Prehistory In The Flesh 2015


https://www.google.com/search?q=Cave+horses&espv=2&biw=1024&bih=659&site=webhp&tbm=isch&imgil=OVNQy9Fsj9U2IM%253A%253BXiQE917rfM959M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fuk.phaidon.com%25252Fagenda%25252Fart%25252Fpicture-galleries%25252F2011%25252Fmarch%25252F10%25252Finside-the-cave-of-forgotten-dreams%

Photographs of over fifteen cave paintings in France appear at this Google website, which consist mostly of these magnificent horses, but also one Rhinoceros, bison, aurochs and what appears to be an ibex. The artists are thought to be what is now called Aurignacian Man from around 30,000 BP. Not only are the cave paintings as naturalistic and beautiful as any modern artist’s work, they look almost exactly like the photograph of a modern Przewalski’s horse in its habitat from the Scientific American article below. Among the horse paintings on this Google site are two of a spotted white horse with black head and neck which is a good bit like an Appaloosa.

From the La Pileta cave in Spain there is a group of horses depicted with crude drawings of humans, one with a lead attached, and one stick figure of a horse with what appears to be a man on its back. The horses were clearly accustomed to humans – “tamed” if not “domesticated” in that case. One of the images also shows what looks like a large dog with pointed ears and what may be a strange looking structure or even an altar for worship. That photo is found on the net at http://www.vectorstock.com/royalty-free-vector/ancient-cave-drawings-vector-617747. The website http://www.aquilapre.com.au/History.html gives the probable date of horse domestication -- to include specialized breeding by man -- as 5,000 BC, so it is unclear to me where the images of men holding a rope from the horse’s head comes from and at what dates. That would be a question to answer at another time. The picture of a dog and men with horses standing peacefully together at www.aquilapre.com shows a farming/herding environment, I would say, or at least the animals are happy in the company of humans. The earliest connection between men and dogs does, according to other articles I’ve read, possibly go back to the 30,000 date. A dog or wolf skeleton was found buried in a cave at that time. I think some of the cave drawings with haltered horses may be more recent than the Aurignacian art work, though. The following two articles concern dates of earliest domestication, though not necessarily including selective breeding. See below.

Recommended – a large number of Internet images found on cave walls at Lascaux and other French and Spanish sites, which are pretty obviously very similar to the extant Przewalski’s Horse, though not so closely similar in DNA according to the Scientific American article below, it is one of the few examples of a “truly wild” horse breed. The elegance of some of the cave artists’ renditions is amazing to me for a “cave man” from 30,000 BP. Go to this Scientific American article below and to the Google item above to examine and compare the recent photograph of the sturdy and beautiful modern animal to the cave walls.



http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/thoughtful-animal/10-things-you-didne28099t-know-about-przewalskie28099s-horses/

Scientific American
10 Things You Didn’t Know About Przewalski’s Horses
By Jason G. Goldman | February 3, 2014

Happy Year of the Horse! The New Year began in China on Friday, but celebrations continue for a full week, meaning that I can still wish you a happy new year.

In honor of the Year of the Horse, here are 10 things you didn't know about my favorite kind of horse, Przewalski's horse.

The what horse? The first thing you should know about Przewalski's horse is how to say it. Przewalski is a Polish word, and it belongs to Nikolai Przhevalsky. But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Przewalski is pronounced shuh-VAL-skee. But you can call it a "P-horse" and most conservationists, zoologists, and zoo keepers and curators will know what you're talking about.

Okay, so Przewalski or Przhevalsky? At one time it was thought that the Przewalski horse was first "discovered" by the Russian explorer Colonel Nikolai Przhevalsky, who lived from 1839 to 1888. It turns out that it was actually discovered and described earlier, but the name stuck. For some reason - and I'm not quite certain why - the Polish spelling became associated with the animal, rather than the Russian spelling. It was actually in the 15th century that the P-horse was first sighted by a European. A German writer named Johann Schiltberger recorded a description of the animal in one of his diaries, "A Journal Into Heathen Parts," while traveling through Mongolia as a prisoner of a Mongol Khan named Egedi. Mongolians, presumably, were quite familiar with the Przewalski's horse prior to Schiltberger's visit, but they may have called it the tahki. Other acceptable names are: Asian wild horse, Przewalski's wild horse, and Mongolian wild horse. There was a time when it was called a "tarpan," but pretty much everybody agrees that it's not a tarpan.

What is a P-horse? Everybody might agree that they're not tarpans, but that's about where the agreement ends. It is clear that the Przewalski's horse is a wild, undomesticated horse. In fact, it's the only surviving species of wild horse. Other "wild" horses, like the American mustang, are actually descended from feral domesticated horses who escaped from their herds and adapted to life outside of direct human influence. Much like their equid cousins, the zebras and African wild asses, Przewalski's horses have never been successfully domesticated.

While there are those who would argue that all domestic horses (Equus caballus) are descended from Przewalski's horses (Equus przewalskii), recent genetic evidence suggests otherwise. In 2011, a group of researchers used a powerful sequencing technique to determine that P-horses form their own clade, separate from the lineage that includes domestic horses. "Our results suggest that Przewalski's horses have ancient origins and are not the direct progenitors of domestic horses," they write. "The analysis of the vast amount of sequence data presented here suggests that Przewalski's and domestic horse lineages diverged at least [117,000 years ago]." (Other research puts the divergence more recently, 38–72 thousand years ago). The consensus is that both domestic and Przewalski's horses are derived from a common ancestor, similar to the way in which humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, rather than either species being derived from the other.


Modified from: Goto et al., (2011). Genome Biol. Evol. 3:1096–1106.

Viable breeding. Usually, species that have a different number of chromosomes can't breed and create viable offspring. For example, domestic horses have 64 pairs of chromosomes and donkeys have 62. When they breed and give birth to a mule, with 63 chromosome pairs, it is usually sterile. The Przewalski's horse has 66 chromosomes, the most of any equid species. When a P-horse and a domestic horse breed, their offspring are born with 65 chromosomes. Surprisingly, those offspring are usually viable. Still, the P-horse and the domestic horse are usually considered separate species.

The fall of the P-horse. The Przewalski's horse became well known to Western science only in 1881 when Przhevalsky described it. By 1900, a German merchant named Carl Hagenbeck had captured most of them. Hagenbeck was a seller of exotic animals, providing critters for zoos throughout Europe and for P.T. Barnum. His legacy for the zoo world is mixed - he was among the first to advocate for more naturalistic enclosures, for example - but the Przewalski's horse undoubtedly suffered. By the time Hagenbeck died in 1913, most of the world's P-horses lived in captivity. But it isn't all his fault. The P-horse was already suffering from over-hunting before Hagenbeck got his hands on them, and the few remaining wild herds continued to suffer from habitat loss and from a handful of particularly harsh winters in the mid-1900s. One herd, who lived in the Askania Nova region of Ukraine, was slaughtered by German soldiers during their World War II occupation. In 1945, there were just 31 remaining P-horses in the world, in just two zoos, in Munich and in Prague. By the end of the 1950s, only 12 individuals remained.

A conservation success story. All P-horses still alive today are descended from nine of those 31 captive horses in 1945. Since then, the Zoological Society of London has worked together with teams of Mongolian researchers to conserve the species. The captive breeding programs were so successful that in just fifty years the species rebounded to over 1500 individuals by the early 1990s. Some 300 Przewalski's horses have been reintroduced to their native Mongolian habitat. Those herds now graze the fields of the Khustain Nuruu National Park, Takhin Tal Nature Reserve, Khar Us Nuur National Park, and Khomiin Tal Reserve. Chinese researchers, who had their own captive breeding program, reintroduced a group into a reserve near the Gobi desert. The largest herd of reintroduced P-horses is once again found in the Askania Nova reserve in southern Russia. Another group has been introduced to the Hungarian Hortobágy National Park. Oh, and there's a herd that is successfully reproducing on its own within the Chernobyl exclusion zone, an area that has effectively become a wildlife refuge. Less than a decade ago, the IUCN reclassified the species from "extinct in the wild" to "endangered."

International Cooperation

Thanks to the work of the Netherlands-based Foundation for the Preservation and Protection of the Przewalski horse, horses were traded between the different breeding programs to maximize genetic diversity. As a result, despite being founded by just nine individuals, the current population of P-horses is genetically sustainable. The Prague Zoo continues to maintain the studbook for the species, a record of the parentage of every individual Przewalski's horse on the planet.

Continuous Monitoring

The horses that were introduced into Hungary's Hortobágy National Park have been constantly monitored by scientists, who are working to understand their natural behaviors. Studies of Przewalski's horse social structure and behavior conducted there continue to help in husbandry and management efforts worldwide. Researchers have learned that P-horses live in small, permanent family groups, which are comprised of a mature stallion, one to three mature females, and their offspring. The juveniles stay within the family group for two to three years before they go off in search of potential mates. Multiple family groups combine to form herds that move together in search of food.

A surgical first. In 2007, veterinary researchers from the National Zoo successfully conducted the first-ever reverse vasectomy on a Przewalski's horse. It wasn't just a first for the species, but the first time such a procedure had been successfully completed on any endangered species. Minnesota - that's his name - originally had the vasectomy in 1999 while he was at the Minnesota Zoo. It was only later that researchers realized how genetically valuable he was, given his ancestry.

An artificial first. It was only a few months ago that the first Przewalski's horse was born as the result of artificial insemination. The insemination process and subsequent birth (a whopping 340 days later) took place at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) in Front Royal, Virginia. The foal was born to a mare named Anne; the first time mother also grew up at SCBI.


The baby P-horse, born July 27, 2013. Photo via Smithsonian National Zoo.

It isn't as simple as collecting some semen and depositing it into a mare. Reproductive physiologist Budhan Pukazhenthi who worked on the project told National Geographic News that "the team learned how to successfully collect semen from stallions, monitored hormone levels in mares, and studied how estrus cycles of Przewalski's horses compared with those of domestic horses." Even then it took seven years to result in a viable pregnancy.

Goto H., Ryder O.A., Fisher A.R., Schultz B., Kosakovsky Pond S.L., Nekrutenko A. & Makova K.D. (2011). A Massively Parallel Sequencing Approach Uncovers Ancient Origins and High Genetic Variability of Endangered Przewalski's Horses, Genome Biology and Evolution, 3 1096-1106. DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evr067

Lau A.N., Peng L., Goto H., Chemnick L., Ryder O.A. & Makova K.D. (2008). Horse Domestication and Conservation Genetics of Przewalski's Horse Inferred from Sex Chromosomal and Autosomal Sequences, Molecular Biology and Evolution, 26 (1) 199-208. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msn239

Ryder O.A. & Wedemeyer E.A. (1982). A cooperative breeding programme for the Mongolian wild horse Equus przewalskii in the United States, Biological Conservation, 22 (4) 259-271. DOI: 10.1016/0006-3207(82)90021-0omes




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse

Domestication of the horse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A number of hypotheses exist on many of the key issues regarding the domestication of the horse. Although horses appeared in Paleolithic cave art as early as 30,000 BCE, these were wild horses and were probably hunted for meat. How and when horses became domesticated is disputed. The clearest evidence of early use of the horse as a means of transport is from chariot burials dated c. 2000 BCE. However, an increasing amount of evidence supports the hypothesis that horses were domesticated in the Eurasian Steppes approximately 4000–3500 BCE.[1][2][3] Recent discoveries in the context of the Botai culture suggest that Botai settlements in the Akmola Province of Kazakhstan are the location of the earliest domestication of the horse.[4]

The date of the domestication of the horse depends to some degree upon the definition of "domestication". Some zoologists define "domestication" as human control over breeding, which can be detected in ancient skeletal samples by changes in the size and variability of ancient horse populations. Other researchers look at broader evidence, including skeletal and dental evidence of working activity; weapons, art, and spiritual artifacts; and lifestyle patterns of human cultures. There is also evidence that horses were kept as meat animals prior to being trained as working animals.

