Tag Archives: Benghazi

Uncategorized

Clinton goes big league

Of all the things Hillary Rodham Clinton said tonight in her TV interview with Diane Sawyer, the most surprising statement came in response to a question about the Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Sawyer asked about the criticism then-Secretary of State Clinton has gotten over her handling of that tragic event and whether it might dissuade her from running for president in 2016. Her answer?

“Actually, it’s more of a reason to run, because I do not believe our great country should be playing minor league ball,” Clinton said, according to a transcript. “We ought to be in the majors.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hillary-clinton-bowe-benghazi-107626.html?hp=l3

Well. There you have it.

For an hour, Clinton sounded for all the world like a probable candidate for president of the United States in two years. She was coy when she needed to be, evasive at other times during the interview, occasionally candid.

The Benghazi statement, though, caught me by surprise. I guess I shouldn’t have been, but the strength of her answer suggests to me that she clearly is leaning toward another national campaign.

Benghazi has been kicked all over the political football field. The House of Representatives is going to convene a select committee soon to conduct more hearings on the event in which four men, including our ambassador to Libya, were killed by militants who stormed the consulate.

What have all the previous hearings accomplished, other than to suggest that there’s no “there, there” in the search for some kind of politically fatal wound that would bring down a Hillary Clinton presidential candidacy? Nothing.

Clinton’s point tonight is that Congress needs to focus on oh, job creation, infrastructure improvements, world peace and other things vastly more relevant than trying to find some way to lay blame for what everyone in the world knows was a tragedy.

The nation already has implemented changes to improve embassy security around the world. It already has mourned the deaths of those brave American diplomats and staffers. Isn’t that sufficient? I guess not.

Later this year, we’ll get to watch Congress re-plow much of the ground it’s already turned over.

What’s more, we’ll also are even more likely to see Hillary Rodham Clinton run for president of the United States.

Uncategorized

Headlines keep changing rapidly

It occurs to me that our collective attention keeps getting diverted from crisis to crisis — and few of us talk openly about the crisis that passes from our view.

* Remember the Syrian civil war? We were going to bomb Syria for using chemical weapons on civilians. Then we backed off. The Russians entered the picture and helped broker a deal to get rid of the weapons.

* A Boeing 777 disappeared en route from Malaysia to China. It apparently crashed somewhere in the Indian Ocean. Search teams from several countries are looking for the wreckage that contains 239 passengers and crew. To date, nothing’s been found.

* Then came Ukraine. The Russians entered the picture there, too. Ukraine ousted its pro-Russian president, who fled to Russia. The Russians essentially annexed Crimea, moved a lot of troops to the Ukraine border, then backed off after the Ukrainians elected a news president who is acceptable to Moscow.

* A Nigerian terrorist group — Boko Haram — kidnapped about 300 girls and is holding them captive somewhere. World opinion erupted and the demands came out for the international community to do all it can to rescue those young women.

* Americans got caught up in the Benghazi story yet again. The House of Representatives formed a select committee to examine the Benghazi attack one more time. Maybe we’ll see the end of this probe. Then again, maybe not until after the 2016 presidential election that’s likely to feature one Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state when the U.S. consulate was attacked in September 2012.

* The Veterans Administration took the headlines away from Benghazi with reports of veterans dying while awaiting health care in Arizona. Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki resigned and a thorough review is under way to find a cure for what ails the massive federal agency.

* Taliban militants released Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and the questions about his release and the terms that brought it about have created the latest headline grabber.

These sequences keep building on themselves. Our attention is riveted on these storied and then it’s diverted from one “crisis of the moment” to the next one.

Is it any wonder why Barack Obama’s hair has gotten so gray?

Hey, what’s happening with Syria these days?

Uncategorized

Benghazi = Birtherism

It’s beginning to sound, to me at least, that the Benghazi story is going to stay in the news through the 2016 election cycle.

After the election, it will disappear.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/06/01/fox-panel-laughs-at-laura-ingrahams-unrelenting/199529

Why then? It’s becoming clearer by the week that right wing think tanks, media outlets and politicians want to keep the issue roiling as long as former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is in the hunt for the presidency during the next two years.

