BENGHAZI, fox news miniseries is more of the same gop / tea-bagger propaganda against the Obama administration. The US House "investigation" is a sham, a political stunt feeding the rabid ignorance of the party's base, wasting time and money when they they should actually be giving governing a go and apply their energies to addressing the many serious needs of our nation instead of conducting a fund raiser paid for with our tax dollars thinly disguised as an "investigation". Articles from +Talking Points Memo , +The New York Times and +PolitiFact
Police officers examine a damaged
pickup outside the United States consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, on June
14, 2002. A suicide attacker crashed a bomb-laden car into a guard
post, killing at least seven and leaving at least 25 others injured.
Subjects: Foreign Policy, History, Terrorism
Sources:
John Garamendi, comments on MSNBC, May 5, 2014
Global Terrorism Database, accessed May 9-12, 2014
Huffington Post, "13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News," May 9, 2013
Email interview with John Pike, director of globasecurity.org, May 9, 2014
Email interview with Theodore R. Bromund, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, May 9, 2014
Email interview with Lance Janda, military historian at Cameron University, May 9, 2014
Interview with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program, May 9, 2014
Email interview with Matthew Kravitz, press secretary for John Garamendi, May 9, 2014
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Warren: Benghazi Committee Chair 'Gives Oversight A Bad Name'
AP Photo / Michael Dwyer
Warren, in an email to supporters on Friday, said that Gowdy "gives oversight a bad name." She cited a Huffington Post article
that included Gowdy grilling her on the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau in 2011. That article, Warren pointed out, reported that Gowdy
"seemed to lack the basic facts" about the new watchdog agency.
Warren also said that the whole Benghazi special committee is just "political theater of the House Republicans" and a "waste-of-time-and-resources witch hunt and fundraising sideshow" that's really a distraction.
"This stunt does a disservice to those who serve our country abroad, and it distracts us from issues we should be taking up on behalf of the American people," Warren continued.
Warren concluded the email that the entire effort is "wrong and it's shameful."
Democrats are deciding whether to completely boycott the committee. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), earlier in the week, complained to House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) that his refusal to put an even number of Democrats and Republicans on the panel into a thinly veiled "partisan review."
"Another partisan review that serves only to politicize these attacks is disrespectful and unworthy of the American people," the two House Democrats wrote.
Warren also said that the whole Benghazi special committee is just "political theater of the House Republicans" and a "waste-of-time-and-resources witch hunt and fundraising sideshow" that's really a distraction.
"This stunt does a disservice to those who serve our country abroad, and it distracts us from issues we should be taking up on behalf of the American people," Warren continued.
Warren concluded the email that the entire effort is "wrong and it's shameful."
Democrats are deciding whether to completely boycott the committee. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), earlier in the week, complained to House Speaker Boehner (R-OH) that his refusal to put an even number of Democrats and Republicans on the panel into a thinly veiled "partisan review."
"Another partisan review that serves only to politicize these attacks is disrespectful and unworthy of the American people," the two House Democrats wrote.
Center Ring at the Republican Circus
The
hottest competition in Washington this week is among House Republicans
vying for a seat on the Benghazi kangaroo court, also known as the
Select House Committee to Inflate a Tragedy Into a Scandal. Half the House
has asked to “serve” on the committee, which is understandable since
it’s the perfect opportunity to avoid any real work while waving
frantically to right-wing voters stomping their feet in the grandstand.
They
won’t pass a serious jobs bill, or raise the minimum wage, or reform
immigration, but House Republicans think they can earn their pay for the
rest of the year by exposing nonexistent malfeasance on the part of the
Obama administration. On Thursday, they voted to create a committee to spend “such sums as may be necessary” to conduct an investigation of the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The day before, they voted to hold in contempt Lois Lerner,
the former Internal Revenue Service official whom they would love to
blame for the administration’s crackdown on conservative groups, if only
they could prove there was a crackdown, which they can’t, because there
wasn’t.
