Pickering, Mullen reject request to testify on Benghazi in private
WASHINGTON — The two retired senior U.S. officials who oversaw an internal State Department review of last year's attacks on U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya, on Thursday rejected as “an inappropriate precondition” a Republican request that they submit to a closed-door interview before testifying in public.
The letter from former Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen added new tension to the battle between Republican lawmakers and the Obama administration over the assaults last Sept. 11 on a diplomatic mission and a CIA complex that killed four Americans, including Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
The latest development occurred as Democrats on Capitol Hill praised the White House for releasing 100 pages of documents that they asserted put to rest GOP charges that the administration had tried to cover up a bungled response to the attack to protect President Obama's bid for re-election.
Responding to criticism that U.S. military units and aircraft were not positioned to reach Benghazi in time to save Stevens and the other three Americans, Obama said he had directed the Defense Department “to ensure that our military can respond lightning-quick in times of crisis.”
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said an investigation by five GOP-run committees would forge ahead.
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.
- Hayride crash on Maine hill kills teen girl
- Coast Guard to seek billions to protect Arctic interests
- Academic scandal at University of North Carolina bigger than previously reported
- Security at Capitol questioned
- Man caught jumping White House fence
- Judge orders W.Va. agency to release pollution data