Final Blog Post

Over this course I have gained a greater understanding of writing.  It may seem odd to say that I learned more about writing, excluding grammatical concepts, in a writing course.  But I have learned that the way in which an author writes not only says more then they may have intended, but it does follow some common principles.  Writing can be broken down and categorized by purpose, forwarding, countering, rewriting etc.  But this aspect of writing goes hand in hand with the news.  As an avid watcher of the news I can see how an article represents the underlying position of the author, regardless of their intention. Yet, there is more to it.  Writing is typically viewed from the perspective of students as a method of simply responding to a subject and providing a summary or even their own point of view.  But writing when combined with news becomes a tool in which opinions are shifted, solidified, questioned, or released. Perhaps I’m beating around the bush, but the point that I’ve taken from this course is that writing exhibits more of its potential when it is used in context of the news and reversely the news wouldn’t be as powerful or influential, as it is now, without these varying characteristics that make up the art of writing.  But ultimately, what will that really do for me?  What I will take from this class is a greater understanding of how to write for an audience.

Extended Essay 2 Final

Benghazi and Beyond

On the night of September 11, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; the U.S consulate in Benghazi, Libya came under siege.  Militants stormed the consulate grounds, blocking off the streets around them, armed with AK-47s and rocket launchers.  Just hours before the attack, the streets were filled with protestors angry over a film posted on YouTube that depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an offensive way.  Were these two events related?  Was there any warning and could this have been prevented?  These questions and others began to surface as the fog surrounding this attack began to lift.  This story not only clearly represents the change and growth that news stories exhibit as they travel over time and from source to source, but it also shows how sources themselves use the story to forward it and evolve it into an image that reflects their beliefs and designs.  In fact, it can be divided into three main stages, What, Who, and Why.

            September 11, 2012, the very same day as the attack, the American public receives its first accounts of what would be known as the “Battle of Benghazi”.  The Agence France Presse at 9:43PM GMT published an article with the titled, Mob sets fire to US consulate in Benghazi: witness.  The opening line reads, “An armed mob protesting over a film they said offended Islam, attacked the US consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi on Tuesday and set fire to the building, witnesses reported” (AFP).  The details were scarce, there were no confirmed reports of any injured or killed, and many in the world had never heard of this offensive film.  The AFP’s only desire was to attract an audience by reporting what they did know and speculating what they did not.  But the AFP did make the claim that whether these two events were correlated had yet to be confirmed.  Nevertheless, it was not too far of a leap for the public, nor the media, to make that connection themselves.  After all, “Nearly 3,000 demonstrators gathered at the embassy in protest over a film deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed”(AFP).  With such a large uproar and the mention of another protest, “The attack happened on the same day as a similar group of hardliners waving black banners attacked the US embassy in Cairo and tore down the US flag”(AFP), the article does, inadvertently, support this speculation.  This stage of the story’s development is what I would call What.  The story began to take the form of a protest gone horribly awry: all thanks to the film, Innocence of Muslims.

            The following day the public woke to unfortunate news.  USA Today opened with the headline, Libya: U.S. staffer dies in attack on consulate.  Even on the other side of the Atlantic, London’s The Daily Telegraph opened with, American dies in Libya protests.  The media still speculated that the film was responsible for the attack, but the only thing certain was, “An American was shot to death as protesters burned the U.S Consulate in Benghazi”(USAToday).  Still, the attention began to center around the director, Sam Bacile, of this controversial film.  Who was he?  What amount of responsibility does he hold?  Headlines, many like The Atlantic Wire’s Sam Bacile: The Mysterious Filmmaker Who Set the Muslim World on Fire and ABC New’s Who Is Sam Bacile? Anti-Islam Filmmaker’s Bio Doesn’t Add Up, began to encompass the majority of media reports.  The Washington Post made it clear from the start where they felt the blame lied, “The director of a controversial anti-Islam film has gone into hiding, according to reports, fearing reprisals over a work that has sparked violence in Egypt and has been linked to events in Libya”.  Interestingly, while the undertone of the media was a unified condemnation of Basile, they, regardless of political bias, were united in their depiction and reactions.  The Huffington Post expressed how all other media stations felt:

The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi that took place last night were deplorable….Yes, the anti-Muslim movie of the allegedly Israeli-American filmmaker in California that sparked the riots was repulsive and offensive; but no insult, no matter how grave, justifies even the murder….(TheHuffingtonPost).

