House OKs new probe of Benghazi
WASHINGTON — House Republicans on Thursday rammed through a measure opening a new investigation of the deadly assault in Benghazi, Libya, vowing to dig deeper in a search for truth. Democrats declared it merely a political ploy to raise campaign cash and motivate voters.
A bitterly divided House voted 232-186 to establish the panel that Speaker John Boehner insisted would answer questions that linger almost 20 months after the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission. Seven Democrats, many facing tough re-election campaigns, broke ranks and joined Republicans in supporting the probe.
The panel's investigation will be the eighth on Benghazi and will examine the entirety of the attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Independent, bipartisan and GOP-led probes have faulted the State Department for inadequate security, leading to four demotions. No attacker has been brought to justice.
Republicans say they're unsatisfied with explanations so far, and they have leveled a range of accusations against President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other senior administration officials. Chief among them: that the administration misled the American people about the nature of the attack during a presidential election campaign and stonewalled congressional investigators.
“We will not take any shortcuts to the truth, accountability or justice,” Boehner said.
Democrats remain divided over whether to boycott the committee. They are concerned that their participation would grant legitimacy to what they believe will be a partisan forum. But they also worry that if they avoid it they won't have the chance to counter GOP claims and defend potential witnesses — including Clinton, a possible 2016 presidential candidate.
Party leaders will meet with their rank and file Friday morning to decide on the next step.
Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida criticized the “song and dance” she said came from Clinton when House members wanted to question her about Benghazi a few months after the attack. Clinton's testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee was delayed when she missed a month of work toward the end of her tenure after suffering a virus, then a fall and a concussion, and then brief hospitalization for a blood clot near her brain.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., said no evidence uncovered in any of the investigations thus far suggests wrongdoing by the administration. Republican claims have descended into “the crass and unbelievable,” she said.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said the questions “have been asked and answered time and time and time again,” and he added: “Let's end the political circus.”
Benghazi has produced 13 public hearings, the release of 25,000 pages of documents and 50 separate briefings. The select committee won't be the only inquiry, as other GOP-led congressional panels continue their probes, including a House Oversight investigation which just last week took the extraordinary step of subpoenaing a Cabinet member. Secretary of State John Kerry hasn't said when he might testify.
Democrats deride the effort as a conservative campaign designed to energize Republican voters in typically low-turnout midterm elections.
Boehner's legislation creates a select House committee through the end of the year. It will have to be reapproved when a new Congress begins in January or go out of existence. The select committee has no explicit financial constraints.
Earlier this week, the National Republican Congressional Committee sent an email vowing that “no one will get away” from the committee's investigation and asking people for donations.
Rep. Steve Israel of New York, the Democratic campaign committee chairman, called fundraising off Benghazi “despicable and insulting.” Boehner on Thursday refused to criticize the fundraising drive.
In an opinion piece Thursday in USA Today, the congressman whom Boehner has chosen to head the probe signaled he'd re-examine the entirety of the Benghazi attack, including questions Democrats and some senior Republicans consider settled.
The GOP-led House Armed Services Committee concluded months ago the U.S. military couldn't have responded in time to save Stevens and the others. Still, Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina asked: “Was our military response during the pendency of the siege sufficient?”
The Obama administration says officials tried to provide the public with the best information available after the attack at a time when U.S. embassies, consulates and other facilities were facing angry demonstrations across the Muslim world over a YouTube video mocking Islam's Prophet Muhammad. The administration originally attributed Benghazi to a similar protest that extremists hijacked, but retracted that account amid severe criticism.
House Democrats have issued several demands if they are to participate in the select committee. Boehner already has rejected their call for equal representation on the panel, deciding instead to fill it with seven Republicans and five Democrats. The Democrats also seek guarantees they'll have equal access to documents, say on subpoenas and right to question witnesses. Negotiations continue.
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.
- Prosecutors won’t retry North Carolina police officer in black man’s death
- Kentucky county clerk’s protest of same-sex marriage near end
- Court lifts injunction against NSA call records program
- ‘Facts are bad’ for pier-shooting defendant, legal experts say
- Northwest fire crews hope for break in weather
- Prep school graduate Labrie convicted of sex charges
- Supreme Court has protest-free zone, judges panel rules
- Clinton: Women ‘expect’ extremism from terrorists, not GOP candidates
- Virginia reporter, cameraman killed on air; gunman also dies
- Wisconsin company lands deal to replace Humvee
- Suspect in 1996 Khobar Towers bombing arrested