Tag Archives: Benghazi

How about that? POTUS admits to ‘worst’ error

gadhafi11

I’m going to give President Obama some high praise for doing something one doesn’t often hear from people in high office.

He has acknowledged what he says is his “worst mistake.”

What’s more, he did it in a forum that is considered hostile territory.

The president appeared on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend and told host Chris Wallace the worst mistake of his presidency was failing to plan adequately for the fall of the late Libyan dictator/tyrant/despot Moammar Gadhafi.

When do presidents do such a thing?Ā Did Richard Nixon ever say he erred by recording those conversations in the White House; has Jimmy Carter ever said his biggest mistake was ordering the mission to rescue the Iran hostages; did George W. Bush ever acknowledge the Iraq War was a mistake?

OK, so the president didn’t take the heat for the Libya mess by himself. He heaped some blame in British Prime Minister David Cameron for being distracted at the time of Gadhafi’s downfall.

I do give Obama credit, though, for admitting to a lack of planning as the world watched the chaos unfold in Libya. The so-called “Arab Spring” went into full bloom in Tripoli as rebels took over the government, captured the dictator — and then killed him.

It got worse, of course, as the U.S. consulate in Benghazi came under attack and four Americans died in the melee. Perhaps some adequate planning could have forestalled that event, yes?

The president’s greatest triumph? Without question, he said, it was his decision to jump-start the economy with stimulus packages upon taking office. I won’t argue with him on that. The economy was in free-fall and something needed to be done quickly.

It might be, too, that the president deserves props for telling all this to a broadcast journalist employed by a media outlet known as being patently unfriendly to politicians of Obama’s particular leaning.

I’ll give some to him for that alone.

Sure, there can be some debate on “worst mistakes” of the Obama presidency. Some might rank his failure to act on Syria crossing the “red line” when it used chemical weapons; others might rank the president’s unfortunate description of the Islamic State as the “JV team.”

The Libya coup aftermath, though, surely ranks as a critical error.

It’s just rare to hear a politician actually admit to making such a mistake.

 

Benghazi boss reveals his political preference

Trey_Gowdy-1

Trey Gowdy has endorsed Marco Rubio for president of the United States.

Not a big deal, you say?

It might be. Here’s why …

Gowdy is chairman of the House Select Benghazi Committee. He keeps saying he isn’t driven by political motives, seeking to harm former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s quest to become the next president. Clinton, of course, ran the State Department when the terrorists stormed the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012.

But wait. Rubio is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. Gowdy’s also a Republican. Clinton is a Democrat.

Is Gowdy motivated by politics?Ā Democrats are asking that question in the wake of Gowdy’s endorsement of his buddy Rubio.

I think it’s fair to ask why Gowdy chose to endorse a Republican candidate so early in the nominating process.

It’s also fair to wonder whether the chairman has developed a political tin ear to how this kind of endorsement might look to those who have been wondering all along whether the Benghazi hearings were tainted by more than just a touch with politics.

All those congressional hearings and the many hours of testimony have failed to prove a coverup by Clinton, as has been alleged by Republicans … including, by the way, Sen. Marco Rubio, Chairman Gowdy’s preferred choice for president of the United States.

Politics? Nahhh …

 

Sen. Thompson made his mark early

BBmHuKG

There will be tributes a-plenty in the next few days and weeks as politicians — and actors —Ā remember one of their own: former U.S.Ā senator and former TV and film actor Fred Dalton Thompson.

The Tennessee Republican was a larger-than-life guy who died today at his home after battling a recurrence of lymphoma.

He ran for president once. Served in the Senate. Acted in some pretty good films and had a good run as the district attorney in the hit TV show “Law and Order.”

I want to remember this man in another fashion.

R.I.P., Sen. Thompson

The first time I saw him was in 1973. It was on TV. I was a college student majoring in political science at Portland State University in Oregon and Thompson was serving as chief counsel for the Republican senators serving on the Select Senate Committee on Watergate.

