Right-wing groups continued their shameful politicizing of the Benghazi tragedy in the face of verified facts and evidence. The more than 25 senior level staff briefings, 12 hearings, at least 3 independent reports, dozens of interviews, and the disclosure of more than 25,000 pages of documents, have left the Right ample opportunity to pick a word from here and one from there and create a “fact.” But we don’t play politics with facts, whether we like them or not. So we wanted to share some with you.
New Report, Same Findings
The recent report by the Senate Intelligence Committee echoes previous reports, including the independent Accountability Review Board’s investigation and report led by two of our greatest public servants, Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen. Consistent with what the Intelligence Community and others have said, they all conclude that there was no specific or actionable warning of an attack.
New Report, Same Political Games
Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton was not mentioned a single time in the bipartisan section of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi report. She was only mentioned once in the “partisan response” section of the report. Senator Feinstein, who led the exhaustive investigation, called the attacks on Secretary Clinton within the report “patently false.” Yet right-wing fringe groups continue to politicize the tragedy.
New Report, Same Accountability Outcomes
Reports like the Senate Committee’s and the ARB examine where the rubber met the road. And all have concluded that didn’t elevate to the level of the Secretary. But, as any good leader would do, Secretary Clinton took responsibility and worked to prevent this tragedy from ever repeating itself.
New Report, Same Partisan Game
The Accountability Review Board came out with the most hard-hitting fact-based findings of any of the investigations. It set forth 29 recommendations—both classified and unclassified. On the same day of the ARB’s release Secretary Clinton announced she accepted each recommendation and would begin implementation immediately. She wanted to ensure that all recommendations were either implemented or being implemented before leaving office
New Report, Same Missing Progress Report
During seven hours of testimony in front of the State Department’s House and Senate committees of jurisdiction, Secretary Clinton said it best, “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.” Right-wing fringe groups and conspiracy theorists have ignored that in their politicization of this tragedy. Fortunately, the Administration has not. It continues to implement the ARB’s recommendations to best protect our men and women abroad.
In the context of being constructive and creating a process to prevent this from happening again, the most important thing is to not allow this tragedy to become a political football.
A Review of The Facts:
NYT editorial: “Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton…” “Republicans long ago abandoned common sense and good judgment in pursuit of conspiracy-mongering and an obsessive effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.” [New York Times editorial, 12/30/13]
Sen. Feinstein: “As a matter of fact, Secretary Clinton is not mentioned a single time in the 58-page bipartisan section of our Benghazi report.” “Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Thursday that Republicans are taking her committee’s Benghazi report out of context to blame Hillary Clinton. Feinstein said that some senators and media reports are misconstruing the report, which was released Wednesday, as an indictment of Clinton and proof that she was culpable for the deaths of four Americans at the mission in Benghazi. ‘This is patently false,’ Feinstein said in a statement. ‘The report approved on a bipartisan basis says no such thing. As a matter of fact, Secretary Clinton is not mentioned a single time in the 58-page bipartisan section of our Benghazi report.’ Clinton is mentioned once later in the report, in the section where six of the panel’s seven Republicans say she is ‘ultimately’ responsible for the lack of security at the mission and that her actions ‘clearly made a difference in the lives of the four murdered Americans and their families.’” [Washington Post, 1/16/14]
Roger Simon column: Clinton’s testimony was “a fine example of candor in a place — Congress — where candor usually dies of loneliness.” “On Jan. 23, Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, a tea party darling, wanted to talk about the talking points. ‘We were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that — an assault sprang out of that,’ Johnson said, ‘and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.’ Clinton, a former senator and now a former secretary of state, knows how to put up with guff. But she figured the American people had put up with enough guff when it came to Benghazi. ‘With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,’ she replied. ‘Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.’ Exactly. Precisely. And, as I said, a fine example of candor in a place — Congress — where candor usually dies of loneliness.” [Roger Simon column, Politico, 5/14/13]
