Posted on 10/11/2014 9:35:10 AM PDT by smoothsailing
October 11, 2014 4:00 AM
It was a desultory hearing. That’s not the main thing that bothers me, but it grates. Many Americans still seek real accountability for the jihadist-empowering policies and recklessly irresponsible security arrangements that preceded the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack — to say nothing of the fraud and stonewalling that followed it. We were thus cheered when the GOP-controlled House finally appointed a select investigative committee . . . although we were equally puzzled why it took so much prodding, why Republican leadership seemed so reluctant. Five months have elapsed since then, and the committee has not exactly been a bundle of energy.
The panel is chaired by Representative Trey Gowdy. We were buoyed by that, too: He is an impressive former prosecutor from South Carolina. To date, though, he has convened just the one, remarkably brief public hearing. It was on September 17, a few days after the second anniversary of the Benghazi massacre, during which terrorists killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans: Sean Smith, Ty Woods, and Glen Doherty.
The hearing seemed to be a futile quest for buy-in from committee Democrats, whose mission is to undermine the legitimacy of an investigation their party opposed — one that, if thorough and competent, cannot but damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions. Representative Gowdy agreed to the minority’s request for a session that would explore the recommendations of the Obama State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB) and the administration’s diligent implementation thereof.
The ARB probe, conducted by Washington fixtures handpicked by then–Secretary of State Clinton for damage-control purposes, was hopelessly conflicted. It failed to interview key witnesses — including, natch, Mrs. Clinton herself. Its recommendations are thus of dubious value. More to the point, they are far afield from the salient matter: accountability for the disastrous decisions, actions, and omissions before, during, and after the attack.
It was obvious why Democrats wanted a hearing focused on the ARB recommendations. It could nicely frame their contention that Benghazi has already been thoroughly investigated by bipartisan Beltway eminences who found fault (though not much, and not by anyone of significance) and proposed fixes, which fixes the Obama administration anxiously and responsibly adopted. End of story, which after all, dude, was like two years ago.
In spinning this yarn, Democrats could not have chosen a more perfect witness: Gregory Starr, assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Mr. Starr is a highly experienced diplomat, articulate with just the right edge of condescension, and, best of all, out of the loop on anything of consequence. He wasn’t at State when Benghazi happened. He was brought back to the Department by Mrs. Clinton’s successor, John Kerry, after a stint at the UN. He was therefore perfectly positioned to give forceful soliloquies about how crucial personnel security is to the State Department and the Obama administration, yet able to dodge any questions about the unconscionable security lapses in Benghazi under Secretary Clinton.
To their credit, committee Republicans did a fine job debunking the Democrats’ narrative. Chairman Gowdy in particular was characteristically effective in showing that the ARB recommendations were essentially the same ones proposed, and quickly forgotten, after every terrorist attack on a government facility over the past three decades. He also pointed out that security for high-threat facilities was supposed to be personally approved by the secretary of state, not a subordinate — a problem given that, under Secretary Clinton, security in Benghazi was decreased despite attacks, threats, and expert assessments that clearly signaled an intensifying threat.
Still, there was no reason for committee Republicans to put themselves in a defensive posture. Chairman Gowdy decides what the hearing topics will be. In the days before the hearing, three security contractors assigned to protect the CIA annex in Benghazi went public with allegations that they’d been obstructed by superiors when they tried to come to the aid of the Americans under attack. The delay may have cost lives. Was that not more to the point of the select committee’s mission — more appropriate fodder for its much-anticipated first hearing — than the ARB recommendations?
Of course, we conservatives are used to GOP accommodations designed to both entice Democrats into good-faith cooperation and impress the media with how bipartisan or, in Gowdy’s framing of it, how non-partisan Republicans can be. The civility and sobriety are always unrequited, yet they keep trying.
But that is not my main problem. What really bothers me is what happened toward the end of the hearing.
