An investigation into a terrorist attack in Benghazi and the mishandling of
security there has yet to answer key questions about who's at fault and what
went wrong, security analysts said Thursday.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., head of the House oversight committee, vowed that
the investigation will continue. But whether it will answer Republicans'
questions about the origins of the account put out by the Obama administration
on the Sept. 11 attack, or why security was so lax, may not come, security
analysts say.
James Carafano, who heads the foreign policy and national security program at
the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, said the hearing "devolved
into a partisan thing," as Democrats complained they had been denied access to
witness and documents in advance.
"You don't get a sense of who was talking to whom" in the White House, Pentagon,
State Department and Tripoli, Carafano said. "It's like the story of 10 blind
people trying to explain an elephant by touching its different parts."
Democrats say the probe will fail because there is nothing to investigate.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the attack has already been looked at
"exhaustively" and the investigation is an attempt to "politicize" the attack.
Gary Schmitt, who was staff director of President Reagan's intelligence advisory
board, said the committee needs to probe the decisions made by Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton and President Obama the night of the attack and in
the days after.
"I'm still unclear why United Nations Ambassador (Susan) Rice would have been
the person to go on those Sunday TV shows," Schmitt said, referring to Rice's
role in saying the attacks emerged from a protest gainst an anti-Islam video.
Carafano said the investigation would benefit from a look at the 9/11 Commission
Report, which he says was a comprehensive view that encompassed all government
agencies.
The current investigation is disjointed, and the State Department's
Accountability Review Board, appointed by Clinton to investigate the attack,
focused only on the role of one agency, Carafano said.
At the oversight committee's hearing Wednesday, Gregory Hicks, former second in
command at the U.S. Consulate in Libya, and Eric Nordstrom, a former regional
security officer in Libya, testified that in the months preceding the attack,
they noted a deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and made repeated
requests for additional security, which the State Department denied.
Hicks said it was also clear from the start that the attack was the work of
terrorists.
Most Popular Stories
- Tesla Proves EVs Can Be Profitable
- 'Liz & Dick,' 'Cloud Atlas' Among New DVD and Blu-ray Releases
- Hispanics Wanted in STEM Careers
- Repubs Want IRS Probe, Apology
- Economic Forecast Improves for Late 2013
- Detroit 3 Score High on Auto Quality Survey
- J.J. Abrams Boldly Going From 'Star Trek' to 'Star Wars'
- Kindle Fire Customers Get 500 Free Amazon Coins
- Americans Get Along Well, Despite Politicians
- Retail Sales Up in April
News-To-Go
Advertisement
Advertisement
News Column
Benghazi Testimony Reveals Few Answers
May 10, 2013
Advertisement
For more stories covering politics, please see HispanicBusiness' Politics Channel
Source: Copyright USA TODAY 2013
Story Tools



