Background: For those seeking to prevent tragedies like Benghazi from repeating, the capture of Ahmed Abu Khatallah is a great step forward. Unfortunately, the leader of the Benghazi select committee has given no indication the committee will not be guided by partisan political motives. As pointed out today by Salon, the capture of Benghazi terrorist Ahmed Abu Khatallah seems to undermine the purpose of the Benghazi select committee, which Chairman Gowdy himself admitted was formed in part to figure out why no one has been arrested for the terrorist attack. That question has now been answered, as have a majority of the other GOP claims about the tragedy in the investigations thus far, which have already included eight congressional committees, more than 50 senior level staff briefings, 13 public hearings, at least 3 independent/bipartisan reports, dozens of interviews, and the disclosure of more than 25,000 pages of documents.
Most of the questions Gowdy wants answered have already been answered:
ASKED: Why were additional security requests denied or ignored by Washington?
ANSWERED: 4/25/13: Washington Post Fact-Checker: The claim that Clinton denied funding is “absurd” and a “whopper.” “One of the headline items in the [House Republican] report was the claim that an April 19, 2012, State Department cable acknowledged a request from the embassy in Libya for additional security assets but ordered that a planned drawdown would proceed as scheduled. ‘The cable response to Tripoli bears Secretary Clinton’s signature,’ the report said, referring to the message as ‘the April cable from Clinton.’ […] [Congressman Darrell] Issa presented this as a ‘gotcha’ moment, but it relies on an absurd understanding of the word ‘signature.’ […] [T]he State Department is a vast organization and even office directors can send out a cable that ends up with the secretary’s ‘signature.’ At this point, Issa has no basis or evidence to show that Clinton had anything to do with this cable — any more than she personally approved a cable on proper e-mail etiquette. The odds are extremely long that Clinton ever saw or approved this memo, giving us confidence that his inflammatory and reckless language qualifies as a ‘whopper.’” [‘Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it,’ Washington Post, 4/25/13]
ASKED: Why does Hillary Clinton continue to blame the YouTube video?
ANSWERED: 1/15/14: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
ANSWERED: 5/30/14: Hard Choices: “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” “‘There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,’ she writes. ‘It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
ASKED: Why does Hillary Clinton continue to defend Susan Rice’s Sunday show account of the Benghazi attack?
ANSWERED: 1/15/14: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
ANSWERED: 5/30/14: Sec. Clinton correctly noted Susan Rice’s statements corresponded with current intelligence assessments. According to Politico’s coverage of the chapter in “Hard Choices” about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, “Intelligence officials didn’t know Rice would use them [the talking points], Clinton writes. ‘Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time,’ Clinton writes. ‘That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
ASKED: Why did it take so long to capture Ahmed Abu Khatallah?
ANSWERED: 6/18/14: Salon: “part of the reason it took so long for special forces to move against Khatallah is that they reportedly spent over a year training and preparing for the mission. That preparation was undoubtedly worth it – Katallah was captured without incident – so it doesn’t look like there’s much for the committee to gripe about. [Simon Maloy, Salon, 6/18/14]
BOTTOM LINE: “Fewer avenues to investigate Benghazi mean fewer opportunities for the select committee to politicize the proceedings and generate headlines.” [Simon Maloy, Salon, 6/18/14]
Salon: GOP’s Benghazi humiliation: Capture of suspect up-ends deranged agenda
Salon political writer: “[Ahmed Abu] Khatallah’s capture poses a setback for the House Select Committee on Benghazi.” According to Salon political writer Simon Maloy’s take on the possible Republican response to the United States’ capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, “That the good news of Khatallah’s apprehension could be so easily twisted into an outlandish anti-Obama conspiracy does not speak well of the health of the conservative movement. It shows how much conservatives have invested in the Benghazi scandal narrative, and how ultimately weak that narrative is. In that vein, Khatallah’s capture poses a setback for the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which was formed to keep the Benghazi scandal alive, but has had the legs kicked out from under it before it could even hold a hearing.” [Simon Maloy, Salon, 6/18/14]
Salon political writer: “There were only a few avenues of inquiry that offered some legitimate opportunities for oversight, and the lack of action in pursuing the people responsible for the attacks was one of them.” According to Salon political writer Simon Maloy’s take on the possible Republican response to the United States’ capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, “Really, there were only a few avenues of inquiry that offered some legitimate opportunities for oversight, and the lack of action in pursuing the people responsible for the attacks was one of them. Apprehending terrorism suspects does sometimes take a while — the Bush administration couldn’t nab Osama bin Laden after seven years and a suspect indicted in 2000 for the 1998 embassy bombings was arrested just last October – but Khatallah was out in the open, talking to reporters and generally flaunting his freedom. It seemed reasonable to ask why, exactly, that was the case.” [Simon Maloy, Salon, 6/18/14]
Salon political writer: Rep. Gowdy’s “outstanding question” about why “no one has been arrested, prosecuted, or punished for the murders” at Benghazi “is now moot.” According to Salon political writer Simon Maloy’s take on the possible Republican response to the United States’ capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, “After the House voted to approve the committee in May, Gowdy issued a statement indicating that he would try to nail down that question. ‘No one has been arrested, prosecuted, or punished for the murders of our fellow Americans,’ the statement read. ‘These outstanding questions, and others, are legitimate, and seeking the answer to these questions should be an apolitical process.’ That ‘outstanding question’ is now moot.” [Simon Maloy, Salon, 6/18/14]
Salon political writer: “Katallah’s apprehension and the demise of silly conspiracies are obviously in the public interest, but they’re counter to what Republicans want politically.” According to Salon political writer Simon Maloy’s take on the possible Republican response to the United States’ capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, “Fewer avenues to investigate Benghazi mean fewer opportunities for the select committee to politicize the proceedings and generate headlines. It means fewer opportunities for Trey Gowdy to make angry or emotional statements for the cameras and then post the videos to YouTube. Katallah’s apprehension and the demise of silly conspiracies are obviously in the public interest, but they’re counter to what Republicans want politically.” [Simon Maloy, Salon, 6/18/14]