reports where reporters had found
paperwork documents on the grounds of the compound that secure
materials, that confidential paperwork had actually been secured earlier
in the day, therefore there wasn’t any compromised material found at
the compound. When did that occur? At 8:30 at night? When were those
documents secured or shredded or burned or whatever?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Because
of the – this was a post and not a – and we – this post held no
classified documents. They had computer communications with Washington,
but the material would arrive on the screen and you would read it on the
screen, and then that was it. There was no classified paper, so there
was no paper to burn.
Assuredly the debate will continue to rage. A few things are clear:
1.
There is never-before-seen daylight making its appearance between the
Obama White House and the Clinton State Department. Under-the-bus
stories abound. (I am putting my money on Hillary Clinton.)
2.
Hillary Clinton intends to get to the bottom of this and will probably
make no definitive statements until all investigations are complete nor
should she absent all possible information. (I hope this extends to
appearing before the Oversight Committee as well.)
3. When
faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary some people will never
cease to believe that a Marine guard, which, had one been assigned,
would have remained in Tripoli, would have made a difference.