From politico.com:
Republican strategist Alex Castellanos called the connection between Benghazi and Clinton’s political future easy — and completely justified.
“Remember when Hillary described the Clinton presidency as ‘two-for-one’? Now it’s two-for-one again: If Republicans hold her boss accountable for his failure in Benghazi, Hillary’s political future is tarnished,” Castellanos said.
He added, “Hillary Clinton had the misfortune to be Secretary of State for a weak and vision-less president on whose watch the world has unraveled. Then Mrs. Clinton made three mistakes of her own: one, she didn’t protect the people under her care in Benghazi. Two she said ‘what difference does it make?’ And three she’s allowed a cover-up in her own State Department. Her political future is being decided now, as Congress investigates the Benghazi scandal. Three strikes and she’s out. It is increasingly looking like the only president named Clinton may be Bill.”
Seriously. Who is Alex Castellanos? What turnip truck did he just fall off of? How old is he? Doesn’t he understand about women, minorities, and everything Clinton? Have at it, Alex.
Does this pup think that what he says will matter when it comes to voting for a Clinton or for Hillary? It turns out the pup is a little long in the tooth. He is in his 50’s. What has he missed about the American people and the Clintons? He was a top media adviser to George W. Bush’s 2004 presidential campaign and Mitt Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign. Maybe that explains it.
Keep talking, Alex, keep talking.
I just find it so disgustingly hypocritical, these republicans law makers, pretending like they want to get to the truth. Please, what B.S. They are on the hunt for blood, not answers. They don’t care about Chris Stephens as a human being, they are using him simply as a means to destroy people. Obviously there was a problem at the consulate, people died, DUH, but the reality is that we need to find out how to prevent that from happening again. It is obvious from the below list that having AMericans in foreign unstable countries is dangerous.
.
Not only is it hypocritical but it’s obvious theatre and a waste of our tax dollars.
The vast majority of Amercans couldn’t care less about Benghazi
That handy dandy 2002-2008 incident list was trotted out some months ago as a weak effort to defend the Obama Administration’s handling of Benghazi. If you research each incident, you will find no parallels whatsoever to the pre-attack situation and the attack in Benghazi.
In fact, one of the listed incidents — 20 February 2003 — did not involve US Mission installations or official American personnel at all. With the exception of the suicide bombing of 2 March 2006 — which took place in the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, not at the consulate itself — no official Americans were killed in any of the cited attacks. The closest was the 6 December 2004 attack on the US Consulate Jeddah, where five local foreign national employees of the consulate got caught and killed in the perimeter crossfire between the terrorists and the Saudi security guards. In the attack of 17 Sept 2008 in Sanaa, an American woman married to a local and waiting outside to do business at the consul’s office was killed in the perimeter crossfire.
In all these cases, the US installations were fortified and were guarded at the perimeter by official security forces or police of the host country. There was no actual penetration of the Mission buildings. The deaths on our side were usually the local security forces and innocent civilians caught in the circumstances. By contrast, the consulate in Benghazi had no fortifications and the perimeter was guarded only by a small group of hired guards of suspect capability and suspect loyalty/bravery. Yes, it is always dangerous out there, especially in this era. But, under such conditions, Benghazi was even more inexcusable.
I think, had the administration not attempted to hide the fact that this was a terrorist act, and publically perpetuated a false-narrative, this would not be an issue now. I can see what their motivation was (protect the President from negative press, prior to the election), but I don’t think it was smart of them to lie to the American people. Elena, you are right in one sense, We aren’t looking for answers as to why the attack happened. We know why the attack happened. The questions that are being asked are “What did you do when the embassy was attacked?” and “Why did you lie about this being an act of terrorism?”. You see, what differs from the Rumsfeld info you cited is the Bush Administration freely admitted these were acts of terror, and there was no attempt to cover up what actions the administration took prior to, and in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. Remember, Nixon didn’t order the Watergate Breakin, he just directed the cover-up. Will this be “the thing devours the Obama Administration”? I doubt it. But, it will be a distraction from whatever agenda items he’d like to get passed. It will hurt his popularity (any negative press will). It may hurt the former SecStates chances in 2016. I can imagine many adds with the “What difference does it make, at this point?” comments getting repeated a lot. How much it will impact either Obama or Clinton is uncertain. One thing is for sure, this thing is being peeled like an onion by Issa. Wolf has called for a select committee to investigate this, and I don’t see the GOP letting go of this anytime soon. Partisan politics? It clearly is…so was Watergate. So was Iran/Contra. So was Whitewater. So was Travelgate. So was Lewinskigate. The only difference between Benghazigate and the previous scandels is…no one died in the others.
