This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/13/us/politics/gop-pushes-for-more-details-of-benghazi-attack.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
G.O.P. Pushes for More Details of Benghazi Attack Chairman of Benghazi Board Defends Its Decision Not to Question Clinton
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A House committee chairman vowed Sunday to seek additional testimony on the Obama administration’s handling of last year’s deadly attack on the American diplomatic post in Libya as another prominent Republican lawmaker called for a special committee to investigate. WASHINGTON — The State Department board that reviewed last year’s attack on a diplomatic outpost in Libya never questioned Hillary Rodham Clinton, the secretary of state at the time, because it had already decided responsibility lay below her level, the board’s chairman said Sunday.
The dispute over the assault in Benghazi, Libya, in September that killed four Americans dominated the network talk shows on Sunday. Leaders of both parties debated whether the administration had paid enough attention to security before the attack, did enough to respond once the violence began and tried to deceive the public afterward in the midst of an election campaign. Thomas R. Pickering, a former ambassador who led the review, said his group discussed its findings with Mrs. Clinton but did not pose any questions because it had established the facts to its satisfaction and concluded that mistakes were made by less senior officials. Likewise, he said, the panel did not question her two deputies.
“I’d call it a cover-up,” Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on the ABC News program “This Week.”. “I would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful removal of information, which was obvious.” “We had plenty of opportunity had we felt it was necessary, all five of us, to ask them questions,” Mr. Pickering said in a round of network television interviews intended to explain his work. “We didn’t believe that was necessary, and I don’t see any reason to do so now.”
Mr. McCain called for a select committee to investigate, saying that “there are so many questions that are unanswered.” Last week, several House Republicans called for a special investigation in that chamber as well. By the time they talked with her, he added, “we had questioned people who had attended meetings with her” and “I don’t think that there was anything there that we didn’t know.”
Representative Darrell Issa, Republican of California and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, also referred to a cover-up as he charged that the administration scrubbed talking points to falsely blame an incendiary anti-Muslim video rather than specific terrorist groups. The board’s review of the attack in Benghazi has become a focus as Republican lawmakers investigate the Obama administration’s handling of the episode. The No. 2 diplomat in Libya at the time of the attack said in an interview with Congressional investigators that was disclosed last week that the review “let people off the hook,” and a State Department official testified that the board failed to interview “people who I personally know were involved in key decisions.”
“The American people were effectively lied to for a period of about a month,” he said on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “They were in fact covering up an easy attack that succeeded, that was from the get-go really about a terrorist attack. It was never about a video.” Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican and the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he would seek testimony from Mr. Pickering and his vice chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We’re going to want to go through at length how” the board “reached its conclusions, who it interviewed, and why we believe there are shortcomings,” Mr. Issa said on the NBC program “Meet the Press.”
Mr. Issa said he would deliver requests for testimony on Monday to former Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who led a State Department review of the episode that critics considered inadequate. Mr. Issa, whose committee has been leading the latest investigation in the House, said he did not believe a special investigation would be necessary. The board’s report on the Sept. 11 attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans offered harsh criticism of the State Department’s handling of security in Benghazi, citing “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels.” But it did not attribute those to Mrs. Clinton, whose role or lack of role went unmentioned in the unclassified version of the report released in December.
Ambassador Christopher J. Stevens and three other American government employees were killed when the Benghazi diplomatic compound was stormed on Sept. 11. The highly charged and politically polarized debate about the episode flared up last week with Congressional hearings featuring State Department officials who questioned the handling of the situation, including the failure to make any effort to intervene militarily. Mr. Pickering’s appearances on CBS and NBC put the spotlight on him. He acknowledged that he was initially disinclined to testify before Congress because it seemed like a political circus but said he changed his mind and volunteered, only to be put off. That produced a quarrel on the set of the NBC studio, where he and Mr. Issa sat side by side.
Criticism was further fueled by the disclosure of drafts and e-mails showing how the administration directed the editing of talking points after the attack to remove references to Al Qaeda and another terrorist group, and any warnings of threats in Benghazi. Last week, the White House said it was trying to avoid speculation and stick to what was definitively known at the time.
Democratic lawmakers and a former Pentagon chief came to the defense of the administration on Sunday. Robert M. Gates, the former defense secretary who served several Republican presidents in various capacities, before staying on under Mr. Obama for two and a half years, disputed the suggestion that the Pentagon could have scrambled jets or special forces during the attack, calling it a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities.”
