Tag Archives: United States Department of State

May 17, 2013 · 6:31 AM

Breaking: Report claims Republicans edited White House Benghazi e-mails

What was the GOP hoping to achieve by over-blowing the current Benghazi scandal and other “scandals” promoted by them?

The Examiner

A new report released Thursday night accused Republicans of editing the White House Benghazi e-mails, sending a hard blow to the conservative conspiracy theory on the issue.

Only one day after the White House released 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails, CBS news is reporting that the original e-mails released only one week ago were edited by Republicans. The two main points that were focused on in the CBS report were from National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes and State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

The statement by Rhodes in the official White House e-mail differs from the edited Republicans version. Below are the two statement were the difference is clearly shown.

Republican edited e-mail:

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation.”

Offical White House email:

“We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.”

State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s comments were also altered, as CBS news points out the conflicting statements.

Republican edited e-mail: :

“The penultimate point is a paragraph talking about all the previous warnings provided by the Agency (CIA) about al-Qaeda’s presence and activities of al-Qaeda.”

Official White House email:

“The penultimate point could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

After congressional Republicans accused the Obama administration of watering down vital information regarding the attacks in Benghazi, they released e-mails that were supposed to be damaging to the White House. If the CBS report holds water, the Republican conspiracy against the Obama administration could lose traction.

President Obama called the alleged scandal a “sideshow,” and a new poll shows that more people trust former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton over congressional Republicans on the situation in Benghazi. While Republicans have compared the alleged “Benghazi cover up” to President Nixon’s Watergate scandal, many from the political center to the left are laughing it off as another conservative attempt at playing politics.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Benghazi, Rep. Darrell Issa

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 16, 2013 · 8:21 AM

In Two Hours Obama Destroys the GOP’s Benghazi and IRS Scandals

obama-irs

So, there you have it…

PoliticusUSA

Just as Republicans and their media lackeys were getting their Obama scandal machine fired up, President Obama killed both the Benghazi and IRS “scandals” in a couple of hours.

The president put a stake through the heart of the GOP’s attempts to revive Benghazi by releasing 100 pages of emails. (Now, the world can see how badly Jon Karl and ABC News got played when they used the summaries of someone else’s notes.) The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent published an email from Tommy Vietor, who until recently was the spokesperson for the National Security Council. Vietor wrote, “Regarding the talking points, it’s not surprising that the entire government would want the chance to look at and edit that language. This was a dynamic situation and new information was constantly flowing in, and different agencies had important concerns that had to be addressed – the State Department had security concerns, the FBI was worried about its investigation, and the CIA had a major, yet still undisclosed, role.”

Republicans are putting out vague statements about contradictions, but Benghazi is pretty much finished as a scandal. It is difficult to accuse the White House of a cover up, when they’ve released all the emails.

The second part of the one-two punch was Obama speaking about the IRS scandal.

Video:

Transcript

Related articles

 

2 Comments

Filed under U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

May 15, 2013 · 11:01 AM

Two scandals deflated, one persists

Salon – Joan Walsh

The Obama administration started Tuesday mired in three scandals the GOP seemed able to tie “into one ‘Big Brother Obama’ storyline,” in the words of Greg Sargent, and ended it appearing to face political culpability on only one, the Department of Justice’s broad subpoenas obtaining phone records from the Associated Press. It’s not to say Benghazi or the IRS mess went away, but the GOP’s creepy plot line got a whole lot less plausible.

The Benghazi “scandal” lost velocity thanks to CNN’s Jake Tapper reporting that an email key to the notion that the White House doctored talking points to protect the State Department didn’t at all read the way ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported it. Karl quoted White House national security communications advisor Ben Rhodes’ email specifically saying the talking points should “reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department,” but the actual email obtained by Tapper didn’t mention the State Department at all. Karl ended the day with the shocking admission that while he’d reported on air that he’d “obtained” the emails in question, and wrote online that he’d “reviewed” them, in fact he’d only heard about them from the notes of a source – presumed to be a House GOP staffer.

Amazingly, Karl insisted Tapper’s reporting didn’t challenge the basic facts of his story, even though he acknowledged for the first time that he hadn’t actually “obtained” or “reviewed” the actual emails, but rather had notes about them read to him by his source. The fact that Karl put the purported email from Rhodes within quotation marks – which in actual journalism means you’re reading a direct quote from someone – seriously damages his credibility. But the ABC reporter reported concluded his self-defense by blaming the White House for failing to release all the emails – rather than blaming his source for misleading him, or himself for misleading his readers by using quotes around the Rhodes email.