It was the day’s most dramatic exchange: Representative Gowdy was questioning Secretary Starr. The chairman had expertly set the stage by adducing Starr’s agreement that diplomatic security in dangerous places is a cost-benefit analysis. That is, the degree of risk tolerated depends on the government’s calculation of the benefit derived from whatever mission requires an American presence. With his witness thus cornered, Gowdy pounced: There being no more perilous place on the planet for Americans than the jihadist hornet’s nest of Benghazi, he asked Starr,
We know the risk of being in Benghazi. Can you tell us what our policy was in Libya that overcame those risks? In other words, why were we there?
Starr tried to dance away, going into a speech about how such questions “have been fundamental to the Department for over thirty years,” and that there have thus been evacuations, removal of family members, reductions of personnel, etc. Gowdy, however, would have none of it — after all, none of the measures Starr listed was taken in Benghazi. So again, the chairman demanded,
We know the risk in Benghazi. My colleagues and you and others have done a wonderful job of highlighting some of the “trip wires” — I think [that] is the diplomatic term. What policy were we pursuing in Libya that was so great that it overcame all of the trip wires?
After some hesitation, Secretary Starr meekly replied: “Not being here at the time, sir, I cannot answer that question for you.”
Really?
Starr’s job is diplomatic security and, as he conceded, it cannot be done without knowing the administration’s policy objectives. Regardless of what his responsibilities were when the Benghazi massacre occurred, he cannot responsibly do his current job without knowing what the government’s policy was at the time. Libya has been steadily disintegrating ever since the attack — in fact, our embassy in Tripoli recently had to be evacuated just before being stormed and taken over by jihadists. It is inconceivable that Starr does not know what the Libya policy was.
But that is just half the equation. When a knowledgeable witness refuses to answer a critical question, the interrogator does not just let him off the hook. The witness gets grilled: Isn’t it a fact that the policy was X?
Gowdy did not grill Starr. And Gowdy — the chairman who has access to the intelligence the committee has been gathering for five months, the accomplished prosecutor who is not fool enough to ask a key question to which he did not know the answer — did not fill in the information gap. He abruptly ended the hearing, content to leave the policy shrouded in mystery.
In the midst of Libya’s civil war, the United States government decided to switch sides — we went from support for the Qaddafi regime that had been regarded as a key counterterrorism ally to support for “rebels” who very much included the anti-American jihadists Qaddafi had been helping us track. That was not just an Obama-administration policy preference; it had strong support from prominent senior Republicans in Congress. The toppling of Qaddafi that resulted enabled jihadists to raid the regime’s arsenal. That has greatly benefitted both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State terrorists currently rampaging in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and much of northern Africa.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration, again with significant Republican support, decided to aid and abet Syrian “rebels” who, as in Libya, very much included anti-American jihadists. There is colorable suspicion that this assistance included the gathering up of arms in Libya for shipment to Syrian “rebels.” Abdelhakim Belhadj, the al-Qaeda operative who was Ambassador Stevens’s “rebel” point-man in Benghazi, was clearly involved in at least one major shipment of weapons that went to Syrian “rebels” — including to some of the jihadist groups the United States is now bombing. That shipment was coordinated by Turkey, a country with which Ambassador Stevens, Secretary Clinton, and President Obama worked closely — a country whose ambassador was the last diplomat Stevens met with in Benghazi before being killed.
There will be no accountability for the Benghazi massacre absent a full public airing of what the United States government was doing in that most dangerous of places: Setting up shop among anti-American jihadists and staying there like sitting ducks even as other countries and international organizations pulled out. What was the benefit? Trying to limit the damage caused by switching sides in Libya? Fueling a new jihadist threat in Syria and Iraq — the very one we are now struggling to quell?
In Washington, there seem to be a lot of people resistant to a full public airing of the policy. They may not all be Democrats.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.
Because politically it doesn’t matter. If it mattered it would have effect THAT election, it didn’t, and it won’t this one.
Benghazi is a can of worms the Establishment Republicans do NOT want to open, because it will appear that the search for truth (and the inevitable indictment of the high-level Democrats involved), will set a precedent for prosecuting members of the opposition party, when they fall from majority to minority position.
Establishment Republicans still awaken with the cold willies in the early hours of the morning, when they think back to the days following Watergate, and the resignation of a sitting President, and the later episode of Clinton being impeached but NOT removed from office.
