that once again found the Obama
administration under fire, a trio
of whistleblowers expressed
frustration toward the
government’s response to the Sept.
11, 2012 assault against a U.S.
diplomatic outpost in Benghazi,
Libya, and its subsequent
investigation into that incident.
The diplomatic officials appeared on
Wednesday before the House
Oversight and Government Reform
Committee to describe a hasty and
chaotic response to the attack,
which left four Americans –
including U.S. Ambassador
Christopher Stevens – dead.
The witnesses said that the
government was poorly prepared to
weather the attack and was
hesitant to respond, also contending
that a subsequent review of the
incident ordered by the State
Department came up woefully
short.
The testimony included new details
from Gregory Hicks, a career
foreign service officer who served
as the deputy chief of mission in
Libya at the time of the attacks.
He painstakingly recounted frenetic
efforts to communicate between
besieged individuals in Benghazi, and
the governments of Libya and the
United States. And he relayed the
frustration of special forces who
were told to stand down in Tripoli –
Hicks said he did not know who
gave the order – from deploying to
Benghazi.
“They were furious,” Hicks told
lawmakers on Capitol Hill. “I will
quote Lt. Col. Gibson. He said, ‘This
is the first time in my career that a
diplomat has more balls than
somebody in the military.’”
IN DEPTH: Official: US Special
Forces team wasn't allowed to fly to
Benghazi during attack
Hicks joined two other witnesses in
a hearing driven primarily by
Republicans, who have zealously
pursued the Benghazi incident based
on suspicions that President Barack
Obama and then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton had been caught flat-
footed by the attack, or worse,
orchestrated a cover-up about the
attack to benefit the president’s re-
election bid.
At no point did Hicks or his fellow
witnesses – Mark Thompson, acting
deputy assistant secretary for
counterterrorism, and Eric
Nordstrom, diplomatic security
officer and former regional security
officer in Libya – accuse the
president or Clinton of having halted
forces that might have assisted
besieged diplomats in Benghazi.
Democrats repeatedly pointed to
testimony suggesting that
reinforcements would have not have
arrived in time, anyway.
But Republicans seized on several
morsels of information, in particular
Hicks’s incredulity toward the
administration’s initial explanation,
voiced by U.N. Ambassador Susan
Rice, that the attack was the
spontaneous outgrowth of protests
related to an anti-Islamic video.
“I was stunned. My jaw dropped,
and I was embarrassed,” Hicks said
of his reaction to Rice’s
appearances on a series of Sunday
talk shows following the attack. He
further testified that there were no
indications of protests in Libya, and
that at no time did they suspect
that the Benghazi attack was
related to protests.
Republicans also homed in on
suggestions by Hicks that a top
Clinton aide had reacted angrily
when Hicks agreed to speak
privately with GOP investigators
looking into the Benghazi attack.
Hicks said that Cheryl Mills,
Clinton’s chief of staff, called him
“upset” about his conversation with
the GOP lawmakers.
The witnesses also expressed their
misgivings about the Accountability
Review Board’s (ARB) findings in a
subsequent investigation into the
government’s response to the
attacks. The ARB, the witnesses
said, failed to interview senior
enough leaders in the State
Department.
The testimony prompted pointed
responses from Ambassador
Thomas Pickering, who co-authored
the ARB, and allies of Clinton, the
popular former secretary of state
who’s seen as a potential
presidential candidate in 2016.
“I believe the Accountability Review
Board did its work well,” Pickering,
a coauthor of the report, said
Wednesday afternoon on MSNBC. “I
think the notion, quote, of ‘a cover-
up’ has the elements of Pulitzer
Prize fiction attached to it.”
And Philippe Reines, a senior aide to
Clinton, told NBC News that
accusations that Mills interfered in
an investigation into Benghazi
“completely and utterly false.”
Indeed, Democrats headed into the
hearing warning against
politicization of the Benghazi
incident.
“I am not questioning the motives
of our witnesses,” said Maryland
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top
Democrat on the committee, at the
outset of the hearings. “I am
questioning the motives of those
who want to use their statements
for political purposes.”
His admonition didn’t stop many
Republicans from plowing ahead
with their questions.
“It's one of great mysteries,” said
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, of
questions as to why terror response
forces were not ordered into action
on Sept. 11. “Here we have this
expertise, we've invested heavily in
it, they tabletop it, they understand
it, this is exactly what they train for
and they were never asked to go
into action.”
But while many Republicans
appeared eager to keep Benghazi
alive as a political issue, not all
Republicans seemed as concerned
about the issue, or the Obama
administration’s forthcoming.
“I’ve been able to read all the
cables, I’ve seen all the films. I feel
like I know what happened in
Benghazi; I’m fairly satisfied,” said
Sen. Bob Corker, Tenn., the top
Republican on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, on MSNBC.
“I’m fairly satisfied.”
This story was originally published
on Wed May 8, 2013 11:02 AM
EDT
Post a Comment