OPINION:
Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State when Christopher Stevens became the first American ambassador killed since 1979, thinks we’ve talked quite enough about Benghazi.
“I mean, of course there are a lot of reasons why — despite all of the hearings, all of the information that’s been provided — some choose not to be satisfied and choose to continue to move forward,” she said to a sympathetic reporter from ABC, who asked if the Secretary was “content” and “satisfied” that she knows what happened.
And as always, there’s conspiracy in Hillary’s mind. “That’s their choice. And I do not believe there is any reason for it to continue in this way, but they get to call the shots in the Congress.”
But Republicans think there are still dozens of unanswered questions about what happened Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, when heavily armed terrorists poured into an embassy outpost and killed Mr. Stevens, along with three other Americans. They’ve called for a new probe by a select committee to get to the bottom of the controversy.
As if getting ready to take orders from Hillary after the 2016 presidential election, congressional Democrats are falling in behind her — in lockstep, as usual.
“A Select Committee is nothing more than an attempt to exploit the deaths of four brave Americans to divert attention away from Republicans’ own do-nothing record, and throw red meat to the most extreme and conspiracy-obsessed parts of their base,” Minority Whip Steny Hoyer said in an email sent to Democrats, according to CQ-Roll Call.
Not one Democrat on Capitol Hill seems the least bit concerned that the White House is stonewalling, refusing to hand over requested documents. In fact, just last week, a government watchdog group, Judicial Watch, published an internal White House email that congressional committees investigating Benghazi had never seen.
Presidential communications adviser Ben Rhodes said in a Sept. 14 email to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice — who would oddly become the administration’s spokesman on the attack — that she should “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” But top intelligence and Pentagon officials say they knew almost immediately that the YouTube video had no role in the attack and that known terrorists were there that night.
President Obama was just two months away from re-election, and Republicans believe there was a coordinated effort to hide the facts from the American public. The administration first waved off the story as nothing more than a protest, then nearly two weeks later acknowledged that it was more than that. By then, the matter had been plunged into an internal investigation, allowing top officials to refuse comment.
Hillary should be worried. The entire mess continues to return to her feet. Among questions that Republicans now want to ask, in light of the Rhodes email, is: Why did the secretary of state, on the evening of the attack, say that it came “as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet”?
And more, why did the State Department insist that the attack followed “protests” in Benghazi? And why did it take State a full month to admit there were none?
On Thursday, the House will vote on whether to impanel a select committee to get answers. Democrats are threatening to boycott, claiming a political witch hunt. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi summed up the Democratic line last week when she said: “Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi —why aren’t we talking about something else?”
Hillary secretly wishes that, too. But the whole story is about to unfold, and that should scare her to her very soul, if she has one.
Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on Twitter @josephcurl.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.