Democrats have a special set of “rights” not enjoyed by Republicans.
While I am not convinced it’s the “deal” that some do (even the GOP Committee said the WH didn’t do anything wrong), you can thank Daryl Issa for screwing it up big time. And the new committee is just going to look like pre-2016 posturing. The only people that will care will be, well ... us.
Can you summarize it, are there any Repubs involved?
I agree, I think Gowdy is being methodical and building his case. A comment to the article at the original link sums up what is probably happening:
.........
LastBestHope • 3 hours ago
It seems likely the truth about Benghazi is known....that the people who knew have talked to Congress.
But you don’t go after the first black president without getting every single duck lined up. The GOP has been there done that with Bubba and it was a disaster for them and US....while Bill remains a hero to Democrats, State Media and over half of our fellow citizens.
If there is rock solid proof and a dozen impeccably honest and credentialed witnesses ready to testify under oath that Obama gave orders to stand down from a rescue or that he passed the buck to Hillary and she gave the order to let our men die....and that a cover-up was ordered by the White House and joined by the State Dept.....then come January 2015, Trey Gowdy will prosecute the case.
Because people are getting tired of the Democrats and it's almost the Republican's turn to be first in line to raid the treasury. Why should they risk that by taking a stand on anything?
Republicans are the Washington Generals, they are the dupes of the democrat Globetrotters. They stand by feigning defense only to allow the globetrotters to showcase their political jukes, moves and skills. The Reps exist only as the loser opposition so that real opposition will not be faced. They must make a show of resistance, but they are never to win. They are useful idiots, who are personally enriched for their acquiesce. Even when they have office they just surrender a little slower, but always giving up ground, always allowing evil to advance, but always getting richer.
"We know the White House appears to have followed “The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980” in informing the congressional “Gang of Eight” of Zero Footprint.
The Gang of Eight in 2011 would have included: Speaker – John Boehner, Minority Leader – Nancy Pelosi; House Permanent Select Committee on Intel Chairman – Mike Rogers, and his Democrat counterpart Charles Ruppersberger; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid; along with Senate Intel Chair Diane Feinstein and her Republican counterpart, Saxby Chambliss."
So Elijah Cummings is Meadowlark Lemon! Damn!!~!
Oh, Thank you... made my morning.
Next Benghazi hearing is Dec 6.. plenty of time for Gowdy to drag these RepubliRATS in for questioning, and there goes our Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader a month after that.
No wonder the RINOs have thrown every knife, hatchet, machete they had against us. Losing Cantor must have shocked them to the core. Why couldn’t Beckel have leaked this before the Primaries!?! Because his team needs complicit RepubliRATS to carry out their dirty work.
...In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, then-FBI Director Robert Mueller noted that as many as 15 individuals supporting the investigation or otherwise helpful to the United States have been killed in Benghazi since the attacks
Probably because by the time Republicans get around to investigating Benghazi, ISIS will have overrun The International Zone (Green Zone) in Baghdad.
McCarthy is trying to out think Trey Gowdy.
I don’t believe McCarthy is that smart.
RINOS vs. RATS
It’s all the same team.
And of course politicians are busy running for reelection right now.
Republicans had an opening. They may get another opportunity, but getting the timing right is difficult.
Yahtzee!
Why did Hillary and Obama use American Taxpayer provided funds, equipment, personnel and facilities to overthrow the government of Libya?
These are people who were screeching for years about any American military involvement anywhere. All of a sudden, they’re for using the American military to overthrow the government of Libya? Not hardly. Not unless there was some money involved in it. Where is Qadaffi’s fortune?
Bengazi was the start of ISIS. One of the many reasons Obama and his Republican cohorts have allowed them to rampage across Iraq and Syria is to give plausible deniability when our troops face American weapons. Now the administration can say they are spoils from the Iraqi Army rather than arms provided by the CIA to our enemies in Libya.
Americans have already been killed by these weapons, likely including the SEAL Team 6 members.
Saudi Arabia oil and money are all over the USA and with Saudi shills. Saudis are true disciples of the Koran with the ‘twin towers’ of Mecca and Medina.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.