Here’s hoping ABC News explains why the paraphrased depiction of notes about an email from a hostile source wound up within quotation marks attributed to Rhodes, and whether that’s the news organization’s policy.

On the IRS mess, the day closed with the release of the Inspector General’s report on the improper review of applications by Tea Party-related groups for tax-exempt “social welfare” status. The report blamed “inadequate management” for the review process, which began under Bush-appointed leadership, and it reads like everyone’s worst nightmare of incompetent government. But it finds no evidence that anyone higher than middle management was responsible for the review. Moreover, although it’s clear that groups with Tea Party or Patriot in their names came in for more scrutiny and delay than most liberal groups,  more than two thirds of the groups flagged for review had nothing to do with the Tea Party. And none of the conservatives were denied tax-exempt status, though many faced long delays.  Ironically, the only group that saw its status denied (for 10 of its chapters) was Emerge America, which works to elect Democratic women to office.

Within hours, President Obama sent a scathing statement about the IG’s findings, calling them “intolerable and inexcusable” and promising that Treasury Secretary Jack Lew would make sure all of its recommendations to correct the flaws in the IRS’s review process were implemented.

It’s the DOJ’s subpoena of phone records for 20 AP phone lines used by at least 100 reporters, in pursuit of a government official who leaked information about the U.S. foiling another al Qaida underwear-bomb plot, that has the capacity to damage the Obama administration. This White House is already shadowed by the fact that it has prosecuted more government “leakers” – also known as whistleblowers – than all previous administrations put together.

As Marcy Wheeler explained in Salon, the DOJ’s own guidelines require it to go directly to the news agency in question with its subpoena, which would have given AP the right to negotiate over it, or challenge it in court. The DOJ may subvert that requirement if going to the news agency would “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.” Since the investigation into the identity of the leaker was already big news – in fact, congressional leaders in both parties had demanded it – it hardly constituted a secret operation that would be blown by negotiating with the AP.

So did Tuesday’s developments on the Benghazi and IRS fronts break scandal fever in the Beltway? Sadly, no. On Wednesday MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” remained scandal central, setting the day’s agenda. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank’s wispy, fact-light “President Passerby” seems to be the top talking point: Even if some of the smoke is clearing, Obama hasn’t done enough personally to put out the fires. That’s leading the Drudge Report as I write.

Obama is not without blame here; the AP scandal particularly seems to stem from his administration’s overall approach to secrecy. With hindsight, he probably should have directed Jack Lew to take bolder steps on Friday night, when the IRS story broke. On Benghazi, the Beltway is determined to punish the president for insisting the talking points scandal is a “sideshow” – when that’s exactly what it is.

As I wrote Monday, before the AP news, some of the same bad actors who paralyzed the country during the Clinton years over phony scandals are getting ready to do it again. It’s too bad the genuine overreach by the DOJ is going to give some progressives understandable pause about wholeheartedly defending the administration. But people need to acknowledge that two of these three scandals were concocted by the GOP outrage machine.

Meanwhile, the headline crawl on “Morning Joe” announced: “U.S. deficit shrinks far faster than expected.” But the words sat there silently, drowned out by noise about mostly made-up scandals.

Related articles

 

Comments Off

Filed under White House "Scandals"

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 9, 2013 · 4:27 PM

Benghazi Review Board Chair Says Notion Of Cover Up Is ‘Pulitzer Prize Fiction’

The GOP in congress and their sycophants on Fox News  are espousing the Benghazi conspiracy theories and in fact holding “Benghazi” hearings (on the taxpayers dime) based on those conspiracies theories.  The following article tells a different side to the story…

Think Progress

The co-chair of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board on the Benghazi terror attacks last year said on Wednesday criticized those claiming the Obama administration’s response to the attacks has the elements of some kind of Watergate-style cover-up.

“I think the notion of a quote, cover up, has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it,” former Ambassador Thomas Pickering said on MSNBC. He also rebutted claims that the review board tried to protect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from scrutiny:

PICKERING: I saw no evidence of it. She did publicly take responsibility for what happened below her and indeed one of the things the Congress did in preparing the legislation that established the Accountability Review Board was to say we don’t want a situation where heads of agencies take responsibility and then nobody who made the decision in the chain has to suffer any consequences for failure for performance. I believe in fact the Accountability Review Board did it’s work well. I think the notion of a quote, cover up, has all the elements of Pulitzer Prize fiction attached to it.

