What was Hillary Clinton’s role in Benghazi? It depends whom you ask.

What happened during a deadly 2012 assault in Benghazi, which left four Americans dead? Competing reports by Democratic and Republican investigators offer different versions of events.

Carolyn Kaster/AP/File
Democratic presidential candidate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington before the House Select Committee on Benghazi in October 2015. Mrs. Clinton never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional security at the US outpost in Benghazi, Libya, according to Democrats on a select House panel who absolved the former secretary of State and the US military of wrongdoing in the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

The confusion over the attacks on a diplomatic outpost and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, seems no closer to dissipating, as Democrats and Republicans appear to be releasing competing and contradictory reports.

The assault, which took place on Sept. 11, 2012, and claimed the lives of four Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens, has been the subject of a two-year investigation, staffed by members of the House from both sides of the aisle.

Its primary objective has been to investigate the actions of senior US military and civilian officials, not least then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to see whether they could have done more to prevent the loss of life. The panel's five Democrats released their  report, Monday, in advance of the majority Republicans’ findings, released Tuesday morning.

In the Democratic report, the US military and the former secretary of State are absolved of any wrongdoing, the authors insisting that the US military could not have done anything differently on the night of the attacks to save the lives of the four Americans who perished.

The report says that the State Department's security measures  were "woefully inadequate," but that Mrs. Clinton never personally turned down a request for additional security.

In the Republican report, the House panel's chairman, Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, said that the report documents that the US was slow to send help to the Americans in Benghazi "because of an obsession with hurting the Libyans' feelings."

On Monday, a copy of a Republican-authored report, obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, accuses the Obama administration of "misleading the public over the incident and failing to protect U.S. personnel."

In that report, which labels Benghazi as the "wild east," Republican Representatives Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Jim Jordan of Ohio castigate Clinton for her role in the incident.

Another section of the report focused on whether street protests precipitated the attacks says a number of eyewitnesses remained in almost constant contact with officials in Washington during the attack. The report says none of the eyewitnesses mentioned a protest.

A redacted portion of the report says that a witness to the attack updated officials in Washington every 15 to 30 minutes throughout the night.

With the presidential election just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly," the report reads.

In addition, the White House and the investigating panel are at loggerheads as to whether President Obama should have to answer questions already submitted by the panel for the president's consideration.

"If the president were to answer your questions," reads a letter by Neil Eggleston, counsel to the president, obtained by Politico, "his response would suggest that Congress has the unilateral power to demand answers from the president about his official acts."

The fact that the Democrats have released their own report, while sitting on the same panel as Republicans, serves to heighten the partisanship of the inquiry, yet they said they were left with no choice, accusing Republicans of leading "one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history."

The dueling Benghazi reports could have political repercussions for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Clinton, and the Benghazi investigation has already uncovered her use of a private email server to conduct government business, now the subject of an FBI investigation.

The Democrats' report states that the cause of the attacks "remains unclear to this day," quoting testimony by David Petraeus, in which the former CIA director says, "To be candid with you, I am not sure that the amount of scrutiny spent on this has been in the least bit worth it."

Material from the Associated Press was used in this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.