WASHINGTON (REUTERS) – Top aides to former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fretted over how she would be portrayed after the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, e-mails released on Friday showed.
The e-mails from Clinton’s personal e-mail account made public by the State Department do not appear to contain any revelations that could badly damage her bid for the presidency in 2016 or provide fodder for Republicans who accuse her of being negligent before the Benghazi attacks.
But they offer a glimpse into how Clinton’s team was concerned about her image immediately afterwards.
A senior adviser to Clinton, Jake Sullivan, forwarded an e-mail from a State Department official about positive media coverage of a statement she gave on Sept 12, 2012, the day after the killings.
“Really nice work guys,” State Department official Matthew Walsh wrote in an e-mail to other staffers, which linked to a story on the Slate news site praising Clinton’s comments about Benghazi as “her most eloquent news conference as secretary of state.”
Sullivan, Clinton’s deputy chief of staff, passed the e-mail on to her with the letters “FYI.”
In another e-mail from September 2012, Sullivan assured the secretary of state that she had used the correct language to describe the lead-up to the Benghazi attack by Islamist militants on a US diplomatic compound and CIA base.
US officials’ exact wording of the attackers’ motivation had become important because the Obama administration initially said the assaults were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Islamic film posted on the Internet.
The US ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Susan Rice, drew heavy criticism from Republicans for making this claim on several Sunday TV shows, even though intelligence indicated within hours after the attacks that they had been the carefully planned work of Islamist militia members.
Sullivan assured Clinton that her language when discussing the attacks in public had been correct.
“You never said spontaneous or characterised the motives, in fact you were careful in your first statement to say we were assessing motive and method,” he wrote in an e-mail.
A number of the e-mails to Clinton, some from high-ranking officials, are flattering to the former first lady.
After Clinton appeared on television the day after the Benghazi attack, Liz Sherwood-Randall, a White House official, sent a message to her via Sullivan which described Clinton’s performance as “emphatic and unflinching and inspiring; she was wise and steady and strong. My 80 year old mother called from LA to say, ‘She was like our rock of Gibraltar.’"
Long a focus of Republican investigators in Congress, accusations that Clinton was negligent on Benghazi are putting her under more intense scrutiny now that she is running for the Democratic Party nomination in the 2016 presidential election.
Republicans say the Obama administration was lax about the security of US personnel in Libya and then misled the public about the nature of the attacks, but various congressional probes have produced little damaging evidence.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that the 296 e-mails released on Friday “do not change the essential facts or our understanding of the events before, during or after the attacks.”
They were the first installment of a rolling release of 55,000 pages of e-mails from her time as secretary of state between 2009 and 2013 that are due to be released in the coming months.
Clinton or her aides have deleted another 30,000 e-mails which she has termed as personal from the same private account, causing Republicans in Congress to accuse her of picking and choosing what she wants to make public.
Representative Trey Gowdy, the Republican who heads the Benghazi probe in the House of Representatives, said the e-mails made public on Friday “continue to reinforce the fact that unresolved questions and issues remain as it relates to Benghazi.”
He also complained that there was a significant gap in the e-mails between late April and July 4, 2012, a period when threats from militants in Benghazi were being more regularly reported.
“The best way to answer all questions related to the attacks in Benghazi continues to be having access to the full public record, not a ‘record’ controlled, possessed and screened exclusively by Secretary Clinton’s personal lawyers,” he said.