Its chairman was the late Democrat Sam Ervin, the self-described “country lawyer” from North Carolina.

Thompson’s role in that committee was to provide legal advice for the Republicans on the committee. The panel was investigating the Watergate scandal that was beginning to metastasize and eventually would result in the resignation of President Nixon.

Fred Thompson had really bad hair, as I recall. But appearances aside, he was a tough interrogator, as was the Democrats’ chief counsel, Sam Dash.

My memory of Thompson was jogged a bit the other day by MSNBC commentator Lawrence O’Donnell who opined — after the daylong hearing of Hillary Clinton before the Select House Benghazi Committee — that senators and House members shouldn’t be allowed to question witnesses. O’Donnell cited the work that Thompson and Dash did in pursuing the truth behind the Watergate scandal.

Leave the questioning of these witnesses to the pros, O’Donnell said. The Benghazi committee congressmen and women, he said, made spectacles of themselves.

Thompson, indeed, was a tough lawyer. My memory of him at the time was that he questioned anti-Nixon witnesses quite hard and didn’t let up very much on those who supported the embattled president.

He did his job well.

That is what I remember today as the nation marks Sen. Thompson’s passing.

May he rest in peace.

 

Clinton was up, down, now she’s way up

Trey_Gowdy-1

Hillary Clinton’s roller-coaster ride to the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination has taken an important turn.

The once-invincible Democratic front runner got scuffed up, battered and a bit bruised over all the chatter leading up to the House Benghazi committee hearing this week.

Then came some good news for the Clinton camp: Vice President Joe Biden decided he wouldn’t run for president in 2016; then the Republican-led Benghazi panel came apart at the seams as it sought to tar and feather the former secretary of state over her role in the tragic events that transpired at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

It’s pretty accurate to say that the Benghazi panelists didn’t land a single telling punch on Clinton.

As I wrote in an earlier blog post, Clinton — to my eyes — looked like the only grownup in the congressional hearing room.

In the hour after the hearing adjourned, Clinton’s campaignĀ set some kind of fundraising record. Money began pouring in.

Even pundits who tilt Republican, such as former GOP U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough, said the hearing was a bad day for the GOP and for Benghazi committee chairman Trey Gowdy.

I am thinking at this moment that Hillary Clinton is officially back on track to claiming the Democrats’ presidential nomination.

At this moment …

Tomorrow, of course, is another day.

 

Hillary Clinton: the only grownup in the room

hillary clinton

I didn’t watch every single moment of the House Benghazi Select Committee hearing today.

And as I write this blog post, it’s finishing up.

I do, though, want to make one point: The only grownup in the room among the principals involved in this hearing was the former secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Democrats and Republicans on the panel went after each other like hyenas fighting over a carcass. Meanwhile, Clinton managed to stay above all that.

As for what I’ve heard among the questioners grilling Clinton, I need to say that I heard nothing new in either the questions or the answers given by the lone witness.

Which leads me to the source of the tension between committee members: the motive for the hearing in the first place.

Democrats allege that Republicans who control the House of Representatives have gone after Clinton over the Benghazi tragedy for a single purpose: to blow her presidential campaign out of the water. Indeed, many of the questions coming from the GOP side of the dais veered repeatedly into territory that’s been covered repeatedly during the several previous congressional hearings.

Democratic members, though, didn’t acquit themselves well, either, as they bitched repeatedly about their GOP colleagues’ conduct during this entire sorry episode.

“Benghazi” has become political shorthand for an incident that resulted on Sept. 11, 2012 in the deaths of four brave Americans during a firefight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton led the State Department at the time.

Three years after the fact and after countless hearings, testimony, investigation and posturing … Congress has found nothing.

The Benghazi panel’s conduct today shouldn’t make Congress proud.

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s dignity, though, throughout this hearing demonstrated something quite different.

And commendable.

