Adm. Mike Matt Mullenweg and Ambassador Thomas Pickering are answering to GOP criticism. | M.Scott Mahaskey/POLITIC By GINGER GIBSON | 9/19/13 9:30 AM EDT Updated: 9/19/13 2:26 PM EDT Displaying an increasingly hostile tone, Republicans Thursday sought to discredit the findings of a report on last year’s deadly assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and criticize former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response. Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Adm. Mike Mullen, who led the Accountability Review Board’s report on the attacks, appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer GOP criticism that their findings were watered down and protected Clinton. Continue Reading The GOP pressed Mullen and Pickering on why they didn’t interview Clinton or criticize other top State Department officials, making the case that the former secretary should have been interviewed. California Rep. Darrell Issa, the committee chairman, cut witnesses off, interrupted fellow lawmakers and accused the administration of withholding witnesses from the panel and obstructing his investigation. “We should have a right to speak to those people on the ground that day,” Issa said. Issa pressed Mullen to agree that State wasn’t making witnesses available — a point that the former admiral said should be decided between Congress and the administration — and warned of subpoenas. “I am in the process of issuing subpoenas because the State Department has not made those people available, has played hide and go seek, is now hiding behind a thinly veiled statement that there is a criminal investigation,” Issa said. “We are not being given the same access that you had … and that’s part of the reason that this investigation cannot end until the State Department gives us at least the same access they gave your board.” The State Department responded to the claims by explaining that some of those witnesses may have to testify at a criminal hearing, making their public testimony more difficult to orchestrate. “We understand that the Diplomatic Security law enforcement agents who performed heroically on Sept. 11 are likely witnesses at any criminal proceedings relating to the Benghazi attacks, and that additional interviews of them outside of the criminal justice process could jeopardize those efforts to bring the terrorists to justice,” a State Department official explained. “That said, the Department is not preventing any employees who wish to tell their story from doing so.” On more than one occasion Issa interupted questions from fellow lawmakers, including twice to argue with Democrats, but more often to press the witnesses on a topic at the end of a line of questioning. At one point, Issa asked Pickering why no family members of the victims had been included in the ARB review, arguing at the same time that the two men had conflicts of interest because of their past jobs and were unable to fairly review the agency. Pickering responded that it was meant to find internal problems and included two members with backgrounds in State and three who did not. “This was not a gotcha investigative path,” Pickering said. “The responsibility was to provide recommendations to see that we never see that happen again.” Issa shot back dryly, “Clearly this was not a gotcha panel because no one was gotchaed.” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) focused squarely on Clinton, demanding to know from Mullen why Clinton wasn’t questioned as part of the review. “How could you look at everything if you don’t even bother to investigate?” Gowdy asked. Democrats took note of the tone, criticizing the Republicans. “I deeply regret the tone of this hearing,” Rep. Gerry Connolly began his portion of questions. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said that members of the panel were “badgering” the witnesses. “I am so outraged by the conduct of this committee today,” she said. Issa also raised issues about the ARB report. “Was it the appropriate investigation?” asked Issa. “Was it complete? Did it have the process necessary to do a thorough review? Was the record such that it can be reviewed and reviewed again?” Issa spoke more favorably of previous national security reviews, including the panel that probed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “Had the attacks on 9/11, 2001 been reviewed through the Accountability Review process, it would not have been sufficient for the American public,” Issa said during opening remarks. Most Republicans focused their questions on Mullen, virtually ignoring the two witnesses who conducted a separate best practices investigation and focusing only a handful of questions on Pickering. Mullen engaged in several exchanges with Republicans about the inability for the military to move planes or other assistance to the consulate in Benghazi. At the root of the disagreement were two claims by Republicans at previous hearings. First, Mullen disputed that a small military group in Tripoli had been told to “stand down” instead of going to help in Benghazi. Mullen explained that the four-person team had been told to stay in Tripoli because there were concerns about the security of the embassy there. Second, Mullen addressed claims that F-16s could have been deployed to fly over the consulate to disrupt the attacks. Mullen said given the placement of the planes and the need to refuel potentially as many as two times en route, that the timing made it impossible for the planes to provide aid. “There really was a time distance physics problem,” Mullen said. “The military is willing to go into high risk places, it just wasn’t going to happen in time.” Read more: politico/story/2013/09/democrats-push-back-on-benghazi-97036.html#ixzz2fSZioNUV
Posted on: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:46:34 +0000