Attempts to date domestication by genetic study or analysis of physical remains rests on the assumption that there was a separation of the genotypes of domesticated and wild populations. Such a separation appears to have taken place, but dates based on such methods can only produce an estimate of the latest possible date for domestication without excluding the possibility of an unknown period of earlier gene-flow between wild and domestic populations (which will occur naturally as long as the domesticated population is kept within the habitat of the wild population). Further, all modern horse populations retain the ability to revert to a feral state, and all feral horses are of domestic types; that is, they descend from ancestors that escaped from captivity.

Whether one adopts the narrower zoological definition of domestication or the broader cultural definition that rests on an array of zoological and archaeological evidence affects the time frame chosen for domestication of the horse. The date of 4000 BCE is based on evidence that includes the appearance of dental pathologies associated with bitting, changes in butchering practices, changes in human economies and settlement patterns, the depiction of horses as symbols of power in artifacts, and the appearance of horse bones in human graves.[5] On the other hand, measurable changes in size and increases in variability associated with domestication occurred later, about 2500–2000 BCE, as seen in horse remains found at the site of Csepel-Haros in Hungary, a settlement of the Bell Beaker culture.[6]

Regardless of the specific date of domestication, use of horses spread rapidly across Eurasia for transportation, agricultural work and warfare. Horses and mules in agriculture used a breastplate type harness or a yoke more suitable for oxen, which was not as efficient at utilizing the full strength of the animals as the later-invented padded horse collar that arose several millennia later in western Europe.[7][8]

Predecessors to the domestic horse

A 2005 study analyzed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of a worldwide range of equids, from 53,000 year old fossils to contemporary horses.[9] Their analysis placed all equids into a single clade, or group with a single common ancestor, consisting of three genetically divergent species: Hippidion, the New World stilt-legged horse, and the true horse. The true horse, which ranged from western Europe to eastern Beringia, included prehistoric horses and the Przewalski's Horse, as well as what is now the modern domestic horse, belonged to a single Holarctic species. A more detailed analysis of the true horses grouped them into two major clades. One of these clades, which seemed to have been restricted to North America, is now extinct. The other clade was broadly distributed from North America to central Europe, north and south of Pleistocene ice sheets.[9] It became extinct in Beringia around 14,200 years ago, and in the rest of the Americas around 10,000 years ago.[10][11] This clade survived in Eurasia, however, and it is from these horses which all domestic horses appear to have descended.[9] These horses showed little phylogeographic structure, probably reflecting their high degree of mobility and adaptability.[9]

Therefore, the domestic horse today is classified as Equus ferus caballus. No genetic originals of native wild horses currently exist, other than the never-domesticated Przewalski's Horse. The Przewalski has 66 chromosomes, however, as opposed to 64 among modern domesticated horses, and their Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) forms a distinct cluster.[12] Genetic evidence suggests that modern Przewalski's horses are descended from a distinct regional gene pool in the eastern part of the Eurasian steppes, not from the same genetic group that gave rise to modern domesticated horses.[12] Nevertheless, evidence such as the cave paintings of Lascaux suggests that the ancient wild horses that some researchers now label the "Tarpan subtype" probably resembled Przewalski horses in their general appearance: big heads, dun coloration, thick necks, stiff upright manes, and relatively short, stout legs.[13]


Equus caballus germanicus front leg, teeth and upper jaw at the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin
The horses of the Ice Age were hunted for meat in Europe and across the Eurasian steppes and in North America by early modern humans. Numerous kill sites exist and many cave paintings in Europe indicate what they looked like.[14] Many of these Ice Age subspecies died out during the rapid climate changes associated with the end of the last Ice Age or were hunted out by humans, particularly in North America, where the horse became completely extinct.[15]

Classification based on body types and conformation, absent the availability of DNA for research, once suggested that there were roughly four basic wild prototypes, thought to have developed with adaptations to their environment prior to domestication. There were competing theories; some argued that the four prototypes were separate species or subspecies, while others suggested that the prototypes were physically different manifestations of the same species.[13] However, more recent study indicates that there was only one wild species and all different body types were entirely a result of selective breeding or landrace adaptation after domestication. Either way, the most common theories of prototypes from which all modern breeds are thought to have developed suggests than in addition to the so-called Tarpan subtype, there were the following base prototypes:[13]

The "Warmblood subspecies" or "Forest Horse" (once proposed as Equus ferus silvaticus, also known as the Diluvial Horse), which evolved into a later variety sometimes called Equus ferus germanicus. This prototype may have contributed to the development of the warmblood horses of northern Europe, as well as older "heavy horses" such as the Ardennais.
The "Draft" subspecies, a small, sturdy, heavyset animal with a heavy hair coat, arising in northern Europe, adapted to cold, damp climates, somewhat resembling today's draft horse and even the Shetland pony.
The "Oriental" subspecies (once proposed as Equus agilis), a taller, slim, refined and agile animal arising in Western Asia, adapted to hot, dry climates. It is thought to be the progenitor of the modern Arabian horse and Akhal-Teke.[13]
Only two never-domesticated "wild" groups survived into historic times, Przewalski's horse (Equus ferus przewalski), and the Tarpan (Equus ferus ferus).[16] The Tarpan became extinct in the late 19th century and Przewalski's horse is endangered; it became extinct in the wild during the 1960s, but was re-introduced in the late 1980s to two preserves in Mongolia. Although researchers such as Marija Gimbutas theorized that the horses of the Chalcolithic period were Przewalski's, more recent genetic studies indicate that Przewalski's horse is not an ancestor to modern domesticated horses.[12] Other subspecies of Equus ferus appear to have existed and could have been the stock from which domesticated horses are descended.[16]

Genetic evidence[edit]
See also: Genomics of domestication and History of horse domestication theories
A 2014 study compared DNA from ancient horse bones that predated domestication and compared them to DNA of modern horses, discovering 125 genes that correlated to domestication. Some were physical, affecting muscle and limb development, cardiac strength and balance. Others were linked to cognitive function and most likely were critical to the taming of the horse, including social behavior, learning capabilities, fear response, and agreeableness.[17] The DNA used in this study came from horse bones 16,000 to 43,000 years ago, and therefore the precise changes that occurred at the time of domestication have yet to be sequenced.[18]

The domestication of stallions and mares can be analyzed separately by looking at those portions of the DNA that are passed on exclusively along the maternal (mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA) or paternal line (Y-chromosome or Y-DNA). DNA studies indicate that there may have been multiple domestication events for mares, as the number of female lines required to account for the genetic diversity of the modern horse suggests a minimum of 77 different ancestral mares, divided into 17 distinct lineages.[12] On the other hand, genetic evidence with regard to the domestication of stallions points at a single domestication event for a limited number of stallions combined with repeated restocking of wild females into the domesticated herds.[19][20][21]

A study published in 2012 that performed genomic sampling on 300 work horses from local areas as well as a review of previous studies of archaeology, mitochondrial DNA, and Y-DNA suggested that horses were originally domesticated in the western part of the Eurasian steppe.[22] Both domesticated stallions and mares spread out from this area, and then additional wild mares were added from local herds; wild mares were easier to handle than wild stallions. Most other parts of the world were ruled out as sites for horse domestication, either due to climate unsuitable for an indigenous wild horse population or no evidence of domestication.[23]

Genes located on the Y-chromosome are inherited only from sire to its male offspring and these lines show a very reduced degree of genetic variation (aka genetic homogeneity) in modern domestic horses, far less than expected based on the overall genetic variation in the remaining genetic material.[19][20] This indicates that a relatively few stallions were domesticated, and that it is unlikely that many male offspring originating from unions between wild stallions and domestic mares were included in early domesticated breeding stock.[19][20]

Genes located in the mitochondrial DNA are passed on along the maternal line from the mother to her offspring. Multiple analyses of the mitochondrial DNA obtained from modern horses as well as from horse bones and tooth from archaeological and palaeological finds consistency shows an increased genetic diversity in the mitochondrial DNA compared to the remaining DNA, showing that a large number of mares has been included into the breeding stock of the originally domesticated horse.[12][21][24][25][26][27] Variation in the mitochondrial DNA is used to determine so-called haplogroups. A haplogroup is a group of closely related haplotypes that share the same common ancestor. In horses, seven main haplogroups are recognized (A-G), each with several subgroups. Several haplogroups are unequally distributed around the world, indicating the addition of local wild mares to the domesticated stock.[12][21][25][26][27] One of these haplotypes (Lusitano group C) is exclusively found on in Iberian Peninsula, leading to a hypothesis that the Iberian peninsula or North Africa was an independent origin for domestication of the horse.[25] However, until there is additional analysis of nuclear DNA and a better understanding of the genetic structure of the earliest domestic herds, this theory cannot be confirmed or refuted.[25] It remains possible that a second, independent, domestication site might exist but, as of 2012, research has neither confirmed nor disproven that hypothesis.[23]

Even though horse domestication became widespread in a short period of time, it is still possible that domestication began with a single culture, which passed on techniques and breeding stock. It is possible that the two "wild" subspecies remained when all other groups of once-"wild" horses died out because all others had been, perhaps, more suitable for taming by humans and the selective breeding that gave rise to the modern domestic horse.[28]

Archaeological evidence[edit]

The Hyksos, c. 1600 BCE
Evidence for the domestication of the horse comes from three kinds of sources: 1) changes in the skeletons and teeth of ancient horses; 2) changes in the geographic distribution of ancient horses, particularly the introduction of horses into regions where no wild horses had existed; and 3) archaeological sites containing artifacts, images, or evidence of changes in human behavior connected with horses.

Archaeological evidence includes horse remains interred in human graves; changes in the ages and sexes of the horses killed by humans; the appearance of horse corrals; equipment such as bits or other types of horse tack; horses interred with equipment intended for use by horses, such as chariots; and depictions of horses used for riding, driving, draught work, or symbols of human power.