This is extremely surprising; you can usually find large differences between the many news sources because of their political biases.  However, their unification may be due to the fact that the topic at hand is so sensitive that the public would view any arguing negatively. 

Ironically, while the majority of the media seemed to be in agreement, for once, the rhetoric was completely different in the blogosphere.  The revelation that an American had been killed had set the blogosphere on fire.  Sean Scallon’s posted on an article by Daniel Larison of The American Conservative that there was no “better example” for the U.S not to get involved in foreign affairs.  Scallon goes, as far as to say this is our repayment for “their freed from the evil Gaddafi”.  I cannot help but find this a base and unjust accusation: wrongful generalization of an entire people based on the actions of some.  Although I disagree with Scallon, many echoed his feelings.  Fortunately, not everyone was so quick to criticize the Libyan people.  A commenter on Larison’s article who goes by the name “Reflectionephemeral” responded, “Well, ‘the people’ isn’t an undifferentiated mass; is this mob truly representative of ‘what Libyans want’, any more than the Birmingham church bomber showed that Americans didn’t want desegregation”.  These varying views of who holds blame, the Libyan people or the filmmaker, became a key moment for the story as a whole.  Here we see a new focus being introduced to the story: it is no longer solely “what happened”, but “who is accountable”. 

As you can guess, this is the start of the second stage of this story’s development, Who.  But what truly is amazing about this story is the speed at which it develops.  Later that same day, September 12, 2012, the story again begins to change focus.  This time it is the blame, Who, that is redirected.  By the time the Defense Department’s release new information had surfaced that the casualty count had been raised to four, among them U.S Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.  In the Defense Department’s report they express remorse for the loss of all American citizens, including the Ambassador.  They provided details of the events of the attack, those they knew, by time.  However, eyebrows were raised when they stated, “The complex attack will require a full investigation”.  This seemed to indicate that the attack was more than some fluke. Naturally, the media and public’s focuses switched and yet again and this story, for the third time in one day, changed from “who was Sam Bacile” to “what did the government know”.

Speculations were at full speed and it didn’t take long till for it to show: CBS Morning News gave a broadcast report titled Libyan Official on attack: Took months of planning.  Over the following days it became clear that the attack was not a spontaneous response from the protests, but a long planned terrorist attack that used the protests to its advantage.  In the week following the Defense Department’s statement, Fox News created an article, Lawmaker’s ‘suspicious’ administration ‘trying to hide’ Libya attack details, which, as the name indicates, states that some lawmakers were beginning to suspect that the Obama Administration and the Intelligence Department were keeping details of the attack from the public and press.  Democrats and Republicans alike demanded information and explanations.  Fox News led the way in pressing the issue by reporting that Intelligence officials “knew within 24 hours” that the assault was a terrorist attack.  “The account sharply conflicted with claims by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on the Sunday after the attack that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film” (FoxNews).  I myself, although not a supporter of Fox, cannot help but agree with them on this case.  The point in fact was that the government had contradicted itself, and that was rightful cause for suspicion. In fact, I wasn’t alone: this stark governmental contradiction of itself was enough to bring most of the media and public back on the basis of where the blame, Who, lied.  

Even famous blogger Andrew Sullivan voiced his opinion.  In a response to Reason.com’s Nick Gillepsie’s comment, “But even assuming the ‘Innocence’ was the cause of the attack on the consulate, that doesn’t exonerate American incompetence in protecting its people there”, he agrees.  At the same time, Sullivan makes it a point that these events are taking place during a presidential debate and this “deft politicking” shouldn’t be used, though likely to be, to gain a political edge (Sullivan).  This is a very interesting concept that Sullivan highlights.  One must be aware of whether or not the blame is politically motivated.  At the time of this story’s development, the 2012 presidential campaigns were ongoing.  With this in mind, I see this as a key factor in the finalization of the Who element.

            Drawing on the concept of the “blame” being politically motivated, we do indeed see a division in the Who.  In fact, this split correlates back to my original mention of how sources will often forward stories in a way that reflects their policy.  While the public and media’s consensus remained united in its belief that the government was responsible for the overall events that occurred in Libya there were differences in which part, or which individual specifically, of the government held the most responsibility.  Many conservative new sources began to cite President Obama, and/or his Administration, as ultimately responsible for the attack on the consulate.  In a recent blog post in which I rewrote a specific article, I had rewritten a conservative based article for a new audience (they being more liberal), and in doing so I came across and article that illustrates this.  Michael Goodwin’s, Now we know—President Obama was MIA on Benghazi, attacks Obama’s handing of the Benghazi attack; before, during, and after.  The majority though focuses on the his actions throughout the attack, claiming President Obama was absent from any decision making and gave little attention to the matter.  Michael Goodwin goes on to say, “His detachment during a terrorist attack was a shameful dereliction of duty.”  Personally, I find this article extremely unfair and obviously bias.  It does not focus on what the government knew before hand, nor does it try to tie that idea in with what Obama knew prior to the attack, and it does not focus on his Administration.  However, it does exemplify how sources forward stories to support their own beliefs, this showing an attempt to reduce support for Obama.  This type of rhetoric encompassed most of the comments from the Rights, but not all.  Many Democrats and even some Republicans spoke out against this unjust attack. 

