FIGHTING ISIS - Libya

"Can the U.S. prevent an ISIS haven in Libya?" PBS NewsHour 2/2/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  While Iraq and Syria have been the focus of the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Libya has become a new hotspot for the militant group.  Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner reports on how American officials are responding, and Judy Woodruff learns more from Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour):  The coalition fighting ISIS can claim some progress in both Iraq and Syria.  But now Libya, just 300 miles from Italy, has become a new magnet for the militant group.

The threat was very much on the minds of Secretary of State John Kerry and officials of 22 other countries in Rome today.

JOHN KERRY, Secretary of State:  That country has resources.  The last thing in the world you want is a false caliphate with access to billions of dollars in oil revenue.

MARGARET WARNER:  Yet the conference agreed only to monitor developments.

U.S. military officials say some 3,000 ISIS fighters have carved out territory around the coastal town of Sirte, birthplace of the late dictator Moammar Gadhafi.  From there, the group mounts attacks on civilian targets and the country’s oil facilities.  The U.S. has already carried out airstrikes in Libya, killing a top ISIS commander last November, and ramped up reconnaissance missions.

And in Washington today, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter called for a 50 percent spending increase on the broader anti-ISIS campaign.

ASHTON CARTER, Defense Secretary:  We must also take into account in our budget that, as destructive power of greater and greater magnitude falls into the hands of smaller and smaller and more aberrant groups of people, countering terrorists will likely be a continuing part of the future responsibilities.

MARGARET WARNER:  Last month, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, said a decision on how to expand the U.S. role in Libya is coming.  The New York Times quoted him as saying: “It’s fair to say that we’re looking to take decisive military actions In conjunction with the political process.”

For now, Libya’s political process remains in disarray.  Since NATO airstrikes helped oust Gadhafi in 2011, the country has been torn by violence between warring factions.  In December, the United Nations helped broker a new unity government between the two main rival groups.  But they have refused to carry it out.

POLITICS - Benghazi Saga

(aka "Republican 3 Year Attack Syndrome")

"Here’s what you should know about the deadly attack in Benghazi" PBS NewsHour 10/21/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes before a congressional committee Thursday to offer testimony on the attacks that killed four people at the U.S. consulate and CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya.  Chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner reviews the details of the attack and the subsequent investigations.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  The 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate and CIA compound in Benghazi, Libya, has sparked a firestorm of recrimination and accusation, touching on policy and politics.

As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton prepares to testify before a congressional committee about the attacks tomorrow, chief foreign affairs correspondent Margaret Warner catches us up on the facts of the case.

MARGARET WARNER (NewsHour):  This fiery scene at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, took place three years ago, but it sparked a political war of words that’s still being fought.

Thirteen months after the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Benghazi was lawless and awash with guns.  The U.S. mission was protected by one local militia and unarmed contractor guards.  On the anniversary of 9/11, around 9:40 p.m., heavily armed men stormed the compound, opening fire and torching some of its buildings.

Hours later, a CIA annex less than a mile away came under mortar attack. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens died in the main compound, along with Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, apparently of smoke inhalation.  Two contractors, ex-Navy SEALS Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, died at the annex.

Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said U.S. commanders had no intelligence that an attack was coming on the Benghazi mission, and U.S. forces were too far away to help when it did.

LEON PANETTA, Former Secretary of Defense:  Frankly, without an adequate warning, there wasn’t enough time, given the speed of the attack, for armed military assets to respond.

MARGARET WARNER:  In the aftermath, the military did deploy elite teams of U.S. Marines from Rota, Spain, one to Benghazi to evacuate personnel, the other to fortify the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli.

The Benghazi assault followed anti-U.S. protests that day in a half-dozen Islamic countries.  In Cairo, a mob breached the walls of the heavily-fortified U.S. Embassy, tearing down the U.S. flag.  No Americans were harmed.

All those protests were against an American citizen’s online movie mocking the Prophet Mohammed.  Five days later, on the Sunday talk shows, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pointed to a linkage.

SUSAN RICE, National Security Adviser:  What this began as was a spontaneous, not a premeditated, response to what had transpired in Cairo.

MARGARET WARNER:  But Republicans charged the White House knew almost immediately Benghazi was a terror attack, and concealed it to protect President Obama’s reelection campaign.

The administration insisted Ambassador Rice was speaking from the best information available at the time.  Four months later, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took on Senate Republicans at a hearing.

"Did we learn anything new from Clinton’s Benghazi testimony?" PBS NewsHour 10/22/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  House Republicans grilled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the U.S. embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya.  Political director Lisa Desjardins recaps the sometimes tense and emotional hearing.  Judy Woodruff gets reaction from Yochi Dreazen of Foreign Policy Magazine and Anne Gearan of The Washington Post.

YOCHI DREAZEN, Foreign Policy:  So, some of the numbers just on the hearings, it’s astounding.  This is the 21st hearing on Benghazi.  By comparison, there were 22 public hearings on 9/11.

So, just to compare the two, 22 on 9/11, 21 on Benghazi.  The investigations are thought to have cost about $5 million.  This has been going on now 17 months.  It’s not clear to me or I think to really any observer what is new that could still be found.

They have already pulled out that there are things said publicly different from what were said privately, that there were security failures.  That has all been out for quite some time.  But there was one moment that I thought was very interesting.  She said back at one point to them that the response to this shouldn’t be that Washington decides, Democrat or Republican, that diplomacy is too dangerous, that it shouldn’t be something where America pulls out of dangerous places because of attacks like this.

ALSO SEE:

"Fact checking Clinton and critics on Benghazi, emails" by Connie Cass and Calvin Woodward, Associated Press 10/22/2015

WAR ON ISIS - What Can the U.S. Do?

IMHO:  As of today?  Nothing, because the American people fail to really understand the risk.

"Islamic State expands territory in Syria, Iraq and Libya" PBS NewsHour 5/21/2015

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  After a week in which the Islamic State group made dramatic gains in three countries, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, there were new doubts in Washington over whether they can be stopped.

ISIS fighters trumpeted their conquest of ancient Palmyra in Central Syria after days of fighting.  And Syrian state TV confirmed it.

WOMAN (through interpreter):  Syrian national defense forces have withdrawn from Palmyra.  Islamic State fighters have entered the city in big numbers and are trying to enter archaeological sites.

GWEN IFILL:  Syrian activists reported the militants had, in fact, already seized the world-renowned Roman ruins just outside Palmyra.  The site is famous for its 2,000-year-old colonnades and other antiquities.