Few of these categories, taken alone, provide irrefutable evidence of domestication, but combined add up to a persuasive argument. Horses interred with chariots[edit]
The least ancient, but most persuasive evidence of domestication comes from sites where horse leg bones and skulls, probably originally attached to hides, were interred with the remains of chariots in at least 16 graves of the Sintashta and Petrovka cultures. These were located in the steppes southeast of the Ural Mountains, between the upper Ural and upper Tobol Rivers, a region today divided between southern Russia and northern Kazakhstan. Petrovka was a little later than and probably grew out of Sintashta, and the two complexes together spanned about 2100–1700 BCE.[5][29] A few of these graves contained the remains of as many as eight sacrificed horses placed in, above, and beside the grave.

In all of the dated chariot graves, the heads and hooves of a pair of horses were placed in a grave that once contained a chariot. Evidence of chariots in these graves was inferred from the impressions of two spoked wheels set in grave floors 1.2–1.6m apart; in most cases the rest of the vehicle left no trace. In addition a pair of disk-shaped antler "cheekpieces," an ancient predecessor to a modern bit shank or bit ring, were placed in pairs beside each horse head-and-hoof sacrifice. The inner faces of the disks had protruding prongs or studs that would have pressed against the horse's lips when the reins were pulled on the opposite side. Studded cheekpieces were a new and fairly severe kind of control device that appeared simultaneously with chariots.

All of the dated chariot graves contained wheel impressions, horse bones, weapons (arrow and javelin points, axes, daggers, or stone mace-heads), human skeletal remains, and cheekpieces. Because they were buried in teams of two with chariots and studded cheekpieces, the evidence is extremely persuasive that these steppe horses of 2100–1700 BCE were domesticated. Shortly after the period of these burials, the expansion of the domestic horse throughout Europe was little short of explosive. In the space of possibly 500 years, there is evidence of horse-drawn chariots in Greece, Egypt, and Mesopotamia. By another 500 years, the horse-drawn chariot had spread to China.

Dung and corrals[edit]

Soil scientists working with Sandra Olsen of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History at the Chalcolithic (also called Eneolithic, or "Copper Age") settlements of Botai and Krasnyi Yar in northern Kazakhstan found layers of horse dung, discarded in unused house pits in both settlements.[38] The collection and disposal of horse dung suggests that horses were confined in corrals or stables. An actual corral, dated to 3500–3000 BCE was identified at Krasnyi Yar by a pattern of post holes for a circular fence, with the soils inside the fence yielding ten times more phosphorus than the soils outside. The phosphorus could represent the remains of manure.[39]

Geographic expansion[edit]

The appearance of horse remains in human settlements in regions where they had not previously been present is another indicator of domestication. Although images of horses appear as early as the Upper Paleolithic period in places such as the caves of Lascaux, France, suggesting that wild horses lived in regions outside of the Eurasian steppes prior to domestication and may have even been hunted by early humans, concentration of remains suggests animals being deliberately captured and contained, an indicator of domestication, at least for food, if not necessarily use as a working animal.

Around 3500–3000 BCE, horse bones began to appear more frequently in archaeological sites beyond their center of distribution in the Eurasian steppes and were seen in central Europe, the middle and lower Danube valley, and the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia. Evidence of horses in these areas had been rare before, and as numbers increased, larger animals also began to appear in horse remains. This expansion in range was contemporary with the Botai culture, where there are indications that horses were corralled and ridden. This does not necessarily mean that horses were first domesticated in the steppes, but the horse-hunters of the steppes certainly pursued wild horses more than in any other region. This geographic expansion is interpreted by many zoologists as an early phase in the spread of domesticated horses.[30][40][41]

European wild horses were hunted for up to 10% of the animal bones in a handful of Mesolithic and Neolithic settlements scattered across Spain, France, and the marshlands of northern Germany, but in many other parts of Europe, including Greece, the Balkans, the British Isles, and much of central Europe, horse bones do not occur or occur very rarely in Mesolithic, Neolithic or Chalcolithic sites. In contrast, wild horse bones regularly exceeded 40% of the identified animal bones in Mesolithic and Neolithic camps in the Eurasian steppes, west of the Ural Mountains.[40][42][43]

Horse bones were rare or absent in Neolithic and Chalcolithic kitchen garbage in western Turkey, Mesopotamia, most of Iran, South and Central Asia, and much of Europe.[40][41][44] While horse bones have been identified in Neolithic sites in central Turkey, all equids together totaled less than 3% of the animal bones. Within this three percent, horses were less than 10%, with 90% or more of the equids represented by onagers (Equus hemionus) or another ass-like equid that later became extinct, Equus hydruntinus.[45] Onagers were the most common native wild equids of the Near East. They were hunted in Syria, Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Iran, and Central Asia; and domesticated asses (Equus asinus) were imported into Mesopotamia, probably from Egypt, but wild horses apparently did not live there.[46]





http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/science/spotted-horses-in-cave-art-werent-just-a-figment-dna-shows.html?_r=0

Spotted Horses in Cave Art Weren’t Just a Figment, DNA Shows
By HILLARY ROSNER
NOV. 7, 2011

Photograph -- SEEING SPOTS Drawings of horses from the Chauvet cave in France, right, and a horse from the Lascaux cave, also in France. Credit French Ministry of Culture and Communication

Roughly 25,000 years ago in what is now southwestern France, human beings walked deep into a cave and left their enduring marks. Using materials like sticks, charcoal and iron oxides, they painted images of animals on the cave walls and ceilings — lions and mammoths and spotted horses, walking and grazing and congregating in herds.

Today, the art at the Pech-Merle cave, and in hundreds of others across Europe, is a striking testimony to human creativity well before modern times.

But what were these cave paintings, exactly? Were prehistoric artists simply sketching what they saw each day on the landscape? Or were the images more symbolic, diverging from reality or representing rare or even mystical creatures? Such questions have divided archaeologists for years.

Now, a group of researchers has used distinctly modern techniques to help decipher the mystery, at least in the case of Pech-Merle’s famous spotted horses. By comparing the DNA of modern horses and those that lived during the Stone Age, scientists have determined that these drawings are a realistic depiction of an animal that coexisted with the artists.

Photo

A modern horse with leopard spots like those seen in France's Pech-Merle cave. Comparing DNA from the present and the Stone Age convinced scientists that those spotted depictions were based on existing animals. Credit Thomas Hackmann
The research, published online on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, grew out of an effort to discern the coat colors of ancient horses to help figure out when the animals were domesticated, a pivotal moment in the development of human societies. In general, domesticated species exist in a far greater variety of colors than wild ones, so understanding color variation in fossil animals can help pinpoint the timing.

Previous research on DNA from the bones and teeth of horses that lived 7,000 to 20,000 years ago showed that those animals were either black or bay (a brown coat with a black mane and tail). That work was published in the journal Science in 2009. Since then, geneticists have deciphered the underlying code for the spotted pattern, known as leopard, in modern horses. So the scientists went back to their samples, looking for the leopard sequence in horses that lived in Europe 11,000 to 15,000 years ago.

“There is a striking correspondence between the coat-color patterns of horses painted in Paleolithic caves of France with what geneticists found in the genotypes” — the specific genetic sequences — “of color genes,” said Hopi E. Hoekstra, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard who studies pigmentation. Dr. Hoekstra was not involved in the study but called it “very convincing.”

An author of the study, Michael Hofreiter, an evolutionary biologist at the University of York in England, said: “Why they took the effort making these beautiful paintings will always remain a miracle to us.

“It’s an enigma, but it’s also nice to see that if we go back 25,000 years, people didn’t have much technology and life was probably hard, but nevertheless they already endeavored in producing art. It tells us a lot about ourselves as a species.”

Extracting DNA from such old material is a complex process, and the potential for contamination is huge. Early studies of Neanderthal DNA were marred by contamination from humans, and led to skepticism about the field’s future.

Since then, researchers have adopted strict procedures to ensure they are not contaminating ancient samples with modern-day DNA. The procedures include analyzing ancient and contemporary material in physically separate facilities and replicating results multiple times.

“This is a whole different level of clean,” said Jessica L. Metcalf, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Colorado who also works with the Australian Center for Ancient DNA in Adelaide, where the labs that work on ancient and modern DNA are more than half a mile apart.

“We have sealed rooms with HEPA filter air flow, UV lights that sterilize when you come in,” she said. “We spend over half our time cleaning. We use a lot of bleach. You’re in this ridiculous-looking clean suit with a face shield on.”

In fact, Dr. Hofreiter said, researchers who work with ancient horse genes should not even go horseback riding. “Traces of DNA,” she said, “they just stick to people.”

Dr. Hofreiter, 38, began his career working with a pioneer of ancient DNA research, Svante Paabo. Though he intended to study taxonomy, he was so intrigued by the idea of extracting DNA from ancient material that he switched his focus. “You have this 30,000-year-old piece of feces in your hand,” he said, adding: “Well, you should wear gloves. And you can actually get to the genetic code from the animal. And I thought, this is so fascinating.”

He and his colleagues did not set out to study cave art. They were simply continuing their work on coat color in prehistoric horses. Only after they found the spotted horse gene in their ancient samples did they realize they could say something about archaeology.

“What we found is that there were really only these three color patterns — spotted or dappled; blackish ones; and brown ones,” he said. “These are the three phenotypes we find in the wild populations. And then we realized these phenotypes are exactly the ones you see in cave paintings.”

Terry O’Connor, an archaeologist at the University of York who collaborated on the study, said spotted horses in particular had been used to argue that cave art was more symbolic than realistic, and that as a result the finding could cause a stir. But now it is clear that some horses had a gene for that coat color. “People drew spotty horses,” he said, “because they saw spotty horses.”

Last summer, exploring a cave in the Dordogne region, Dr. O’Connor said he became transfixed by a series of line drawings of mammoths. “They were absolutely superb, some using contours of the cave itself, capturing the size and shape and movement,” he said. “You look at that and say, ‘These guys know what the animals looked like, and they can draw.’ ”

As techniques for working with ancient DNA have matured, scientists are now using it to answer an increasing variety of questions about the past — from what happened to a species’ genetic variation as its environment changed to how humans recolonized Europe after the last ice age to what type of microbes lived in the guts of people and animals thousands of years ago.

“One of the things that most pleases me about this paper as a piece of ancient DNA science,” Dr. O’Connor said, “is it kind of begins with a question. These spotty horses, were they magical or real?

“And then science answers that. It’s not just, ‘Let’s rip the DNA out of ancient bones and see what it tells us.’ ”

THE BIRDMAN OF ALCATRAZ
July 11, 2015


Robert Stroud
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Robert Franklin Stroud (January 28, 1890 – November 21, 1963), known as the "Birdman of Alcatraz", was a federal American prisoner and author who has been cited as one of the United States' most notorious criminals.[1][2][3] During his time at Leavenworth Penitentiary he reared and sold birds and became a respected ornithologist, but because of regulations, he was not permitted to keep his birds at Alcatraz, where he was incarcerated from 1942.

Born in Seattle, Washington, Stroud ran away from his abusive father at the age of 13, and by the time he was 18, he had become a pimp in Alaska. In January 1909, he shot and killed a bartender who had attacked one of his prostitutes, for which he was sentenced to 12 years in the federal penitentiary on Puget Sound's McNeil Island. Stroud gained a reputation as an extremely dangerous inmate who frequently had confrontations with fellow inmates and staff, and in 1916, he killed a guard. Stroud was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to hang, but after several trials his sentence was eventually commuted to life imprisonment.