 

Bush seeks to dodge 9/11 responsibility

attack

CNN’s Jake Tapper might have asked the most incisive and insightful question of the 2016 president campaign.

Over the weekend on “State of the Union,” Tapper asked former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush the following question: “Obviously Al Qaeda was responsible for the terrorist attack of 9/11, but how do you respond to critics who ask, if your brother and his administration bear no responsibility at all, how do you then make the jump that President Obama and Secretary Clinton are responsible for what happened at Benghazi?”

Gov. Bush answered this way: “Well I ā€” the question on Benghazi which, is hopefully weā€™ll now finally get the truth to, is was the place secure? They had a responsibility, the Department of State, to have proper security. There were calls for security, it looks like they didnā€™t get it. And how was the response in the aftermath of the attack, was there a chance that these four American lives could have been saved? Thatā€™s what the investigation is about, itā€™s not a political issue. Itā€™s not about the broad policy issue, is were we doing the job of protecting our embassies and our consulates and during the period, those hours after the attack started, could they have been saved?”

Did you follow the former governor’s answer? I had trouble getting the connection.

Bush once was thought to be the favorite for the Republican presidential nomination next year. He’s no longer the front runner, based in part on the stumble-bum answers he’s given to questions regarding whether President Bush — Jeb’s big brother — was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Gov. Bush said his brother “kept us safe” during his presidency. Hmmm. TheĀ loved onesĀ of the 3,000 or so Americans who died on that terrible day might disagree with that view.

The attack occurred nine months into Bush’s presidency. He had been briefed by national security advisers about the threat that al-Qaeda posed. He was warned in advance about the possibility of an attack. The massive intelligence apparatus that we employed did not do its job in protecting the nation.

Is that the president’s responsibility? Well, gosh, it seems that the commander in chief ought to be held accountable. However, Gov. Bush chooses to avoid holding his brother accountable for that breakdown.

As for Tapper’s question, it still requires some clarity in the answer.

If George W. Bush doesn’t deserve blame for the tragedy that befell us on 9/11, how can Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama be held responsible for the Benghazi attack that occurred 11 years later to the day?

Is there a double-standard being applied?

 

Gowdy to GOP colleagues: ‘Shut up’ about Benghazi

Trey_Gowdy-1

I love the comment from House Select Benghazi Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy to his Republican colleagues.

“Shut up” about things about which you know nothing, says the South Carolina Republican.

They know nothing? Or do they know, um, too much?

Hillary Clinton is going to testifyĀ this week before the House panel about the fire fight in September 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Four brave Americans died in the melee, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Republicans have been trying like the dickens for more than three years to find enough dirt on Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time, to pin something on her. They’ve accused her of covering something up.

They’ve come up empty … so far.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy then popped off about the reason the committee was formed, noting that Clinton’s poll numbers have plunged since the panel began its work; his comments seemed to most observers to suggest the motive for the committee being formed in the first place was to torpedo Clinton’s presidential campaign.

And then came Rep. Richard Hanna, another GOP colleague, to say the same thing that McCarthy said. D’oh! There’s another one: Bradley Podliska, a former GOP staffer — who worked for the Benghazi committee — also said the same thing. He doesn’t know, Mr. Chairman?

Clinton’s testimony could sink her campaign. It could lift it to new heights. As some folks have noted, the Benghazi hearings have gone on longer than the House Watergate hearings andĀ the Warren Commission hearings looking into JFK’s assassination.

One of these days, hopefully before the presidential nominating conventions next year, the Benghazi panel will wrap this up, publish its findings and then we can move on.

 

 

Who are ‘they,’ Donald?

donald

Donald Trump is taking undeserved credit — imagine that, will you? — for Kevin McCarthy’s stunning withdrawal last week from the contest to become the next speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The GOP presidential candidate said “They’re giving me a lot of credit” for McCarthy dropping out of the congressional campaign.

Who said it, Donald?

That’s all part and parcel of Trump’s modus operandi.

He takes credit where none is deserved, along with shuffling blame off on someone else — all while tossing a personalĀ insult or three at various other individuals.

So help me, I never heard anyone giving Trump “credit” for McCarthy backing out of the House leadership race. That is, until Trump said so.

The fact is that McCarthy’s own intemperance got him booted out.

He muttered that amazing fact, er, gaffe about the Benghazi hearing under way in the House, suggesting the committee was formed for the expressed purpose of undercutting HRC’s presidential ambition.

As former Texas Gov. Rick Perry might say …

Oops.

Does anyone want the speaker’s job?

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of Calif., talks about the Domestic Energy and Jobs Act, part of the House GOP energy agenda, Wednesday, June 6,2012, during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

When a politician becomes the butt of late-night comics’ jokes, well, that quite often spells the end of his of political ambition.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy had the bad form to suggest that the House Benghazi committee was formed — in effect — to torpedo Hillary Clinton’s chances of becoming president. He then followed that with a string of nonsensical statements about the former secretary of state’s tenure.

The joke machine was then turned on … full blast.

Today, McCarthy said he is dropping out of the race to become the next speaker of the House; John Boehner wants to leave Congress and the speakership at the end of the month.

It now looks as though he’s going to stay on a while longer.

Why? Because, his Republican Party leadership team is in shambles.

McCarthy bows out

Some of us out here are utterly dumbstruck by what’s happened back in our nation’s capital.

McCarthy had a fight on his hands to become speaker. Two TEA Party insurgents, Jason Chaffetz of Utah and Daniel Webster of Virginia, were running against him for speaker.

It’s true that McCarthy didn’t help himself when he made the statement about the Benghazi committee’s mission. In truth, he merely muttered what many of us out here beyond the Beltway believed all along, which is that the GOP formed the panel precisely to undercut Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Boehner, McCarthy, Benghazi panel chairman Trey Gowdy all deny that is their intent.

Uh, huh. Whatever you say, gentlemen.

Meantime, the lower congressional chamber is looking for a new Man of the House.

Does anyone want this job? Can anyone do the job?

VP teeters on brink of huge decision

biden

Vice President Joe Biden is giving me heartburn.

Will he run for president in 2016 … or not?

I’ll stipulate up front that I’m not going to predict what he’ll do. I didn’t think Democrat Hillary Clinton would run for the U.S. Senate in 2000 after she and her husband left the White House; she did. I thought Republican Colin Powell might run for president in 1996; he didn’t.

I’ve waffled on the vice president’s immediate political future so much I’m giving myself motion sickness.

Biden ponders run

Part of me wants him to run. I happen to like the vice president and admire his long record of public service — gaffes and all.

He’s experienced immense personal tragedy, with the deaths in 1972 of his wife and daughter in a car crash that injured his two sons; then came the death of his older son, Beau, of brain cancer just a few months ago.

Biden has shown courage and grace in the face of these tragic events.

Another part of me, though, wants him to avoid being labeled for the rest of his life as a “loser” if he fails to win the Democratic nomination. Clinton is the frontrunner, although she’s been damaged by controversy involving e-mails and Benghazi. Biden has run twice already, in 1988 and again in 2008.

Joe Biden isn’t the perfect alternative to Clinton, but he’ more perfect than, say, socialist U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’s polling quite well these days head to head against Clinton.

Only the vice president and his family know what he’ll decide. He’s expected to announce his plans within the next 10 days or so.

As tempting as it is in this forum to try to guess out loud what he’ll do, I’ll remain quiet. It’s Joe Biden’s call to make all by himself.

It’s clearĀ that BidenĀ wants to be president. It’s not at all clear whether he believes he’s got what it takes to derail the frontrunner.

I’m trying to imagine the immense pressure that accompanies a decision like the one facing the vice president. I can’t comprehend it.

You do what your heart tells you to do, Mr. Vice President.