And there are fears that ISIS extremists will destroy them, as they have done in Iraq.  The head of the global cultural agency UNESCO pleaded today for a cease-fire.

IRINA BOKOVA, Director-General, UNESCO:  Destroying heritage will not achieve anything.  Destroying such heritage doesn’t mean that you achieve some kind of a victory over your enemy.

GWEN IFILL:  But the seizure of Palmyra does mean that ISIS now controls even more Syrian territory.  And hundreds of miles to the east, in Iraq, the militants today followed up their capture of Ramadi by overrunning Iraqi military positions east of the city.

The group also scored gains in faraway Libya, taking the city of Sirte, hometown of former leader Moammar Gadhafi.  The cascade of ISIS victories raised new questions about U.S. reliance on airstrikes to defeat the militants.  That issue dominated a Senate hearing, where lawmakers and witnesses took turns blasting the administration.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-Ariz.:  While it’s still unclear what President Obama is willing to do in Syria, it is clear our partners do not draw confidence from statements of what we will not do.

GEN. JACK KEANE (RET.), U.S. Army:  We are not only failing.  We are, in fact, losing this war.  Moreover, I can say with certainty that this strategy will not defeat ISIS.

GWEN IFILL:  The President didn’t respond directly, as he met with his Cabinet.  But in an interview conducted earlier this week with The Atlantic, he offered an appraisal of the situation in Iraq, saying:  “I don’t think we’re losing.  Baghdad is consolidated.  And ISIL has been significantly degraded across the country.”

At today’s White House briefing, spokesman Josh Earnest spoke directly to what will, and won’t, happen next.

JOSH EARNEST, White House Press Secretary:  But the President is not going to be in a position where he’s going to consider a large-scale U.S. military deployment.  And for those who are calling on a change in strategy, I would encourage them to be specific.

GWEN IFILL:  There was word that the U.S. is sending 2,000 anti-tank rockets to Iraq’s military to target suicide car bombers before they strike.

"What can the U.S. do to stop the Islamic State?" PBS NewsHour 5/21/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  New victories by the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq and Libya are fueling debate and criticism in Washington over the U.S. strategy and reliance on airstrikes against the militant group.  Gwen Ifill talks to David Ignatius of The Washington Post and Feisal Istrabadi, Iraq’s former deputy UN ambassador, about the complicated challenges facing the U.S.

LIBYA - The Ongoing Saga of a Failed Nation

IMHO:  Libya is a nation that has never known democratic principles AND is very tribal.  Tribe before nation.

"Understanding Libya’s complex web of conflict" PBS NewsHour 7/28/2014

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (NewsHour):  And with me now is Frederic Wehrey.  He’s a former U.S. Air Force officer who served as a military attack in Libya.  He’s been to the country often since the overthrow of Gadhafi, and is now a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Why this violence?  I mean, there are many different players involved, but give us a sense of who the key ones are.  What is going on?

FREDERIC WEHREY, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:  Well, at a very basic sense, there are these two rival factions from rival towns, Misrata and Zintan.

The Zintanis have controlled the airport.  The Misratans are allied with an Islamist militia that enjoyed support in the previous parliament.  That parliament is no longer in power.  And I think these Islamist militias felt like the window was closing, that they had to act now to seize the airport from these Zintanis that were holding the airport there.

There is also some factional politics that relate to what is going on in the east.  You had a renegade general, General Khalifa Haftar, who launched an operation in the east against the Islamists.  He’s partnered with those Zintani militias that are controlling the airport.

So in this very complex web of dynamics, of alliances, it’s finally arrived to Tripoli, and these Misratans felt like they had to act.

JEFFREY BROWN:  And is it right to see this all within this larger context of post-Gadhafi Libya about what happened?  We talked about it as it was happening, I recall.

FREDERIC WEHREY:  Right.

It is.  I mean, this is a country that under Gadhafi really had no state institutions.  It didn’t have an army.  It didn’t have a police.  It’s only gotten worse since the revolution.  What has happened really is that the provisional government, the transitional government put these militias on its payroll.

The militias are getting funding from Libya’s oil wealth.  And they have really mushroomed.  They have become their own entities.  They have grabbed the oil ports.  They have grabbed the airports.  They control armories.  There is no mediator, there’s no referee to keep them apart.  And this is what we’re seeing right now with the fighting.

LIBYA - Senate Benghazi Report

"Senate concludes State Dept. ignored security warnings ahead of Benghazi attack" PBS Newshour 1/15/2014

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  More than a year ago, a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed in an uprising in Benghazi, Libya.  The questions about the incident, why it happened, how it happened, whether it could have been avoided, have never completely gone away.

Today, after dozens of hearings and interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its own bipartisan conclusions.

Adam Goldman of The Washington Post joins us now to talk about them.

So, how did the Senate Intelligence Committee's finding differ from what we have heard about?  We have heard so much about this Benghazi episode?  Was there anything different that they discovered today?

ADAM GOLDMAN, The Washington Post:  No.

I think they came to the same conclusion as other reports that what happened in Benghazi was preventable.  I think what was new about the report was the detail they went into.  And that in itself was extraordinary.  The whole report was released.

And we really got a blow-by-blow of what happened.  And there weren't very many redactions in this report.

LIBYA - Reaction to U.S. Seizing of Terror Suspect

When will other nations learn?  The U.S. will pursue any terrorist that has been a threat any where.

Notice to terrorists, you cannot hide, we WILL find you.

"Libya Condemns U.S. for Seizing Terror Suspect" by CARLOTTA GALL and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, New York Times 10/6/2013

Excerpt

Libya’s fragile interim government condemned the United States on Sunday for what it called the “kidnapping of a Libyan citizen” from this capital city a day earlier, and Libyan lawmakers threatened to remove the prime minister if the government was involved.

The capture of the Libyan, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Anas al-Libi and was indicted on a charge of planning Al Qaeda’s 1998 bombing of two American Embassies in East Africa, was so fast and left so few clues behind that Libyans were only slowly coming to grips with what had occurred.  The government denied an American assertion that it had played a role in the operation amid anger that the nation’s sovereignty had been violated.

But as a measure of just how tired the public is of the chaos that has gripped the country since the overthrow of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in 2011, some Libyans angry at the raid expressed exasperation at their government’s failures to bring any measure of security to its people.