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke out on Fox News in defense of President Obama, roughly arguing that in these types of situations things are foggy and “we don’t have all the pieces”.  Rice reiterates what many defenders of Obama felt, “I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here” (MSNBC).  This contrasting “Obama is to blame” and “Obama is not to blame” rhetoric is the final development of Who in this story.  Rice’s comment drew surprise and criticism, but it seemed to have the necessary effect.  Although I’ll be it, maybe not the effect hoped for. So, this leaves us with the last element, Why.  And this Why has only of recently been closed.

            Over the following months, members of the government, from General Panetta to Hilary Clinton, testified in front of Congress over their knowledge of the threat of the terror attack and their actions leading up to it.  The Why element centers around what the government knew prior to the attack, and why they did not prepare for it.  From the hearings the overall impression appeared, “All these circumstances has been faithfully briefed to him by United States Africa Command commander General Carter Ham.  So why did he take no action?  Because there was no formal request from the State Department to do so” (TheFoundry).  My opinion reflects that of many, the government without a doubt “dropped the ball”.  It turned out that the government had been aware of the threat of the attack on the consulate, but had done nothing to prevent or fortify it.  This is without a doubt and inexcusable failure to protect American citizens and grounds.  To summarize the outcome, Hilary Clinton took full responsibility for the governmental failure of preventing the assault and formally resigned as Secretary of State on February 1, 2013.  The Huffington Post reported:

An independent panel she convened to look into the incident was scathing in its criticism of the State Department….But it also determined that there was no guarantee that extra personnel could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. Clinton herself was not blamed, although she has said she accepted responsibility for the situation (Klapper&Lee).

Although Clinton takes responsibility for the situation, I find myself in disagreement.  She may have been responsible, but certainly there were others that held responsibility too.  With her term nearing its end, she decided to take the responsibility as her own.  Her decision to accept all the blame can be viewed as either admirable or foolish.  Regardless, this effectively ends the Why aspect and, therefore, the story itself.  At least for now.

         This story, like many other news stories, started off with little to no variation in its reporting amongst its differing sources.  However, as new information was obtained we saw how the focus began to shift.  It was no longer a focus on What had happened as much as Who was to blame.  During this transition, we could see branching in the story’s direction.  Some portrayed the story in the context of what happened and why it was Obama’s fault, while others portrayed what happened and why it was the government’s fault.  In the end, the story ended with Why.  What and Who were brought back around and solidified as now former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton accepted responsibility. In the future, historians or scholars may revisit this story to see if they can find anything overlooked, but for now this story is laid to rest.

Benghazi and Beyond

Benghazi and Beyond

On the night of September 11, 2012, the eleventh anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; the U.S consulate in Benghazi, Libya came under siege. Militants stormed the consulate grounds, blocking off the streets around them, armed with AK-47s and rocket launchers.  Just hours before the attack, the streets were filled with protestors angry over a film posted on YouTube that depicted the Prophet Muhammad in an offensive way.  Were these two events related? Was there any warning and could this have been prevented?  These questions and others began to surface as the fog surrounding this attack began to lift.  This story not only clearly represents the change and growth that news stories exhibit as they travel over time and from source to source, but it also shows how sources themselves use the story to forward it and evolve it into an image that reflects their beliefs and designs.  In fact, it can be divided into three main stages, the what, the who, and the why.