Watch the clip:

Pickering wanted to testify at today’s House Oversight Committee hearings on the Benghazi attacks, which was billed as letting State Department officials expose an Obama administration cover-up of wrong-doing in handing the aftermath of the attacks. “I am willing to testify,” Pickering said. “I made that clear yesterday and the White House I understand made that clear to [Committee chair Rep. Darrell] Issa [R-CA]. He declined. I don’t know the reasons for that.” Pickering also countered claims that the military could have done more to respond to the attacks:

PICKERING: The aircraft at Aviano were 2 to 3 hours away but there were no refueling aircraft available. I think that speaks for itself. It has all along. I don’t see any contradiction. … There should be no controversy over that. Aircraft were there but they were not available in a time span that could have made any serious difference in connection with the issue.

Earlier on Wednesday, Republican Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) shot down his colleagues’ conspiracy theory laden claims about the Obama administration and Benghazi. “We need to know were these people culpable or not. If they were, why are they still on the payroll? Other than that, I’ve been able to read all the cables. I’ve seen the films,” Corker said. “I feel like I know what happened in Benghazi. I’m fairly satisfied.”

Related articles

2 Comments

Filed under Benghazi

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 8, 2013 · 8:15 AM

WHAT TO EXPECT FROM [TODAY'S] BENGHAZI HEARING

The Blaze

May 7, 2012

The House Oversight Committee has released excerpts of their interview with Gregory Hicks, one of the two high-profile whistleblowers who will be testifying at tomorrow’s hearing. From what we have heard thus far from Hicks, his account of the events that took place between high level security and State Department officials on September 11, 2012 as a U.S. consulate in Libya was under siege differ drastically from what we have been told by the Obama administration.

CBS News reports:

According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound “when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, ‘you can’t go now, you don’t have the authority to go now.’ And so they missed the flight … They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it.”

No assistance arrived from the U.S. military outside of Libya during the hours that Americans were under attack or trapped inside compounds by hostile forces armed with rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and AK-47 rifles.

Hicks told congressional investigators that if the U.S. had quickly sent a military aircraft over Benghazi, it might have saved American lives. The U.S. Souda Bay Naval Base is an hour’s flight from Libya.

“I believe if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced, I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them,” Hicks testified. Two Americans died in the morning mortar attack.

During an interview with CBS , Hicks says that everyone knew Benghazi was a terrorist attack “from the get-go.”

As Washington braces for the hearing Wednesday, the Benghazi attack, response and investigation is once again turning into a major scandal that conservatives lament Obama dodged in the fall shortly after the attack and amidst the presidential campaign. Jim Geraghty notes though in his column on the conservative National Review Online that Republicans should go into the hearings dedicated strictly to unearthing facts, rather than showboating.

Dear Republicans on the House Oversight Committee:

Please do not grandstand. Please do not take the time before the television cameras to tell us how outraged you are, even though what you are investigating is, indeed, outrageous. There will be plenty of time for that after the hearing. All day Wednesday, give us the facts, and then more facts, and then more facts….

On ‘Real News‘ Tuesday the panel previewed what to look for from tomorrow’s hearing, namely, if we get answers to two questions: Were military forces told to stand down? And, did the administration lie to the American people afterward about the events that took the lives of four Americans?

Watch clip here.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Benghazi, House Oversight Hearings

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

May 5, 2013 · 3:02 PM

Utah Congressman Claims Benghazi Witnesses Are Being Threatened But Can’t Cite Any Examples

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)

The TP article below demonstrates how this has become the latest GOP playbook:  Accuse the POTUS of everything under the sun (and hope that something sticks) but proof or facts are not an option…

Think Progress

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) accused the Department of State of repeated threats and intimidation against witnesses to last year’s attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But when pressed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace for examples, he could offer none.

Asked about a claim by a witness’s lawyer that whistle-blowers had been blocked from testifying (a claim rejected by the Department of State), Chaffetz said that “more than one” witness has indeed been “suppressed” by the Obama administration.

WALLACE: Tell me–a direct threat, a direct act of intimidation against a potential witness?

CHAFFETZ: Yes, and I think we’ll probably…

WALLACE: Tell me one… tell what’s been said.

CHAFFETZ: There are people, more than one, that have felt intimidation from the State Department.

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) quickly debunked his colleague: “There’ve been two attorneys involved here, the only reason they haven’t received information is that they haven’t asked for it yet… there has not been a request for documents from these attorneys to the State Department.”

The only “retaliation,” Lynch noted, was that one of the witnesses wants a reassignment and a promotion and feels he’s being retaliated against because has not yet gotten the promotion.

Watch the video:

As Media Matters has previously noted, Victoria Toensing, the Republican attorney making the initial claims has been peddling Benghazi conspiracy theories for months, including a November Fox News op/ed in which she attempted to draw a link between the attack and the resignation of former CIA director David Petraeus.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under GOP Dog Whistle Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

December 19, 2012 · 2:54 PM

The Benghazi report: Big trouble for Hillary Clinton?