“There is hardly very much that is going on, except that every three or four days there is a new assassination,” said Mohamed Mufti, a Western-educated physician and liberal intellectual in Benghazi.  “This government seems to be suffering terminal inertia.”

The reaction to the capture of Abu Anas underscored the stakes for the United States as it gave up on waiting for the Libyan government to grow strong enough to challenge the militias that wield power, and detain fugitives living with impunity on Libyan soil.

For months, a swelling team of federal investigators, intelligence agents and Marines waited behind the barbed wire and gun turrets of the fortified compound around the United States Embassy here, aware of suspected terrorists at large in the streets — including suspects in the killing last year of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Benghazi — and increasingly frustrated at the inability of the weak Libyan government to move against them.

Now, with the Abu Anas raid, the Obama administration has signaled a limit to its patience.  Two years after the United States backed the NATO intervention that removed Qaddafi, Washington has demonstrated a new willingness to pursue its targets directly, an action that has now prompted some of those suspected in Ambassador Stevens’s death to go into hiding, people here said.

“Of course people are worried about it in Benghazi,” said Mohamed Abu Sidra, a Benghazi Islamist leader and member of Parliament.

Speaking on the sidelines of an economic conference in Indonesia on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry defended the capture of Abu Anas, saying it complied with American law, The Associated Press reported.  Mr. Kerry said the suspect was a “legal and appropriate target” for the United States.

The raid tests the ability of the fledgling Libyan government to weather the furor.  Indeed, American officials said the Libyan authorities, in a shift, were willing to tacitly support the raid as long as they could protest in public.  But it may also have represented a recognition that the interim government was already losing control over the country.  It has been unable to finalize a system to elect a constitutional assembly, to ensure the flow of oil that is the lifeblood of the Libyan economy, and even to protect its own government buildings from periodic siege by armed militias.

FACT CHECK - Benghazi

"Benghazi Attack, Revisited" by Eugene Kiely and Lori Robertson, FactCheck.org 5/16/2013

President Obama says the May 8 House hearing on Benghazi and subsequent reporting about it produced no new information.  That’s largely the case, but the president misrepresented some facts at his May 13 press conference in dismissing the House investigation as a “political circus.”

• Obama said Republicans acted “as if there’s something new to the story” about the talking points used by an administration official to discuss Benghazi on the Sept. 16, 2012, Sunday talk shows.  But this much is new:  We learned that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney falsely claimed the White House and State Department made no substantive changes to the talking points.  Extensive revisions were made after State raised objections and after a White House meeting.

• The president also said “congressional committees” reviewed emails “several months ago” regarding changes to the talking points, and they “concluded that, in fact, there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used.”  There was no such conclusion.  Obama was referring to a February closed-door meeting in which senators viewed the emails as part of John Brennan’s confirmation.  Some senators were satisfied and some weren’t.  Sen. Marco Rubio, in fact, said a review of the emails “raises other questions with regard to process.”

• Obama said he used the term “act of terrorism” a day after the attack.  Not exactly.  He said “acts of terror” and “act of terror.”  Also that day, the president said he did not use the word “terrorism” because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”  Over the next several days, he would repeat that the attack began as a protest of an anti-Muslim video and spiraled out of control.

Changes to the Talking Points

The White House and Republicans have been at odds for nearly eight months over the talking points used by Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, when she appeared on several Sunday talk shows five days after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.  Rice used talking points written by the CIA that said the attack — which killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens — started “spontaneously” as a protest.

Rice, for example, told CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sept. 16 that the attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video.”  She was referring to a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, where demonstrators scaled the walls and removed a U.S. flag in protest of an anti-Muslim video produced in the United States.

But Rice’s claim about a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi proved to be false.  Many Republicans — including Sen. John McCain, the party’s presidential nominee in 2008 — have charged the White House with engaging in an election-year cover-up by blaming the anti-Muslim video for the Benghazi attack, rather than acknowledging it was a premeditated terrorist attack carried out on the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.

It’s important to note that all the evidence — then and now — shows that the talking points always said that the attack grew out of a spontaneous demonstration in response to the Cairo protests.  That was in the original draft of the talking points, and it remained in the final draft.  There has been no evidence showing an election-year cover-up.

It has been known since at least late November that Rice’s talking points were changed.  CBS News reported on Nov. 20, 2012, that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — not the White House nor the State Department — removed references to al Qaeda and terrorism from talking points given to Rice.  The Senate Committee on Homeland Security issued a bipartisan report on Dec. 30, 2012, confirming that the talking points had been changed, and that the White House and State Department were not involved.  But the report also said that it failed to get a “full account” of what changes were made, who made them and why — despite “repeated requests” for that information.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney repeatedly has said that the White House and State Department changed only one word of the talking points.

Carney, Nov. 28, 2012:  The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two — of these two institutions were changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic facility,” because “consulate” was inaccurate.  Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened.

That has been proven demonstrably false — first by a May 3 report in the Weekly Standard and later by a more detailed May 10 report by ABC News.  Both news reports show the CIA made many deletions and alterations in response to State Department comments, including removing references to other recent attacks on “foreign interests” in Benghazi and a reference to the al Qaeda-linked Ansar al-Sharia group as possibly being involved.

On May 8, the day of the House committee hearing on Benghazi, Carney was asked about the Weekly Standard report.  He reiterated his statement that White House involvement was minimal when asked, “Were you incorrect when you said that only a single word had been changed?”

Carney, May 8:  No, I was not.  I think what remains the case is that the intelligence community, CIA, drafted these talking points and redrafted these talking points.  The fact that there are inputs is always the case in a process like this.  But the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive.  They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from “consulate” to “diplomatic facility” and the like.

Carney may be technically correct to say the CIA was the entity that “drafted” and “redrafted” the talking points — a House GOP report on the matter said, “The actual edits were made by a current high-ranking CIA official.”  But the Weekly Standard and ABC News reports describe how changes were made after the State Department objected.  To say that the State Department made a “single adjustment” to the wording, as Carney claimed, is misleading at best.  It glosses over the State Department’s extensive involvement in the editing process.

ABC News published 12 drafts of the talking points.  All of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to a violent protest in Cairo (which was sparked by the anti-Muslim video).  But the original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qaida participated in the attack.”  And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.”

The final draft, used by Rice, in her appearances on political talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012, would only say that “extremists participated.”  Rice, reflecting the talking points, said it wasn’t clear if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates were involved.