            September 11, 2012, the very same day as the attack, the American public receives its first accounts of what would be known as the “Battle of Benghazi”.  The Agence France Presse at 9:43PM GMT published an article with the titled, Mob sets fire to US consulate in Benghazi: witness.  The opening line read, “An armed mob protesting over a film they said offended Islam, attacked the US consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi on Tuesday and set fire to the building, witnesses reported” (AFP).  The details were scarce, there were no confirmed reports of any injured or killed, and many in the world had never heard of this offensive film.  The AFP’s only desire was to attract an audience by reporting what they did know and speculating what they did not.  But the AFP did make the claim that whether these two events were correlated had yet to be confirmed.  Nevertheless, it was not too far of a leap for the public, nor the media, to make that connection themselves.  After all, “Nearly 3,000 demonstrators gathered at the embassy in protest over a film deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed”(AFP).  With such a large uproar and the mention of another protest, “The attack happened on the same day as a similar group of hardliners waving black banners attacked the US embassy in Cairo and tore down the US flag”(AFP), the article does, inadvertently, support this speculation.  This stage of the story’s development is what I would call the “What”.  The story began to take the form of a protest gone horribly awry: all thanks to the film, Innocence of Muslims.

            The following day the public woke to unfortunate news.  USA Today opened with the headline, Libya: U.S. staffer dies in attack on consulate.  Even on the other side of the Atlantic, London’s The Daily Telegraph opened with, American dies in Libya protests.  The media still speculated that the film was responsible for the attack, but the only thing certain was, “An American was shot to death as protesters burned the U.S Consulate in Benghazi”(USAToday).  Still, the attention began to center around the director, Sam Bacile, of this controversial film.  Who was he? What amount of responsibility does he hold?  Headlines, many like The Atlantic Wire’s Sam Bacile: The Mysterious Filmmaker Who Set the Muslim World on Fire and ABC New’s Who Is Sam Bacile? Anti-Islam Filmmaker’s Bio Doesn’t Add Up, began to encompass the majority of media reports.  The Washington Post made it clear from the start where they felt the blame lied, “The director of a controversial anti-Islam film has gone into hiding, according to reports, fearing reprisals over a work that has sparked violence in Egypt and has been linked to events in Libya”.  Interestingly, while the undertone of the media was a unified condemnation of Basile, they regardless of political bias, were united in their depiction and reactions.  The Huffington Post expressed how all other media stations felt:

The attacks on the U.S. embassies in Cairo and Benghazi that took place last night were deplorable….Yes, the anti-Muslim movie of the allegedly Israeli-American filmmaker in California that sparked the riots was repulsive and offensive; but no insult, no matter how grave, justifies even the murder….(TheHuffingtonPost).

This is extremely surprising; you can usually find large differences between the many news sources because of their political bias.  However, their unification may be due to the fact that the topic at hand is so sensitive that the public would view any arguing negatively.  Ironically, while the major media seemed to be in agreement, for once, the rhetoric was completely different in the blogosphere.  The revelation that an American had been killed had set the blogosphere on fire.  Sean Scallon’s posted on an article by Daniel Larison of The American Conservative:

I can’t think of a better example in support non-interventionism than in this case. Here’s is your new Libya. You paid for the bombs which created it. And how do its grateful citizens repay for their freedom from the evil Gadafi? By killing the U.S. Ambassador over an unknown film the U.S. government had nothing to do with (TheAmericanConservative).

This was a base and unjust accusation, but many echoed Scallon’s feelings.  However, not everyone was so quick to criticize the Libyan people.  A commenter on Larison’s article who goes by the name “Reflectionephemeral” responded, “Well, ‘the people’ isn’t an undifferentiated mass; is this mob truly representative of ‘what Libyans want’, any more than the Birmingham church bomber showed that Americans didn’t want desegregation?”.  These varying views of who holds blame, the Libyan people or the filmmaker, became a key moment for the story as a whole.  Here we see a new focus being introduced to the story: it is no longer---solely---what happened, but who is accountable.  As you can guess, this is the start of the second stage of this story’s development---the “Who”.  But what truly is amazing about this story is the speed at which it develops.  Later that same day, September 12, 2012, the story again begins to change focus.  This time it is the blame, the “Who”, that is redirected.

            By the time the Defense Department’s release new information had surfaced that the casualty count had been raised to four; among them U.S Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.   In the Defense Department’s report they express remorse for the loss of all American citizens, including the Ambassador.  They provided details of the events of the attack, as they knew them, by time.   However, eyebrows were raised when they stated, “The complex attack will require a full investigation”.  This seemed to indicate that the attack was more than some fluke.  Immediately the media and public’s focuses switched and yet again this story, for the third time in one day, changed from “who was Sam Bacile?” to “what did the government know?”.  Speculations were at full speed and it didn’t take long till for it to show: CBS Morning News gave a broadcast report titled Libyan Official on attack: Took months of planning.  Over the following days it became clear that the attack was not a spontaneous response from the protests, but a long planned terrorist attack that used the protests to its advantage. In the week following the Defense Department’s statement, Fox News created an article, Lawmaker’s ‘suspicious’ administration ‘trying to hide’ Libya attack details, which, as the name indicates, states that some lawmakers were beginning to suspect that the Obama Administration and the Intelligence Department were keeping details of the attack from the public and press.  Democrats and Republicans alike demanded information and explanations.  Fox News led the way in pressing the issue:

Intelligence sources told Fox News on Thursday that U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved.  The account sharply conflicted with claims by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice on the Sunday after the attack that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film (FoxNews).

