This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Benghazi attack article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
2012 Benghazi attack was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of crime and criminal biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Material from 2012 Benghazi attack was split out into other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
At 5:00 p.m. ET, Obama, in a White House meeting with Panetta and Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, ordered military force to be used.[1]
before "At 5:41 p.m. ET," in the "Reaction in the United States" section.
2. Please add:
At 6:00 p.m. ET, Panetta, Dempsey, U.S. Africa Command Commander Carter Ham, and others met at the Pentagon. At 7:00 p.m. ET, Panetta ordered the following units to deploy: 1. two Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons, stationed in Rota, Spain; 2. a U.S. European Command Special Operations Forces Commander’s In-extremis Force (CIF), training in Central Europe; and 3. a U.S.-based special operations force (SOF). At a 7:30 p.m. ET interagency conference call with representatives from the White House, Pentagon, and State Department, officials concluded that Ambassador Stevens had been taken hostage, the attack in Benghazi was over, and the U.S. needed to direct its response to Tripoli and unrest in the region. In total, it took the military 23 hours to deploy forces to Libya."[2]
The hostage narrative first took hold at the 6 p.m. ET Pentagon meeting and became reinforced at the 7:30 p.m. ET interagency meeting. Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash testified: “…[Clinton] kind of told folks what the substance of the message was, and it was that a blond-haired individual had been found at the hospital. And I remember her saying, and I think others saying, well, that must be Ambassador Stevens, you know.” U.S. Africa Command Deputy Commander for Military Operations Charles Leidig confirmed that from 6 to 11 p.m. ET, U.S. Africa Command was focused on locating the ambassador.[3]
The belief that the cause of the Benghazi violence was due to an anti-Islamic film, Innocence of Muslims, also took hold at the 7:30 p.m. ET interagency meeting. Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for the Secretary of State Jake Sullivan would leave the meeting and writing talking points, conflating the attack with the anti-Islamic film in a statement that Clinton released at 10:08 p.m. ET. Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes would later copy sentences from this 10:08 p.m. ET statement to use in talking points for government officials, including for Susan Rice to use on the Sunday talk shows.[4]
before the “Assault on the CIA Annex” paragraph in the "Reaction in the United States" section.
3. Please add:
On September 11, after a 7:30 p.m. ET interagency conference call, Ben Rhodes and Jake Sullivan spoke on the phone to confirm and approve a U.S. government statement to be released in response to the attack. At 9:32 p.m. ET, Sullivan circulated a draft to Rhodes and others asking them to approve a State Department statement. Some phrases were changed in a 10:03 p.m. ET coordination email. After the officials approved the statement, and Clinton released a statement at 10:08 p.m. ET, which included the following sentences:
1. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
2. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
3. “There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.” [5]
at the beginning of the "U.S. Government response" section.
4. Please add:
Notably, Rhodes used the September 11, 10:08 p.m. ET statement for sentences in Obama’s September 12 Rose Garden remarks, which included the following sentences:
1. “We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.”
2. “But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”[6]
before the “After the attack” paragraph in the "U.S. Government response" section.
5. Please add:
Sullivan and State Department speechwriters also used the September 11, 10:08 p.m. ET statement for Clinton’s remarks on September 12 and 13. For the September 12 speech, this included the following sentences:
1. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”
2. “But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none.”[7]
before the “On September 12, it was reported” in the "U.S. Government response" section.
6. Please add:
In her September 13 “Remarks at the Opening Plenary of the U.S.-Morocco Strategic Dialogue” speech, Clinton used the following sentence copied from the September 11, 10:08 p.m. ET statement:
1. “I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries.”
2. “Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.”
3. “To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage. But as I said yesterday, there is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence.”[8]
before the “In his press briefing on September 14” paragraph in the "U.S. Government response" section.
7. Please add:
On September 14, Rhodes also used the September 11 10:08 p.m. ET statement to prepare talking points, including Susan Rice for the Sunday talk shows. He circulated the following statements, copied from the September 11, 10:08 p.m. ET statement:
1. “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.”