Both
actions stem from the same impulse: a need to rouse the most fervent
anti-Obama wing of the party and keep it angry enough to deliver its
donations and votes to Republicans in the November elections. For a
while it seemed as if the Affordable Care Act would perform that role,
but Republicans ran into a problem when the country began to realize
that it was not destroying American civilization but in fact helping
millions of people.
Party
leaders needed something more reliable, so they went back and revived
two dormant scandals from last year, the embers of which were faithfully
tended by Republican adjuncts on Fox News and talk radio. Their hope is
to show that the administration is corrupt and untrustworthy, and if
Hillary Rodham Clinton also gets roughed up in the process, so much the
better.
Four
Americans, including the United States ambassador, died in Benghazi,
and their deaths have been crassly used by Republicans as a political
cudgel, wildly swung in the dark. They have failed to provide proof for
any number of conspiracy theories about the administration’s failures,
including the particularly ludicrous charge from Representative Darrell
Issa that Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, told the Pentagon
to “stand down” and not help defend the American compound.
In fact, investigations by two congressional committees
(including one run by Republicans) found that there was never any kind
of “stand-down order” or request. But Mr. Issa and others keep repeating
it because, for their purposes, the facts don’t matter.
Now Republicans are frothing about a newly released email message
showing that the White House wanted Susan Rice, the American ambassador
to the United Nations at the time, to go on television in 2012 and make
the case that the attack was not a failure of administration policy.
The message should have been turned over earlier because all it shows is
a routine attempt to spin the news in the most favorable way to the
White House. Though it is not the slightest evidence of a cover-up, it
has become the foundation for the committee’s existence. Demonstrating
the panel’s true purpose, Republican political operatives are already raising money by stoking donor anger on Benghazi.
Democrats
who are now debating whether to participate in the committee shouldn’t
hesitate to skip it. Their presence would only lend legitimacy to a
farce.
Similarly,
the Justice Department should not press Ms. Lerner’s contempt citation
before a grand jury. She invoked her Fifth Amendment rights at a hearing
last year and refused to testify, but Republicans claim, without
foundation, that she waived those rights by first proclaiming her
innocence. Her refusal, they said, was contemptuous of Congress. Little
nuisances like constitutional rights or basic facts can’t be allowed to
stand in the way when House Republicans need to whip up their party’s
fury.
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
"During the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died."
John Garamendi on Monday, May 5th, 2014 in an interview on MSNBC's "The Ed Show"Prior to Benghazi, were there 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush?
Police officers examine a damaged
pickup outside the United States consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, on June
14, 2002. A suicide attacker crashed a bomb-laden car into a guard
post, killing at least seven and leaving at least 25 others injured.
As the U.S. House of Representatives was readying a new
special committee to investigate the terrorist attack in Benghazi,
Libya, many Democrats were arguing that continuing to probe the Sept.
11, 2012, attack -- which killed four Americans, including U.S.
Ambassador Chris Stevens -- amounted to a political witch hunt.
On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident.
"This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."
Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died."
We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check.
We searched the database for descriptions between January 2001 and January 2009 that included the term "U.S. embassy." We supplemented these with a few other attacks listed in a Huffington Post opinion piece that Garamendi’s staff said was their main source for the claim. The Huffington Post column Garamendi cited purposely didn't count any attacks in Baghdad. So we decided to construct our count from scratch.
While Garamendi spoke of "embassies and consulates," we found several U.S. diplomatic targets killed in the line of duty outside official compounds -- such as in convoys or their homes -- and we included them in our count. Once we cross-referenced the attacks in the article and those in the database, we narrowed down the total to 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel.
Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here.) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13.
Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66.
We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality.
So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low.
What about the implicit comparison he made between Benghazi and these previous attacks? That’s a little shakier.
Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.
Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.
"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.
One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."
Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."
"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues.
"We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added.
Our ruling
Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
On May 5, 2014, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., told MSNBC host Ed Schultz that there has already been exhaustive testimony and investigation of the incident.
"This thing is just going on and on to boredom actually," Garamendi said. "The Armed Services Committee actually did a hearing and the result was there’s nothing here. That’s obviously a great tragedy, but Ed, during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, and those were not investigated during that period of time because it was a tragedy."
