MAY: A road map to get to the bottom of Benghazi

CNN President Jeff Zucker says his network may not bother to report on the House select committee hearings looking into the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi. The New York Times has pre-emptively dismissed them as “partisan.” Eugene Robinson, a columnist for The Washington Post, predicted they will be a “show trial,” a “farce,” and a “new low” for Republican “inquisitors” who could not “locate Benghazi on an unlabeled map.”

Here’s a reasonably compelling counterargument: “It is our job to figure out what happened and prevent it from ever happening again.”

That statement was made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a January 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi — the same hearing where she more notoriously asked: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” (That the two statements appear inconsistent goes without saying.)

With this in mind, a little unsolicited advice to the Republicans on this committee: Do not bloviate. Do not posture. Check your opinions at the door. Ask questions. Establish facts and don’t get ahead of those facts. Throw no red meat to conspiracy theorists in the peanut gallery. Prior to the hearings, consult a map.

Chairing the committee will be Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, by all accounts a skilled prosecutor. That’s a double-edged sword since, as suggested above, the purpose of these hearing should be fact-finding — not prosecution.

At a news conference earlier this month, Mr. Gowdy challenged the notion that there is nothing further to learn about Benghazi, asking reporters if they knew why Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi on the Sept. 11 anniversary, why requests for additional security were denied him, who originated the false narrative that the attacks were “a spontaneous reaction to a video,” and how that got to be the “official position of the administration”? No hands shot up.

More gratuitous counsel, this for the Democrats who are only reluctantly participating in the hearings: Your constituents did not elect you to be defensive lineman for the administration. You should regard this inquiry as the U.S. military would; namely, as a “post-action review” of a battle lost — which is what Benghazi was. Take Mrs. Clinton’s useful counsel: Make it your mission to figure out what happened so that measures can be taken to prevent it happening again.

Among other things, that means ditching the talking point that Benghazi is ancient history with no continuing policy relevance. Or, as former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor phrased it: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Over that incomprehensibly long span of time, not one of the individuals responsible for the attacks has been captured or killed. Why not? Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last fall that he was not authorized to target the Benghazi attackers because they were not considered “al Qaeda” or “associated forces” and therefore not covered by the Sept. 14, 2001, Authorization for the Use of Military Force against those involved in the attacks.

That’s very strange: As one of my colleagues, Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Thomas Joscelyn, and The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes reported in January, a Senate Intelligence Committee report — one “prepared under the supervision of Chairman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, and signed by every Democrat on the panel” — concluded that terrorists “affiliated” with al Qaeda took part in the Benghazi attack.

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Joscelyn also have noted that two of the groups responsible are al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — official branches of the organization founded by Osama bin Laden and today led by Ayman al-Zawahri.

The leader of a third group, Muhammad Jamal, has sworn an oath of allegiance to al-Zawahri. The fourth group identified in the Senate report is Ansar al Shariah. Mrs. Clinton, in her January 2013 testimony, said: “Whether they call themselves al Qaeda or Boko Haram or Ansar al Shariah, they are all part of the same global jihadist movement.”

According to Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn, the original draft of the CIA’s talking points stated unequivocally that “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” The intelligence community also knew that exactly one day prior to the attacks, al-Zawahri called on his followers in Libya to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior al Qaeda operative from Libya, who had been killed in a U.S. drone attack in June. “His blood is calling you and is urging you and is inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders,” al-Zawahri implored.

Then why did Gen. Dempsey believe his hands were tied — and does he still? Why, despite all this solid intelligence, did administration spokesmen blame the attack on an obscure video made by a Coptic Christian in California which, they further claimed, set off spontaneous demonstrations of aggrieved Muslims that spiraled out of control?

One explanation is that the president and his advisers sincerely believed they had al Qaeda on the ropes, and so they tuned out evidence to the contrary. Also possible: With an election coming up in two months, the president and his advisers did not want to give Republicans an opening.

In his new book, “Faithless Execution,” former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy argues that if “the president and his subordinates” did in fact engage in “fraudulent misrepresentations to improve his prospects for wining re-election,” that would constitute a high crime and misdemeanor.

Though impeachment seems unlikely, strong evidence suggesting not just spin, but outright deception of the public, would at least place an asterisk on the 2012 election results.

More unasked-for advice for members of the select committee, Republicans and Democrats alike: Seek the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. Do anything else and, in the history books of the future, your name will carry an indelible stain.

