GOP leader backtracks on Benghazi 'strategy' comments

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy is scrambling to win back the trust of his colleagues after publicly suggesting the Benghazi panel was set up to go after Hillary Clinton. 

Andrew Harnik/AP/File
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif. walks on Capitol Hill in Washington. McCarthy says he regrets comments suggesting the House special committee on Benghazi has political goals. McCarthy says he never intended to make that suggestion. He says the purpose of the committee is to find out the truth and it has nothing to do with politics.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy scrambled to do damage control on Thursday after his remarks implying that the congressional investigation of the 2012 attack on an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya could be politically motivated set both parties on fire.

In what The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne Jr. called a “truthful gaffe,” Rep. McCarthy (R) of California suggested in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Tuesday that the GOP-funded committee was set up primarily to discredit former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

McCarthy, who is expected to succeed John Boehner as House Speaker this fall, was explaining what he would do differently in the role.

Here are his comments from Tuesday:

What you’re gonna see is a conservative Speaker that takes a conservative Congress that puts a strategy to fight and win.

Let me you give one example. Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.

Speaking to Fox News’ Bret Baier on Thursday, Mr. McCarthy said, “This committee was set up for one sole purpose, to find the truth on behalf of families for four dead Americans.”

“I did not intend to imply in any way that that work is political,” he added. “Of course it is not. Look at the way they have carried themselves out.”

In a separate statement, Mr. Boehner chimed in, “This investigation has never been about former Secretary of State Clinton and never will be.”

But critics aren't buying it.

“This stunning concession from Rep. McCarthy reveals the truth that Republicans never dared admit in public: The core Republican goal in establishing the Benghazi Committee was always to damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and never to conduct an even-handed search for the facts,” Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, told MSNBC on Wednesday.

Mrs. Clinton herself has called the comments “deeply distressing.”

Republicans across the country sharply objected to McCarthy’s original comments, saying they were unrepresentative of the committee’s intentions, reports CNN. “Privately, Republicans were outraged.”

What McCarthy needs to do now is “reassure his colleagues that he can handle the post without making the kind of mistakes that hand political ammunition to Democrats,” writes MSNBC’s Zachary Roth. “His remarks on Fox, which seemed intended as an effort to impress conservatives, did exactly that.”

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.