Hillary Clinton faces six key questions at congressional Benghazi hearing
|
Version 0 of 1. Hillary Clinton faces a defining moment in her presidential campaign on Thursday as a long-scheduled appearance in Congress before the House select committee on Benghazi committee presents an opportunity for her to vanquish her fiercest critics, while also giving them a chance to finally show if there is substance behind their complaints. The circumstances of the terrorist attack that killed the US ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans three years ago in Libya are less and less in dispute, but the question of whether more could have been done to prevent them remains one of the fiercest partisan debates in Washington. Over 17 months, the Benghazi committee has reviewed 70,000 pages of documents, interviewed more than 50 witnesses in private and held three public hearings, yet increasingly it is under attack for appearing to persecute Clinton for political gain. Related: Benghazi investigation chair says he is not targeting Hillary Clinton Acknowledgement of this by the House majority leader, Kevin McCarthy, and the sight of many key documents finding their way into the hands of rightwing media organisations in recent weeks, do not remove the need for Clinton to provide answers to their charges, however. At least half a dozen key questions remain, each posing varying degrees of concern for the former secretary of state: Was it a good idea to intervene in Libya in the first place? The very notion of western intervention in Libya has become increasingly controversial in recent years. While the initial bombing campaign launched by the Obama administration in 2011 to support anti-Gaddafi rebels had bipartisan support, many in both parties are looking skeptically at Nato’s decision to launch airstrikes in Libya. While the initial mission was successful in preventing a potential human rights crisis and overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s dictatorship, the country is now in the midst of a civil war and Isis has established a foothold there. Despite the power vacuum left in Libya, Clinton defended western intervention in last week’s Democratic debate by saying American foreign policy in the region was an example of “smart power at its best”. It’s likely Clinton will face criticism and questioning over these initial decisions a year before the fatal attacks in Benghazi. While the question is a legitimate one, her critics would have to show that letting Gaddafi rout the rebels would have been a better policy. Worry factor: 4/10 Was the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi planned? Many of the original questions raised around the attack revolve around whether it was a “spontaneous demonstration” based on a YouTube video or a planned effort by anti-American militias in and around Benghazi, held on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. In a conference call on Monday organized by the left-leaning National Security Network and promoted by the Clinton campaign, Matthew Olsen, former director of the National Counter Terrorism Center, insisted that the initial attack “appeared to be haphazard and opportunistic” and that there was “no indication of extensive preplanning or coordination”. However, there are indications that the attack was planned by the terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia. This was a particularly worry for Obama’s administration at the outset of the crisis, when the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was given media talking points that erroneously downplayed any terrorist link. This has proved more of a headache for the White House than Clinton personally. Worry factor 3/10 Did Clinton ignore calls for better security from Ambassador Stevens? New documents mysteriously obtained by Fox News in recent days suggest that Stevens called on the State Department to provide him with more security in the weeks leading up to the fatal attack. In particular, one cable sent by Stevens following similar attacks on the British ambassador appears to show him asking for specific backup in Benghazi. Fox claims the request was turned down by undersecretary Patrick Kennedy, who it describes as “Clinton’s deputy”, but there is seemingly little to suggest the secretary of state herself was involved in the decision. Even if it could be shown to be an unreasonable decision with hindsight, Republicans are also vulnerable to the charge that they too have cut funding for embassy security. Worry factor 5/10 Did Clinton’s use of a private email server expose classified information to potential compromise? One of the most fertile areas for Clinton’s critics in recent weeks has been her use of a private computer server to handle much of her personal and professional email during her time as secretary of state. Although the mere presence of the unusual communications channel has caused much embarrassment for the secretary, who acknowledges it was a “mistake” not to use two separate email accounts for work and personal communications, the question now is not just whether it looks bad, but whether it was bad. An FBI investigation into whether classified information was potentially exposed may prove the ultimate arbiter of this question but it has not stopped Republican committee members from pointing to emails they claim are examples of this. The latest concerns an email sent to Clinton (and then forwarded) by her unofficial adviser Sidney Blumenthal containing the name of a US intelligence agent. The CIA, however, has allegedly denied that the name was classified. Clinton’s claim not to have handled classified material through the server is always vulnerable to contradiction, but critics also risk looking like they are moving the goalposts by retroactively reassessing the security status of emails sent long ago. Worry factor 7/10 Did the State Department frustrate response efforts that could have saved Ambassador Stevens? In theory, this is the most damning charge laid against the administration – and by extension Clinton – especially the claim that a military response after the first attack on consular staff was ordered to “stand down”. Unfortunately for her critics, this is also one of the areas that has been mostly heavily explored by previous investigations and it looks less and less likely that it is a charge they can make stick. A report issued by Democrats on the Benghazi committee in the days leading up to Clinton’s appearance insists there is simply “no evidence that Secretary Clinton ordered the military to stand down on the night of the attacks” or that she “personally approved or ordered a reduction of security in Benghazi prior to the attacks”. Unless Republicans on the committee have any last-minute evidence up their sleeves that they have kept from their colleagues, this is territory that is looking more and more secure for Clinton. Worry factor 2/10 What difference at this point does it make? The question that Clinton memorably raised in response to grillings at an earlier hearing before the Senate foreign relations committee increasingly looks like it could be turned back upon her accusers. At the time, her dismissive response looked premature and aloof, but as the inquiries have ground on without evidence of a smoking gun, it increasingly looks like a fair question to ask. Of course, there are lessons to be learned about embassy security and the intervention in Libya, but they won’t bring back the dead Americans and it is unproven that they cast doubt on Clinton’s competency to serve as commander in chief. The committee chairman, Trey Gowdy, insists that the Benghazi attack, not Clinton’s email server remains the focus of his investigations, but it is unfortunate that the weakest area for her is the one furthest from his core remit. The onus is increasingly on the committee to show why it, not Clinton’s behaviour while secretary of state, is still relevant in 2015. Worry factor 1/10 |