Stroud began serving life in solitary confinement at Leavenworth, where in 1920, after discovering a nest with three injured sparrows in the prison yard, he began raising them, and within a few years had acquired a collection of some 300 canaries. He began extensive research into them after being granted equipment by a radical prison-reforming warden, publishing Diseases of Canaries in 1933, which was smuggled out of Leavenworth and sold en masse,[4][clarification needed] as well as a later edition (1943). He made important contributions to avian pathology, most notably a cure for the hemorrhagic septicemia family of diseases, gaining much respect and some level of sympathy among ornithologists and farmers. Stroud ran a successful business from inside prison, but his activities infuriated the prison staff, and he was eventually transferred to Alcatraz in 1942 after it was discovered that Stroud had been secretly making alcohol using some of the equipment in his cell.

Stroud began serving a 17-year term at Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary on December 19, 1942, and became inmate #594. In 1943, he was assessed by psychiatrist Romney M. Ritchey, who diagnosed him as a psychopath, but with an I.Q. of 134. Stripped of his birds and equipment, he wrote a history of the penal system.

In 1959, with his health failing, Stroud was transferred to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, where he stayed until his death on November 21, 1963, having been incarcerated for the last 54 years of his life, of which 42 were in solitary confinement. He had been studying French near the end of his life. Robert Stroud is buried in Metropolis, Illinois. Author Carl Sifakis considers Stroud to have been "possibly the best-known example of self-improvement and rehabilitation in the U.S. prison."

Early life and arrest[edit]

Stroud was born in Seattle, the eldest child of Elizabeth Jane (née McCartney 1860-1938) and Benjamin Franklin Stroud. His mother had two daughters from a previous marriage. His father was an abusive alcoholic, and Stroud ran away from home at the age of 13. His parents both had German ancestry.[5]

By the time he was 18, Stroud had made his way to Cordova, Alaska, where he met 36-year-old Kitty O’Brien, a prostitute and dance-hall entertainer, for whom he pimped in Juneau. According to Stroud, on January 18, 1909, while he was away at work, an acquaintance of theirs, barman F. K. "Charlie" Von Dahmer, had allegedly failed to pay O'Brien for her services and beat her, tearing a locket from her neck that contained a picture of her daughter that was of sentimental value.[6][7] That night, after finding out about the incident, Stroud confronted Von Dahmer on Gastineau Avenue, and a struggle ensued, resulting in the latter's death from a gunshot wound. Stroud went to the police station, and turned himself and the gun in.[7] According to police reports, Stroud had knocked Von Dahmer unconscious, and then shot him at point-blank range.

Stroud's mother, Elizabeth, retained a lawyer for her son, but he was found guilty of manslaughter on August 23, 1909, and sentenced to 12 years in the federal penitentiary on Puget Sound's McNeil Island.[5] Stroud's crime was handled in the federal system, as Alaska at that time was still a federal territory, and not a state with its own judiciary.

Prison life[edit]

Stroud c.1912 #1854

Known as Prisoner #1853-M, Stroud was one of the most violent prisoners at McNeil Island, frequently feuding with fellow inmates and staff, and was also prone to many different physical ailments.[8] Stroud reportedly stabbed a fellow prisoner who had reported him for stealing food from the kitchen.[7] He also assaulted a hospital orderly who had reported him to the prison administration for attempting to obtain morphine through threats and intimidation, and had also reportedly stabbed another fellow inmate who was involved in the attempt to smuggle the narcotics. On September 5, 1912, Stroud was sentenced to an additional six months for the attacks, and was transferred from McNeil Island to the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. On March 26, 1916,[5] after being there six months, Stroud was reprimanded by cafeteria guard Andrew F. Turner for a minor rule violation that would have annulled Stroud's visitation privilege to meet his younger brother, whom he had not seen in eight years. With a six-inch shank, Stroud stabbed Turner through his heart.[9][7]

Stroud was convicted of first-degree murder, and sentenced to death by hanging on May 2.[5] He was ordered to await execution of his sentence in solitary confinement, but this was thrown out in December by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a second trial held on May 28, 1917, he was also convicted, but received a life sentence, which Stroud appealed, and Solicitor General John W. Davis "confessed error" because he wanted Stroud to receive the death penalty.[10] As a result, Stroud was tried for a third time in May 1918, and on June 28 he was again sentenced to death by hanging.[10] The Supreme Court intervened, upholding the death sentence, which was scheduled to be carried out on April 23, 1920. Stroud's mother appealed to President Woodrow Wilson and his wife, Edith Wilson, and the execution was halted just eight days before it was to be carried out; the gallows had already been built and viewed by Stroud from his cell.[11][10] Stroud's sentence was commuted to life imprisonment. Leavenworth's warden, T. W. Morgan, strongly opposed the decision given Stroud's reputation for violence. Morgan persuaded the President to stipulate that since Stroud was originally sentenced to await his death sentence in solitary confinement, those conditions should prevail until the halted execution could be carried out. President Wilson's Attorney General, Alexander Mitchell Palmer, saw to it that Stroud was sentenced to a lifetime in solitary.[12][4]

The Birdman of Leavenworth[edit]


Stroud #17431 c.1920s

While at Leavenworth in 1920, Stroud found a nest with three injured sparrows in the prison yard, and raised them to adulthood.[4] Prisoners were sometimes allowed to buy canaries, and Stroud had started to add to his collection to occupy his time raising and caring for his birds, which he could sell for supplies and to help support his mother. According to Stroud, he used a "razor blade and nail for tools" and made his first bird cage out of wooden crates.[13] Soon thereafter, Leavenworth’s administration changed, and the prison was then directed by a new warden. Impressed with the possibility of presenting Leavenworth as a progressive rehabilitation penitentiary,[14] the new warden, Bennett, furnished Stroud with cages, chemicals, and stationery to conduct his ornithological activities. Visitors were shown Stroud's aviary, and many purchased his canaries. Over the years, he raised nearly 300 canaries in his cells, and wrote two books, the 60,000-word treatise Diseases of Canaries (1933), which had been smuggled out of Leavenworth,[4] and a later edition, Stroud's Digest on the Diseases of Birds (1943), with updated, specific information. He made several important contributions to avian pathology, most notably a cure for the hemorrhagic septicemia family of diseases. He gained respect and also some level of sympathy in the bird-loving field.

Stroud’s activities created problems for the prison management. According to regulations, each letter sent or received at the prison had to be read, copied, and approved. Stroud was so involved in his business that this alone required a full-time prison secretary. Additionally, most of the time, his birds were permitted to fly freely within his cells, and because of the great number of birds he kept, his cell was filthy.[15]


Stroud, #17431 c.late 1930s

In 1931, an attempt to force Stroud to discontinue his business and get rid of his birds failed after Stroud and one of his mail correspondents, a bird researcher from Indiana named Della Mae Jones,[16] made his story known to newspapers and magazines. A massive letter campaign and a 50,000-signature petition sent to President Herbert Hoover resulted in Stroud being permitted to keep his birds, and despite prison overcrowding, he was even given a second cell to house them. However, his letter-writing privileges were greatly curtailed. Jones and Stroud grew so close that she moved to Kansas in 1931, and started a business with him, selling his avian medicines.[13]

Prison officials, fed up with Stroud's activities and their attendant publicity, intensified their efforts to transfer him out of Leavenworth. Stroud, however, discovered a Kansas law that forbade the transfer of prisoners married in Kansas. To this end, he married Jones by proxy, which infuriated the prison's administrators, who would not allow him to correspond with his wife.[13] Prison officials were not the only ones perturbed with Stroud's marriage; his mother was also incensed. They had a close relationship, but Elizabeth Stroud strongly disapproved of the marriage to Jones, believing women were nothing but trouble for her son. Whereas previously she had been a strong advocate for her son, helping him with legal battles, she now argued against his application for parole, and became a major obstacle in his attempts to be released from the prison system. She moved away from Leavenworth and refused any further contact with him until her death in 1937.

In 1933, Stroud advertised in a publication that he had not received any royalties from the sales of Diseases of Canaries. In retaliation, the publisher complained to the warden, and, as a result, proceedings were initiated to transfer Stroud to Alcatraz, where he would not be permitted to keep his birds. In the end, however, Stroud was able to keep both his birds and canary-selling business. Stroud avoided trouble for several more years, until it came to light that some of the equipment Stroud had requested for his lab was in fact being used as a home-made still to distill alcohol.[15] Officials finally had the wedge they needed to drive Stroud out.

Alcatraz[edit]


Stroud's mug shot #594-AZ taken in 1942 and information in the warden's notebook at Alcatraz


Stroud's cell at Alcatraz

Stroud as a writer

On December 19, 1942, Stroud was transferred to Alcatraz Federal Penitentiary, and became inmate #594.[12] He reportedly was not informed in advance that he was to leave Leavenworth and his beloved birds, and was given just 10 minutes' notice of his departure; his birds and equipment were sent to his brother as Alcatraz's strict policies meant that he was unable to continue his avocation.[17] He spent six years in segregation and another 11 confined to the hospital wing there. In 1943, he was assessed by psychiatrist Romney M. Ritchey, who diagnosed him as a psychopath, but with an I.Q. of 134 (although his initial report in 1942 based on Leavenworth states that he had an I.Q. of 116). While there, he wrote two manuscripts: Bobbie, an autobiography, and Looking Outward: A History of the U.S. Prison System from Colonial Times to the Formation of the Bureau of Prisons. A judge ruled that Stroud had the right to write and keep such manuscripts, but upheld the warden’s decision to ban their publication. After Stroud's death, the transcripts were delivered to his lawyer, Richard English.