ABC News — based on reporter Jonathan Karl’s review of administration emails and the drafts of the talking points –reported that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland objected to including the names of terrorist groups, saying “we don’t want to prejudice the investigation.”

ABC News also reported that the emails — which were released by the administration five days later on May 15 — showed “the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points,” including the removal of a reference to CIA warnings of al Qaeda-linked threats in Benghazi.

ABC News, May 10:  Summaries of White House and State Department emails — some of which were first published by Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard — show that the State Department had extensive input into the editing of the talking points.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy.  We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

That paragraph was deleted after a Saturday morning meeting at the White House.  ABC News later updated its report to say that “a source familiar with the White House emails” said that Nuland was concerned that the talking points went beyond what she could say at State Department briefings and that, ABC News said, “she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored.”

Despite all this, Carney stuck to his story in a May 10 press briefing on the day ABC News published its report.  Reporters peppered him with questions about how he could describe these changes as “stylistic and non-substantive.”  He repeatedly said that it was the CIA that made the changes, and that the only edit made by the White House was the “consulate”/”diplomatic facility” change.  Carney said it was standard procedure for there to be “inputs” from various agencies.

Carney, May 10:  And the only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the CIA was a change from — referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi, from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post.”  I think I had referred to it as “diplomatic facility.” I think it may have been “diplomatic post.”

But the point being, it was a matter of non-substantive/factual correction.  But there was a process leading up to that that involved inputs from a lot of agencies, as is always the case in a situation like this, and is always appropriate.  And the effort is always to, in that circumstance, with an ongoing investigation and a lot of information — some of it accurate, some of it not, about what had happened and who was responsible — to provide information for members of Congress and others in the administration, for example, who might speak publicly about it that was based on only what the intelligence community could say for sure it thought it knew.  And that is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA.

Carney pointed to the Ansar al-Sharia information as speculative at the time, or information that the CIA “could not be concretely sure of.”  And indeed, the original CIA talking points said that “initial press reporting” linked the group to the attack.  “The group has since released a statement that its leadership did not order the attacks, but did not deny that some of its members were involved,” the original draft said.

Carney also said that the State Department’s objections had to do with the talking points going further “in assigning responsibility than preliminary assessments suggested, and there was concern about preserving the integrity of the investigation.  That concern was expressed in other quarters, not just at the State Department.”

But Carney’s initial statement about a “single adjustment” gave a false impression about the State Department’s role in developing the final talking points.

Congressional Review of Changes to Talking Points

Asked if “newly public emails show that the White House and the State Department appear to have been more closely involved with the crafting of the talking points on the attack than first acknowledged,” the president said “congressional committees” reviewed those same emails and concluded there was “nothing afoul.”

Obama, May 13:  And the emails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees.  They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that, in fact, there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used.  And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there’s something new to the story.  There’s no “there” there.

We asked the White House what congressional committees came to that conclusion and when, because, as we briefly noted earlier, the Senate report on Benghazi said the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee did not receive “a full account of the changes made to the talking points, by whom they were made and why.”  The committee sought a timeline of the changes, but the report said it “has not been delivered as promised because the Administration has spent weeks debating internally whether or not it should turn over information considered ‘deliberative’ to the Congress.”

In response to our request, the White House referred us to a closed-door meeting on Feb. 26 attended by Senate Intelligence Committee members, who were allowed to review the emails as part of their consideration of John Brennan’s nomination as CIA director.  Specifically, the White House noted that GOP Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina said after the meeting that the review of the emails “answers a lot, if not all, of the questions that the committee [had] from an oversight standpoint.”  It also noted that Brennan was confirmed.

But Burr’s opinion wasn’t shared by all on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican who worked on the Senate’s Benghazi report with Sen. Joe Lieberman, attended that meeting.  She said after the meeting, “I still have many concerns and believe there’s still gaps in the information.”  Rubio, another Republican on Senate Intelligence Committee, said, “I think it raises other questions with regard to process.”

Collins appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” on May 12, and she was asked by CNN’s Candy Crowley whether she learned anything new about Benghazi.  “I did learn something new,” she said.  “There were further iterations and changes in the talking points than I’ve been aware of.”

Obama and ‘Act of Terror’

At his press conference, Obama expressed frustration with those who label the administration’s initial response to the attack a “cover-up.”  He said, “The day after it happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism.”

Not quite.  The president, in remarks Sept. 12 in the Rose Garden, used the term “acts of terror.”  The President said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.”  Later that night, he used the term “act of terror” at a campaign event in Las Vegas.

Between the morning speech and the evening fundraiser, Obama spoke to CBS News reporter Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes.”  Kroft noted that “you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.”  Obama said, “Right.”  Asked why, the president said that “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.”

Even after his director of the National Counterterrorism Center labeled the incident a “terrorist attack,” Obama declined to call it that at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.  He also appeared Sept. 18 on “The Late Show with David Letterman,” where he blamed the anti-Muslim video for the attack in Benghazi.  “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya,” he said.  (For more details, see our extensive timeline of the Benghazi attack)

As we said in our timeline, the Obama administration displayed an abundance of caution when publicly discussing the possibility of a premeditated terrorist attack — but did not show that same level of caution when saying without any evidence that the attack in Benghazi started as a spontaneous demonstration of an anti-Muslim video.

Update, May 16:  This article was updated to reflect that the Obama administration released 100 pages of emails regarding changes to the talking points used by Rice on the Sept. 16 Sunday talk shows.

OPINION - Benghazi None-Scandal

"Trudy Rubin: Real scandal of Benghazi" by TRUDY RUBIN (from The Philadelphia Inquirer), McClatchy 5/17/2013

Yes, Virginia, there is a Benghazi scandal.

The scandal is that Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and some Republican colleagues are dishonoring the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans by making a political circus out of their deaths.

As chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa is ready to manipulate the pain and anger of relatives and colleagues of the victims, but shows little interest in making U.S. diplomats safer.  The hearing he held last week ignored the real issues raised by Benghazi in favor of promoting conspiracy theories about "talking points" that administration officials used after the tragedy.

The Benghazi-mongers think they've found a new Watergate, even though their claims fall apart upon examination.  "I'd call it a cover-up," intoned Sen. John McCain, who should know better, on ABC's This Week.  They distort, or ignore, the real issues raised by the attacks - Why was security so inadequate?  How can it be improved? - in favor of theatrics.

So let's look at which Benghazi issues are real - and which are not.