Readers asked us whether it’s true that under Bush, "there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world, (and) 60 people died."
We turned to the Global Terrorism Database, a project headquartered at the University of Maryland. The database documents terrorist attacks around the world going back to the 1970s, and experts told us it is the best resource available for this fact-check.
We searched the database for descriptions between January 2001 and January 2009 that included the term "U.S. embassy." We supplemented these with a few other attacks listed in a Huffington Post opinion piece that Garamendi’s staff said was their main source for the claim. The Huffington Post column Garamendi cited purposely didn't count any attacks in Baghdad. So we decided to construct our count from scratch.
While Garamendi spoke of "embassies and consulates," we found several U.S. diplomatic targets killed in the line of duty outside official compounds -- such as in convoys or their homes -- and we included them in our count. Once we cross-referenced the attacks in the article and those in the database, we narrowed down the total to 39 attacks or attempted attacks on U.S. embassies and embassy personnel.
Of these 39 attacks, 20 resulted in at least one fatality. (Our complete list is here.) This is higher than Garamendi's claim, though if you only count attacks on embassy and consular property, there were 13.
Garamendi also understated the number of deaths. In the 20 incidents with at least one fatality, the total death toll was 87 -- quite a few more than the 60 Garamendi cited. If you only count those at embassies and consulates proper, the number of deaths drops to 66.
We should note that the vast majority of these deaths were not Americans. We counted 63 deaths that were either of non-Americans or of people whose nationality is unknown. Another three were U.S. civilians. Another 21 were workers at the U.S embassy or consulate, either of American or foreign nationality.
So, using what we think is the most reasonable definition, Garamendi's numbers are a bit low.
What about the implicit comparison he made between Benghazi and these previous attacks? That’s a little shakier.
Generally, the experts we contacted agreed that Garamendi was making a reasonable point that there has been a steady, and comparatively overlooked, series of deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in recent years.
Still, these experts also said there are valid reasons to treat Benghazi differently from the earlier attacks.
"Is Benghazi different? Absolutely," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and an adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program.
One reason, he said, is that an American ambassador died in the attack, which hadn’t happened since the 1970s. Another relevant question, Gartenstein-Ross said, "is whether what happened was put to the American people in an honest manner, not just with respect to the administration, but also with respect to the intelligence community."
Gartenstein-Ross added that he wasn’t endorsing "how the Republicans go about" investigating this question. But he did say it’s a "real, legitimate question."
"As always, what causes the problem is not so much what happens, but the response to it," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "‘If the administration had come out shortly after the attack and said, ‘Our consulate was attacked by organized Islamist forces, and we will pursue these terrorists and bring them to justice, one way or the other,’ I very much doubt there would be much juice in these hearings, if indeed they were being held at all."
Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University, agreed that Benghazi brings up important issues.
"We probably should have had more United States forces on site or at least nearby," he said. And the administration had a "muddled response in terms of releasing information," he added.
Our ruling
Garamendi said that "during the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died." There are actually different ways to count the number of attacks, especially when considering attacks on ambassadors and embassy personnel who were traveling to or from embassy property. Overall, we found Garamendi slightly understated the number of deadly attacks and total fatalities, even using a strict definition. Garamendi’s claim is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.
About this statement:
Published: Monday, May 12th, 2014 at 5:23 p.m.Subjects: Foreign Policy, History, Terrorism
Sources:
John Garamendi, comments on MSNBC, May 5, 2014
Global Terrorism Database, accessed May 9-12, 2014
Huffington Post, "13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News," May 9, 2013
Email interview with John Pike, director of globasecurity.org, May 9, 2014
Email interview with Theodore R. Bromund, senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, May 9, 2014
Email interview with Lance Janda, military historian at Cameron University, May 9, 2014
Interview with Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and adjunct assistant professor in Georgetown University’s security studies program, May 9, 2014
Email interview with Matthew Kravitz, press secretary for John Garamendi, May 9, 2014
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holan
No comments:
Post a Comment