Hillary Clinton won't testify as scheduled at congressional Benghazi hearings due to a concussion.

Hillary Clinton won’t testify as scheduled at congressional Benghazi hearings due to a concussion.

Let there be no doubt about it.  This will in no way hinder the Secretary of State’s excellent record nor will it be a problem if she decides to run in 2016.

Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding public servant for decades and a few rumblings from the other side, in an effort to derail anything with Barack Obama’s name on it, will be an epic fail.

The Week

An independent inquiry faults missteps by the State Department in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“So much for any presidential aspirations Hillary Clinton may be entertaining for 2016,” says Janet Shan atHinterland Gazette. An independent review board investigating the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, released its unclassified report late Tuesday. (Read the whole thing below.) The upshot? “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” at high levels of the State Department contributed to the death of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. As secretary of state, that’s a pretty big stain on Clinton’s reputation.

The board, led by former diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, eventually concluded that blame for the American deaths rests “solely and completely with the terrorists,” and pointedly “did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.” But the board did fault the State Department for relying on unseasoned U.S. security personnel and Libyan militias to protect Stevens, ignoring requests for more guards, failing to make needed security upgrades, not adjusting to the deteriorating situation in Benghazi, and for poor intra-agency coordination. Clinton was expected to testify before Congress about the report on Thursday, but begged out, citing a concussion sustained during a fall last week while she was fighting a stomach bug.

Conservatives aren’t buying it. With U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pulling out of the running for Clinton’s job and CIA Director David Petraeus ousted amid a sex scandal, “Clinton is the latest scapegoat for ongoing frustrations over Benghazi,” says Alexander Abad-Santos at The Atlantic Wire. And since the report declined to name new victims to destroy in their Benghazi-gate crusade, they’re making do with “Concussiongate.”

Well really, Clinton is bowing out from yet another round of Benghazi hearings, this time because of a supposed concussion, “and we’re supposed to just take her word for it”? says Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller. “If she has a concussion, let’s see the medical report.” Imagine the outrage if Clinton predecessors Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice had called in sick for Iraq War hearings. Yes, “Clinton’s story beggars belief,” says the New York Post in an editorial. Thissupposed concussion “looks like one of the most transparent dodges in the history of diplomacy,” and Republicans must insist she testify later if not now.

Give me a break, says Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. Clinton is faking an illness? Theseconservatives “are fixated on creating crises where they aren’t any,” and doing so in a “cravenly partisan” manner. Congratulations, or something: Your paranoia has earned you a coveted spot in our “Get a Life” club.

In the end, Clinton will probably emerge from this relatively unscathed, says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Before she gets another chance to testify, she will likely “leave the Obama cabinet with sky-high approval ratings and an eye on the 2016 presidential nomination,” and at this point, “it’s logical for her not to want to dwell on the worst debacle of her tenure at State.”

Read the report for yourself:

Benghazi Report

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Hillary Clinton, State Department

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

December 15, 2012 · 12:44 PM

Hillary Clinton Faints, Now Recovering After Concussion

Hillary Clinton Faints

I wish Secretary of State Clinton a speedy recovery…

The Huffington Post

Hillary Clinton fainted and had a concussion, the AP reports.

The State Department said an ill Clinton is now recovering at home after the incident, according to the AP.

CBS News’ Margaret Brennen reports Clinton was dehydrated from a stomach bug.

This is a developing story.. Check back for more..

UPDATE: Due to her concussion, Clinton will no longer testify before Congress about the investigation into the deaths of four Americans in the Sept. 11 Benghazi attack. The Hill reports:

Clinton will not testify as scheduled before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Jodi Seth, a spokeswoman for Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.).The State Department told Kerry of Clinton’s concussion on Saturday morning, and, when he heard, Kerry insisted that she not attend the hearing.

“Senator Kerry was relieved to hear that the secretary is on the mend, but he insisted that given her condition, she could not and should not appear on Thursday as previously planned, and that the nation’s best interests are served by the report and hearings proceeding as scheduled with senior officials appearing in her place,” Seth said.

Clinton deputies Tom Nides and Bill Burns will testify in her place, Seth said.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under Hillary Clinton

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

October 18, 2012 · 7:02 PM

The Shameful Politicization of the Benghazi Consulate Attack

The Foreign Policy Debate between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney will be held this coming Monday.   There’s no doubt  that the Benghazi attack will be front and center in that debate.

