'Fog of war' shrouded Benghazi attack

The administration's initial accounts, however, changed dramatically in the following days, according to a review of briefing transcripts and administration statements, with a new narrative emerging Sept. 16 when U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice asserted in a series of TV appearances that the best information available indicated that the attack had spun off from a protest over the video.

What prompted that pivot remains a mystery amid a closely contested presidential election and Republican allegations that President Obama intentionally used outrage over the video to mask administration policy missteps that led to the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens.

The issue is sure to arise when Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney meet Monday to debate foreign policy.

Paul Pillar, a former top U.S. intelligence analyst on the Middle East, said that it's natural with such incidents for accounts to change as new information is gathered.

"You have not only a fog of war situation, but fragmentary, incomplete information, and as the responsible agencies develop and acquire better information, the explanations are naturally going to evolve," he said.

But the administration's statements offer an ironic twist on the "fog-of-war" phenomenon: They apparently were more accurate on the day after the attacks than they were when Rice made her TV appearances four days later. Administration officials so far have provided no detailed explanation for the change.

State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner declined to address specifics.

"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters," he said in an email.

On the day after the attack, transcripts show, senior administration officials, briefing reporters, declined in response to three direct questions to link the Benghazi assaults to protests over the video.

At campaign stops in Colorado and Nevada the next day, Sept. 13, Obama referred to the Benghazi assault as "an act of terror."

At the State Department press briefing that day, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was asked directly and repeatedly whether there was a link between the video protests and the attack on the U.S. Consulate.

While she mentioned that commentary on social media was making the link "to this reprehensible video," Nuland emphasized several times that there wasn't enough information for officials to make that leap, even though some news reports, including those of The New York Times and Agence France Presse, were citing unidentified witnesses in Libya who said anger over the video was the reason the consulate was targeted.

"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," Nuland said.

That evening, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presided over a State Department reception marking an Islamic holiday; her remarks made no mention of a protest and made only passing reference to reports that listed "inflammatory material posted on the Internet" as a possible motive.

The story, however, began to change the next day, Sept. 14.

With images of besieged U.S. missions in the Middle East still leading the evening news, White House press secretary Jay Carney became the first official to back away from the earlier declaration that the Benghazi assault was a "complex attack" by extremists.

Instead, Carney told reporters, authorities "have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack."