OPINION:
Capitol Hill often resembles a three-ring circus, but there must be no clowning around at the face-off Thursday between Hillary Clinton and the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Hillary’s future as the face of the Democrats could rise or fall on the credibility of her answers to questions about her role in the events leading up to the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya. It’s not her popularity that matters in this setting, it’s her capacity for leadership. Those in whom voters entrust great power must bear great responsibility. If the facts reveal errors in judgment that lead back to her desk in Foggy Bottom, Americans have a right to know it.
The Benghazi committee must confine itself to only one issue: whether Mrs. Clinton was aware of security vulnerabilities at the U.S. compound in Benghazi before the assault on the legation that killed four Americans, including the ambassador, and what she did to correct those vulnerabilities. Her use of a private email server for official State Department business was discovered in the course of the Benghazi probe but it is irrelevant to the Thursday hearing. That inquiry is important, but it is proper now as the subject of separate investigations by the State Department and the FBI.
Documents recovered from the burned-out legation and obtained by The Washington Times tell of the landlords of the rented property seeking higher rents from the State Department to offset the growing risk of an attack. The papers are a clear indication of growing hostility to the Americans in the chaos of the city. One agent told the State Department that it “would be sorry if you don’t pay rent and pay more,” not a very subtle threat. If the landlords of Benghazi knew about the threats, why didn’t the secretary of State?
The documents show that the chief U.S. officer in Benghazi was forced to beg Libya’s Supreme Security Council for additional security after Internet postings called for attacks on the compound. Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Special Forces officer protecting the Benghazi facility, told our John Solomon and Jeffrey Scott Shapiro that in Washington the State Department officials “had their minds made up. They were not going to provide additional security there, period.” Improved defense would have to be arranged with local security groups, he said. They ran when the attack began the night of Sept. 11.
Dozens of pieces of intelligence gathered by the CIA about the mounting danger in Benghazi were more than a clue of what might occur — they demonstrated an imminent threat. American officials who should have seen the warning flags looked the other way. The issue before the Benghazi committee is whether one of those officials was Hillary Clinton. Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, a former prosecutor who is chairman of the Benghazi committee, and his committee were charged to determine whether she was aware of the dereliction of duty, and if not, why not?
Wishful thinking can blind anyone to reality, even a Cabinet officer. President Obama persists in seeing the Middle East as he would like it to be rather than see it for what it is. He mistook an Arab uprising for an Arab Spring. Mrs. Clinton appears to have adopted his curious vision as his top diplomat, and interpreted turmoil in Benghazi as a sign of “hope and change.” Unless she can demonstrate that she had no role in the administration’s misguided policy, Hillary Clinton is culpable with Mr. Obama for reducing America from a giant in the Middle East to a mere shadow.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.