If she decides to run, which most folks think is a given, it will continue to be a discussion topic right up to Election Day. Then we’ll have the result. She’ll either be elected or defeated by a Republican; I’m assuming, of course, that she’ll be the Democratic nominee for president.

After that, the issue goes away. Quietly. Suddenly. Just disappears.

It kinda/sorta reminds me of the birtherism issue that dogged Barack Obama through two election cycles. There were those on the right who questioned whether he was constitutionally qualified to serve as president, alleging he was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii.

We all heard the yammering, yes? Forget that we’ve heard very little from the left on the issue regarding another possible presidential candidate, Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who actually was born in Canada. Mama Cruz is an American, however, which makes him a U.S. citizen.

Hey, wait a minute. Wasn’t President Obama’s mother an American, too, which made him qualified to serve as president — even if he had been born in a foreign country?

Whatever. The birthers stopped their preposterous notion the moment he was re-elected in 2012.

I’m betting the same thing will happen with this Benghazi matter, no matter the outcome of the House select panel’s investigation into that horrible Sept. 11, 2012 fire fight that killed four Americans at the consulate in Libya.

These “scandals” do have a way of materializing — and vaporizing — at politically opportune times.

Uncategorized

West questions Duckworth's 'loyalty'

Allen West served a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives before losing his bid for re-election in 2012.

Yet, the Republican keeps making waves. I wish he’d keep his trap shut.

West has implied that a decorated — and seriously wounded — Iraq War veteran might be more loyal to the “Democrat Party” than she is to her country by agreeing to serve on a House select committee charged with examining the Benghazi controversy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/22/allen-west-tammy-duckworth_n_5375138.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

He’s talking about Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., who lost both of her legs while flying a helicopter for the Army during the Iraq War. Her ship was hit in 2004 by a rocket-propelled grenade. Duckworth received the Purple Heart as a result of her injuries.

“I just don’t know where her loyalties lie,” West said in a radio interview. “You know, for her to be a veteran, a wounded warrior for the United States Army, she should know this is not the right thing,” he said. “And hopefully … she’ll remember the oath of office she took as an Army officer and not the allegiance I guess she believes she has to the liberal progressives of the Democrat Party.”

Good grief.

Congressional Democrats have said the select committee hearings on Benghazi are a sham. Duckworth is one of five Democrats named to the panel. Her office pledges that she’ll take her responsibilities on the committee seriously, which all 12 committee members from both parties have vowed to do.

Allen West’s comments about Duckworth’s “loyalties” should be scorned and condemned.

Uncategorized

Democrats to play needed role in Benghazi hearings

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi did exactly the right thing by deciding against boycotting the select committee hearings on the Benghazi controversy.

She has named five Democratic lawmakers to sit with seven Republicans on the panel chaired by Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.

I am, quite honestly, dubious about the hearings. I would be among those who are shocked if they produce any new revelations about what happened on Sept. 11, 2012, when terrorist torched the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

There have been endless hearings already. Congressional Republicans have spent much energy bashing then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s agency for its alleged mishandling of the incident. There have been hearings already. News reports have gone into exhaustive detail about the incident.

Speaker John Boehner, though, believes it is necessary to convene a select committee to look some more.

To what end? My strong hunch is that the GOP lawmakers want to find enough dirt on Clinton to torpedo her expected 2016 presidential campaign. That’s the motive.

House GOP leaders already have the facts. They know about the firefight, about the confusion, about the talking points uttered repeatedly by then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice. The administration bungled the information flow.

Was there an attempt to cover up what happened to protect Clinton, President Obama — or both? All the rhetoric coming from Congress should have revealed that by now. It hasn’t.

Here we are, getting set to convene more hearings.

Democrats need to be at the table to serve as a counterbalance to what everyone in the know believes will be a Republican onslaught.

Now, when all is said and all the bluster has died down, let us hope the select committee comes up with a set constructive recommendations the State Department and the intelligence community can take forward.

