That is the question for Democrats, who must decide whether to send members of its U.S. House caucus to sit on the House select committee investigating the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The committee resulted from the release of e-mails suggesting that then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was being directed by the Obama White House to present carefully crafted talking points to the press on morning talk shows the following Sunday in an apparent effort to hide the truth of what happened. Except that we know what happened: The consulate was attacked in a planned and deliberate act, four Americans - including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens - were killed, and the White House did what it could under difficult circumstances to prevent an attack, only to have trouble handling the fallout once that attack occurred. Previous investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing on anyone's part, and this select committee is likely to achieve nothing . . . except fire up the Republican base for the 2014 midterms.
The Democrats are in a bind here. If they take part in the select committee, they'll legitimize it and give the voters reason to think that something is very wrong here. If they don't, they'll be accused of putting partisan interests over the need to get to the truth about how bad the White House knew the incident was and when it knew it. Markos Moulitsas and Joan Walsh seem to think that Democratic participation would strengthen the Republicans' hand, but Jonathan Capehart suggests it would keep the committee bipartisan. Right now, I lean toward the argument that the Democrats should participate, because their participation would at least give them access to e-mails and documents and so give the Democrats some control -at least a little bit - of the process. But it's a tough call.
Of course, at this point the biggest target of the Benghazi select committee would be Hillary Clinton, who was Secretary of State at the time and is the leading Democratic contender for President in 2016. No one doubts her ability to stand up to this committee, even an all-Republican one, in testimony, but if enough people see her defiance as grandstanding or obfuscation, it could have an adverse affect on her popularity - a popularity she's maintained by not having to answer questions about anything, on any subject.
By the way, I have a question about Libya. Can Republicans tell me what's going on in Libya right now, and what the House Foreign Affairs Committee is doing with regard to helping the post-revolutionary interim government get the country back on its feet? Do they even know who's in charge over there?
I didn't think so . . ..
No comments:
Post a Comment