2. “Third, we’ve made our view on this video crystal clear. The United States government had nothing to do with it. We reject it message and its contents.”
3. “We find it disgusting and reprehensible. But there is absolutely no justification at all for responding this movie with violence.”[9]
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 12-13. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 13, 15, 117. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 124-25. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 22-26, 111-16, 125. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 22, 112-16. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 22, 112-13. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 22-23, 112-13. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 23, 112-13. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
^Podliska, Bradley F. (January 15, 2023). Fire Alarm: The Investigation of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Lexington Books. pp. 23-24, 112-13. ISBN 978-1-66690-616-5
Sentence Needs Rephrasing for Clarity and Citation
Sentence in question is under the "Attack" heading and "Assault on the compound" subheading as follows:
"This was known to be false at the time and was used to support the lie and cover-up that this was a terrorist attack."
"This" presumably refers to the previous sentence that stated the attackers acted in response to the video critical of Islam. The sentence quoted above could be clarified by specifying what person or persons "knew" the attackers were motivated by something other than the video, providing a source citation to that effect, and also providing a source citation for the assertion that the video protest explanation was a cover-up of terrorist motivations. The next sentence stating no more than seven personnel were in the compound at the time of the attack also needs a citation. Furchesl (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following sentence found under the "Attack" heading and "Reaction in the United States" subheading needs edits for clarity and foundation:
Diplomatic Security Service agents/Regional Security Officers informed their headquarters in Washington about the attack just as it was beginning at about 9:40 p.m. local time (3:40 p.m. Eastern Time (ET)).[citation needed] At the time, they were informed that the attack was a "terrorist attack".[verification needed]
The first sentence needs a citation for where the information originated. Also recommend replacing "their headquarters in Washington" with more precise language. DSS agents and RSOs are members of the Department of State (DoS), so this implies they informed their DoS headquarters. This is notable, because in the next sentence "they" appears to refer to the previously mentioned DSS/RSO headquarters (i.e., DoS); however, both of the cited articles for the second sentence describe notification of the attack within the Department of Defense (DoD). The major figures mentioned in both articles were the commander of the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Secretary of Defense. All of these are in the DoD, so the second sentence needs edits to make it clear it refers to DoD leadership, not DoS leadership. Also, it would be best to replace the citations with more reputable sources. The conservative-leaning Fox News is less reliable for politically related topics such as this, and the liberal-leaning NY Daily News is less reliable for international topics. Alternatively, these two sentences and the following paragraph should probably be moved to the "Responsibility" subheading. In fact, the second paragraph under the "Reaction in the United States" subheading is largely duplicated by the fifth paragraph under the "Responsibility" subheading.LtDan263 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the last sentence in the page content as a correct summary of the cited Dickerson article. Recommend review:
John Dickerson of Slate says the e-mail refers to the worldwide protests against Innocence of Muslims and not the Benghazi attack.[260][verification needed]
In the article, Jon Dickerson acknowledges that the administration stated the e-mail phrase in question pertained to video protests, but he then argues that the e-mail phrase was actually about the attack and that the administration is playing word games to deny it. Thus, I believe this sentence needs revision. LtDan263 (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the overall first paragraph of the article and in the first paragraph under the "Attack" heading, the time of the mortar attack that killed Woods and Doherty is 4:00 a.m. Under the "Attack" heading / "Assault on the CIA annex" subheading, however, the arrival of the CIA team from Tripoli (which included Doherty) is put at 5:00 a.m.--a full hour after the mortar attack that killed Doherty. Thus, either the Tripoli team and Doherty arrived earlier than 5:00 a.m. or the mortar attack occurred later than 5:00 a.m. I believe it is the latter, as reports published after congressional investigations placed the Tripoli team's arrival at 5:00 a.m. and the subsequent mortar attack around 5:15 a.m. I recommend cleaning up the timeline. LtDan263 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