If it cannot, then all this will be a waste of time.

Uncategorized

Ready for a GOP takeover?

Many of my friends, if not most of them, think I live, breathe and eat politics 24/7.

They may be right. One of them posed the question to me this afternoon: “Are you ready for a Republican takeover of the Senate?”

Yes. I am.

Do I predict it will happen when the midterm elections are concluded this November? Not necessarily, but it’s looking like a distinct possibility.

A few Democratic Senate incumbents might be in trouble. What’s more likely, though, is that Republicans will pick up seats that had been held by Democrats in GOP-leaning states. South Dakota is likely to from Democrat to Republican; so might West Virginia.

Meanwhile, Louisiana’s Democratic incumbent could lose to a GOP challenger. Arkansas was thought to be vulnerable to a GOP switch, but the Democratic incumbent there is making a comeback.

I’m not sure a GOP takeover of the Senate will be a bad thing. The Rs already control the House and pretty much have made a hash out of the governing process by its obstructing so many constructive initiatives.

If the GOP grabs the Senate, we’re looking at the possibility of Capitol Hill actually trying to govern. Recall the 1995 Congress, which turned from fully Democratic control to fully Republican. A Democrat, Bill Clinton, occupied the White House. The speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, turned almost immediately from fire-breathing zealot to someone who actually could deal with the president. He also had the Senate at his back.

Will history repeat itself? The current speaker, John Boehner, seems capable of striking deals — even though he has to say some mean things about the White House to placate the tea party wing of his party. If the Senate flips to GOP control, then we’ll see if the Republican-controlled Capitol Hill can actually produce legislation the president will sign.

Warning No. 1: If you seize control of Capitol Hill, you rascally Republicans, don’t try to toss the Affordable Care Act overboard. The president does have veto authority and you’ll need far more than a simple majority to override a presidential veto. The Supreme Court has upheld the law, which now is working.

Having said all this, I think it is simply wise to see what the voters decide in November.

The current crop of Republicans has shown quite a talent for overplaying its hand — e.g., the on-going ACA repeal circus, not to mention the IRS and Benghazi nonsense.

Although I am prepared for a GOP takeover, I am far from ready to concede it is a done deal.

Uncategorized

Rice has it right on Benghazi hearings

Susan Rice said a lot of wrong things in the hours and days right after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

At the time she was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and was thrust into the Sunday news talk-show limelight without knowing all the facts that led to the uprising that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

She blew it, got it wrong — and helped ignite a firestorm that still raging to this day.

Rice is now the national security adviser to President Obama and she said something quite correct about the upcoming congressional hearings on the Benghazi tragedy.

“You know, House and Senate committees have pronounced on this repeatedly. So it’s hard to imagine what further will come of yet another committee,” she said.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/susan-rice-benghazi-panel-106710.html?hp=l7

House Speaker John Boehner recently named a select House committee chaired by tea party back bencher Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to examine the Benghazi matter.

We’ve already had hearings. We’ve heard testimony from key players, such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Members of Congress have had their say; Republican critics have been loud in their condemnation of Clinton, as have Democratic supporters of the administration.

What is to be gained from what well could shape up as another partisan circus?

Rice’s answer? “Dang if I know.”

She’s not alone in wondering what a select committee is going to learn that other congressional panels haven’t already uncovered.

Uncategorized

Big Dog defends his wife

Karl Rove, you have messed with the wrong politician.

Remember when Bill Clinton told us in 1992 that if Americans elected him we’d get “two for the price of one,” meaning that we’d get his wife as part of the package?

Americans did elect the Arkansas governor and his wife has emerged as a political force of nature in her own right. Thus, it became quite problematic for Rove to suggest that Hillary Rodham Clinton — the wife of the former president — had suffered a potentially seriously brain injury when she took a spill in 2012.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/bill-clinton-dumbfounded-hillary-brain-damage-talk-n105361

Enter the ex-president, who has come roaring out in defense of his wife. When you are critical of one Clinton, Mr. Rove, you’d better be ready to take on the other one.

