House Democrats preempt GOP-led Benghazi committee with own report

Hillary Clinton never personally denied requests from diplomats for additional security, according to the report. Inquiries into the Benghazi attack have been marked by finger-pointing on both sides.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/ AP/ File
House Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., left, watches as the committee's ranking member Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., questions Democratic presidential candidate, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, during the committee’s hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 22, 2015. Hillary Clinton never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional security at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, according to a report published Monday by a panel of House Democrats.

Hillary Clinton never personally denied any requests from diplomats for additional security at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, according to Democrats on a select House panel who absolved the former secretary of state and the U.S. military of wrongdoing in the deadly Sept. 11, 2012 attacks.

In a report Monday pre-empting the Republicans, the panel's five Democrats said after a two-year investigation that the military could not have done anything differently that night to save the lives of four Americans killed in Libya. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens died in one of the two assaults at the diplomatic facility and CIA annex.

Democrats' release of their own report heightened the partisanship of the inquiry, which has been marked by finger-pointing on both sides. Republicans accuse the Obama administration of stonewalling important documents and witnesses, while Democrats say the panel's primary goal is to undermine Clinton's presidential bid.

The Libya attacks became immediate political fodder, given their timing in the weeks before President Barack Obama's re-election, and that has not abated despite seven previous congressional investigations. 

The panel's Republican majority missed a self-imposed deadline to issue a report "before summer," but the Democrats' move in issuing their report could spur the GOP's final product.

Whatever the timing, the Republican report is certain to have repercussions for Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. The investigation led to the revelation that Clinton relied on a private email server to conduct government business, a practice now the subject of an FBI probe.

Democrats said they regretted that their 344-page report was not bipartisan, but said Republicans left them little choice after conducting "one of the longest and most partisan congressional investigations in history." The inquiry has lasted nearly 25 months and cost more than $7 million so far.

"It is long past time for the Select Committee to conclude its work," Democrats said in their report, titled "Honoring Courage, Improving Security and Fighting the Exploitation of a Tragedy."

The report accuses Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., the panel's chairman, of conducting the investigation "like an overzealous prosecutor desperately trying to land a front-page conviction." Democrats called Gowdy's actions "a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation."

Matt Wolking, a spokesman for Gowdy, said Democrats refused for more than two years to participate in the GOP's investigation.

"The dishonest Democrats on this committee falsely claimed everything had been 'asked and answered.' If that's changed, they should come clean and admit it. If not, everyone can ignore their rehashed, partisan talking points defending their endorsed candidate for president," Wolking said, referring to Clinton.

Democrats blamed inadequate security in Benghazi on decisions made by mid-level officials at the State Department and said that contrary to repeated claims by some Republicans and conservative commentators, neither Clinton nor anyone else intentionally delayed the military's response or ordered a "stand-down."

The report also disputes a Republican charge that the White House intentionally misled the American public by casting the Benghazi assault as one of the many protests over an offensive, anti-Muslim video, instead of a calculated terrorist attack that occurred on Obama's watch.

The Democrats said that the "assessments and information" that the CIA and other intelligence agencies provided to U.S. government officials "evolved" after the attacks but were not influenced by the upcoming 2012 presidential election or any other political factors.

Obama's critics have zeroed in on the talking points, a reference to a memo prepared for lawmakers and then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to help her get ready for appearances on the Sunday news shows to discuss the attack less than a week after it occurred.

The Democrats said not a single witness that appeared before the Benghazi committee "identified evidence that intelligence assessments or CIA talking points provided to Congress and Ambassador Rice were influenced by political considerations," according to the report.

Democrats say the cause of the attacks "remains unclear to this day." They cite testimony by former CIA Director David Petraeus, who told the committee the attackers may have used the demonstration against an anti-Muslim video as a diversion or it may have been "a mix" of a protest and a pre-planned attack.

"To be candid with you, I am not sure that the amount of scrutiny spent on this has been in the least bit worth it," Petraeus said.

Republican insistence that the investigation is not politically motivated was undermined last year when House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., suggested that the House committee could take credit for Clinton's then-slumping poll numbers.

The report was issued by the 12-member panel's five Democrats: Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the senior Democrat, along with Adam Smith of Washington state, Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, and Adam Schiff and Linda Sanchez, both of California.

Associated Press writer Richard Lardner contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.