The film's historical accuracy has been disputed. In the film's most controversial scene, the CIA chief in Benghazi (identified only as "Bob") tells the military contractors there, who seek permission to go defend the embassy, to "stand down", thus denying them permission. The real-life CIA chief stated that there was no stand-down order.
[49] His statement was echoed by the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's finding that there was "no evidence of intentional delay or obstruction by the Chief of Base or any other party".
[50] However,
National Review commentator
David French argues that the Senate committee cited above found plenty of evidence of the "stand down" order in the form of personal testimonies. It just chose to rule that the contrary testimony outweighed it.
[51]
Kris "Tonto" Paronto, a CIA contractor who was involved in action during the event said, "We were told to 'stand down'. Those words were used verbatim—100 percent. If the truth of it affects someone's political career? Well, I'm sorry. It happens."
[52] Paronto has been accused of fabricating his account in order to make money, because he "had a book to sell and a movie to help promote".
[53] The CIA base chief portrayed in the film has directly contradicted Paronto's claims, saying "There never was a stand-down order... At no time did I ever second-guess that the team would depart."
[54]
Also disputed is the film's portrayal that air support was denied. A House Armed Services report found that air support was unavailable, or it would have arrived too late to make a difference.
[44] French defended the film's references to air support, writing that even if resources could not have been flown in during the time available, this would itself be "scandalous", given Libya's known instability.
[51] In July 2016, the Republican-led House Select Committee on Benghazi released its report that included numerous witnesses indicating that U.S. military help was available, but not called upon. The report indicated the Department of the Defense would not provide the requested list of military assets that were available that night.
[55]
American conservative columnist
Deroy Murdock wrote that the film confirmed his personal view that President
Barack Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were lying when they initially blamed the
YouTube video
Innocence of Muslims for the attacks in the weeks after they occurred. The video led to various
protests among Muslims around the world, and Obama and others initially stated publicly that the Benghazi attacks emerged from such a protest. Murdock noted that
13 Hours instead portrays the attacks as having been initiated by "well-armed jihadists who know exactly what they are doing".
[56]
Zack Beauchamp of
Vox criticized the film overall, writing that its depiction of the alleged stand-down order and the availability of air support indirectly promoted "pernicious conspiracy theories" that President Obama and/or Secretary Clinton did not want the embassy to be defended.
[50]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_Hours:_The_Secret_Soldiers_of_Benghazi