“Frankly, had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” he said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.” “Frankly, I’ve heard ‘Well, why didn’t you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare ’em with the noise or something?’ Well, given the number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi’s arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft over Benghazi under those circumstances.”
He added: “And to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment is, without knowing what the threat is, without having any intelligence in terms of what is actually going on on the ground, I think, would have been very dangerous.”
Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the Democratic whip, accused the Republicans of partisan persecution. “Unfortunately, this has been caught up in the 2016 presidential campaign — this effort to go after Hillary Clinton,” he said. “She didn’t have any direct-line responsibility for the decisions that were made, but they want to bring her in because they think it’s a good political show, and I think that’s unfortunate.”
Mr. Issa made clear that he was not yet satisfied and planned to pursue the matter by seeking the private testimony from Mr. Pickering and Admiral Mullen.
“Ambassador Pickering, his people and he, refused to come before our committee,” Mr. Issa said.“Ambassador Pickering, his people and he, refused to come before our committee,” Mr. Issa said.
Mr. Pickering, sitting next to him on television, interrupted. “That is not true,” he said. Mr. Pickering interrupted. “That is not true,” he said.
“We have it in writing,” Mr. Issa countered, suggesting perhaps it was the White House that refused to let him appear.“We have it in writing,” Mr. Issa countered, suggesting perhaps it was the White House that refused to let him appear.
“I said the day before the hearings I was willing to appear, to come to the very hearings he excluded me from,” Mr. Pickering said.“I said the day before the hearings I was willing to appear, to come to the very hearings he excluded me from,” Mr. Pickering said.
“Please don’t tell me I excluded you,” Mr. Issa said. “Don’t tell me I excluded you,” Mr. Issa interjected.
“We were told the majority said I was not welcome at that hearing, I could come another time,” Mr. Pickering said. “We were told the majority said I was not welcome at that hearing,” Mr. Pickering said. “I could come at some other time.”
Mr. Issa said he wanted to explore whether the Accountability Review Board led by Mr. Pickering and Admiral Mullen interviewed all possible witnesses and focused high enough in assigning responsibility. “Ultimately, if that got it right then we can put this to a rest,” he said. “We believe it was insufficient.” Mr. Issa said he wanted to explore whether the panel interviewed enough witnesses and focused high enough in assigning responsibility. “Ultimately, if that got it right, then we can put this to a rest,” he said. “We believe it was insufficient.”
Mr. Pickering appeared on several shows to defend the panel’s actions. Under questioning on CBS, he said his panel had the opportunity to interview Hillary Rodham Clinton, then secretary of state, but did not ask any questions because they believed they had already established the facts and the level of responsibility. On the CBS News program “Face the Nation,” Mr. Pickering said there was no need. “I don’t see yet any reason why what we did at the accountability review board should be reopened,” he said.
“We didn’t believe that was necessary, and I don’t see any reason to do so now,” he said. Mrs. Clinton, who testified on Capitol Hill on Benghazi in January before stepping down, has said she takes responsibility as the leader of her department. Democrats say the renewed Republican focus on Benghazi in recent days is nothing more than an attempt to sully Mrs. Clinton, who is seen as the front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination in 2016.
“Unfortunately, this has been caught up in the 2016 presidential campaign, this effort to go after Hillary Clinton,” Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said on CBS. “The reason she wasn’t interviewed — because she didn’t have any direct-line responsibility for the decisions that were made. But they want to bring her in because they think it’s a good political show.”
Mr. Issa denied that Mrs. Clinton or President Obama were targets of the investigation. But he accused the administration of deceiving the public by blaming the attack on an incendiary anti-Muslim video rather than on specific terrorist groups. “The American people were effectively lied to for a period of about a month,” he said. “They were in fact covering up an easy attack that succeeded, that was from the get-go really about a terrorist attack. It was never about a video.”
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, called for a select committee to investigate, just as scores of House Republicans did last week. “I’d call it a cover-up,” he said on the ABC News program “This Week.” “I would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful removal of information which was obvious.”
Former Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates came to the assistance of the administration. Mr. Gates, who served several Republican presidents in various capacities before staying on under Mr. Obama for two and a half years, rebutted suggestions that the Pentagon could have scrambled jets or special forces during the attack, calling that a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities.”
“Frankly had I been in the job at the time, I think my decisions would have been just as theirs were,” he said on CBS. “Frankly, I’ve heard ‘Well, why didn’t you just fly a fighter jet over and try and scare ’em with the noise or something?’ Well, given the number of surface-to-air missiles that have disappeared from Qaddafi’s arsenals, I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances.”