This is the second in a series of "After Benghazi" musings. The first one may be found here.
Was there a cover-up? The first reaction for most Rantburg readers would be a variation of "yes". But let's start at the beginning, or rather, at the immediate aftermath of the attack, for the sake of mental exercise.The attack on the US consulate in Benghazi was initially blamed on Muslim outrage over a relatively obscure movie that depicted the prophet Mohammed in an unfavorable light. The producer of that movie was arrested late at night by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies on charges unrelated to the movie; he is still in jail.
According to a September 11, 2012 New York Times article, the movie was "a 14-minute trailer for the English-language film, which was posted on YouTube in July, attracted little attention until... a version dubbed into Arabic was posted...then copied and viewed tens of thousands of times more." The movie was given a great amount of attention by "religiously sensitive individuals" on Egyptian television. Ironically, before the protesters attacked the Cairo compound, the U.S. mission in Cairo had issued a statement saying "The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."
In any case, Muslim anger at that movie was the reason given for the violent Salafist demonstration (accompanied by pro-Al Qaeda chanting) at the US embassy in Cairo. That same reason was immediately applied to the attack on the Benghazi consulate. Later, Ambassador Susan Rice made the rounds of the talk shows that were to be broadcast Sunday, also linking the Salafist demonstration at the US embassy in Cairo with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.
Was there a cover-up at this point? It's hard to say. There are at least four parties involved: State, the CIA, the Department of Defense and the White House. All of the "Four Horsemen" have coinciding and competing objectives, plus each of them has a reason to protect their own turf.
First, the CIA: the initial CIA assessment and its revisions consistently stated "currently available information suggests that the demonstration in Benghazi was spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo." It also said the CIA advised that based on its intelligence an attack in the region would take place, with Cairo being a prime target, and with a "precarious" Benghazi also on the list. That statement was later dropped, likely due to displeased officials in either the White House or State, who viewed it as a 'CYA moment'. The CIA initially also did not want to acknowledge that two of its personnel had died during the attack on the 'consulate annex', which press reports revealed to be a CIA facility.
As for the White House, it claimed "mistakes were made", saying it did not handle the Benghazi attack well both during and afterwards, and blamed it on "incompetence and confusion" and an "overabundance of caution". ("We're portrayed by Republicans as either being lying or idiots. It's actually closer to us being idiots," claimed one anonymous staffer.) The list of errors ranged from standing down the Foreign Emergency Support Team (the order came from within the State department but no one will own up to who gave that order), failing to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group, an inter-agency War-on-Terror task force reportedly relegated to second-class status by the Obama administration, the National Security Council in particular. Other failures were stalling the release of requested Benghazi 'talking points' to Congress, and a mis-named "Dream Team" of experts from various agencies that were to be used to brief Congress but ended up fumbling their duties, plus a few other issues dealing with unfortunate semantics and wordplay.
The White House, for its part, said it had agreed and signed off on the CIA's initial assessment in the Benghazi talking points for use by both Congress and Ambassador Rice, a statement reinforced by the President's spokesman.
The Third Horseman, the State Department, had engaged in some pre-emptive self-protection by its memo condemning the anti-Mohammed movie prior to the Cairo demonstration. It's highly likely that State did indeed 'massage' the released assessment and the subsequent talking points, ostensibly for turf protection (i.e., to keep Congress off State's back) and to prevent State from shouldering the blame. In any case, the talking points were excised of the words "terrorism" and "al Qaeda", as well as the CIA's 'warning'. Again, the Foreign Emergency Support Team, supposedly useful for a situation like the Benghazi consulate attack, had been called off by State, but no one would say who called the team off.
The last Horseman, the Department of Defense (DoD) also engaged in some self protection, primarily because it reportedly had no assets available to provide timely interdiction in the Benghazi attack (including a rapid-reaction force that was training in Croatia). While that is still being debated, it appears the DoD was not engaged in the assessment process.
What about the press? Was there a cover-up by the press? If by 'cover-up' there was an active effort by the press to suppress information, there's no clear evidence. Certainly there was an admission by various and sundry correspondents, columnists and news professionals that they viewed the reactions to the Benghazi attack and criticism of the various follow-ups by the "Four Horsemen" as politically motivated. There was some inside baseball: CBS posted an article online from Slate by John Dickerson, Slate's chief political correspondent (who also happened to be CBS' political director), stating that the White House had signed off on the full CIA assessment, but State had not. The implication made by Mr. Dickerson is that State was responsible for the changes in the released assessment and Ambassador Rice's talking points for reasons of "ass covering" (both of the Department and the Secretary of State) and to keep a hostile Congress out of the way. The press was also influenced by the fact that it was an election year, and given the political atmosphere within the Beltway that also permeates the general media (with the exception of a few reporters like of CBS' Sharyl Attkisson), the media went with its usual political biases.
Was there a cover-up? Not in the sense of a Nixon-Watergate moment. Not in the sense of everyone getting into a smoke filled room in the wee hours of the morning to forge an agreement, or clandestine meetings out by the D.C. reflecting pool, or phone calls and emails from bogus accounts, or another JournoList-style "let's coordinate stories".
What we saw in the immediate aftermath is what, based on personal experience, passes for business-as-usual in Washington: spin, turf-protection, egotism, bureaucracy, job protection, passing the blame and incompetence. The legislative and executive branches were once again at loggerheads, with the former asking questions and demanding answers, and the latter stalling or refusing. Business-as-usual is what likely cost General Petraeus his job as head of the CIA, as well as the retirement of many senior officers.
Most importantly, it was also an election year, where getting (re)elected is what mattered. The administration, the State Department, and the media viewed the Benghazi attack and its mishandling as a weapon in the hands of the Republican party and potential disaster to the President's re-election. Based on that, it was a cover-up, where the objective was to stall, delay, or deny until after the election, no matter how many metaphorical bodies piled up. Rather unfortunate for the real bodies that were flown into Andrews air base, some of them in caskets. But that's politics.
The question remains, though. What about now? For that, we need to look at what's currently going on. That's for the next article.