Rumors of Stroud's homosexuality were noted at Alcatraz. According to Donald Hurley, whose father was a guard at Alcatraz, "Whenever Stroud was around anyone, which was seldom, he was watched very closely, as prison officials were very aware of his overt homosexual tendencies."[18] In an interview with Hurley for his book, a former inmate heard Stroud was always in 'dog block' (solitary confinement) or later in the hospital because he was a 'wolf' (aggressive homosexual) who had a bad temper."[19] In February 1963 Stroud met and talked with actor Burt Lancaster, who portrayed him in The Birdman of Alcatraz.[20] Stroud never got to see the film or read the book it was based on but did share on one of the problems that prevented parole, that he was an "admitted homosexual."[20] Lancaster quoted Stroud as saying, "Let's face it. I am 73-years old. Does that answer your question about whether I would be a dangerous homosexual?"[20]

During his 17-year term at Alcatraz, Stroud was allowed access to the prison library, and began studying law. Occasionally, he was permitted to play chess with one of the guards.[21] Stroud began petitioning the government that his long prison term amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. In 1959, with his health failing, Stroud was transferred to the Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri, where he stayed until his death in 1963.[5] However, his attempts to be released were unsuccessful. On November 21, 1963, Robert Stroud died at the Springfield Medical Center at the age of 73, having been incarcerated for the last 54 years of his life, of which 42 were spent in solitary confinement. He had been studying French near the end of his life. Stroud is buried in Metropolis, Illinois (Massac County).[22]

Legacy[edit]


Robert Stroud 29 Oct 1951

Stroud c.1959

Stroud is considered to be one of the most notorious criminals in American history.[1][2][3] Robert Niemi states that Stroud had a "superior intellect," and became a "first-rate ornithologist and author," but was an "extremely dangerous and menacing psychopath, disliked and distrusted by his jailers and fellow inmates."[4] However, by his last years, he was seen more favorably, and Judge Becker considered Stroud to be modest, no longer a danger to society, with a genuine love for birds.[23] Given his level of notoriety, the crimes he committed were unremarkable,[8] especially as the assaults he committed had a clear cause. Carl Sifakais considers Stroud to have been a "brilliant self-taught expert on birds, and possibly the best-known example of self-improvement and rehabilitation in the U.S. prison."[17]

Because of Stroud's contributions to the field of ornithology, he gained a large following of thousands of bird breeders, and poultry raisers who demanded his release,[17] and for many years a "Committee to Release Robert F. Stroud" campaigned to have Stroud released from prison.[23] However, because Stroud had killed a federal officer, his punishment in solitary confinement remained intact.[17] In 1963, Richard M. English, a young lawyer who had campaigned for John F. Kennedy in California, took to the cause of securing Stroud's release. He met with former President Harry S. Truman to enlist support, but Truman declined. He also met with senior Kennedy-administration officials who were studying the subject. English took the last photo of Stroud, in which he is shown with a green visor. The warden of the prison attempted to have English prosecuted for bringing something into the prison he did not take out: unexposed film. The authorities declined to take any action. Upon Stroud's death, his personal property, including original manuscripts, was delivered to English, as his last legal representative, who later turned over some of the possessions to the Audubon Society.

Stroud became the subject of a 1955 book by Thomas E. Gaddis, Birdman of Alcatraz. Gaddis, who strongly advocated rehabilitation in the prisons, portrayed Stroud in favorable light.[4] This was adapted by Guy Trosper for the 1962 film of the same name, directed by John Frankenheimer. It starred Burt Lancaster as Stroud, Karl Malden as a fictionalized and renamed warden, and Thelma Ritter as Stroud's mother.[24] Both the book and the film were highly fictionalized, with former inmates stating that Stroud was far more sinister and unpleasant than the character depicted in them. Stroud was never allowed to see the film. Art Carney played Stroud in the 1980 TV movie Alcatraz: The Whole Shocking Story, and Dennis Farina played Stroud in the 1987 TV movie Six Against the Rock, a dramatization of the Battle of Alcatraz of 1946.[25]

In music, Stroud has been the subject of the instrumental "Birdman of Alcatraz" from Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record (1977), a concept album about criminality,[26] and the song "The Birdman" by Our Lady Peace is also about him. Several video games such as Galerians and Team Fortress 2 pay homage to him.



References[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Robert Stroud.

1.^ Jump up to: a b Gregory 2008, p. 37.
2.^ Jump up to: a b Ryan & Schlup 2006, p. 2012.
3.^ Jump up to: a b Benton 2012, p. 228.
4.^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Niemi 2006, p. 388.
5.^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Robert Stroud". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
6.Jump up ^ Odier 1982, p. 210.
7.^ Jump up to: a b c d Campbell 1994, p. 66.
8.^ Jump up to: a b Mayo 2008, p. 342.
9.Jump up ^ "Officer Andrew Turner". ODMP. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
10.^ Jump up to: a b c Campbell 1994, p. 67.
11.Jump up ^ "Robert Stroud". Time. 4 January 2009. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
12.^ Jump up to: a b Wellman 2008, p. 57.
13.^ Jump up to: a b c Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the ... Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1962. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
14.Jump up ^ LIFE. Time Inc. 2 May 1960. p. 16. ISSN 0024-3019. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
15.^ Jump up to: a b Sloate 2008, p. 33.
16.Jump up ^ Crowther 1989, p. 55.
17.^ Jump up to: a b c d Sifakis 2002, p. 246.
18.Jump up ^ Hurley 1994, p. 69.
19.Jump up ^ Hurley 1994, p. 126.
20.^ Jump up to: a b c Miller, Johnny (17 November 2013). "Chronicle Archives Wayback Machine: Canseco earns MVP honor, Nov. 17, 1988, 1963". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 20 November 2013.
21.Jump up ^ Sloate 2008, p. 34.
22.Jump up ^ "Robert Stroud". Find A Grave. 1 January 2001. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
23.^ Jump up to: a b National Archives (1991). Prologue: the journal of the National Archives. National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration. pp. 155–9. Retrieved 6 August 2013.
24.Jump up ^ MacDonald 2012, p. 243.
25.Jump up ^ Rabkin 1998, p. 187.
26.Jump up ^ "Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record". Prog Archives. Retrieved 30 August 2013.

A Review On the Benghazi Matter By Snopes
January 2014



http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp#mYQVORssXQoLKXAL.99

Benghazi Bungle

Claim: Various critical statements about the September 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya:

FALSE: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.

FALSE: Requests issued by U.S. personnel for military back-up during the attacks were denied.

FALSE: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

FALSE: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.


Origins:

The claim that top Obama administration officials were gathered in the Oval Office watching a real-time video feed of the September 2012 terrorist attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, but did nothing to intervene appears to have originated with a 24 October 2012 Forbes op-ed piece ("White House Watched Benghazi Attacked And Didn't Respond"), the opening paragraph of which is quoted in the example block above.

However, that description is a rather distorted version of what the news sources it references (CBS News and ABC News) actually reported. A CBS News story from that same day ("U.S. military poised for rescue in Benghazi") stated the following:
Meanwhile, CBS News correspondent Margaret Brennan reports that the FBI and State Department have reviewed video from security cameras that captured the attack on the consulate.

The audio feed of the attack was being monitored in real time in Washington by diplomatic security official Charlene Lamb. CBS News has learned that video of the assault was recovered 20 days later from the more than 10 security cameras at the compound.

The government security camera footage of the attack was in the possession of local Libyans until the week of Oct. 1. The video will be among the evidence that the State Department's review board will analyze to determine who carried out the assault.
According to that report, it was not the case that President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of Defense Panetta, and a national security team were "watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site"; rather, a single diplomatic security official was listening to an audio feed of events in Benghazi. Security cameras in the U.S. consulate compound did record video of the events as they unfolded, and a U.S. surveillance drone camera did capture the last hour of the attack, but neither of those sources was watched real-time by officials in Washington, as the consulate video recordings were not recovered until weeks after the attack:
Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound, according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site [during the first week of October] by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials.

The Obama administration has been studying the videos, taken from closed-circuit cameras throughout the Benghazi consulate’s four-building compound, for clues about who was responsible for the attack and how it played out. The two officials [said] that analysts are hoping to decipher the faces of the attackers and match them up with known jihadists.

In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.
On 26 October 2012, Fox News reported "urgent requests for military back-up" from those on the ground during the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi were turned down by the CIA:
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."
However, administration officials denied that any requests for military assistance by those at the U.S. mission in Benghazi were rejected:
The White House [has] flatly denied that President Barack Obama withheld requests for help from the besieged American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as it came under on attack by suspected terrorists on September 11th.

"Neither the president nor anyone in the White House denied any requests for assistance in Benghazi," National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor [said].

And the CIA has denied that anyone in its chain of command rejected requests for help from the besieged Americans.

Fox News Channel reported that American officials in the compound repeatedly asked for military help during the assault but were rebuffed by CIA higher-ups. At a press briefing one day earlier, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, asked why there had not been a quicker, more forceful response to the assault, complained of "Monday-morning quarterbacking." Panetta said he and top military commanders had judged it too dangerous to send troops to the eastern Libyan city without a clearer picture of events on the ground.
On 1 November 2012, U.S. intelligence officials released an account stating the CIA had in fact rushed security operatives to the U.S. mission compound in Benghazi within half an hour of the start of the attack:
The CIA rushed security operatives to an American diplomatic compound in Libya within 25 minutes after it had come under attack and played a more central role in the effort to fend off a night-long siege than has been publicly acknowledged, U.S. intelligence officials said.

The agency mobilized the evacuation effort, took control of an unarmed U.S. military drone to map possible escape routes, dispatched an emergency security team from Tripoli, the capital, and chartered aircraft that ultimately carried surviving U.S. personnel to

image: http://soundwave.bnmla.com/usersync?sspid=15&r=http://ums.adtechus.com/mapuser?providerid=1029;userid=$UID

image: http://soundwave.bnmla.com/usersync?sspid=15&r=http://ums.adtechus.com/mapuser?providerid=1029;userid=$UID

safety on Sept. 12, U.S. officials said.

U.S. intelligence officials insisted that CIA operatives in Benghazi and Tripoli made decisions rapidly throughout the assault with no interference from Washington, even while acknowledging that CIA security forces were badly outmatched and largely unable to mobilize Libyan security teams until it was too late.

Among the new disclosures is that the CIA station chief in Tripoli sent an emergency security force, with about a half-dozen agency operatives as well as two U.S. military personnel, to Benghazi aboard a hastily chartered aircraft while the attack was underway.

The CIA team attempted to organize an effort to make its way to a hospital where U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens had been taken and was thought to be still alive. But the team was held up by Libyan officials at the airport and scrapped the plan to reach Stevens after learning that the security situation at the hospital was uncertain.
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's 15 January 2014 review of the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi viewed video footage documenting the dispatch of a security team to the Mission compound within 20-25 minutes of the first report of the attack, and they found that no "stand down" orders were issued to the security team at the Annex:
After the Diplomatic Security (DS) agent in the Tactical Operations Center at the Temporary Mission Facility alerted the Annex security team that TMF was under attack at 9:40, the Chief of Base called the [redacted] "who advised that he would immediately deploy a force to provide assistance," according to a September 19, 2012, cable.

Two armored vehicles were prepared so the security team could respond from the Annex. Approximately 20-25 minutes after the first call came into the Annex that the Temporary Mission Facility (TMF) was under attack, a security team left the Annex for the Mission compound. In footage taken from the Annex's security cameras, the security team can be observed departing the CIA Annex at 10:03 p.m. Benghazi time.

The team drove to the Mission facility and made their way onto the Mission compound in the face of enemy fire, arriving in the vicinity of the compound at approximately 10:10 p.m. Benghazi time. The Committee explored claims that there was a "stand down" order given to the security team at the Annex. Although some members of the security team expressed frustration that they were unable to respond more quickly to the Mission compound, 12 the Committee found no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party.
General Carter Ham headed the U.S. Africa Command during the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. A late October 2012 rumor claimed General Ham declined an order to "stand down" and attempted to provide military assistance during the attacks, only to be relieved of his command "within a minute" of doing so, and Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was likewise relieved of his command for ordering his forces to support those ordered into action by General Ham. That rumor was fueled by an 18 October 2012 announcement that President Obama had selected a nominee to replace General Ham (who subsequently retired from the U.S. Army in April 2013) as commander of the U.S. Africa Command:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced.

