TEL AVIV – Like the two others before it, the most recent House Select Committee hearing on the Benghazi attack made little progress at divining what transpired at the U.S. special mission the night of Sept. 11, 2012.
Almost no new information came to light regarding the events surrounding the attack.
The Jan. 27 hearing, reviewed minute-by-minute by WND, was titled “Status Review of Outstanding Requests.” It focused largely on the State Department’s alleged slow pace in providing key documents and information.
The very premise of the third hearing precluded posing questions about the major outstanding lines of inquiry, such as the unusual security set up at the compound, contradictory testimony by witnesses and government officials, the lack of air support during the fated night, or claims of weapons transfers to the Libyan or Syrian rebels.
Those key details were mostly not probed during Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy’s previous two hearings, which focused instead on “Reviewing Efforts to Secure U.S. Diplomatic Facilities and Personnel” and the implementation of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board list of recommendations.
TRENDING: St. Patrick's role on the 'external hard drive'
In August, WND proposed 76 central questions for the committee to investigate.
Last Tuesday’s hearing instead was largely used by Democrats to complain, among other things, about the slow pace of the investigation, the lack of coordination between the parties and the committee’s lack of focus.
Here are four key Democrat complaints that also highlight a frustration with the committee’s lack of progress.
1. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash.: Committee not trying to find truth
“The slow pace of this, again, we started in May. We had our first document request in November. Interviewing witnesses without including Democrats. All of this points to a goal and objective of this committee that doesn’t have much to do with finding out the truth and doesn’t have much to do with preventing future attacks.”
2. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.: Indefinite scope, don’t know what we’re looking for
“If we’re going to look to assess responsibility for the slow pace of this investigation, I’d look to ourselves before we look to the State Department. Given that we didn’t ask for a single new document from the State Department for the first half year of the existence of this select committee, it seems a bit disingenuous to be criticizing the State Department for the pace of our investigation. The entire Katrina investigation select committee had finished its work before we had even requested a document from the State Department.
I think the problem here is not with the pace of the State Department’s response. The problem all along has been this committee has such an indefinite scope we don’t know exactly what we’re looking for.”
3. Rep. Linda Sánchez, D-Calif.: Americans deserve better
“We have spent months trying to resolve these problems privately, but they’ve exhausted our patience and we can no longer remain silent. This isn’t the fact-based or fair investigation that Gowdy promised it would be and that the American people deserve.”
4. Schiff: Gun running?
Surprisingly it was not a Republican who brought up the issue of possible gun-running to jihadist rebels. It was Democrat lawmaker Schiff.
“We ought to be part of the discussion on who we are subpoenaing. We ought to be part of the discussion about what we’re really going to focus on here. At the end of the day, is it really about gun-running? Does anyone really think that’s what this is about? And if it’s not, OK, then let’s not waste our time on that.”
Responding to the criticism, Gowdy threatened at last week’s hearing to “pick up the pace," saying he had "no interest in prolonging” the Benghazi investigation.
“Letters haven’t worked. Southern politeness hasn’t worked. We’re going to ratchet it up,” he said.
The day after the hearing, Gowdy issued a statement declaring the committee “will continue to move the investigation forward in a fair and impartial manner, but … will not allow the minority’s political games and unreasonable demands to interfere with the investigation.”
With additional research by Joshua Klein.