Atop the nonissue category are the famous "talking points."  Here are the key details:  Shortly after the attacks, the deputy head of the House intelligence committee asked the intelligence community for some talking points on what had happened so that he could publicly comment without revealing any secrets (including the fact that the Benghazi "consulate" was mainly a CIA station).

Bureaucratic caution, and a CIA-State Department tussle over which agency would take more heat for the tragedy, led to a set of watered-down talking points that mentioned "extremists" but not terrorists.  Then-CIA head David Petraeus testified in November that any reference to al-Qaida was removed to avoid tipping off the perpetrators, which was verified in e-mails released Wednesday by the White House.  Yet Republicans still insist there was a nefarious White House plot to withhold the "truth."

Much more relevant is the question of why security at the Benghazi facilities was so inadequate.  Here, too, political posturing has muddied the facts.

An accountability review headed by Adm. Mike Mullen, former head of the Joint Chiefs, and retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering slammed senior State Department officials for relying for security on local militias, and for ignoring requests for more guards at the Tripoli embassy.

Three senior State Department officials were forced out (perhaps the sweep should have included Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy).  But Issa charged that the review was "flawed," even though senior officials have almost never been fired in many previous cases where U.S. personnel were killed abroad because of official lapses, including the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, or the 1998 bombings by al-Qaida of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Issa could have used the Mullen-Pickering review as an excuse to rethink Republican efforts to cut funding for State Department security, a critical issue as the department expands its security personnel dramatically in the wake of Benghazi, but faces sequester cuts.  Instead, Issa focused on the political, on whether former Secretary of State (and potential 2016 candidate) Hillary Clinton was to blame for Benghazi "because it was on her watch."

On another critical issue - why rescue efforts were so tardy - Issa again chose circus over substance.  The Pentagon insists it had no forces readily available to dispatch to Benghazi.  The nearest AC-130 gunship was in Afghanistan, Delta Forces commandos were in Fort Bragg, N.C., and there were no armed drones within range of Libya.  The U.S. Africa Command has no rapid strike force to respond to emergencies.

This inability to respond raises serious issues about readiness.  Then-Sen. John Kerry was correct to ask late last year whether the military needs to play a greater role in protecting diplomats in dangerous regions.

But rather than examine such questions, Issa insisted, despite Pentagon denials, that the military could have sent planes to relieve Benghazi.  Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has served under Republicans and Democrats, called Issa's idea a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities."  Given the number of surface-to-air missiles in jihadi hands, Gates said he would have nixed such a mission, which couldn't have saved the men on the ground.

That won't stop the Benghazi-mongers from hinting that the White House deliberately let Stevens die.  Nor will it shame them into working in bipartisan fashion to prevent future attacks.  That's the real Benghazi scandal, right there.

The Maddow Show
MSNBC 5/15/2013

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

POLITICS - Secretary of State Clinton on Benghazi

"Secretary of State Clinton Claims Fault for Benghazi Attack in Heated Hearing" PBS Newshour 1/23/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke before Senate and House committees about the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Gwen Ifill reports on Clinton's taking responsibility for the inadequate security as well as her rejection of claims from Republicans that the Obama administration had deceived the nation.

LIBYA - Only Benghazi Attack Suspect Released

"Only Suspect Held for Benghazi Consulate Attack Gets Release From Custody" PBS Newshour 1/8/2013

Excerpt

GWEN IFILL (Newshour): We return now to the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. The only known suspect held in connection with the incident was released today in Tunisia. His attorney said he was freed because of a lack of evidence.

The attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans was seen by large crowds and captured on security cameras, but the culprits have remained elusive.

Libyan witnesses have reportedly placed a local leader from the militant group Ansar al-Sharia at the scene of the attack. This week, he survived a vigilante assassination attempt and remains at large.

For more on the status of the investigation, I'm joined by Nancy Youssef of McClatchy Newspapers.

POLITICS - Senate Benghazi Hearings

"Hearings on Benghazi Attack Focus on Painful Lessons, Priorities, Party Politics" PBS Newshour 12/20/2012

Excerpt

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Yesterday saw the release of a highly critical review board report. Today, the State Department and Benghazi were back in the spotlight, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's deputies appeared before Senate and House committees.

SEN. JOHN KERRY, D-Mass.: The hearing will come to order.

KWAME HOLMAN (Newshour): The Senate Foreign Relations Committee went first in a long day of hearings on the attack in Benghazi.

Committee chair John Kerry:

JOHN KERRY: Clearly, mistakes were made. The report makes that very clear. And one of the most candid and important observations was the failure by certain leaders to see the forest through the trees. There were clear warning signs that the security situation in Libya had deteriorated.

KWAME HOLMAN: That report by an outside review board blamed systemic management failings at the State Department that led to grossly inadequate security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

U.S. Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans lost their lives in the attack on Sept. 11. Today, Republican Richard Lugar said, at a minimum, American diplomats never should fear for their lives.

SECURITY - Benghazi Fallout and Statement of Witness to Event

"Report Finds State Dept. at Fault for 'Systemic Failures' of Benghazi Security" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 12/19/2012

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): Three U.S. State Department officials quit today after a new report stated that security measures at a diplomatic facility in Libya were -- quote -- "grossly inadequate."

Jeffrey Brown has more.

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): The highly critical report came three months after the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead.

Former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chaired the outside accountability review board. They spoke at the State Department.

THOMAS PICKERING, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: Frankly, the State Department had not given Benghazi the security, both physical and personnel resources, it needed.

ADM. MICHAEL MULLEN, former Joints Chiefs chairman: Certain State Department bureau-level senior officials in critical positions of authority and responsibility in Washington demonstrated a lack of leadership.

JEFFREY BROWN: Overall, the report found that, "Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies resulted in a security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

Earlier, Mullen and Pickering briefed members of key House and Senate committees in private. Lawmakers on both sides endorsed the findings.

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN, D-Ill.: There was a breakdown in Benghazi on September 11 that is stark and challenging to all of us in public life.

SEN. JOHN BARRASSO, R-Wyoming: Clearly, there were very poor judgments being made within the State Department. There was a failure of leadership.

JEFFREY BROWN: In a letter that accompanied the full report, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called it "a clear-eyed look at serious, systemic challenges that we have already begun to fix." She said she accepted all of the recommendations.

The report didn't single out specific individuals, but three State Department officials, Charlene Lamb, Eric Boswell, and Raymond Maxwell, resigned today.

