Barack, Benghazi, and Bungles: Tracing the Obama Administration's Handling of the Benghazi Attacks

By Paul Baumgardner
Cornell International Affairs Review
2013, Vol. 6 No. 2 | pg. 2/2 |

III. Post-Election Updates

On November 16, former Director of the CIA David Petraeus met with legislative officials for the first time since his resignation.35 While speaking to House and Senate Intelligence Committees, Petraeus reported that the Obama administration immediately knew of the terrorist involvement in the Benghazi attacks, and yet elected to mislead the American public, but for good reason:

"Classified intelligence reports revealed that the deadly assault on the American diplomatic mission in Libya was a terrorist attack, but the administration refrained from saying it suspected that the perpetrators of the attack were Al Qaeda affiliates and sympathizers to avoid tipping off the groups… avoiding alerting the militants that American intelligence and law enforcement agencies were tracking them."36

After more than two months of disagreement over the extent of the Obama administration's knowledge of the events, Petraeus's testimony convinced many legislators that the president's weak initial explanations had less to do with slow and contradictory intelligence, and more to do with national security concerns and maybe even political considerations. After Petraeus's hearing, the White House adamantly denied that the administration's discreet, and less than truthful, early responses were motivated by anything other than the noblest reasons.37

President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stand during the transfer of remains ceremony, celebrating the sacrifice of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who were killed in the attack

President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stand during the transfer of remains ceremony, celebrating the sacrifice of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, who were killed in the attack.

On December 18th, the State Department released its Accountability Review Board (ARB) report of the Benghazi attacks, in order to assess the government's preparedness and response to the attacks, as well as provide recommendations to protect against future assaults on American diplomatic posts. In the report, the ARB affirmed what the American public had come to accept: the attacks were not the natural outgrowths of spontaneous protests against Innocence of Muslims, but were "terrorist attacks" and "there was no protest prior to the attacks."38

After requesting more aid and personnel authorization from Congress, the ARB report admitted of "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels," as well as significant flaws in the intelligence community.39 Instead of sharply criticizing the Obama administration's misuse of on-hand and accurate intelligence, the ARB report harangued the intelligence community for early inaccuracies in the Benghazi narrative, claiming "known gaps existed in the intelligence community's understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests."40

Months after the attack, and the presidential election, controversy has continued to follow the Obama administration's handling of the foreign incident. When at a Senate hearing on January 23rd, Secretary Clinton was barraged with questions concerning Benghazi. Clinton responded to Senator Ron Johnson's questions about the inaccuracy of initial assessments, and the extent to which the Obama administration went to mislead the American public, by telling the Senate: "What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."41 It has become apparent to political observers that the administration is purposely shifting its public posture towards future prevention and away from mention of past indiscretions.

IV. Conclusion

Almost one month after the Benghazi tragedy, U.S. State Department officials publicly acknowledged that protests did not predate the attacks.42 Previously, President Obama and other high-level personnel in the administration had maintained that the attacks were outgrowths of protests against an offensive online video. Even after intelligence officials and foreign politicians had come to solid conclusions on the Benghazi attacks, President Obama refused to make public statements about the known nature of the attacks and, as David Petraeus has argued, the president even withheld valuable intelligence from Congress and the American public. In the aftermath of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, FBI investigations have been slow and erratic, and the Obama administration has been remarkably vague and unhelpful to Congress when dealing with new information pertaining to the attacks.

The White House adamantly denied that the administration's discreet, and less than truthful, early responses were motivated by anything other than the noblest reasons

To date, no report has explicitly and compellingly connected the inadequacies of Obama's responses to campaign considerations, and some data actually highlights how the president's cagey disposition about Benghazi adversely affected his campaign. After reviewing the administration's investigations, handlings of the press, and inter-branch relationships following the Benghazi attacks, I believe that the Obama administration wanted to keep this issue out of the political forefront, and this political agenda led to numerous oversights and bungles. It would be foolish, however, to heap all of the blame on the White House.

Concrete evidence leads us to conclude that the shifting, incoherent nature of the nation's response to Benghazi represents the product of a perfect political storm, caused by many actors—from a campaign trail president to intelligence gatherers to foreign heads of state—approaching this foreign affairs crisis with different aims, checks, resources, and personal interests.


  8. Ibid.
  12. Ibid.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Ibid.
  34. Ibid.
  36. Ibid.
  37. Ibid.
  39. Ibid.
  40. Ibid.

Suggested Reading from Inquiries Journal

In 1972, The Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced to Congress to protect an individual’s irrefutable equality of rights under the law regardless of sex. Although it passed both houses and failed to secure the... MORE»
The Haqqani Network has proven itself to be one of the most deadly, daring and inventive terrorist organizations in modern times. Based in the Pakistani tribal lands of North Waziristan, the network has a deep relationship... MORE»
The Obama presidency will largely be defined by the administration’s ability to respond to the unique and historic challenge facing the country at the time of his inauguration: the Great Recession. This paper evaluates the president’s success throughout both of his terms in enacting an economic policy, which was largely... MORE»
Gun control and federal reform of firearm legislation have recently become popular and contentious topics in Washington D.C. and around the country. Yet despite vast public support, none of the legislation proposed by the Obama administration has been enacted. The Obama administration and the several Congresses that have served... MORE»
Submit to Inquiries Journal, Get a Decision in 10-Days

Inquiries Journal provides undergraduate and graduate students around the world a platform for the wide dissemination of academic work over a range of core disciplines.

Representing the work of students from hundreds of institutions around the globe, Inquiries Journal's large database of academic articles is completely free. Learn more | Blog | Submit

Follow IJ

Latest in International Affairs

2022, Vol. 14 No. 04
With over 10 million stateless people globally, statelessness has increasingly become a pressing issue in international law. The production of statelessness occurs across multiple lines including technical loopholes, state succession, and discriminatory... Read Article »
2021, Vol. 13 No. 09
The COVID-19 crisis has exacerbated current global challenges. However, this article argues that this time of crisis can also be a unique opportunity for the existing global economic institutions - G20, WTO, IMF, and World Bank (WB) - to make the... Read Article »
2021, Vol. 13 No. 02
On January 1st, 1959, a small band of Cuban rebels shocked the world, overthrowing the American-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. These rebels were especially known for their guerrilla tactics and their leaders, such as Fidel Castro and Ernesto... Read Article »
2021, Vol. 13 No. 01
Israel has increased the nation’s security presence around the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank. Here, the research project analyzes how transaction costs resulting from Israeli security policy impact the output of manufacturing activities... Read Article »
2020, Vol. 12 No. 09
The necessity of international relief is unending as new crises continue to emerge across the world. International aid plays a crucial role in shaping how affected communities rebuild after a crisis. However, humanitarian aid often results in a... Read Article »
2019, Vol. 11 No. 10
This article aims to present the biopiracy of traditional knowledge from India by the United States, which has occurred directly through the use of patent law and indirectly through economic power and cultural imperialism. Throughout this essay,... Read Article »
2018, Vol. 10 No. 10
After joining the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 2004, Estonians felt secure and in charge of their future. However, following the 2007 Bronze Horseman incident in the Estonian capital of Tallinn which included... Read Article »

What are you looking for?


What is the Secret to Success?
How to Use Regression Analysis Effectively
5 Tips for Publishing Your First Academic Article