UPDATED: Heads of Benghazi review board say they’ll testify

[DonViejo]

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 12:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The leaders of the panel that independently reviewed the attack last year in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans have agreed to testify publicly before Congress to counter what they consider unfounded criticism of their work.

In a letter to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, veteran diplomat Thomas Pickering says he and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen will answer any questions lawmakers have. Pickering calls criticism of the Accountability Review Board “unfounded.” He says he and Mullen stand by its findings.

Republicans believe the board’s report was flawed, and they want to know why top officials like Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton weren’t interviewed.

GOP lawmakers had sought a private hearing with Pickering and Mullen. Democrats said any hearing should be open.

###

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/heads_of_benghazi_review_board_say_theyll_testify/

---

Update:

Ex-diplomat is asked to answer Benghazi questions

BY DONNA CASSATA

WASHINGTON (AP) — A House committee chairman wants to know whether a retired diplomat who helped lead an independent review of the attack against the U.S. in Benghazi, Libya, will agree to be interviewed by committee investigators.

The former ambassador, Thomas Pickering, already has told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he’s willing to testify in public. GOP Rep. Darrell Issa (EYE’-suh) of California now wants Pickering also to answer questions from committee staff before the hearing.

Pickering and a retired admiral, Mike Mullen, led the Accountability Review Board report of the Sept. 11 attack that killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

Republicans have criticized the report and said the leaders should have conducted a full-scale interview with former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

###

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/ex_diplomat_is_asked_to_answer_benghazi_questions/

[bemildred]

1. Publicly, good. nt

[Roland99]

2. way more than Bush and Dick ever did

[Iliyah]

3. Again, the focus is

Hillary C. This does reek the smell of shit and 2016 which is another witch hunt and the American public is sick and tired of it.

[karynnj]

9. The polls suggest that people are not buying it.

If you decompose Benghazi, there are at least three identifiable parts:

1) What happened on 9/11/12. The hearings last week actually strengthened the Obama administration's position. All the whispered RW accounts that the US could have road to the rescue of all or some of the 4 were disputed pretty definitively - not that it means we won't hear them again.

2) What was known before 9/11/12 and what was done. Here, hearings will likely again help the administration. The requests for more support were for Tripoli - not Benghazi. There is also a report that Stevens specifically did not want more security in Benghazi. If that report is true - it and the fact the Republicans cut the budget should make this a not good public issue. (This might be something that the administration would want in closed hearings as it seems already known that the second attack was at the CIA annex. It seems a pretty likely conclusion that there may have been some covert activity.

3) Was there a public cover up? Here, there were two simultaneous issues - that Obama and Clinton had to deal with.

There is no statement mentioning the film that I remember or found of Obama or Clinton are speaking of Libya. It was imperative that they explain (and defend) American freedom of speech which allows people to say stupid, horrendous things - and they are allowed to disseminate it. Our freedom on this is more extreme than in most countries - and the Middle Eastern countries are on the far other side of the spectrum. No movie would be made and distributed in Egypt which is so contrary to societal values as that one. Their statements were excellent - and that is not easy - because it is hard to defend allowing garbage out. (My only analogue was when the ACLU defended the right of neo-Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois. Public sentiment was nearly unanimously behind the people against the march - especially as Skokie was home to many Holocaust survivors. )

The first person to conflate the film and the attack was Mitt Romney, who blasted the Cairo embassy for their (excellent) post on the film that was written to tamp the anger in Cairo that later erupted into riots outside the embassy. He said it was the wrong response to the attack. However, it was written BEFORE the attack occurred and was a very prudent measure to take given that they were in an embassy in a country likely to explode with anger over it.

I have not examined all the statements by everyone in that time period, were there people other than Susan Rice, who actually did speak of the film being a possible factor in Libya? I went back and read the transcripts (that may or may not have been complete) where Rice actually did do this - http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/ (sorry for the source, but it's what google gave me.) There have been plenty of stories that say that Rice spoke from the CIA talking points. One question is whether they mentioned the film.

This may be the only point where they can prove that something they said is true - however, that is a very small thing. They would be accurate in saying that Rice, as a surrogate said things that were not later found to be accurate. However, even this does not equate to covering anything up - the key points - a consulate was attacked and destroyed and the Ambassador and others were killed - were things the American public learned within a day of it happening.

[BREMPRO]

4. so the R holes want it private so it won't undermine their conspiracy n can spin it to their favor/

insufferable political Tools! can't wait for the public repuke!!

[DCBob]

7. You betcha they want it private. They fear their fantasy scandal will be completely exposed.

Such pathetic losers.

[lame54]

5. They scream BENGHAZI as loud as they can then want the hearing to be private...

that speaks volumes

[DCBob]

6. The repukes are going to regret this.

The Admiral and Pickering are well respected and credible. Their testimony will make Issa and his witch-hunt look even more foolish and partisan than it already does... if that's possible.

[OldRedneck]

8. This is not good for the only convicted car thief to serve in Congress

Darrell "Convicted of Grand Theft Auto" Issa wanted to have it both ways:

-- He didn't want Pickering and Mullen to testify because they would reveal the lies and bullshit he is spreading, but,

-- They ran the independent committee investigating Benghazi, so, he can't keep them away, although he tried.

Issa has pissed and moaned, complaining that Pickering and Mullen either refused to testify or were blocked by the White House . . . both Issa lies.

So, now, they'll testify and this will be the end because their testimony will sink Issa's rowboat.

[Kingofalldems]

10. Repubs will trash them before they even testify

Watch LBN.