And, last week, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice removed her name for consideration to become secretary of state. She'd been heavily criticized by Republicans for not immediately calling the incident a terrorist attack. There will be more tomorrow, as Deputy Secretaries of State William Burns and Thomas Nides testify at House and Senate hearings.

"Providing Appropriate Security at Embassies and Preventing Future Attacks Abroad" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 12/19/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: The State Department was held responsible for the lack of embassy security and accurately measuring risks that led to attacks on the U.S. consulate in Libya. Jeffrey Brown talks to Reps. Ed Royce, R-Calif., and Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., who say what's important is not who is to blame but how to prevent such attacks in the future.

"What I Saw in Benghazi" by Osama Alfitory, PBS Newshour 12/19/2012

Significant Excerpt

The teenagers were using a wall from a neighboring property for cover. I think they were the last of the attackers, the tail of the attack group, covering those who were leading the attack. I think their job was to stop people from getting any closer to the compound. I ran to the wall as well, to protect myself, to take cover. They saw me with my camera.

The first one said, "Don't use your camera, don't turn it on."

I said "No, I am a journalist. I am a Libyan, this is my country. I'm doing my job. Or do you feel that you are doing something wrong? Something that shouldn't be known about?"

The second guy said, "If you turn it on, I will break it."

A third attacker looked at the second guy and said, "Don't break the camera. If he turns it on I will shoot him in the head."

Then he told me to leave.

As I turned to go, one of the attackers mentioned the Muhammad film, the one from YouTube. He said that was part of the reason they were angry. But I hadn't heard of the film yet, I didn't know about it at the time so I just left.

IF this statement is true, it supports the first report that the attack was by Muslims angry over the YouTube film.

LIBYA - Approved Arms Going To Jihadist?

"U.S.-Approved Arms for Libya Rebels Fell Into Jihadis’ Hands" by JAMES RISEN, MARK MAZZETTI and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT, New York Times 12/5/2012

Excerpt

The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.

The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants.

The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.

The Qatari assistance to fighters viewed as hostile by the United States demonstrates the Obama administration’s continuing struggles in dealing with the Arab Spring uprisings, as it tries to support popular protest movements while avoiding American military entanglements. Relying on surrogates allows the United States to keep its fingerprints off operations, but also means they may play out in ways that conflict with American interests.

POLITICS - U.S. House Probes Benghazi Attack

"At Politically Charged Hearing, Congress Probes Security Failures in Libya" PBS Newshour 10/10/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: The House Oversight Committee examined the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, at a hearing where several State Department staff and former members of the security team in Libya testified. Judy Woodruff reports.

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): And we turn to a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill today, as lawmakers took a closer look at what happened at an American diplomatic post in Libya.

Jeffrey Brown reports.

COMMENT: "Contentious?" Now that's an under statement. A hearing in a Republican (aka anti-Obama) controlled U.S. House of Representatives, in an election year. The hearing is necessary but without the 'blame Obama' rhetoric.

LIBYA - Benghazi Attack Updates

"Congress Charges that Requests to Improve Security in Libya Were Rejected" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 10/2/2012

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour): There are new developments today in the Benghazi consulate attack, as congressional committee leaders turn up the heat on the State Department over the incident, and there are reports that the U.S. is closer to targeting suspected perpetrators.

Margaret Warner has more.

MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): The attacks that killed American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three colleagues in Benghazi was first described by U.S. officials as an eruption of anger at an anti-Islam film. The Obama administration has since reversed that appraisal and now calls it a well-coordinated terrorist attack.

But questions have mounted over the shifting assessments. And, today, two Republican congressmen, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa of California and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, leveled new allegations.

In a letter to Secretary of State Clinton, they charged Washington rejected multiple requests for security improvements at Benghazi mission.

They base their assertions on unidentified sources described as multiple U.S. federal government officials. The State Department spokeswoman said the secretary would respond in writing this very day.

VICTORIA NULAND, State Department: Her response is going to be relatively succinct today, as I said, expressing her complete commitment and this building's commitment to work with the Congress to get fully to the bottom of this.

But I don't anticipate she will be able to answer the specific questions today.

MARGARET WARNER: The two congressmen say their committee will hold a hearing next Wednesday on the Libya attack.

Meanwhile, the FBI has sent a team to Libya to determine just what happened. And Secretary Clinton named a review board to assess security arrangements at that U.S. Consulate and others. And while the investigations proceed, The New York Times reported today that the Pentagon and CIA are drawing up contingency plans to kill or capture those believed responsible for the killings.

"FBI Investigation Continues on Benghazi Attacks, Searching for Alleged Suspects" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 10/2/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: After officially announcing that terrorists were responsible for attacks on a U.S. consulate in Benghazi, the U.S. intelligence community is pursuing alleged suspects. Margaret Warner talks to The Wall Street Journal's Siobhan Gorman and Greg Miller of The Washington Post for more on the state of security in Libya.

ALSO:

"U.S. Is Tracking Killers in Attack on Libya Mission" by ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, New York Times 10/2/2012

Excerpt

The United States is laying the groundwork for operations to kill or capture militants implicated in the deadly attack on a diplomatic mission in Libya, senior military and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday, as the weak Libyan government appears unable to arrest or even question fighters involved in the assault.

The top-secret Joint Special Operations Command is compiling so-called target packages of detailed information about the suspects, the officials said. Working with the Pentagon and the C.I.A., the command is preparing the dossiers as the first step in anticipation of possible orders from President Obama to take action against those determined to have played a role in the attack on a diplomatic mission in the eastern city of Benghazi that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three colleagues three weeks ago.

Potential military options could include drone strikes, Special Operations raids like the one that killed Osama bin Laden and joint missions with Libyan authorities. But administration officials say no decisions have been made on any potential targets.

LIBYA - U.S. Consulate Attack Update

"New Evidence Shows Attacks on U.S. Consulate in Libya Linked to Terrorists" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 9/27/2012

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): And we turn to Libya.

The State Department is temporarily withdrawing more staff from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli for what it called security reasons, that according to a senior official in New York late today.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is still trying to determine who was responsible for the assault on the American mission in Benghazi that killed a U.S. ambassador earlier this month.

LEON PANETTA, U.S. Defense Secretary: I think, pretty clearly, it was a terrorist attack.

JEFFREY BROWN: At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta seemed to have little doubt about what happened at the U.S. Consulate in Libya more than two weeks ago.

LEON PANETTA: There's a group of terrorists obviously conducted that attack on the consulate and against our individuals.