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

"Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region," Panetta said. "I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service."
However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground:
The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.
On 29 October 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also asserted that this rumor was false:
The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham's departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence.
General Ham himself testified before the House Committee on Armed Services in June 2013 that the decision not to deploy close air support during the attack was made by him based on his assessment of the situation at the time, not because he was ordered to "stand down":
I will admit to giving a lot of thought about close air support. And in the lead up to September 11th, in the discussions about what forces should we have available, it was my determination, obviously with advice from others, but the responsibility was mine as the commander, was that close air support was not the appropriate tool in this situation.

And as I look back on the events of that night and say ... and think in my own mind would air have made a difference? And in my military judgment, I believe the answer is no. It was a very uncertain situation in an environment which we know we had an unknown surface-to-air threat with the proliferation particularly of shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, many of which remain unaccounted for. But mostly it was a lack of understanding of the environment, and hence the need for the Predator to try to gain an understanding of what was going on.

Knowing the intelligence that I had at the time, not obviously what I have now, but the intelligence I had at the time caused me to conclude in my military judgment that attack aircraft would not be the appropriate response tool. And so I did not direct a heightened alert. That is obviously fair for criticism, and knowing what we know now maybe that was — maybe I would make a different decision. But close air support I think, I still even knowing what I know now, think that was not the right tool to effect change in this situation.
General Ham also addressed this rumor directly during his testimony:
The head of U.S. Africa Command, Gen. Carter Ham, debunked a widespread rumor that he was removed from overseeing the military operation because he wanted to do more militarily that night than he was allowed to by his superiors or the White House.

Immediately following the Benghazi attack, the Internet became rife with speculation that Ham had been pushed out for wanting to do more militarily to help those Americans who were stranded after the attack. Shortly afterward, Ham announced his retirement, further fueling speculation that he was pushed out. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Buck McKeon put the question to Ham.

MCKEON: "This might be a good time to ask ... I heard that you had made the statement that you were prepared to go to their aid and somebody told you no and you said you were going anyway. Is that all some supposition that comes from some reporter?"

HAM: "Yes, sir. No one ever told me no."
Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was also relieved of his command of an aircraft carrier strike group in late October 2012 for a reason that was initially specified only as a recent case of "inappropriate leadership judgment":
In an unusual move, the Navy has replaced an admiral commanding an aircraft carrier strike group while it is deployed to the Middle East. The replacement was prompted by an Inspector General's investigation of allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment. Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette, the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group, is being returned to the United States for temporary reassignment.

In a statement the Navy said it had approved a request made by Vice Adm. John W. Miller, the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, to temporarily reassign Gaouette "pending the results of an investigation by the Navy Inspector General."

A Navy official familiar with the circumstances of the investigation said it involved allegations of "inappropriate leadership judgment" and stressed it was not related to personal conduct.

The Stennis group arrived in the Fifth Fleet's area of operations on Oct. 17 to replace the USS Enterprise, which was on the final deployment of its 50 years of service. The allegations are recent and were made within the last couple of weeks.
It was later revealed that Adm. Gaouette had been relieved of his command not for any reason connected to the September 2012 attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, but because a complaint about his "unprofessional demeanor" had been filed against him by the USS John C. Stennis' commanding officer, Capt. Ronald Reis. A subsequent Navy investigation reprimanded Gaouette for repeatedly violating U.S. Navy policy by making and sending offensive comments and e-mail messages:
"Exemplary conduct" is the expected standard for the Navy's commanding officers, and there Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette fell far short.

The Navy reprimanded a former strike group commander March 25, five months after he was fired for swearing and allegedly making racially tinged comments that resulted in his being flown off an aircraft carrier deployed to the Arabian Gulf.

A Navy investigation has found that Gaouette, ousted from command of the Stennis Carrier Strike Group in October [2012], made a host of potentially offensive comments that his rivals in the deployed strike group pounced on to get him relieved: He swore profusely, flipping off lieutenants, speculated that black admirals were chosen because of their race and sent six white officers a racially tinged email about a black sailor.

Interviews with strike group sailors and leaders "left little doubt they would not choose to behave in the same manner as did their commander," the Naval Inspector General concluded in its report, which ruled that Gaouette's offensive email and racial comments each violated Navy policy. Adm. Jon Richardson reprimanded Gaouette on March 25 [2013] and ordered that the investigation be attached to his service record.
Last updated: 19 January 2014


image: http://soundwave.bnmla.com/usersync?sspid=15&r=http://ums.adtechus.com/mapuser?providerid=1029;userid=$UID

image: http://soundwave.bnmla.com/usersync?sspid=15&r=http://ums.adtechus.com/mapuser?providerid=1029;userid=$UID

safety on Sept. 12, U.S. officials said.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp#mYQVORssXQoLKXAL.99

Benghazi Timeline

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/


Here is our timeline:
Analysis


Sept. 11: The Attack

2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)

3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)
Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”
About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”
6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”

About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.


Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

Sept. 12: Clinton issues a statement confirming that four U.S. officials, not one, had been killed. She called it a “violent attack.”

Clinton: All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

Sept. 12: Clinton delivers a speech at the State Department to condemn the attack in Benghazi and to praise the victims as “heroes.” She again makes reference to the anti-Muslim video in similar language.

Clinton: 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. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear — there is no justification for this, none.

Sept. 12: Obama delivers a morning speech in the Rose Garden to address the deaths of U.S. diplomats in Libya. He said, “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” He also makes reference to the anti-Muslim video when he says: “Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.” He uses the term “act of terror” later that night when talking about the attack at a campaign event in Las Vegas.

Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”

Kroft: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya attack.

Obama: Right.

Kroft: Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?

Obama: Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans and we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice one way or the other.

Kroft: It’s been described as a mob action. But there are reports that they were very heavily armed with grenades. That doesn’t sound like your normal demonstration.

Obama: As I said, we’re still investigating exactly what happened. I don’t want to jump the gun on this. But you’re right that this is not a situation that was exactly the same as what happened in Egypt. And my suspicion is, is that there are folks involved in this, who were looking to target Americans from the start.

Sept. 12: Senior administration officials, who did not permit use of their names, hold a briefing with reporters to answer questions about the attack. Twice officials characterize those involved in the attack as “extremists.” In one case, an official identified only as “senior administration official one” is asked by Fox News reporter Justin Fishel if the administration had ruled out the possibly that the attack was in response to the anti-Muslim video. The official says, “We just don’t know.”

Senior administration official one: With regard to whether there is any connection between this Internet activity and this extremist attack in Benghazi, frankly, we just don’t know. We’re not going to know until we have a chance to investigate. And I’m sorry that it is frustrating for you that so many of our answers are “We don’t know,” but they are truthful in that.

NBC’s Andrea Mitchell asks officials to address news reports that the attack has been “linked to a terror attack, an organized terror attack,” possibly al Qaeda. The official refers to it as a “complex attack,” but says it is “too early to say who they were” and their affiliation.
Senior administration official one: Frankly, we are not in a position to speak any further to the perpetrators of this attack. It was clearly a complex attack. We’re going to have to do a full investigation. We are committed to working with the Libyans both on the investigation and to ensure that we bring the perpetrators to justice. The FBI is already committed to assisting in that, but I just – we’re – it’s just too early to speak to who they were and if they might have been otherwise affiliated beyond Libya.

Sept. 12, 4:09 p.m.: At a press briefing en route to Las Vegas, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney is asked, “Does the White House believe that the attack in Benghazi was planned and premeditated?” He responds, “It’s too early for us to make that judgment. I think — I know that this is being investigated, and we’re working with the Libyan government to investigate the incident. So I would not want to speculate on that at this time.”

Sept. 12: Libya’s deputy ambassador to London, Ahmad Jibril, tells the BBC that Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. The little-known militant group issues a statement that says it “didn’t participate as a sole entity,” neither confirming nor denying the report.
Sept. 12, 6:06 p.m.: Beth Jones, the acting assistant secretary of state for the Near East, sends an email to top State Department officials that reads in part: “[T]he group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” (An excerpt of Jones’ email was read by Rep. Trey Gowdy at the May 8, 2013, House oversight hearing.)

Sept. 12: Citing unnamed “U.S. government officials,” Reuters reports that “the Benghazi attack may have been planned in advance” and that members of Ansar al-Sharia “may have been involved.” Reuters quotes one of the U.S. officials as saying: “It bears the hallmarks of an organized attack.”

Sept. 13: ‘Clearly Planned’ or ‘Spontaneous’ Attack?
Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

Clinton: Religious freedom and religious tolerance are essential to the stability of any nation, any people. Hatred and violence in the name of religion only poison the well. All people of faith and good will know that the actions of a small and savage group in Benghazi do not honor religion or God in any way. Nor do they speak for the more than 1 billion Muslims around the world, many of whom have shown an outpouring of support during this time.

Unfortunately, however, over the last 24 hours, we have also seen violence spread elsewhere. Some seek to justify this behavior as a response to inflammatory, despicable material posted on the Internet. As I said earlier today, the United States rejects both the content and the message of that video. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. At our meeting earlier today, my colleague, the foreign minister of Morocco, said that all prophets should be respected because they are all symbols of our humanity, for all humanity.

But both of us were crystal clear in this paramount message: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind. And we look to leaders around the world to stand up and speak out against violence, and to take steps to protect diplomatic missions from attack.

Sept. 13: At a daily press briefing, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked if the Benghazi attack was “purely spontaneous or was premeditated by militants.” She declined to say, reiterating that the administration did not want to “jump to conclusions.”
Nuland: Well, as we said yesterday when we were on background, we are very cautious about drawing any conclusions with regard to who the perpetrators were, what their motivations were, whether it was premeditated, whether they had any external contacts, whether there was any link, until we have a chance to investigate along with the Libyans. So I know that’s going to be frustrating for you, but we really want to make sure that we do this right and we don’t jump to conclusions.

That said, obviously, there are plenty of people around the region citing this disgusting video as something that has been motivating. As the Secretary said this morning, while we as Americans, of course, respect free speech, respect free expression, there’s never an excuse for it to become violent.

Sept. 13: Clinton met with Moroccan Foreign Minister Saad-Eddine Al-Othmani. She condemned what she called the “disgusting and reprehensible” anti-Muslim video and the violence that it triggered. She said, “Islam, like other religions, respects the fundamental dignity of human beings, and it is a violation of that fundamental dignity to wage attacks on innocents. As long as there are those who are willing to shed blood and take innocent life in the name of religion, the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.”
Sept. 13: At a campaign event in Colorado, Obama again uses the phrase “act of terror.” He says: “I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.”
Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.
CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”

Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack
Sept. 14: Clinton spoke at Andrews Air Force Base at a ceremony to receive the remains of those killed in Benghazi. She remarked that she received a letter from the president of the Palestinian Authority praising Stevens and “deploring — and I quote — ‘an act of ugly terror.’ ” She, however, did not call it an act of terror or a terrorist attack and neither did the president.

