To pretend that there aren’t political implications to the entire Benghazi brouhaha is, to say the least, a bit short sighted. Nothing that touches on this many highly placed political and diplomatic figures could possibly be resolved without some fallout in the political theater. Of course, that doesn’t change the nature of the current investigations or the serious aspects of the information which has been coming out, particularly regarding the shifting story from the White House. Given all that, it’s understandable that the usual list of suspects would be asking the GOP’s chief watchdog, Darresl Issa, about whether or not the upcoming round of hearings are simply a case of Hillary Hunting.
A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year’s Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC’s Meet the Press. “President Obama is not a target.”
Issa, who heads a panel probing the assault on the diplomatic outpost that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, said he will seek depositions from Benghazi review board heads Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
This is shaping up to be one of the more interesting face-offs in this battle. Pickering was responsible for the “investigation” done on behalf of the State Department, which found Hillary Clinton and the other major players completely free of any direct responsibility or any sort of political maneuverings, much to the relief of all, I’m sure. But the arguments being foisted from State are already turning this into a fairly dramatic He Said, She Said situation. Issa has informed everyone that Pickering refused to appear at the last hearing, while Pickering is saying he was perfectly willing to appear, but… his invitation was lost in the mail or something.
Is Hillary a target? Not of this investigation from what I’ve seen. People have legitimate questions, particularly the loved ones of those lost in the embassy attack. But does that mean that she wouldn’t wind up being collateral damage in the process?
Oh, I could do paragraphs on that. But I won’t.