What terrorists were involved, I think, still remains to be determined by the investigation. But it clearly was a group of terrorists who conducted that attack against that facility.

JEFFREY BROWN: What seemed clear today, though, had seemed less so just days ago.

The original explanation for what happened the evening of September 11 (2012) was that an America-made movie denigrating Islam had incited a mob, which had then stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

That attack left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

But in the weeks since, even as protests spread across the Muslim world over the anti-Muslim film, a chorus of doubt grew over whether militant extremists, including al-Qaida, had planned the attack to coincide with September 11 (2001).

And the entire issue, perhaps inevitably, grew into a political dispute.

Earlier this week, eight leading House Republicans sent the president a letter saying they were -- quote -- "disturbed by the public statements made by members of the administration that would lead the American public to believe this attack was a protest gone wrong, rather than what it truly was, a terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11."

Campaign in Ohio yesterday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told FOX News he thinks the president is concealing the truth.

Traveling with President Obama in Ohio yesterday, a White House spokesman said the administration has followed an ongoing investigation carefully. He said president believes it was a terrorist attack.

Islamist militants with ties to al-Qaida are a growing concern in North Africa. This video shot in July shows one such group destroying ancient shrines in Mali.

Yesterday, at a special U.N. meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned of a rise of extremism in two regions of North Africa known as the Sahel and Maghreb and explicitly linked al-Qaida to the attack on the consulate.

SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: Terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions.

And they're working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi.

The United States is stepping up our counterterrorism efforts across the Maghreb and Sahel, and we're working with the Libyan government and other partners to find those responsible for the attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi and bring them to justice.

JEFFREY BROWN: CNN reported last week that, before his death, Ambassador Stevens had expressed concerns over the rise of Islamic extremism in the region in his private diary.

"Benghazi Attack Conclusively Linked to Terrorism, But Who Shares Responsibility?" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 9/27/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: With the Benghazi attacks attributed to terrorism, concerns arise over the weakness of government and police in the region to prevent attacks like these to spread. Jeff Brown talks to the New York Times' Steven Lee Myers and Georgetown University's Dan Byman for more on who is responsible and the ties to al-Qaida.

ALSO:

"Security Fears Hobble Inquiry of Libya Attack" by DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK, ERIC SCHMITT, and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT; New York Times 9/27/2012

LIBYA - U.S. Diplomatic Mission Attack

"Libya Attack Brings Challenges for U.S." by DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and STEVEN LEE MYERS, New York Times 9/12/2012

Excerpt

Islamist militants armed with antiaircraft weapons and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a lightly defended United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, late Tuesday, killing the American ambassador and three members of his staff and raising questions about the radicalization of countries swept up in the Arab Spring.

The ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, was missing almost immediately after the start of an intense, four-hour firefight for control of the mission, and his body was not located until Wednesday morning at dawn, when he was found dead at a Benghazi hospital, American and Libyan officials said. It was the first time since 1979 that an American ambassador had died in a violent assault.

American and European officials said that while many details about the attack remained unclear, the assailants seemed organized, well trained and heavily armed, and they appeared to have at least some level of advance planning. But the officials cautioned that it was too soon to tell whether the attack was related to the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Fighters involved in the assault, which was spearheaded by a Islamist brigade formed during last year’s uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said in interviews during the battle that they were moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video that depicted the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, as a villainous, homosexual and child-molesting buffoon. Their attack followed by just a few hours the storming of the compound surrounding the United States Embassy in Cairo by an unarmed mob protesting the same video. On Wednesday, new crowds of protesters gathered outside the United States Embassies in Tunis and Cairo.

The wave of unrest set off by the video, posted online in the United States two months ago and dubbed into Arabic for the first time eight days ago, has further underscored the instability of the countries that cast off their longtime dictators in the Arab Spring revolts. It also cast doubt on the adequacy of security preparations at American diplomatic outposts in the volatile region.

Benghazi, awash in guns, has recently witnessed a string of assassinations as well as attacks on international missions, including a bomb said to be planted by another Islamist group that exploded near the United States mission there as recently as June. But a Libyan politician who had breakfast with Mr. Stevens at the mission the morning before he was killed described security, mainly four video cameras and as few as four Libyan guards, as sorely inadequate for an American ambassador in such a tumultuous environment. “This country is still in transition, and everybody knows the extremists are out there,” said Fathi Baja, the Libyan politician.

"Libyan Salafists Assert Power with Embassy Attacks, Hoping to Catch Public Eye" PBS Newshour 9/12/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Since Libya established a secular democracy, conservative Muslims in Libya known as Salafists have felt disenfranchised. Gwen Ifil speaks to RAND Corporation's Frederic Wehrey, a former military attache in Libya, and journalist Robin Wright about the link between Salafi Muslims and the latest attacks in the Middle East.

COMMENT: Putting freedom of speech aside, I have viewed the full version of "Innocence of Muslims" video, and even though I am NOT a Muslim, I find it offensive. Especially disrespectful of a world religion.

LIBYA - First Free Elections

"Libya Prepares for First Free Elections After Gadhafi Regime" PBS Newshour 7/6/2012

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): Libya will hold its first free election in over 50 years tomorrow, nine months after the death of Moammar Gadhafi. The election for the 200-member transitional parliament comes as the weak security situation enables armed conflicts in some regions.

That hasn't stopped the mounting excitement, as we see in this report by Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.

LINDSEY HILSUM: For four decades, only one man's image was allowed. Now thousands of faces look out from billboards across Libya. It's almost too much to believe.

Lamia Abusidra is canvassing votes on the corniche in Benghazi. Her party, she says, wants to unite Libyans. It's led by an Islamist, but she's something of a liberal.

MIAMI ABUSIDRA, Homeland Party candidate: People that thought that Belhadj's al-Watan, or the Homeland Party, is an Islamist party were shocked by someone leading the Benghazi list who is unveiled. And that shock made them think more and made a lovely dialogue, a very strong dialogue open in the community.

LINDSEY HILSUM: It's all a bit confusing.

WOMAN (through translator): Every day, we think we like one candidate. Then, the next day, we see another. I can't make my decision until Election Day.

LINDSEY HILSUM: None of which means anything to Salem Abushrida. He has no faith that an elected government will rein in the armed men who kidnapped him in Tripoli last week and tortured his son, Abu Saleh, to death. The family supported Gadhafi, but this wasn't revenge, he says; the murderers simply wanted to steal the family farm.