I myself, although not a supporter of Fox, cannot help but agree with them on this case.  In fact, I wasn’t alone: this stark governmental contradiction of itself was enough to bring most of the media and public back on the basis of where the blame, the “Who”, lied.  Even famous blogger Andrew Sullivan voiced his opinion.  In a response to Reason.com’s Nick Gillepsie’s comment, “But even assuming the ‘Innocence’ was the cause of the attack on the consulate, that doesn’t exonerate American incompetence in protecting its people there”, he responds:

Agreed on the last point. But one should also take into account the fog of the post-Qaddafi state, where militias roam, and confusion can rein – and the legitimate need for a government not to credit al Qaeda until absolutely certain. But that there was some rather deft politicking about something that really should not be exploited politically is a black mark (Sullivan).

This is a very interesting concept that Sullivan points out.  One must be aware of whether or not the blame is politically motivated.  At the time of this story’s development, the 2012 presidential campaigns were ongoing.  I for one see this as a key factor in the finalization of the “Who” element.

            Drawing on the concept of the “blame” being politically motivated, we do indeed see a division in the “Who” element.  In fact, this split correlates back to my original mention of how sources will often forward stories in a way that reflects their policy.  While the public and media’s consensus remained united in its belief that the government was responsible for the overall events that occurred in Libya there were differences in which part, or which individual specifically, of the government held the most responsibility.  Many conservative new sources began to cite President Obama, and/or his Administration, as ultimately responsible for the attack on the consulate.  In a recent blog post in which I rewrote a specific article, I had rewrote a conservative based article for a new audience (they being more liberal), and in doing so I came across such an article.  Michael Goodwin’s, Now we know—President Obama was MIA on Benghazi, attacks Obama’s handing of the Benghazi attack; before, during, and after.  The majority though focuses on the his actions throughout the attack: 

It would be nice to know what Obama did during the nearly 11 hours from the start of the first attack until that plane left Libya, but in truth, we know enough to understand the meaning. His detachment during a terrorist attack was a shameful dereliction of duty (Goodwin).

Personally, I find this article extremely unfair and obviously bias.  It does not focus on what the government knew before hand, nor does it try to tie that idea in with what Obama knew prior to the attack, and it does not focus on his Administration.  However, it does exemplify how sources forward stories to support their own beliefs, this being to try and reduce support for Obama.  This type of rhetoric encompassed most of the comments from the Rights, but not all.  Many Democrats and even some Republicans spoke out against this unjust attack.  Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke out in defense of President Obama: 

The former Secretary of State told Fox News host Greta Van Susteren that Americans should allow the proper officials to carry out their investigation of the September attacks in Benghazi.  “We don’t have all of the pieces,” Rice said, “and I think it’s easy to try and jump to conclusions about what might have happened here.” (MSNBC).

Rice’s comment drew surprise and criticism itself, but it seemed to have the necessary effect. This contrasting “Obama is to blame” and “Obama is not to blame” rhetoric is the final development of the “Who” element of this story.  That leaves us with the last element, the “Why”.  And this “Why” has only of recently been closed.

            Over the following months, members of the government, from General Panetta to Hilary Clinton, testified in front of Congress over their knowledge of the threat of the terror attack and their actions leading up to it.  The “Why” element centers around what the government knew prior to the attack, and why they did not prepare for it.  From the hearings the overall impression appeared:

All of these circumstances had been faithfully briefed to him by United States Africa Command commander General Carter Ham. So why did he take no action? Because there was no formal request from the State Department to do so (TheFoundry).

My opinion reflects that of many, the government without a doubt “dropped the ball”.  To summarize the outcome, Hilary Clinton took full responsibility for the governmental failure of preventing the assault and formally resigned as Secretary of State on February 1, 2013.   The Huffington Post reported:

An independent panel she convened to look into the incident was scathing in its criticism of the State Department and singled out four officials for serious management and leadership failures. But it also determined that there was no guarantee that extra personnel could have prevented the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans. Clinton herself was not blamed, although she has said she accepted responsibility for the situation (Klapper&Lee).