Washington, D.C. (May 9, 2013) – Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today renewed his call for a select committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi and the Obama Administration’s response.
In a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, Wolf said that while yesterday’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing was a “positive step forward” in the investigation, the only way to ensure that the complete truth comes out is to create a bipartisan Select Committee using “the best of the best” from each of the five committees of jurisdiction to fully focus on the attack.
Wolf’s measure, H. Res. 36, currently has 139 cosponsors. Click here for more of Wolf’s work on Benghazi.
The full text of the letter is below.
Dear Speaker Boehner:
“Let’s be clear, Benghazi happened a long time ago.” Those words were spoken just days ago by White House press secretary Jay Carney who was seemingly exasperated by continued questions from the White House press corps related to the tragic attack that claimed the lives of four Americans, including a sitting U.S. ambassador, and injured untold others – untold because the administration won’t tell Congress how many were seriously wounded in the attack.
In a sense, Carney is correct: Eight months is a long time for the families of those victims, the American people and the Congress to be denied a clear picture of what happened on that fateful night, what might have been done to prevent it and what presently is being done to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. I remain convinced, as do 139 of our Republican colleagues – nearly two-thirds of our majority – that a bipartisan Select Committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi is the only mechanism to ensure that the complete truth comes out.
In the last few days the public has learned stunning new revelations about the Benghazi terrorist attack and the Obama Administration’s troubling response in the hours and days that followed. Much of this new information has come as brave whistleblowers have sought to right the record and, in doing so, may have jeopardized their careers. Increasingly it is becoming clear that we have only scratched the tip of the iceberg.
We don’t yet know what we don’t know about Benghazi. And we may never know if we don’t pursue what Thomas Bossert, deputy assistant to the President for Homeland Security under President George W. Bush, in the enclosed op-ed described as a, “…coordinated, definitive investigation to look jointly into the entire matter, using one methodology, relying considerably on standing committee resources and expertise, that can publish its findings and conclusions in one place so that the public and their elected leaders can decide for themselves what to do with the results.”;
Chairman Issa’s hearing yesterday was a positive step forward in the effort to investigate the administration for its apparent cover up of key information about the nature of the attack and its response. I appreciate your leadership and that of the committees to advance the investigation to this point.
However, the hearing also made clear that a thorough inquiry will require witnesses from across government – including the Defense Department, State Department, Intelligence Community, Justice Department and even the White House. Only a Select Committee would be able to bring the cross-jurisdictional expertise and subpoena authority to compel answers from these agencies.
Now is the opportune time to take the good work that has been done by the committees over the last eight months, culminating in yesterday’s hearing, and bring together the best of the best from each of the five committees to focus solely on this issue through the Select Committee.
With your leadership, we have the opportunity to bring all of the committees of jurisdiction together, building on what regular order has already accomplished, but cannot sustain or bring to fruition. The committees with primary jurisdiction have a multitude of issues before them ranging from gun control to immigration reform, from the ongoing crisis in Syria to the devastating terrorist attack in Boston. Among competing priorities, Benghazi could get lost in the shuffle.
There would be no cost to create a Select Committee: the staff is already on the House payroll and they would use House facilities and resources. There need be no delay – we could vote for the Select Committee one day, and bring the necessary staff and selected members together the next. There are good people on all of these committees who would be excellent members of the Select Committee. Similarly, any one of the five committee chairman that you, as the speaker, would designate would be a strong chair of the Select Committee. It would be a seamless transition that would yield significant results in the months ahead. Under the legislation, the committee would expire after 90 days, ensuring that the full investigation was completed prior to the anniversary of the Benghazi attacks. It’s worth restating that the committee would be bipartisan, thereby putting an end to misguided criticism from some that this investigation is only being done for political reasons.
As you may recall, I first wrote you on November 13 – just two months after the attacks – to ask you to support a Select Committee approach to this investigation. A few weeks later, I shared an op-ed written by former Senator Fred Thompson, who served as counsel on the Watergate Select Committee, where he argued the merits of this approach. Since that time I have twice introduced a bill to create a Select Committee, have offered it to the House Rules package and have spoken with you and met with your staff in an effort to demonstrate the need. In the interim, another six months have passed.