SALEM ABUSHRIDA, father: For this reason, they killed my son, for this reason try to kill me. For this reason, they are going to kill me again. They will try. I know it.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Democracy won't curb the militiamen who spearheaded the revolution and now run riot, he says.

SALEM ABUSHRIDA: There is no future, I don't think. The problem, they destroy the country.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Even in eastern Libya, cradle of the revolution, not everyone supports the election. In fact, they're sabotaging it. They say western Libya is being given too many parliamentary seats. The east is being neglected, as it was under Gadhafi.

In the eastern town of Derna, I came across a small demonstration of men calling for the boycott. The east deserves more power, they said.

MAHMOUD SALAMA, Libya: The west stole our revolution. We started the revolution here.

LINDSEY HILSUM: So on Saturday, no voting?

MAHMOUD SALAMA: No, on Saturday, no voting.

LINDSEY HILSUM: No voting?

MAHMOUD SALAMA: No voting.

LINDSEY HILSUM: A candidate came by trying to rescue her posters.

ASMA MOHAMMED SWAYZI, candidate (through translator): I'm very sad to see my people with this mentality. Libya is free, but we want an election and a new government. It's OK. This is freedom, but they shouldn't tear down posters. We want life to get better. Why damage things? We want to settle down and rebuild the country.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Suddenly, everyone wants a say.

"Anyone with a poster is a traitor," says one man. "The election is as farce," says another. "No, it's freedom," says a third.

It's chaos. But think, until last year, no one in Libya was allowed to have any opinions at all.

The line between discussion and disruption is not well understood. Yesterday, suspected eastern federalists burned a warehouse full of ballot boxes and voting slips.

Democracy is very new in Libya, and many still resort to violence if they can't get their own way. The poll will go ahead on Saturday. But the question is, will Libyans accept the results?

RAY SUAREZ: We have more about Libya on our Web site, including a report on Libyan hopes that peaceful elections will encourage more foreign investment in their oil industry.

LIBYA - First Election Jitters

"Libya on edge before first post-Gadhafi election" by MAGGIE MICHAEL, Associated Press 7/6/2012

Calls for a boycott and other unrest on the eve of Libya's first vote since the overthrow of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi raised fears of election violence, even as campaigning came to an end Friday for a contest seen as a milestone on the country's rocky path toward democracy.

The Saturday election of a 200-member transitional parliament caps a messy nine-month transition after a ruinous 2011 civil war that ended in October with the death of Gadhafi, whose four-decade rule left the country deeply divided along regional, tribal and ideological lines.

The parliament will elect a new transitional government to replace the one appointed by the National Transitional Council that led the rebel side during the eight-month war and held power in its aftermath.

Many in Libya's oil-rich east feel slighted by the NTC-issued election laws, purportedly based on population, that allocate their region less than a third of the parliamentary seats, with the rest going to the western region that includes Tripoli and the sparsely-settled desert south.

In what it called an attempt to defuse east-west tensions, the NTC decreed on Thursday that the new parliament will not be responsible for naming the panel that will draft a new constitution. Instead, the drafters will be directly elected by the public in a separate vote at a later date.

But this has not satisfied some in the east, who press for a boycott.

"We don't want Tripoli to rule all of Libya," said Fadlallah Haroun, a former rebel commander in the east's regional capital Benghazi.

Late Thursday, former rebel fighters from the east shut down three eastern oil refineries — in Ras Lanouf, Brega and Sidr — to press the transitional government to cancel the vote, Haroun said. He added that militiamen also have cut the country's main coastal highway linking east to west.

Earlier this week, ex-rebel fighters and other angry protesters in Benghazi and in the nearby town of Ajdabiya attacked elections offices, setting fire to ballot papers and other voting materials.

Haroun said boycott supporters would take to the streets on election day to "prevent people from voting, because this is a vote that serves those who stole the revolution from us." He said they would not take up arms but when asked how they would stop voters, he said, "We will see tomorrow."

Many in the west are equally dissatisfied with the decree, saying it will undercut the authority of the new parliament.

"The National Transitional Council acts like a rooster with its head cut off," said Yassar al-Bashti, a candidate with the liberal Free Libyans Party. "They want to weaken the new parliament after their failures over the past months."

The vote also will be a test of the strength of Islamist parties, which have gained influence in Libya and other nations following the ouster of authoritarian regimes run by strongmen like Gadhafi and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Groups vying for power range from the politically savvy Muslim Brotherhood to the ultraconservative Salafis and former jihadists.

Late Thursday, just before a 24-hour pre-vote ban on campaigning went into effect, supporters of the Justice and Construction party co-founded by the Muslim Brotherhood marched through the streets of Tripoli carrying the party's flags. The Alliance of National Forces, led by secular-leaning former premier Mahmoud Jibril, paraded in cars plastered with party posters. The National Front, which descends from a Gadhafi-era opposition movement, lit the sky over the capital with fireworks.

A day earlier, the former rebel commander and former jihadist Abdel-Hakim Belhaj, who co-founded the Homeland, or Al-Watan party, spoke to hundreds of supporters in the heart of Tripoli, endorsing democracy that will serve Islamic Shariah law.

Those four parties are seen as front-runners in a highly unpredictable race.

Libyan observers however say that voters are likely to cast ballots based on personalities they know, rather than ideology. In this conservative, almost entirely Muslim country, nearly all politicians accord Shariah a role in the constitution.

The NTC also decreed Thursday that the new constitution will definitely give a role to Islamic law, a move that appeared intended at preventing parties from turning the race to an Islamist-versus-secular contest.

Some 2.8 million voters, out of more than three million eligible, have registered for the polls. New parliamentary elections are to be held in 2013, after the constitution is drafted and approved in a referendum.

Observers expect that no party is likely to win an outright majority and the shape of the final government will likely depend on post-election alliances.

"We might see the Justice and Construction party striking alliance with Jibril's party, or we might see all Islamists forming one bloc in parliament," said Mohammed Bu-Sedr, a political prisoner during the Gadhafi era who now serves as adviser to the NTC's head and is running as an independent candidate in Benghazi.

LIBYA - Revolution, a Reporter's View

"Reporting a Revolution: Lindsey Hilsum on Libya, its War and its Future" PBS Newshour 6/22/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: Veteran reporter Lindsey Hilsum's new book chronicles the revolution in Libya. She speaks with Jeffrey Brown about the war, its aftermath and the future of Libya.