Subpoena + block = Benghazi truth
For too long, Obama administration lying and stonewalling have denied the American people an honest account of the Sept. 11, 2012, murders at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others. It's time for congressional Republicans to follow through on their threats to subpoena survivors of the attack and block the nomination of Mr. Stevens' successor.
The administration destroyed its Benghazi credibility by insisting the consulate was attacked spontaneously by a crowd angry over an anti-Muslim, U.S.-made online video long after it became clear that the assault was an organized terrorist attack. That makes the independent eyewitness testimony of Benghazi survivors, who reportedly number as many as 30, vitally important.
Secretary of State John Kerry has visited at least one of the survivors at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, according to The Hill. The Washington newspaper also points out that GOP control of the House means survivor subpoenas have a clear path to committee approval there, while Senate Republicans can block President Obama's nomination of State Department official Deborah Jones as Stevens' successor.
It's imperative that congressional Republicans use all of that leverage to get to the bottom of Benghazi bungling. The whole truth otherwise never will be known. And the Liars of Benghazi will get off scot-free.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.