Share This Page

Witness rips Benghazi actions

| Monday, May 6, 2013, 12:01 a.m.

The deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya during a 2012 attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi told investigators that he thought it was a terrorist strike right from the beginning, according to interview excerpts released on Sunday on “Face the Nation.”

“I thought it was a terrorist attack from the get-go. I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning,” Gregory Hicks said in an interview with investigators shared with the CBS News show. The excerpt was one of several host Bob Schieffer revealed on the Sunday program.

Hicks is one of the witnesses called to testify this week before the House Oversight Committee about the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“For there to have been a demonstration on Chris Stevens' front door and him not to have reported it is unbelievable,” Hicks said.

“I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate. Chris — Chris' last report, if you want to say his final report — is ‘Greg, we are under attack.' … I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day,” Hicks continued in his interview with investigators.

Shortly after the attack, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice characterized the assault as a spontaneous attack. Rice's spot on “Face the Nation” that day was preceded by the new president of Libya, Mohammed al-Magariaf, who said his government had “no doubt that this was preplanned, predetermined.”

The Obama administration later said the attack was an act of terror.

“Clearly, there was a political decision to say something different than what was reasonable to say,” House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said on “Face the Nation.”

Hicks said in the days after the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, he was never consulted about the talking points.

According to the excerpts of his interview with investigators, Hicks said that on the morning after Rice's Sunday show appearances, he called Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Beth Jones to ask why Rice had said that. Hicks said Jones told him that she didn't know.

Hicks said that Rice's contradicting Magariaf caused the Libyan president embarrassment and hindered the U.S. investigation into the attacks.

“The reason it took us so long to get the FBI to Benghazi is because of those Sunday talk shows,” Hicks said. Magariaf lost face “in front of not only his own people, but the world” at a time of democratic transition in his country, he said.

“I have heard from a friend who had dinner with President Magariaf in New York City that he was still angry at Ambassador Rice well after the incident.”

This week's hearing is expected to focus on claims in a recent Republican committee report that the State Department massaged public statements about the attack to eliminate or play down the likelihood of a terrorist connection.

That long-standing GOP claim may be better supported by documents the committee reviewed in recent months that chart the changes in language over several days following the attack.

Republicans are focusing on the scope and mandate of an independent review of the attack called an Accountability Review Board, amid accusations that potential witnesses were excluded from the review.

State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said the review was comprehensive and the decisions about whom to interview were made by the outside inquiry board, not the State Department.

CBS News contributed to this report.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.