The Select Committee process is an important tool that was designed precisely for addressing interagency issues like the Benghazi attack. It brings together the experts from across the committees of jurisdiction, ensures a single filter for incoming information from all agencies and breaks down the siloes that obstruct investigations.
Select Committees are not a new idea; in fact they have been used repeatedly over the last 50 years for cross-jurisdiction issues, both large and small. I have enclosed a list of past Select Committees that was prepared for me by the Congressional Research Service. Surely such a Select Committee on Benghazi is merited given that the House has created Select Committees to deal with less important issues, such as parking, the “House Beauty Shop,” sports and aging, as well as serious and complex issues, like government assassinations and the Iran-Contra affair.
To be clear: I have no interest in serving on a Select Committee. All I want is for the family members of the victims, the survivors and my constituents to know that the House did everything possible to uncover the truth about this attack and the administration’s response, develop recommendations to thwart future assaults and implement changes to protect our brave men and women serving in difficult posts. Given the dangerous world in which we live, we can be virtually certain that this will not be an isolated incident (notably, if an attack were to occur on a U.S. facility in North Africa today, eight months after Benghazi, it appears that the American posture to respond has not improved). Such a review is good for the country—exposing systemic problems and failures. America’s greatest president, George Washington, once said, “We ought not to look back, unless it is to derive useful lessons from past errors, and for the purpose of profiting by dear bought experience.” To be sure, the untimely death of four Americans, and the life-changing injuries sustained by others, constitutes dear bought experience. Do we not owe them a thorough, professional, exhaustive review of past errors?
I have spoken with numerous family members of the Benghazi victims who have endorsed the Select Committee approach, including the mother and uncle of Sean Smith, the father and siblings of Tyrone Woods, as well as another family member who does not want to speak publicly at this time. I have also received letters of support from the Special Operations community, including OPSEC and Special Operations Speaks, who believe the administration’s answers about the force posture to respond to Benghazi – and, quite frankly, the committees’ acceptance of those responses – unacceptable. Last month, I received a letter from 700 former Special Operations members urging the creation of a Select Committee. Closer to home, I have heard from many of my own constituents, which given my proximity to Washington includes scores of FBI, CIA, State Department and military officials—they overwhelmingly have echoed this same call.
For this reason, I am once again asking for your support for the creation of a Select Committee. The number of cosponsors has doubled over the last month, and 20 new cosponsors have signed on since the release of the “interim progress report” two weeks ago—prompted in part by the new revelations that have come to light following the release of the report. Momentum for the Select Committee continues to build. Chairman Issa’s hearing on Wednesday ought not satisfy us that the job is done—far from it. In fact, another 10 new cosponsors have signed on to H. Res. 36 since yesterday’s hearing was noticed last week.
Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of our conference believes that the threshold for action on a Select Committee has been reached. The families of the victims believe the threshold has been reached. After eight months, we can’t wait for more time to pass. Questions would remain unanswered, procedures unchanged and accountability unrealized. That is, until another attack occurs and another life is lost. And then, shame on us if we, who have been entrusted with public service, have done nothing to prevent it.
Last weekend, I had the opportunity to meet with Captain Eugene “Red” McDaniel, a POW from the Vietnam War who was held in captivity for six years. Captain McDaniel lamented the state of U.S. political leadership on national security matters and he profoundly said “I’m afraid the leadership of our nation is not deserving of the sacrifices our sons and daughters are willing to make.”
The revelations at yesterday’s hearing have raised serious questions about the administration’s efforts to respond to the Americans under fire at the annex in Benghazi. What remains to be seen is whether the House will be complicit in that failure, or if we will pursue the truth – wherever it may take us – to ensure that we continue to deserve the sacrifices made by the men and women who serve our country.
I urge you again to bring H. Res. 36 to the floor for a vote next week. It is the only way we will ever learn the truth. Thank you for your continued leadership on this important issue.
Best wishes.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress
And the point of the thread is, just how much will Mrs. Clinton be hurt? Probably not much at all.
Well, the died in the wool partisans won’t care and vote for her, regardless of her incompetence, dishonesty, and lack of sensitivity. I mean…“What difference does it make, at this point?” for any possible candidacy by Clinton.