Sept. 14: At a State Department press briefing, spokeswoman Nuland says the department will no longer answer any questions about the Benghazi attack. “It is now something that you need to talk to the FBI about, not to us about, because it’s their investigation.”
Sept. 14: At a White House press briefing, Press Secretary Carney denies reports that it was a preplanned attack. “I have seen that report, and the story is absolutely wrong. We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent. That report is false.” Later in that same briefing, Carney is told that Pentagon officials informed members of Congress at a closed-door meeting that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack. Carney said the matter is being investigated but White House officials “don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film.”

Question: Jay, one last question — while we were sitting here — [Defense] Secretary [Leon] Panetta and the Vice Chair of the Joint Chiefs briefed the Senate Armed Services Committee. And the senators came out and said their indication was that this, or the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist attack organized and carried out by terrorists, that it was premeditated, a calculated act of terror. Levin said — Senator Levin — I think it was a planned, premeditated attack. The kind of equipment that they had used was evidence it was a planned, premeditated attack. Is there anything more you can — now that the administration is briefing senators on this, is there anything more you can tell us?

Carney: Well, I think we wait to hear from administration officials. Again, it’s actively under investigation, both the Benghazi attack and incidents elsewhere. And my point was that we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film. But we’re obviously investigating the matter, and I’ll certainly — I’m sure both the Department of Defense and the White House and other places will have more to say about that as more information becomes available.

Sept. 14: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta meets with the Senate Armed Services Committee. Roll Call, a Capitol Hill newspaper, reports that Republicans and Democrats came away with the conclusion that the Benghazi attack was a planned terrorist attack.
The Hill: Senators spoke with Panetta about the response to the situation in Libya. Four Americans were killed in an attack Tuesday on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Senators said it has become clearer the attack was coordinated, although they would not say anything specific about any connection to the broader protests that came after an anti-Muslim video was released.

“I think it was a planned, premeditated attack,” Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said. He added he did not know the specific group responsible for the assault on the complex.

[Sen. John] McCain expressed a similar view.

“People don’t go to demonstrate and carry RPGs and automatic weapons,” he said, adding that the facts suggest “this was not a ‘mob’ action [or] a group of protesters.”

Sept. 15-16: Susan Rice Contradicts Libyan President
Sept. 15: Obama discusses the Benghazi attack in his weekly address. He makes no mention of terror, terrorists or extremists. He does talk about the anti-Muslim film and “every angry mob” that it inspired in pockets of the Middle East.
Obama: This tragic attack [in Benghazi] takes place at a time of turmoil and protest in many different countries. I have made it clear that the United States has a profound respect for people of all faiths. We stand for religious freedom. And we reject the denigration of any religion — including Islam.

Yet there is never any justification for violence. There is no religion that condones the targeting of innocent men and women. There is no excuse for attacks on our Embassies and Consulates.

Sept. 16: Libya President Mohamed Magariaf says on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that the attack on the U.S. consulate was planned months in advance. But Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, tells CBS News’ Bob Schieffer: “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.” She says it began “spontaneously … as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo,” and “extremist elements” joined in the protest. (It was later learned that Rice received her information from talking points developed by the CIA.)

Update, May 16, 2013: The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed. However, all of the drafts say the attack began “spontaneously” in response to the Cairo protest. Read our article “Benghazi Attack, Revisited” for more information on what changes were made to the talking points.

Update, May 2, 2014: Two days before Rice’s appearance on the Sunday talk show circuit, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes sent an email to other administration officials, including White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, with the subject line “PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET.” Rhodes’ email outlined four “goals” for Rice’s TV appearances. One of the goals: “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The email contained a mock Q&A session, and the third question asked whether the Benghazi attack was “an intelligence failure.” The answer in the email parroted — nearly word for word — Rice’s talking points when it said: “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US Consulate and subsequently its annex.” The Rhodes email was released April 29 by Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that obtained 41 State Department documents under the Freedom of Information Act.

Schieffer: Was this a long-planned attack, as far as you know? Or what– what do you know about that?


Magariaf: The way these perpetrators acted and moved … this leaves us with no doubt that this has preplanned, determined– predetermined.

Schieffer: And you believe that this was the work of al Qaeda and you believe that it was led by foreigners. Is that — is that what you are telling us?

Magariaf: It was planned — definitely, it was planned by foreigners, by people who — who entered the country a few months ago, and they were planning this criminal act since their — since their arrival. …

Schieffer: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador, our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, [Magariaf] says this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you have been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

Rice: Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch led by the FBI, that has begun and —

They are not on the ground yet, but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of — of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation. So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions.

But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy — sparked by this hateful video. But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that– in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

Schieffer: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

Rice: We do not– we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

Schieffer: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

Rice: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

Sept. 16: Magariaf says in an interview with NPR: “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous. We firmly believe that this was a precalculated, preplanned attack that was carried out specifically to attack the U.S. consulate.”

Sept. 17: State Defends Rice and ‘Initial Assessment’

Sept. 17: Nuland, the State Department spokeswoman, is asked about Rice’s comments on “Face the Nation” and four other Sunday talk shows. Nuland says, “The comments that Ambassador Rice made accurately reflect our government’s initial assessment.” Nuland uses the phrase “initial assessment” three times when discussing Rice’s comments.

Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’

Sept. 18: Obama was asked about the Benghazi attack on “The Late Show with David Letterman.” The president said, “Here’s what happened,” and began discussing the impact of the anti-Muslim video. He then said, “Extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the consulate in Libya.” He also said, “As offensive as this video was and, obviously, we’ve denounced it and the United States government had nothing to do with it. That’s never an excuse for violence.”

Sept. 18: Asked about Magariaf’s assessment that the video had nothing to do with the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the White House spokesman says Obama “would rather wait” for the investigation to be completed. “But at this time, as Ambassador Rice said and as I said, our understanding and our belief based on the information we have is it was the video that caused the unrest in Cairo, and the video and the unrest in Cairo that helped — that precipitated some of the unrest in Benghazi and elsewhere,” Carney says. “What other factors were involved is a matter of investigation.”

Sept. 18: After meeting with Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa, Clinton speaks with reporters and is asked if the Libyan president is “wrong” that “this attack was planned for months.” Clinton says, “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has said we had no actionable intelligence that an attack on our post in Benghazi was planned or imminent.” She does not say if Magariaf is right or wrong.

Sept. 19: Olsen Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Sept. 19: Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, tells a Senate subcommittee (at 1:06:49 in the video) that the four State Department officials in Benghazi “were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy.” It is the first time an administration official labeled it a “terrorist attack.” But he also tells the senators that he has no “specific evidence of significant advanced planning.”

Olsen: Yes, they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. … The best information we have now, the facts that we have now, indicate that this was an opportunist attack on our embassy. The attack began and evolved and escalated over several hours. … [I]t appears that individuals who were certainly well armed seized on the opportunity presented as the events unfolded. … What we don’t have, at this point, is specific intelligence that there was a significant advanced planning or coordination for this attack.

Sept. 19: At a State Department briefing, the department spokeswoman is asked if she now believes that the attack was a “terrorist attack”? She says, “Well, I didn’t get a chance to see the whole testimony that was given by Matt Olsen of the NCTC, but obviously we stand by comments made by our intelligence community who has first responsibility for evaluating the intelligence and what they believe that we are seeing.”

Sept. 19: The White House spokesman does not call it a “terrorist attack” in his press briefing. Carney says, “Based on the information we had at the time — we have now, we do not yet have indication that it was preplanned or premeditated. There’s an active investigation. If that active investigation produces facts that lead to a different conclusion, we will make clear that that’s where the investigation has led.”

Sept. 20: W.H. Spokesman Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’ — Not Obama

Sept. 20: Carney calls it a “terrorist attack” after being asked how the White House now classifies the attack. But he says the White House has no evidence that it was “a significantly preplanned attack” and blames the video for igniting the incident in Benghazi.
Carney: It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Our embassy was attacked violently, and the result was four deaths of American officials. So, again, that’s self-evident. I would point you to a couple of things that Mr. Olsen said, which is that at this point it appears that a number of different elements were involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in Eastern Libya.

He also made clear that at this point, based on the information he has — and he is briefing the Hill on the most up-to-date intelligence — we have no information at this point that suggests that this was a significantly preplanned attack, but this was the result of opportunism, taking advantage of and exploiting what was happening as a result of reaction to the video that was found to be offensive.

Sept. 20: Obama, at a town hall meeting, says “extremists” took advantage of the “natural protests” to the anti-Muslim video to attack the consulate in Benghazi. He does not call it a “terrorist attack.”

Question: We have reports that the White House said today that the attacks in Libya were a terrorist attack. Do you have information indicating that it was Iran, or al Qaeda was behind organizing the protests?

Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation, and there are going to be different circumstances in different countries. And so I don’t want to speak to something until we have all the information. What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests.

Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’

Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”

Sept. 24-25: Obama Refuses to Call It a Terrorist Attack

Sept. 24: Clinton meets with the Libyan president and calls the Benghazi attack a “terrorist assault.” She says, “As we all know, the United States lost a great ambassador and the Libyan people lost a true friend when Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the terrorist assault on our consulate in Benghazi.”

Sept. 24: Obama tapes an appearance on “The View,” and he’s asked by co-host Joy Behar whether the Libya attack was an act of terrorism or caused by the anti-Muslim video. He does not call it a terrorist attack and says, “We’re still doing an investigation.”
Joy Behar: It was reported that people just went crazy and wild because of this anti-Muslim movie, or anti-Muhammad, I guess, movie. But then I heard Hillary Clinton say that it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?

Obama: Well, we’re still doing an investigation. There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. Now, we don’t have all the information yet, so we’re still gathering it. But what’s clear is that around the world, there’s still a lot of threats out there. That’s why we have to maintain the strongest military in the world, that’s why we can’t let down our guard when it comes to the intelligence work that we do and staying on top of — not just al Qaeda, the traditional al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan. …

Sept. 25: Obama speaks at the United Nations. He praises Chris Stevens as “the best of America” and condemns the anti-Muslim video as “crude and disgusting.” He does not describe the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack.

Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’

Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”
Sept. 26: Deputy Secretary of State William Burns, in an interview with Al Jazeera, is asked whether he agrees with the president of Libya that the Benghazi attack was premeditated and had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim video. He said: “It’s clear that the attack which took the lives of Chris Stevens and three other colleagues was clearly choreographed and directed and involved a fair amount of firepower, but exactly what kind of planning went into that and how it emerged on that awful night, we just don’t know right now. But I’m confident we’ll get to the bottom of it.”

Sept. 27: When Did Administration Know?

Sept. 27: At a press briefing, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says that “it was a terrorist attack,” but declines to say when he came to that conclusion. “It took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location,” he said. “As we determined the details of what took place there, and how that attack took place, that it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack.”

Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same briefing addresses what the U.S. knew in advance of the Benghazi attack. He says there was “a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in … eastern Libya were seeking to coalesce, but there wasn’t anything specific and certainly not a specific threat to the consulate that I’m aware of.”

Sept. 27: In a report on “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees,” Fran Townsend, former Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush, says the administration knew early on that it was a terrorist attack. “The law enforcement source who said to me, from day one we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack,” she says.