I’m one of those folks that want the truth to come out and not the talking points from the Right-Wing conservative bubble that Rachel Maddow spoke of last night.

In my opinion an informed citizen will vote more wisely than an uninformed citizen.  Hence…this post.

Juan Cole – Informed Comment

The Tea Party Congress, having, with Paul Ryan’s leadership, deeply cut funds for embassy security, held a hearing on Wednesday on the circumstances of the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, on the US consulate in Benghazi, in which it tried to point fingers at the State Department and the Obama administration.

That’s right, the Republicans cut funds for embassy security, and now are blaming the State Department for laxity.

Aljazeera English reports on the hearing:

One of the Republican talking points is criticism of Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and other Obama administration officials for saying that the events on Sept. 11 began with a demonstration outside the consulate against the hate film “The Innocence of the Muslims.”

But the fact is that the Libyan Arabic press initially reported that there was such a demonstration, and Libyan officials in Benghazi said so, as well, and I conveyed these assertions here.

The indications that this was a revenge attack for the killing of al-Qaeda number 3, Abu Yahya Libi, were a) that a rocket propelled grenade was deployed against the consulate, which goes rather beyond typical mob violence; and that b) the safe house to which dozens of consular personnel were moved by Libyan special forces itself came under mortar attack. This latter fact was reported later in the week by Libyan journalist Hadeel Al-Shalchi.

But it is natural that there should have been a fog of war around the attack. The one who would normally have been reporting back to the State Department about the details– Ambassador Chris Stevens– died from smoke inhalation.

I frankly can’t understand what the Tea Baggers are driving at here. If their complaint is lack of consulate security, then they shouldn’t have cut the money for it.

If their complaint is that early accounts of what happened were chaotic and ultimately inaccurate, what else would they expect? When would that have not been so in the aftermath of such a disaster? As I’ve pointed out before, lots of embassy attacks occurred under Bush, including one in Athens, and I doubt they GOP even held a hearing on most of them.

One subtext seems to be that Obama naively unleashed al-Qaeda in Libya by helping overthrow Qaddafi, and then was unprepared for its attacks. But July’s parliamentary elections showed that radical Muslim movements are a tiny minority in Libya. The largest single party is nationalist, not Muslim fundamentalist. Libya has a problem with the militias that grew up during last year’s revolution. But many of them, as with the Zintanis or the Berbers of Jabal Nafusa, are hardly pious fundamentalists. I was in Libya in May-June, and it simply isn’t the violent basket case that Americans keep depicting it as.

I don’t know if Americans are finding this politicization of the tragedy in Benghazi distasteful. They should be.

Romney on the campaign trail started telling the story of an ex-Navy Seal who died in the attack, who had been stationed in a facility a mile from the consulate, wand who ran toward the danger. Romney praised his courage and Americanness, attampting to appropriate some of it for himself.

But Romney never ran toward danger in his life. He dodged the draft for Vietnam by trying to convince French people not to drink coffee or wine.

The deceased SEAL’s mother asked Romney to knock it off, saying that she doesn’t trust the GOP standard bearer.

That’s the same response Americans in general should have to the distasteful and cynical attempt on Capitol Hill to deploy Chris Stevens’ killing for narrow political gain at the polls.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney Duplicity

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

October 15, 2012 · 11:55 AM

GOP Congressman Votes To Cut Funding For Embassy Security, Then Blames Obama For Libya Attacks

CNN's Soledad O'Brien interviews Representative Jason Chaffetz.

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien interviews Representative Jason Chaffetz.

They’ve been doing this for the past week or so.  The GOP is trying to make the Benghazi embassy incident into political hay for their side.

Addicting Info

GOP Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) has repeatedly blamed President Barack Obama for the September 11th attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, in which Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed. Chaffetz has also spearheaded the House  Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s October 10th hearing to address the alleged security lapses that led to the deaths, in what the Salt Lake Tribune calls an “political stunt.” But it turns out that any lack of security around the U.S. embassy could be directly attributable to budget cuts that Chaffetz voted for.

On this morning’s Starting Point, CNN’s Soledad O’Brien called Chaffetz out during a tense interview:

O’Brien: “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?”

Chaffetz: “Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country.”

O’Brien: “Okay, so you’re prioritizing. So when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you’ve just said, ‘absolutely’, that you cut — that you were the one to vote against — security for the State Department, which would lead to Benghazi. That seems to say that you had a hand in the responsibility for this.”

Chaffetz: No.

Watch video here…

According to Raw Story, who’ve also reported on today’s CNN interview, Chaffetz is a Mormon and has been actively campaigning for GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.

Related articles

1 Comment

Filed under U.S. Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,