Rep. Darrell Issa appeared on Meet The Press Sunday and discussed the New York Times investigation which concluded that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack on our embassy in Benghazi.
The entire segment has too many excellent points to quote them all, but here is one key exchange:
ANDREA MITCHELL: But to the point of why use the term al Qaeda? Because you and other members of Congress are sophisticated in this and know, that when you say Al Qaeda, people think central al Qaeda. They don’t think militias that may be inspired by bin Laden and his other followers. So it is a hot button for political reasons from the administration’s–
REP. DARRELL ISSA: But Andrea, it was accurate. There is a group that was involved that claimed an affiliation with al Qaeda. Now, Al Qaeda’s not a central command and control. It was, in fact, a loose group that could take general statements and act on them. The important thing in our investigation, in the Oversight Committee investigation, where people have said under oath repeatedly, they were not given the security they asked for in advance, and they can’t understand why there were not clear attempts to help them during those eight and a half hours.
The interview makes it clear that Rep. Issa stands by the committee’s conclusions and by his own statements regarding the nature of the attack in Benghazi, and what the administration did after the attack to hide the real story.
The conclusions reached in the Times article have been clutched desperately and waved frantically to anyone who will look by defenders of the President, who claim total vindication and expect Issa and others to admit some sort of malpractice. Take, for example, Texas Democrat Rep. Castro, on the same program, claiming Rep. Issa was “crusading on a fairy tale”:
But Issa is not the only voice pushing back on these conclusions. We here at The Right Scoop heard from a CIA analyst yesterday who all but called the story bunk. There has also been bipartisan pushback from other members of Congress, as reported by Fox News.
“I dispute that, and the intelligence community, to a large volume, disputes that,” Michigan GOP Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, told “Fox News Sunday.”
He also repeatedly said the story was “not accurate.”
Rogers was joined on the show by California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, who said, “intelligence indicates Al Qaeda was involved.”
The findings in the New York Times story also conflict with testimony from Greg Hicks, the deputy of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the attack. Hicks described the video as “a non-event in Libya” at that time, and consequently not a significant trigger for the attack.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has written an excellent article going into great detail, and including this scathing analysis:
In other words, the White House story that this was a demonstration that just got out of control was false. As we have discovered through Congressional testimony and the release of communications from that night, the White House and State Department knew immediately that it was a terrorist attack. If the YouTube video played a part in the motivation, it was nevertheless only possible because of a planned attack on an egregiously undefended facility, in the middle of a region controlled by Islamist militias, on the anniversary of 9/11 — when the US should have had its highest readiness.
And that is exactly right. Congress should keep investigating, and people with any concept of reality should keep pushing back. This New York Times article lets no one off the hook, and the triumphalism and chest thumping on the left will be as short-lived as it is pathetic and embarrassing.