Most people know by now that Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed during a militant Muslim attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. This attack occurred on September 11th, a date which in the last decade has had special significance to Americans. Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney has inserted himself politically into these events over the last couple of days. This post is not about how Romney screwed up on this issue because he doesn’t understand the difference between a statement which reaffirms America’s dedication to the principles of free speech and religious freedom and an American apology; but rather how the State Department failed to police its own and may have inadvertently compounded the circumstances leading to Ambassador Stevens’ death.
The timeline of these tragic events is detailed here. However, here are a couple of salient points from this timeline:
1) At 6:17 AM on September 11, the embassy in Cairo, Egypt issued the following statement condemning a film depicting the Prophet Mohammed:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
2) At 1:00 PM, the Embassy in Cairo reported that its walls had been breached.
3) At 4:29 PM, the Embassy in Cairo takes to Twitter to condemn the compound breach and to defend its 6:17 AM communiqué.
4) At 6:25 PM, the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya reported that they were under attack.
5) At 10:10 PM, the Romney campaign emails a statement from the nominee which indicated that he was outraged by the attacks on the diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt. He further charged that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn the attack on our missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attack. This was not true since excluding the Cairo tweets, the U.S. Government had made no official statement relative to the situation in Egypt or Libya. Around the same time, the administration distanced itself from the Cairo statement (issued at 6:17 AM that morning).
6) At 10:13 PM, Secretary of State Clinton officially provided the U.S response condemning the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi and acknowledging that at least one of the state department officers had killed.
As the Washington Post would later report, timing is everything. If one watched or listened only to Fox News that evening, you were informed that the statement coming out of Cairo that morning, had been issued after the diplomatic missions were attacked and not before. Thus, making it appear to Fox viewers that the State Department was apologizing for events that occurred that night. As the Washington Post reported, the statement issued by Cairo that morning was consistent with previous State Department issuance in that:
1) It condemned the potential offending action.
2) It emphasize that the United States believes in religious freedom and religious tolerance as well as freedom of expression or freedom speech
3) It makes a reference to American democracy or at least the U.S. constitution.
The problem with the statement released by Cairo Embassy senior public affairs officer, Larry Schwartz, was that it was released after the State Department told Mr. Schwartz not to. To compound matters even further, the Cairo Embassy (Mr. Schwartz) continued to defend the statement on Twitter and on Facebook after being told not to.
As I write this, Mr. Schwartz has not been disciplined in any way and is still the lead public affairs officer at the Cairo Embassy. I’m not going to be the one to say that had Mr. Schwartz not released his statement that Ambassador Stevens would still be alive. But I will say that Mr. Schwartz’ haste to get his communiqué out despite its not being approved by Washington, was not helpful. As we seek justice for the murdered Americans in Libya, one of the first things we should do is fire Mr. Schwartz for releasing an unapproved statement. Then we should provide the justice required by making sure we get the people directly responsible for these horrid acts regardless of how long it takes.
Sometimes American leaders and reporters are not that different from “others” in the world, they prey on the use of information in a misinformed way to those who do not know what is going on but are willing to listen to the news and leaders and react with no further research.