Roger Simon column: “The Republicans see Benghazi as a political opportunity, a way to swift-boat Clinton and lacerate her up as much as possible before 2016.” “The sensitive topic was the tragic death of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, in Benghazi last September. No, strike that. The sensitive topic was the lunkheaded and futile rehashing of the ’talking points’ made by members of the Obama administration following the attacks. Talking points are a mania in Washington, where it is believed that the ex post facto description of an event is more important than the event itself. Was the attack in Benghazi triggered by demonstrations elsewhere in the Arab world or by local terrorism? And who changed which clauses in the talking points? Which agency protected its own image at the expense of another agency’s image? And who the hell cares? The gulf between how much the Washington press corps cares about the Benghazi talking points and how much the public cares is striking. To the public, Benghazi was a tragedy, a sad loss of life, one of many such losses over the years. To the Washington press corps, however, the Benghazi talking points are a carcass to be chewed over, like a pack of coyotes looking for any hint of fresh meat. The Republicans see Benghazi as a political opportunity, a way to swift-boat Clinton and lacerate her up as much as possible before 2016.” [Roger Simon column, Politico, 5/14/13]
An earlier web ad about Benghazi by Karl Rove was dismissed as “shameless” and “filled with innuendo.” “American Crossroads, the Karl Rove-led super PAC, has released the first attack ad of the 2016 campaign, accusing Hillary Clinton of mishandling the Benghazi killings. It’s a pretty shameless spot, filled with innuendo and as many unflattering pictures of the former secretary of state as possible. … Mr. Rove built his reputation on smear tactics and the politics of fear. If he’s willing to go this far in an attack ad on Mrs. Clinton before she even says she’s running for president, can you imagine what an actual campaign will be like? Today ABC got hold of another Benghazi ad, which the Republican National Committee put together during the campaign and which Mitt Romney spiked, because it was so inflammatory. Will the next G.O.P. candidate show that much restraint?” [Rosenthal blog, New York Times, 5/10/13]
Susan Milligan column: “Unfortunately, the Benghazi episode has been brazenly politicized by conservatives seeking to derail a potential 2016 candidacy by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.” “Unfortunately, the Benghazi episode has been brazenly politicized by conservatives seeking to derail a potential 2016 candidacy by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Republicans on the Hill have likened the episode to Watergate (Can we stop with that? It’s been three decades.), and a conservative PAC has an ad out slamming Clinton for her behavior on Benghazi. Not only is the ad of questionable use – the idea that someone of Clinton’s stature, experience and political network could be eliminated as a 2016 candidate three years ahead of the election is absurd – but it undermines the very important work of the investigations themselves. The American public deserves answers on what really happened in Benghazi. Instead, it just got political talking points – the same thing the GOP has accused Clinton of delivering on the issue.” [Susan Milligan column, U.S. News, 5/10/13]
Eugene Robinson column: “The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016.” “Those who are trying to make the Benghazi tragedy into a scandal for the Obama administration really ought to decide what story line they want to sell. Actually, by ‘those’ I mean Republicans, and by ‘the Obama administration’ I mean Hillary Clinton. The only coherent purpose I can discern in all of this is to sully Clinton’s record as secretary of state in case she runs for president in 2016. That’s not a particularly noble way to use the deaths of four American public servants, but at least it’s understandable. Attempts to concoct some kind of sinister Whitewater-style conspiracy, however, don’t even begin to make sense.” [“Republicans lead a witch hunt on Benghazi,” Eugene Robinson column, Washington Post, 5/9/13]
NYT editorial: During hearings “Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was particularly out of control, rather absurdly comparing the scope of the Benghazi attack to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” “Congressional Republicans like nothing more than beating a dead horse if it might embarrass the Obama administration — like their unceasing attempt to accuse the administration of lying to the American people about the attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. The allegations are specious, but that didn’t stop some Republicans from repeating them on Wednesday during Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Congressional testimony. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was particularly out of control, rather absurdly comparing the scope of the Benghazi attack to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.” [“Republican Myopia,” New York Times editorial, 1/23/13]
NYT editorial: “Clinton was professional and authoritative for hours in the witness chair.” “It’s not clear what drives this obsession after the Republicans’ failed attempt to derail President Obama’s re-election over Benghazi. Is it the prospect, however vague it now is, that Mrs. Clinton might run for president in 2016? Mrs. Clinton was professional and authoritative for hours in the witness chair before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and, later, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. But she understandably reached her limit when Senator Ron Johnson pummeled her with the same questions Republicans have hammered at repeatedly since Mr. Stevens and his colleagues were killed in September.” [“Republican Myopia,” New York Times editorial, 1/23/13]