GOP senators call for special panel to probe Benghazi attacks
WASHINGTON — Three Republican senators on Wednesday demanded a special panel to investigate the September attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., joined Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., in saying the standard congressional committees aren't up to the task of unraveling the complex series of diplomatic, military and intelligence missteps tied to the tragedy in Benghazi.
“While we await the findings and recommendations of the (Obama) administration's internal review, it's essential for the Congress to conduct its own independent assessment,” McCain said. “There is no credibility amongst most of us considering the administration and the numerous controversies and contradictions that have been involved in their handling of this issue.”
Obama said his administration is working with Congress and conducting its own “full-blown investigation” into the consulate assault in Benghazi, which came on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Graham said that at least two other Senate panels — the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee, on which he sits — would also investigate the attacks.
“Four Americans are dead, the first (U.S.) ambassador is killed in 33 years in the line of duty,” Graham said. “I think this is a symptom of a greater problem in the Middle East.”
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
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.
- N.Y. GOP lawmaker to plead guilty to federal tax fraud
- Judge says Ariz. sheriff’s challenge of immigration plan better left for Congress
- Georgia prosecutor Yates tapped for No. 2 post in Justice Department
- Ghostly snailfish found at record depth
- New York farmers lament lost opportunity for natural gas riches with fracking ban
- Police: NYC cop killer invited people to watch shooting
- IBM’s Watson supercomputing system to be applied to PTSD
- Coal mines near record low in worker deaths
- New York City subways slowly upgrading from 1930s-era technology
- Government survey: More teens trying out e-cigarettes than real thing
- Gray wolf decision reversed