Benghazi: We know a lot, but not nearly enough

There is some irony behind Speaker of the House John Boehner’s move to appoint a select committee dedicated to the investigation of events in Benghazi, Libya, in September of 2012.

Boehner, who had previously left Benghazi to standing oversight committees, seemed compelled to raise the stakes not because of any congressional forward progress, but mainly because of the release of eye-opening White House e-mails last week by the private Judicial Watch organization.

The e-mails, obtained through a Freedom of Information request, revealed that the White House had coached then U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice prior to her appearances on five Sunday morning news programs, “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” Not only that, but the e-mails served as proof that the White House has long been stonewalling House committee efforts to obtain the same type of information.

The administration was hardly forthcoming with Judicial Watch either. The group filed its first request for Benghazi-related communications on Oct. 12, 2012, just a month after four Americans were killed in an organized attack on their compound in Benghazi. But the Freedom of Information Act, normally a useful tool for compelling government transparency, was not enough.

Judicial Watch had to sue, and get the communications through a court order, something the congressional committees probably didn’t consider. So Boehner has a compelling reason to form a select committee to dig even more out of an uncooperative administration.

It is true that enough aspects of Benghazi have come to light to make the case that it is indeed a scandal. There have been 13 public hearings, 50 briefings and 25,000 pages of documents released, but it hasn’t been enough, as demonstrated by the Judicial Watch e-mails that made it clear that White House officials, not the CIA, purposely reinforced the clearly false position that the raid was a spontaneous protest against an Internet video. That’s the story they told to family members of those who died. They pursued a television ad campaign in Pakistan that basically apologized for the video, throwing the First Amendment under the bus. And all of this was in the weeks leading up to the presidential election, with the Obama campaign trumpeting that al-Qaida was on the run.

We’ve come to learn that at the time, there was plenty of prompt evidence showing that it was an organized attack on the anniversary of 9-11, coordinated by al-Qaida affiliates, and there was no evidence to support the story of a riot fueled by a video. But that was the fabricated storyline and the administration unnecessarily stuck with it.

So what remains to be learned? Plenty. It’s still not known what the president was doing the night of the attack. Nor do we know the nature of the covert mission being run by U.S. forces in Benghazi. And isn’t it odd that nobody has heard from any Benghazi survivors yet? Perhaps most importantly, it’s not known why there was no order for some kind of military response.

Yes, the case has been made that it’s impossible to know whether any military assets could have made a difference during the seven-hour ordeal. But here’s something that blows a hole in that line of thinking: When Washington was notified, there was no way to know that the siege would end after seven hours with the deaths of two former Navy SEALs. What if it had dragged on for two days and more American lives might have been at risk? Yet no orders were given for the military to even initiate a response.

Why? We won’t theorize here, but that’s why the select committee is so desperately needed — so theories can be replaced by facts. The American people and the families of the deceased have a right to know the truth.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on Friday called the congressional investigation a “political stunt.” We beg to differ. The only stunt under way is the effort to stop the probe or discredit it before all the questions have been asked and answered. Democrats can either join the investigation to get to the bottom of Benghazi, or they can join the White House and stonewall the American public.

We hope they take their role as representatives of the people seriously, and ask for answers from the White House rather than settle for more excuses.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.