Cloudy
42°
Cloudy
Hi 69° | Lo 55°

Editorial: Republicans transparent on Benghazi

In this March 12, 2014, file photo, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-SC,center, joins Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, right, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., left, as he speaks to reporters about a bill he has sponsored that charges President Barack Obama with failing to enforce federal laws, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, March 12, 2014.
Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, may be named to run a select committee House Speaker John Boehner is creating to investigate the Benghazi attack, escalating a political battle that has raged since the final days of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.  (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, file)

In this March 12, 2014, file photo, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-SC,center, joins Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, right, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., left, as he speaks to reporters about a bill he has sponsored that charges President Barack Obama with failing to enforce federal laws, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, March 12, 2014. Gowdy, a former federal prosecutor, may be named to run a select committee House Speaker John Boehner is creating to investigate the Benghazi attack, escalating a political battle that has raged since the final days of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, file)

Speaker John Boehner said the formation of a House select committee to investigate the 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, is “all about getting to the truth.”

And maybe he believes that. Still, it’s hard to see this new investigation as anything other than a political move to weaken Democrats heading into the midterm elections and undermine Hillary Rodham Clinton’s potential presidential bid in 2016, especially when Republicans immediately started using the existence of the select committee for fundraising purposes.

Nobody has been more vocal about the perceived Benghazi conspiracy than Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who, along with Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, has relentlessly beaten the drum to the rhythm of Watergate. With that in mind, you would expect Ayotte to cheer Boehner’s vow to get at the truth regarding the Obama administration’s alleged misdirection in the hours and days following the attacks.

And cheer she did. But she couldn’t control her disappointment that the issue that so often places her on the national stage would now belong to another former prosecutor, Rep. Trey Gowdy, the South Carolina Republican who will lead the House select committee.

On Wednesday, Ayotte told Fox’s Greta Van Susteren she had great confidence in Gowdy, but that “it’s important, I think, for the Senate to have a piece of this.” The question is, why? There have been seven investigations and 13 hearings into the Benghazi tragedy and its aftermath. A recently released “talking points” email in which White House official Ben Rhodes tells then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice and others that they should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an (anti-Muslim) internet video” hardly seems like the kind of smoking gun that would warrant a do-over for the McCain-Ayotte-Graham triumvirate.

“If you look at this four-page Rhodes memo, there’s only two sentences that pertain to Benghazi, which track exactly what the CIA talking points were,” Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, told Fox’s Chris Wallace on Sunday. “So, it’s very hard to use this memo as some kind of a justification.”

But that’s exactly what Republicans are doing, and that presents a difficult decision for Democrats in the House: They can either participate in the election-year circus or refuse to place Democrats on the committee.

We believe House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi should boycott the panel. She should make it clear that while she values the search for truth regarding Benghazi, she understands that there are more pressing foreign policy issues for Congress than whether the White House told Susan Rice what to say on Sunday television talk shows in September 2012.

Republicans in the House and Senate may not want to see the latest Benghazi investigation for what it is, but let’s hope voters go to the polls with their eyes wide open.

The decision not to mobilize a rescue...during an attack that no one knew how long would last...to at least secure the site and protect sensitive documents..or to catch those ...responsible..is a mystery. One that requires an answer from the Obama admin.

All "questions" that have already been answered. Republicans want yet another "investigation" because they hope the answers will be different this time--and are working mightily to make the public this so too.

3 days after the attack, CNN was at the site and found Stevens personal journal, and reported on the contents. Your statement that those questions have already been answered is.. twaddle. Three days after the attack ...a news crew waltzes in and removes a personal journal of a US ambassador, reports its contest, and the state department calls that disgusting...sorry..not buying it. Epic fail.

Bruce has yet to address the number of CIA agents blocks away and the arms cache that was to be smuggled to Syria that the murderers seized.

How low will Republicans go on Benghazi? In the now discredited “60 Minutes” story by Lara Logan, it was claimed that Al Qaeda was responsible for the Benghazi attack. This has been a long-running theme of the Republicans, for which there is no evidence, in spite of 7 Congressional reviews, plus DoD and State Dept investigations. Now we learn that the source of the claim in the “60 Minutes” story was S.C. Sen.Lindsey Graham, who repeated the same false claim the next day, citing the “60 Minutes" story as his source. Anyone think Lindsay Graham should be investigated? http://nymag.com/news/features/lara-logan-cbs-news-2014-5/index6.html And we also learn what Trey Gowdy, picked to head the latest House “investigation”, thinks of expert witnesses: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/10/trey-gowdy-benghazi_n_5297869.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&utm_hp_ref=politics

Well, obviously not as low as Democrats have gone where they view every issue as the ends justifying the means.