“First they said she faked her concussion and now they say she is auditioning for her part on ‘The Walking Dead,’” Clinton said Wednesday in remarks to Gwen Ifill of PBS.

Ah, yes. The “faked” injury. You’ll remember that one, too. She took the spill and Republicans said the then-secretary of state staged some kind of bogus accident to divert attention from the Benghazi attack.

Rove now has denied saying what he said. He denied saying Hillary Clinton had suffered “brain damage.” No, but he did wonder why Mrs. Clinton reappeared after the fall wearing eyeglasses, which he said suggested she had suffered a “brain injury.” Brain “damage” or “injury,” to my mind the terms mean essentially the same thing.

President Clinton has put it all in perspective. “You can’t get too upset about it, it’s just the beginning,” he said. Hmmm. Is that a harbinger of an announcement from his wife that everyone expects … that she’s going to run for president in 2016?

Uncategorized

Don't boycott Benghazi probe, Leader Pelosi

1 Comment

If I were in Nancy Pelosi’s shoes, I would take part in the special investigation of the Benghazi matter along with Republicans.

Pelosi, the leader of the U.S. House Democrats, might be considering a boycott of the hearings called by Speaker John Boehner. Big mistake, Mme. Leader.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/205715-boehner-stacks-benghazi-panel-with-lawyers

Boehner has selected a back-bencher, Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to chair the select committee. Six other GOP members have joined the panel. As of this moment, no Democrats have been named.

The committee is going to conduct yet another hearing into what happened Sept. 11, 2012 at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, where a firefight resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens.

There have been calls by Republicans in Congress that the State Department, led by Hillary Rodham Clinton, stonewalled the cause of the uprising. They’re suggesting some kind of cover-up. House committees already have looked at this matter. They’ve come up with, well, next to nothing to hang on then-Secretary Clinton, other than a botched response immediately after the event.

I don’t know what the select panel will find out, but its work ought to include Democrats.

There’s been some talk that Democrats might sit this one out, letting Republicans have their way. However, that’s not what their constituents sent them to Washington to do. They sent them there to participate in government activities.

This investigation, if it’s going to be as Boehner has billed it — a search for the truth and not a political witch hunt — should include those who will counter the intense grilling that will come from the GOP members. Democrats should ask their own difficult questions as well and the panel then should craft a bipartisan report that produces constructive recommendations for protecting our foreign service personnel against future attacks.

Boycotting these hearings would be counter-productive at almost any level possible.

Take part, Minority Leader Pelosi.

Uncategorized

'Benghazi' a fundraising tool? Shocking!

Stop the presses!

Congressional Republicans have been raising the issue of the impending Benghazi hearings to raise money for their political campaigns. What a revoltin’ development! Who knew?

And yet the GOP majority in the U.S. House of Representatives just keeps insisting that the probe isn’t about politics. It’s about the truth, they tell us. They want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Let’s back up a moment.

House Speaker John Boehner announced the creation of a House select committee to be chaired by Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., to examine the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. What did the State Department know and when did it know it? Did State know it was a premeditated terror attack or did it assume wrongly it was a spontaneous response to an anti-Islam video? Did the U.S. do enough to protect the four Americans who died, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/05/07/gowdy_gop_should_not_fundraise_off_the_backs_of_four_murdered_americans.html

To his credit, Chairman Gowdy has said Republicans shouldn’t raise money “on the backs of four murdered Americans.” Good going, Mr. Chairman.

This investigation can be wrapped up in fairly short order, just as the congressional probe of the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon was able to do. You’ll recall that attack killed 241 Marines, but other attacks followed and many questioned whether the Reagan administration was doing enough to protect our interests, and our people, against terrorists. The Democratic-led Congress concluded its probe, made constructive recommendations and finished the job with a bipartisan report.

Can this investigation proceed like that one? Let’s hope so.

It needs to start down that path, however, by ensuring that Republican lawmakers stop using the upcoming probe to raise political campaign money.