Although Clinton takes responsibility for the situation, I find myself in disagreement.  She may have been responsible, but certainly there were others responsible too.  Her decision to accept all the blame can be viewed as either admirable or foolish.  Regardless, this effectively ends the “Why” aspect and, therefore, the story itself.  At least for now.

            In following this story, we have seen how this story has developed over its life, the what (what does this story report on/what event(s) occurred), the who (where does responsibility lie/who is to blame), and the why (how are the first two elements tied together/how is the story concluded and brought full circle).   All stories will often differ in their development due to their differing natures, but they will usually develop along this similar path.  This story, like many other news’ stories, started off with little to no variation in its reporting amongst its differing sources.  However, as new information was obtained we saw how the focus began to shift. It was no longer a focus on “What” had happened as much as “Who” was to blame.  During this we could see branching in the story’s direction.  Some portrayed the story in the context of what happened and why it was Obama’s fault, while others portrayed what happened and why it was the government’s fault.  In the end, the story ended with the “Why”.  The “What” and “Who” were brought back around and solidified as now former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton accepted responsibility.  In the future, historians or scholars may revisit this story to see if they can find anything overlooked, but for now we close the book on this story.

Bibliography

"American Attack." CBS This Morning. CBS: 17 Sept 2012. Television. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7421970n

"American dies in Libya protests." The Daily Telegraph (London). (September 12, 2012 Wednesday ): 252 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/03/02.

Baddar, Omar. "Cairo and Benghazi Attacks: Addressing the Deeper Problem." The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 12 Sept 2012. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omar-baddar/cairo-and-benghazi-attack_b_1878400.html

Baier, Bret, and Catherine Herridge. "Lawmakers 'suspicious' administration 'trying to hide' Libya attack details." FoxNews. Fox News, 27 Sept 2012. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/27/lawmakers-uspicious-administration-trying-to-hide-libya-attack-details/

Dale, Helle,"Benghazi: A Tale of Two Senate Hearings." The Foundry. The Foundry, 07 Feb 2013. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://blog.heritage.org/2013/02/07/benghazi-a-tale-of-two-senate-hearings/

Goldman, Russell. "Who Is Same Bacile? Anti-Islam Filmmaker's Bio Doesn't Add Up." ABC News. ABC News, 12 Sept 2012. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://abcnews.go.com/US/sam-bacile-anti-islam-filmmakers-bio-add/story?id=17222103

Goodwin, Michael. "Now we know--President Obama was MIA on Benghazi." FoxNews. Fox News, 11 Feb 2013. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/11/now-know-president-obama-was-mia-on-benghazi/

Hudson, John. "Sam Bacile: The Mysterious Filmmaker Who Set the Muslim World on Fire." The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Wire, 12 Sept 2012. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/09/sam-bacile-mysterious-filmmaker-who-set-muslim-world-fire/56777/

Klapper, Bradely, and Matthew Lee. "Hilary Clinton Resigns Formally From Secretary of State Post, John Kerry Sworn In." The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post, 01 Feb 2013. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/01/hillary-clinton-resigns_n_2600344.html

Larison, Daniel. "The Attacks in Benghazi and Cairo." The American Conservative. N.p., 12 Sept 2012. Web. Web. 2 Mar. 2013. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-attacks-in-benghazi-and-cairo/

Lee, Traci. "Rice: Let's not 'jump to conclusions' on Libya attacks." MSNBC. MSNBC, 25 Octo 2012. Web. 2 Mar 2013. http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/10/25/rice-lets-not-jump-to-conclusions-on-libya-attacks/

"Libya: U.S. staffer dies in attack on consulate." USA TODAY. (September 12, 2012 Wednesday ): 412 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/03/02.

"Mob sets fire to US consulate in Benghazi: witness." Agence France Presse -- English. (September 11, 2012 Tuesday 9:43 PM GMT ): 310 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/03/02.

"Official Details Benghazi Attack, Vows to Support Libya." Defense Department Documents and Publications. (September 12, 2012 ): 1210 words. LexisNexis Academic. Web. Date Accessed: 2013/03/02.

Sullivan, Andrew. "What Did The White House Know About Libya?." The Dish: Biased & Balanced. Andrew Sullivan, 26 Sept 2012. Web. Web. 2 Mar. 2013. http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2012/09/26/what-did-the-white-house-know-about-libya/