Before we all get carried away. While reading about our consular office, not embassy, one thing popped up in my collection of anti -GOP propaganda. Two of those killed were actually CIA not consular workers. There also were a number of articles alluding to the whole presence in Benghazi being part of a CIA initiative to take arms, particularly shoulder fired missiles, from the rebels in Libya and funnel them to the Syrian rebels. Given the history, that word again, of the CIA and arming "rebels" this doesn't exactly seem as far fetched as some of the other scenarios being put forth. It may also explain some of the issues around the need to carefully word news stories. Again it doesn't fit with all the GOP hype, but it's not beyond the realm of possibilities with this bunch of spooks. Not saying I believe it but not saying I don't. Glen Beck seems to and he is an idiot to the umpteenth degree. Doesn't look good for Obama if it's true but it would take the heat off Hillary. National Security and all. Why did we have a CIA Annex in Benghazi??

Techicality, again.....What did Obama know and when did he know it? Why did they use the video as an excuse for nearly two weeks after they knew it was not the video? Was there a concerted effort to cover things up to protect Obama's re-election? Let's try to stay on topic.

GCarson is on the right track. However, you have to know about the friction between the CIA and State Dept as they wanted State Dept to do the arms smuggling - NOT CIA

I'm waiting for the editorial on straight ticket (D) voting...or maybe this is it. Probably no danger of the parents and family of these 4 dead Americans doing that anytime soon...

The ambassador was a sacrificial lamb gift to the radical muslim leadership. Defenses intentionally weakened and response unit blocked in a way that could only be intentional. Mistake? A state dept worker capable of stacking a child's blocks would have done better.

It is absolutely disgusting that the Republicans are using Benghazi and the death of four Americans as a fund raising tool.

tillie, what are you afraid of, the truth coming out? No doubt and if they find that Obama lied, you will make another excuse and then another and then another.

Sooooo, what you are saying is after 13 hearings, 50 or so briefings, 25 thousand plus documents, Issa has failed and the truth still isn't out. I doubt they investigated the Kennedy assignation this much, Like Rabbit you sometime let the truth slip out. The Republicans believe they already know the answer, Obama lied, now they are just going to keep search forever until they find the proof. This so called 14th "investigation" has nothing to do with the dead Americans or finding out ways to prevent this in the future.

you need to find a different honest source for your daily current events.

assignation.

assassination. killing, murder

pot calling the kettle black

I think there is a limit on how many times you can use that phrase in a month.

AMBASSADOR DIED - HILLARY LIED. that is one thing to know about Benghazi. # 2 is that Benghazi is all about weapons running. moving on...HEADLINE:" Hillary fought to keep Boko Haram off terror list" If you dont immediately know who Boko Haram is you are a LIDV. Shame on the CM for not reporting on Boko Haram

Those of us who watch foreign news channels knew for years who they were, How did you find out? From your favorite information source, Goggle?

Bush lied. 4489 died. See? I can do it too.

Except that this subject is about Obama, Hillary and Benghazi, not about Bush. Bringing up Bush is a deflection.

Yes it is. Glad to see you recognize that.

So obviously I am not a LIDV. But what is your point? I was not under the impression that it was up to the US to police every lunatic group on the planet. Up to now they are an internal Nigerian issue. Western countries offered assistance immediately after the kidnapping but Nigeria refused it. Let's go kill as many as we can, leave and have it back to square one. It's a history thingy. Bad things happen and you can't stop them all.

My opinion of Felice has change drastically sent she left. She is starting to look a heck of a lot better to me now. Since she has left the editorials have gotten even more biased. Turns out she was not so bad after all. What has followed after she left, pretty much proves my point. At this point she is starting to look like a moderate.

Yes it was soft Socialism at the Monitor, now it is much closer to state influenced media. We used to think that it was Pravda on the Merrimack, now it is closer to the Politburo printing propaganda. Perhaps she was too moderate for them.....hard to believe but that might be the case.

If the Monitor became another Union Leader who needs it ? Given the makeup of Concord it will be out of business in no time. Then where will you all be able to post your little manifestos?

Tillie, You don't have to worry about that. The Monitor is populated, as is Concord itself but bleeding heart, self appointed intellectuals who believe that they are holier than thou and that they know what is best for the hoi polloi who bottom feed (in their opinion, the ignorant masses) below their academic centered righteousness. No worries, tillie.

Rabbit, Your point is obtuse!

No, her view is sharp and pointed. You may not like it because it is valid to an objective viewer.

So just who would this objective viewer be? I have yet to ever see any sign of objectivity in a single post of yours. A lot of biased opinions but objectivity - surely you jest.

Nor do I see any objectivity in a single post of yours, GCarson, just the same, lame progressive game. Change the topic, demonize the other person, the ends justify the means.

And that's EXACTLY what I told you would happen. I even warned G-dub about it in a post a few weeks ago. Hate to say I told ya so . . .

Yep..you were right......http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/report-journalists-are-miserable-over-educated-under-paid-middle-aged-men-mostly/361891/

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.