Rules show Benghazi committee intends to break new ground

House Republicans on the Benghazi select committee aren’t waiting for Democrats to make up their mind about joining, moving quickly to exercise the panel’s expanded powers to review evidence. While Democrats still mull whether to fill the five slots reserved for them, the seven Republicans appointed by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, are scheduled to convene later this … Read more

Benghazi Constructs

by Victory Davis Hanson Almost everything the administration has alleged about Benghazi has proven false. Yet also, in Machiavellian fashion, the Obama group successfully peddled useful fictions, effectively deluded the country, adroitly ensured President Obama’s reelection, and cast aspersions on those who sought the truth. In that sense, so far, the lies about Benghazi have … Read more

On Benghazi, GOP remains suspicious of Hillary Clinton

It’s common for Republicans to say there are “unanswered questions” about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. In some cases, though, it might be more accurate to say that questions have been answered, but Republicans don’t believe the answers. A prime example concerns then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s knowledge … Read more

Desperate Antics to Obstruct the Truth About Benghazi

The Democrats and their media acolytes who are pushing back against a full investigation of the Benghazi scandal are in full circle the wagons mode.  They are trying to make investigating this scandal into some sort of late night joke against Republicans, but instead are looking more desperate by the day. Many Americans do not … Read more

Susan Rice On Benghazi: ‘Dang If I Know’

GET VIDEO!!!!

National Security Advisor Ambassador Susan Rice is back in the news this week over the Benghazi attack, after she spoke a few days ago during a lunch to honor women in foreign policy — and the topic turned to the contentious incident.

Susan Rice was asked about investigations into Benghazi, and whether new information about the attack could come to light after further examination concludes.

Visibly exasperated, Ambassador Rice hit back at questions over whether the House Select Committee currently re-examining the Benghazi attack might, this time, crack the scandal wide open.

In response to new Benghazi questions, asking about whether this investigation could yield new information, she quipped:

“Dang if I know… I mean, honestly, the administration has produced, I think, 25,000 pages of documents, or 25,000 individual documents. They’ve supported, participated in, contributed to the investigations of, you know, seven, I think, different committees. We have had an accountability review board by a very distinguished group of outsiders.”

In an earlier statement on the committee, House Speaker John Boehner commented:

“This investigation is about getting answers for the families of the victims and for the American people. These members have each demonstrated a commitment to this goal, and I have confidence that they will lead a serious, fact-based inquiry… As I have expressed to each of them, I expect this committee to carry out an investigation worthy of the American lives lost in Benghazi.”

Rice continued, expressing skepticism that there is any more to be gained by repeated committee actions:

“You know, House and Senate committees have pronounced on this repeatedly. So it’s hard to imagine what further will come of yet another committee.”

The National Security Advisor also admonished Republican fixation on the Benghazi attack, suggesting that the best course of action is not to re-examine the incident — but instead to shore up security so more lives are not lost.

Rice added:

“We have a budget request on the Hill for $4.6 billion that is necessary, in the administration’s judgment, to make the kind of upgrades and provide the kind of security that our facilities need. Let’s focus on that.”

She concluded:

“… what is lost in all of this discussion about Sunday shows and talking points is that we lost four brave Americans on that day, and their families and those of us who work with them continue to grieve. And the last thing we need to do is to lose any more.”

As Susan Rice discusses Benghazi again, Nancy Pelosi described the committee as “a political stunt.” Watch the question and answer with Ambassador Rice, above.

To read the original article, visit http://www.inquisitr.com/1254130/susan-rice-benghazi-dang-if-i-know/#Qk1SJOsVCO6Pc197.99

New Benghazi Panel GOP Aide Lobbied For Liberal Groups


The new executive director of Benghazi select committee has a somewhat unexpected background: he lobbied for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Philip Kiko, the Benghazi panel director chosen by Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy on Thursday, represented the ACLU on Voting Rights Act issues in 2013. He also registered to represent the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, a group of mainly liberal organizations like the People for the American Way, Southern Poverty Law Center, the SEIU and other big labor organizations.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) praised Kiko’s work in a statement saying, “He has a proven record of effective leadership and management, and I am pleased to have him on our team as we conduct a serious, fact-driven investigation to ensure our fellow Americans know the full truth about what happened in Benghazi.”
Speaker John Boehner also praised Kiko remarking in a statement:
“Phil Kiko is a man of unquestioned integrity with a record of distinguished service to the House and the American people. His appointment today is further proof of Chairman Gowdy’s commitment to an investigation that is serious, fact-based, and professional. The American people deserve the full truth about what happened in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, and there is no better person to help lead this effort than Phil.”
Kiko, who previously served as a chief of staff for Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and as chief of staff and general counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, presently works as the vice chairman of a bipartisan lobbying firm called the Smith-Free Group. PJ Media first reported in August of 2013 that Kiko’s lobbying disclosure form showed he was working for the ACLU on the Voting Rights Act.
Some Republican members have already expressed doubt with the future of the Benghazi Select Committee, recalling the reluctance of Speaker Boehner and other GOP members who did not want the committee to begin with. Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) told Slate’s Dave Weigel, “Mike Rogers (R-MI) fought against this for a year and a half. They used to stand up in conference and say, ‘Quit worrying about it, we’ve got it all taken care of.’”

Trey Gowdy Names Former NRCC Aide As Director Of Benghazi Committee

WASHINGTON — Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) on Thursday named lobbyist and former Republican aide Phil Kiko as staff director for the newly created House select committee tasked with investigating the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Kiko most recently served as vice chairman of the Smith-Free Group, a D.C.-based government affairs firm, and has extensive experience … Read more