Sept. 27-28: Intelligence ‘Evolved’

Sept. 27: The White House spokesman is asked yet again why the president has refused to call the incident a terrorist attack. “The president’s position [is] that this was a terrorist attack,” Carney says.

Question: If the president does not call it, label it a terrorist attack as you and others have, is there some legal or diplomatic trigger that that brings? Why hasn’t he said that?

Carney: I think you’re misunderstanding something here. I’m the president’s spokesman. When the head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Matt Olsen, in open testimony in Congress answered a question by saying yes, by the definitions we go by — this is me paraphrasing — this was a terrorist attack — I echoed that, because this president, this administration, everybody looks to the intelligence community for the assessments on this. And it has been since I said so, the president’s position that this was a terrorist attack.

Sept. 28: Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the director of national intelligence, says in a statement that the office’s position on the attack evolved. It was first believed that “the attack began spontaneously,” but it was later determined that “it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack,” he says.

Turner: In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving.

As we learned more about the attack, we revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists. It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attack, and if extremist group leaders directed their members to participate.

Oct. 2-3: Clinton Cites ‘Continuing Questions’

Oct. 2: White House spokesman Carney at a press briefing in Nevada: “At every step of the way, the administration has based its public statements on the best assessments that were provided by the intelligence community. As the intelligence community learned more information they updated Congress and the American people on it.”

Oct. 3: Clinton tells reporters after a meeting with Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov: “There are continuing questions about what exactly happened in Benghazi on that night three weeks ago. And we will not rest until we answer those questions and until we track down the terrorists who killed our people.”

Oct. 9: ‘Everything Calm’ Prior to Benghazi Attack, No Protests

Oct. 9: At a background briefing, senior state department officials reveal there were no protests prior to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi — contrary to what administration officials have been saying for weeks. A senior department official says “everything is calm at 8:30 p.m.” (Libya time) when Stevens was outside the building to bid a visitor goodbye. The ambassador retired to his bedroom for the evening at 9 p.m. The calm was shattered by 9:40 p.m. when “loud noises” and “gunfire and an explosion” are heard. (The background briefing provided on Sept. 12 also said the attack began at about 10 p.m., or about 4 p.m. EDT, but it did not provide information about what happened prior to the attack.)
A senior official says it was “not our conclusion” that the Benghazi attack started as a spontaneous protest to the anti-Muslim video. He also said “there was no actionable intelligence of any planned or imminent attack.”

Question: What in all of these events that you’ve described led officials to believe for the first several days that this was prompted by protests against the video?

Senior state department official two: That is a question that you would have to ask others. That was not our conclusion. I’m not saying that we had a conclusion, but we outlined what happened. The Ambassador walked guests out around 8:30 or so, there was no one on the street at approximately 9:40, then there was the noise and then we saw on the cameras the – a large number of armed men assaulting the compound.

Oct. 10: Administration Says It Gave Public ‘Best Information’

Oct. 10: Carney, the White House spokesman, is asked at a press briefing why the president and administration officials described the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause of the attack on Benghazi when the State Department “never concluded that the assault in Benghazi was part of a protest on the anti-Muslim film.” He replied, in part: “Again, from the beginning, we have provided information based on the facts that we knew as they became available, based on assessments by the intelligence community — not opinions — assessments by the IC, by the intelligence community. And we have been clear all along that this was an ongoing investigation, that as more facts became available we would make you aware of them as appropriate, and we’ve done that.”

Oct. 10: After testifying before a House committee, Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy is asked at a press briefing what the State Department should have done differently in releasing information about the Benghazi attack. He said, “We are giving out the best information we have at the time.”

Kennedy: [T]his is obviously an incredibly complicated situation. We’ve always made clear from the very beginning that we are giving out the best information we have at the time we are giving it out. That information has evolved over time. For example, if any Administration official, including any career official, had been on television on Sunday, September 16th, they would have said the same thing that Ambassador Rice would have said. She had information at that point from the intelligence community, and that is the same information I had and this – I would have made exactly the same points. Clearly, we know more today, but we knew what we knew when we knew it.

Oct. 10: The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform releases State Department memos requesting additional security in Libya. Charlene Lamb, a State Department official who denied those requests, tells the committee that the State Department had been training local Libyans for nearly a year and additional U.S. security personnel were not needed. As reported by Foreign Policy: “We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi on the night of 9/11,” Lamb testified. Others testified differently. “All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources,” testified Eric Nordstrom, the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Foreign Policy reported.

Oct. 15: Clinton Blames ‘Fog of War’

Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with the anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

Oct. 15: The New York Times reports that the Benghazi attack came “without any warning or protest,” but “Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers” say it was “in retaliation for the video.”

Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.)

Oct. 24: Clinton warns at a press conference that you cannot draw conclusions from the leaked emails because “cherry-picking one story here or one document there” can be misleading. She said, “The independent Accountability Review Board is already hard at work looking at everything — not cherry-picking one story here or one document there — but looking at everything, which I highly recommend as the appropriate approach to something as complex as an attack like this. Posting something on Facebook is not in and of itself evidence, and I think it just underscores how fluid the reporting was at the time and continued for some time to be.”
Oct. 24: Carney, the White House spokesman, says that “within a few hours” of the attack Ansar al-Sharia “claimed that it had not been responsible.” He added, “Neither should be taken as fact — that’s why there’s an investigation underway.”

May 8, 2013: At a hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, Rep. Trey Gowdy reads excerpts of a Sept. 12, 2011, email written by Acting Assistant Secretary of State for the Near East Beth Jones. According to Gowdy, Jones wrote, “I spoke to the Libyan ambassador and emphasized the importance of Libyan leaders to continue to make strong statements,” and “When he said his government suspected that former Qaddafi regime elements carried out the attack, I told him that the group that conducted the attacks, Ansar al-Sharia, is affiliated with Islamic extremists.” Gowdy said the email was sent to several top State Department officials, including Under Secretary for Management Patrick Kennedy. The committee did not release the full contents of the email. House Speaker John Boehner said the State Department did not allow the House to keep a copy of it.)

May 15, 2013: The White House releases 100 pages of emails regarding the CIA’s original talking points that were developed for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and used by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice during her Sept. 16 Sunday talk show appearances. The emails show there were extensive changes made at the request of the State Department. (See “Sept. 16″ in our timeline for more information.)

Update, Nov. 6, 2012: This article was updated to add the president’s Sept. 12 interview with “60 Minutes,” which did not release the video and transcript until Nov. 4.

Update, May 9, 2013: This article was updated to include testimony from the May 8, 2013, hearing of the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform.
— by Eugene Kiely
Sources

National Counterterrorism Center. “Terrorism Definitions.” 27 Aug 2010.
U.S. Department of State. “Briefing by Senior Administration Officials to Update Recent Events in Libya.” 12 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Statement on the Attack in Benghazi.” 11 Sep 2012.

Reuters. “U.S. confirms death of official in Benghazi attack.” 11 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Statement on the Death of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya.” 12 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks on the Deaths of American Personnel in Benghazi, Libya.” 12 Sep 2012.

White House. “Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya.” 12 Sep 2012.

White House. “Remarks by the President at a Campaign Event — Las Vegas, NV.” 12 Sep 2012.
White House. “Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Las Vegas, NV.” 12 Sep 2012.
Banerji, Robin. “Did Ansar al-Sharia carry out Libya attack?” 12 Sep 2012.

Roggio, Bill. “Ansar al Shariah issues statement on US Consulate assault in Libya.” 12 Sep 2012.

Spetalnick, Matt and Hadeel Al Shalchi. “Obama vows to track down ambassador’s killers.” Reuters. 12 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks at Reception Marking Eid ul-Fitr.” 13 Sep 2012.
U.S. Department of State. “Daily Press Briefing.” 13 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks at the Opening Plenary of the U.S.-Morocco Strategic Dialogue.” 13 Sep 2012.

White House. “Remarks by the President in Golden, CO.” 13 Sep 2012.

Aarthun, Sarah. “4 hours of fire and chaos: How the Benghazi attack unfolded.” CNN. 13 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks at the Transfer of Remains Ceremony to Honor Those Lost in Attacks in Benghazi, Libya.” 14 Sep 2012.
White House. “Remarks by the President at Transfer of Remains Ceremony for Benghazi Victims.” 14 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Daily Press Briefing.” 14 Sep 2012.
White House. “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney.” 14 Sep 2012.

Lesniewski, Nils. “Senators Question Leon Panetta About Syria, Libya.” Roll Call. 14 Sep 2012.
CBS News. “Face the Nation.” 16 Sep 2012.

White House. “Weekly Address: Carrying on the Work of Our Fallen Heroes.” 15 Sep 2012.

Fadel, Leila. “Consulate Attack Preplanned, Libya’s President Says.” NPR. 16 Sep 2012.

CBS. “The Late Show with David Letterman.” 17 Sep 2012.

White House. “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney.” 18 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks With Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Patricia Espinosa After Their Meeting.” 18 Sep 2012

U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs. “Homeland Threats and Agency Responses.” 19 Sep 2012

U.S. Department of State. “Daily Press Briefing.” 19 Sep 2012

White House. “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney.” 19 Sep 2012

White House. “Remarks by the President at Univision Town Hall with Jorge Ramos and Maria Elena Salinas.” 20 Sep 2012

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks With Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar Before Their Meeting.” 21 Sep 2012

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks With Libyan President Mohamed Magariaf Before Their Meeting.” 24 Sep 2012

Knox, Oliver. “Obama: Libya attack ‘wasn’t just a mob action’.” Yahoo News. 24 Sep 2012.
Madhani, Aamer. “Team Romney: Obama fails to call Libya incident terror.” USA Today. 26 Sep 2012.

White House. “Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly.” 25 Sep 2012.

White House. “Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney Aboard Air Force One en route Ohio.” 26 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Interview with Al-Jazeera.” 26 Sep 2012.

U.S. Department of Defense. “DOD News Briefing with Secretary Panetta and Gen. Dempsey from the Pentagon.” 27 Sep 2012.

CNN. “Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees.” 26 Sep 2012.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “Statement by the Director of Public Affairs for ODNI, Shawn Turner, on the intelligence related to the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.” 28 Sep 2012

White House. “Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Virginia Beach, Virginia.” 27 Sep 2012.

White House. “Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney.” 2 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks With Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan Erlan Idrissov After Their Meeting.” 3 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Background Briefing on Libya.” 9 Oct 2012.

Klapper, Bradley. “State Dept reveals new details of Benghazi attack.” Associated Press. 10 Oct 2012.

White House. “Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney.” 10 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Hearing on Benghazi Security Issues.” 10 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Interview with Elise Labott of CNN.” 15 Oct 2012.

Kirkpatrick, David. “Election-Year Stakes Overshadow Nuances of Libya Investigation.” New York Times. 15 Oct 2012.

Hosenball, Mark. “White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails.” Reuters. 23 Oct 2012.

U.S. Department of State. “Remarks With Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota After Their Meeting.” 24 Oct 2012.

White House. “Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Jay Carney en route Davenport, Iowa.” 24 Oct 2012.