House Benghazi ‘investigation’ transparently political
by Kevin_Foley
 Politics Progressive
May 12, 2014 12:00 PM | 988 views | 8 8 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

By now it is pretty clear House Republicans are coordinating their Benghazi smear campaign with conservative media outlets, most notably Fox News.

Some readers not paying close attention to the proceedings might be wondering, is there anything to what the conservative media and House Republicans are saying about the four Americans who tragically died when their diplomatic outpost in Benghazi was overrun by Islamic militants on September 11-12, 2012?

The short answer is, no. What’s going on is transparently political. 

House conservatives and their media allies have several goals keeping Benghazi alive, the first and most important being they can raise campaign cash if they do. 

In fact, the Republican National Congressional Committee recently sent an e-mail to supporters soliciting donations on the strength of the recently announced “House Select Committee” that will conduct the ninth congressional Benghazi investigation. The previous eight investigations found no White House wrong doing. 

The second reason is to smear Hillary Clinton, who was the Secretary of State when the Benghazi tragedy occurred. 

Mrs. Clinton poses a formidable 2016 presidential opponent to whomever Republicans decide to run against her so it’s important to keep the Benghazi non-scandal alive in order to undermine her candidacy, a strategy that is sure to backfire badly on the GOP with women voters.

The third reason is to damage President Obama’s reputation. He led the nation out of the second worst economic collapse in the nation’s history and with the economy humming along now, it’s paramount to create the false impression he and Democrats have failed America.

Finally, and most importantly, the GOP-led House of Representatives has done nothing to help the president clean up the mess they made during President Bush’s eight ruinous years in office. 

In fact, they’ve done nothing, period. 

That’s not a record on which Republicans can run, so it’s crucial they have a smokescreen, something to hide their dereliction of duty from voters. They think Benghazi gives them the cover they need.

Now, let’s look into the five charges Republicans are using as their rationale to launch yet another investigation, claiming they have never been adequately addressed:

Charge: Somebody changed the talking points used by Ambassador Susan Rice during September 16, 2012 television interviews in order to protect the White House. 

Answer: The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan investigation of the tragedy said “talking points went through the normal interagency coordination process…(following) normal, but rushed coordination procedures and there were no efforts by the White House…to ‘cover up’ facts…for political purposes.”

Charge: The White House falsely blamed a video created by an anti-Islamic Coptic Christian and posted on the Intern for triggering spontaneous rather than coordinated attacks.

Answer: The Senate Select Committee report said, “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.”

Charge: President Obama was unaccounted for during the attack on the Benghazi compound. 

Answer: There is an authenticated photograph of Obama and his advisers conferring about in the Oval Office on the day of the attack. 

Charge: Much has been made of a purported “stand down” order to military units that might have rescued the besieged Americans.

Answer: The Senate Select Committee and the independent Accountability Review Board found that no such order was given and there was no effort by any military commander to delay help. 

Charge: All eyewitnesses weren’t interviewed. 

Answer: What House Republicans know but won’t say is that many of the eyewitnesses were or are CIA operatives, whose identities cannot be revealed. All of them have been interviewed in classified hearings.

In 1983, 17 Americans were among the 63 murdered by an Islamic terrorist bombing at the U.S. embassy in Beirut. 

Just six months later, 241 Marines were murdered by an Islamic suicide bomber at their Beirut barracks. 

On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 were murdered by Islamic terrorists even though President Bush was warned a month earlier such an attack was probable. 

On May 12, 2003, Islamic terrorists murdered nine Americans at the diplomatic compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, one of 13 such terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic outposts during President Bush’s term. 

So here’s my question: 

Why weren’t any of these far more heinous Islamic terrorist attacks subjected to nine congressional investigations?

Comments
(8)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Kevin Foley
|
May 20, 2014
Jack Kinch - Bush was warned about bin Laden and airplanes at an early August, 2001 presidential briefing and did nothing. We didn't learn of his negligence for almost a year. Google it.

I have a very special column for Friday I hope you'll read and comprehend. It's all about guys like you.
Jack Kinch(1uncle)
|
May 19, 2014
Congress voted for war in Iraq. NO bama said war in Afganistan was good war. We won war in Iraq but now are losing it back and getting out of good war. Demo wars like/since Korea cost tremendous with loss of many lives, no intent to win. Total waste.

9/11 happened not really long after 'W' elected. Sick Willie? Benghazi and many other lies should be fully investigated and punished so these lies wont happen again. NO bama and killary are known, proven liars. DO NOT elect another such. We must have honesty, transparency in Fed. Gov. which is now resembling a dictatorship.
casher2
|
May 18, 2014
This article mentions Bush when attacks happened during his term but fails to mention Clinton's name when attacks happened during his term. And what do they have to do with Benghazi? Bush, and Clinton for that matter, did not lie about the cause and circumstances or try to defer blame for political gains.
don smith
|
May 18, 2014
Good article rebutting the "questions" already answered in the ARB. Does this mean that Congress will now feel obligated to investigate the Bush Admin over the lies that led to thousands of deaths in Iraq? Maybe hold someone accountable for that?
Lib in Cobb
|
May 18, 2014
Whackaloon Issa is leading the whackaloon pack into another long winded, political war on President Obama and the next likely president Hillary Clinton. None of the Issa investigations have done anything except to waste time and money while making this car thief look more and more like an outpatient mental case.
CobbCoGuy
|
May 13, 2014
Leon Panetta and Michael Morell support the creation of the new select committee. They will certainly be called to testify and are probably eager to make it clear that the intelligence community did not politicize the talking points.

At the time of the attack in Benghazi, Panetta was Defense Secretary and Morell was Deputy Director of the CIA.

They obviously have nothing to hide. If the same can be said for the White House and State Department, then they, too, should welcome the opportunity to clear the air.

If there's nothing to hide, that is. Their behavior suggests otherwise.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and this administration is like a giant boil on our nation, full of pus and ready to burst. It needs to be lanced. Open it up. Swab it out.
CobbCoGuy
|
May 12, 2014
Benghazi? Again? Twice in one week. You guys really are beginning to panic. And I haven't even broached the subject of Ben Rhodes and his email.

What is the Obama administration hiding?
Ben Twomey
|
May 12, 2014
Well, at least you and Bill Price share this opinion.

Of course, liberals are alway quick to make excuses for the screw ups of the great Obama.

I would respond to yur points in this diatribe, but I be damned if I can find any.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides