Dems don’t care about Benghazi |
Featured Commentary

Dems don’t care about Benghazi

We’re still waiting on Nancy Pelosi to decide whether Democrats will participate in the new select committee investigating Benghazi. When I say “participate,” I’m not talking about Pelosi simply appointing Democrats to show up and attack Republicans. I’m talking about Democrats showing up to the committee like adults to ask questions about the terror attack at the U.S. outpost in Libya — not to slam committee chairman Trey Gowdy or to throw a temper tantrum about “political witch hunts.”

So why is it that Democrats are digging in their heels against further investigation for unanswered questions?

First, Democrats are satisfied with a quantity-over-quality approach when it comes to Benghazi document requests. Sure, the administration has turned over a sizable amount of Benghazi material, but the majority of it has been worthless, redacted or incomplete. Democrats argue that “we’ve already had seven hearings! What else are you going to find? We’ve received thousands of pages in documentation! Why ask for more?”

The problem isn’t only the administration failing to turn over requested information but turning over worthless information unrelated to document requests or questions from Congress.

During the hearings already conducted, administration officials have failed to answer simple, repeated questions, prompting the need for further questioning and subpoenas.

Another reason Democrats don’t want to participate? They just don’t care.

Let’s go back for a moment to Pelosi, who said during a special press conference late last week, “The American people have either forgotten about Benghazi or they never knew about it in the first place.” Actually, polling shows the majority of the country still wants answers from the administration about what happened in the attack that killed a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor made an appearance on Fox News’ “Special Report” and revealed that President Obama was not in the situation room on the night of the attack. But he couldn’t say where the president was. During the same interview, Vietor declared, “Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane thing,” when pressed on talking points changed by the White House.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said at the beginning of the month, “Let’s be clear, Benghazi happened a long time ago.”

Adding insult to injury, liberal columnist and staunch Democrat foot soldier Eleanor Clift, during a recent appearance with “The McLaughlin Group,” declared Ambassador Christopher Stevens wasn’t “murdered” but instead died from “smoke inhalation in a safe room.”

Mo Elleithee, communications director for the Democratic National Committee and former Hillary Clinton for President hack, turned the Benghazi murders into a punch line through a tweet mocking Republican priorities. Slaughtered Americans, it’s just so funny.

Democrats protesting further investigation into what happened in Benghazi go far beyond protecting the incompetence of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Investigating a terror attack that left Americans dead shouldn’t be a partisan issue or a punch line.

Katie Pavlich is the news editor of Her exclusive Trib columns appear the first and third Fridays of each month.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.