And you are the best example of a dyed in the wool partisan I can think of.
I think the entire line of questioning was insensitive to her. Amb. Stevens was her friend. Taken out of context…perhaps. In context, I totally agreed with her.
Badger Badger Badger.
Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang outof that — an assault sprang out of that — and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.
Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2013/may/07/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/
Moon,
Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how big, and how ugly the investigation gets. Might be enough to encourage some folks to jump in to the race, and she gets knocked off in the primary process. Might be just damaging enough that she loses the general. The thing is, we really won’t know until we have all of the emails, memos, etc in the lead-up to the attack, and more so, the one’s following the attack. The thing is, it’s tough to predict what the mood of the electorate will be, come 2016. Even if it’s just one of many things, if it contributes to her losing either the nomination, or the general, it will have hurt her quite a bit. We shall see.
Depends on what the investigation finds. Clinton told Congress emphatically that she was not involved in the decision to deny Tripoli the security enhancements they said they desperately needed. In point of fact, Tripoli lost some of what they already had in that deal — a refusal to extend a contract special security team beyond August 2012 and the withdrawal of a transport aircraft assigned to the embassy.
Rep. Issa said something last week about seeing a cable signed by Clinton which refused the Tripoli security requests. Clinton defenders immediately yelled that all State cables go out from and are sent to SecState, but that he/she could not possibly see them all. This is true enough. However, every cable or e-mail or dispatch or whatever has some kind of verifiable chain of control which shows the name and office of the orginator (the writer), the names and offices/positions of those from other areas who coordinated on the cable (thereby indicating agreement with it), and the name and position of the person who authorized the cable for release (that would be a honcho with release authority in the name of the biggest bosses). You find that original. If Hillary herself signed off on it, she is in the doodoo right there. If not, you find all the others with their names on it and put them under oath as to whether or not SecState was involved in the decision in any way. Ergo, did the outgoing cable reflect her orders on the subject?
A parallel of sorts to this case is the tremendously fatal terrorist bombing of US Embassy Nairobi in 1998. The Ambassador in Nairobi had previously sent in requests to State for security enhancements. She also wanted to discuss the possibility of moving the embassy. It was in a very tight and vulnerable location and needed to be moved to larger, more protected acreage. Like Stevens, she got a refusal from State, apparently because current intelligence did not show enough of an imminent threat to warrant the expense of improvements. But she suspected that the refusal was coming from someone below the SecState level, so she wrote directly to SecState Madeleine Albright. That got her some minor security enhancements, but obviously not enough. However, that unfortunate incident in Nairobi was the impetus for a huge amount of spending on fortification of many of our embassies abroad.
If Hillary’s situation parallels that of Albright in 1998, she probably skates. But, if her name is on that Tripoli refusal cable or if a connection is made between her specific orders and the contents of the refusal cable, well……….
The Benghazi matter seems (to me, at least) to break down into four major areas, the facts of one not necessarily informing much the other three. In no particular order they are: 1) was there any feasible way that the team that died in Benghazi could have been saved by more assertive reaction to the facts that were unfolding during the attack? 2) Why were the talking points in the immediate aftermath so strangely massaged – i.e., was the reason for completely x-ing out any explicit reference to Al-Quaeda purely political motivation based on the upcoming election, was it good old traditional bureaucratic ass-covering by higher-ups at State, was it operational in terms of not wanting to reveal knowledge in hand that might have affected near term apprehension of the bad guys or that might have compromised local sources, was it plain old concern that things were confused, particularly with the Cairo riots at the same time? 3) Was there negligence, incompetence or culpable misjudgment in not bulking up security in Tripoli and Benghazi in the weeks and months prior to the attack; and 4) what the bloody hell are we doing to keep this from happening again? All these issues are ones that merit detached, non-political, steely-eyed review. If I thought that a House Committee or Committees were capable of providing such an analysis, I would be content to wait a few months to be sure they got it absolutely right. The tone thus far, however, has been much like everything else that seems to happen in the environs of Capitol Hill – pure political grandstanding. Cut it out, guys. Get to work and deliver a solid analytical product.
@Steve Thomas
Frank Wolf = Side Show Bob Marshall only at a federal level. Always tries tojump on the bandwagon after it has pulled out.