Congressional Hearing Highlights Debate Over Benghazi Attack Narrative

During a recent congressional hearing, tensions flared as lawmakers questioned former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the U.S. government’s response to the 2012 Benghazi attacks. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio criticized Clinton for allegedly misrepresenting the events in the immediate aftermath, accusing her of promoting a “video-inspired protest” narrative despite evidence suggesting the attack was a coordinated terrorist operation.

Jordan began his questioning by referencing statements made by Clinton and her staff in the hours following the attack. He pointed out that no video-related protest occurred in Benghazi, although demonstrations did take place in Cairo. According to Jordan, Victoria Nuland, Clinton’s spokesperson, had described the attacks in distinct terms hours after they occurred: “Benghazi, you got weapons and explosions. Cairo, you got spray paint and rocks.”

He noted that Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed during the attack, did not report any demonstrations before the attack began. Jordan cited an eyewitness in the command center who confirmed that no protest had occurred. He also referenced intelligence reports from the day, which made no mention of demonstrations, protests, or video-related triggers.

Jordan highlighted an ops alert sent at 4:06 p.m., shortly after the attack started at 3:42 p.m., which stated simply: “Mission under attack. Armed men, shots fired, explosions heard.” He emphasized that the alert made no reference to a video or protest. Jordan also invoked Greg Hicks, the second-ranking diplomat in Libya, who said that if there had been a protest at the ambassador’s residence, it would have been reported immediately.

“Everything points to a terrorist attack,” Jordan declared, underscoring that this assessment was consistent with the history of terrorist activity in Libya, as outlined by former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He criticized statements made by Susan Rice on television five days after the attack, which described Benghazi as a “spontaneous reaction” to an anti-Islamic video—a claim he said was false. Jordan argued that State Department experts, including Hicks and Nuland, knew the truth and that Clinton herself was aware that the attack was planned, not a protest.

Jordan referenced an email sent by Clinton to her family at 11 p.m. on the night of the attack, in which she described the perpetrators as “an al-Qaeda-like group.” This, he argued, contradicted her public statement that “some have sought to justify the vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.” Jordan also pointed to Clinton’s private calls with the presidents of Libya and Egypt, in which she reportedly told them the attack had nothing to do with the video and was a planned terrorist act.

He accused Clinton of deliberately presenting the American public with a misleading narrative to protect the image of the Obama administration, suggesting that portraying the incident as a protest over a video was less politically damaging than admitting to a terrorist attack just 56 days before the presidential election. Jordan asserted that Clinton had three options: tell the truth, admit uncertainty, or promote the video narrative—and he accused her of choosing the third.

Jordan further cited an email from Victoria Nuland 27 minutes after Clinton’s 10:08 p.m. statement. The email discussed political considerations regarding Republican criticism of the administration’s handling of Benghazi, which Jordan interpreted as evidence that the initial public statement prioritized political optics over factual accuracy.\

Clinton responded by defending the statements she made that night, asserting that they reflected the limited and rapidly evolving information available to her and the State Department. She argued that her use of the phrase “some have sought to justify” was carefully chosen to warn other governments and the public about unrest triggered by the video in other countries, including Tunisia and Sudan, where violent protests occurred around the same time.

Clinton emphasized the complexity of the situation, noting that different groups and individuals might have had multiple motivations for the attacks, and that the intelligence community was working to piece together incomplete information in real-time. She stressed that her priority was to communicate a measured message during a period of rapidly unfolding events across the region.

“Congressman, there was a lot of conflicting information that we were trying to make sense of,” Clinton said, highlighting that Ansar al-Sharia initially claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attack but later retracted their claim. She argued that statements made publicly about the video were intended to address broader regional security concerns, not to mislead the American public about the nature of the attack.

Clinton reiterated that the intelligence community played the central role in analyzing the situation and that her statements reflected the best information available at the time. She said, “We were not making up the intelligence. We were trying to get it, make sense of it, and then share it.”

The hearing illustrated the sharp partisan divide over how the events of Benghazi were communicated. Jordan accused Clinton of presenting conflicting narratives to different audiences, while Clinton defended her actions as careful and deliberate, emphasizing the challenges of responding to a fast-moving, dangerous situation. The debate continues to resonate as policymakers and the public reflect on the balance between national security, political considerations, and transparency in government communications.