Home
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/opinion/disband-the-benghazi-committee.html?_r=0
Washington — NOT long after it was formed last year, members of the Select Committee on Benghazi gathered to meet privately with family members of the four Americans killed on that dreadful night in Libya in 2012. The meetings were emotional, and the chairman assured those present that the committee would be scrupulously nonpartisan and devoted to finding out the truth of what had happened.
Instead, the Select Committee became little more than a partisan tool to influence the presidential race, a dangerous precedent that will haunt Congress for decades. This is all the more painful when you consider how grievously the committee has let down those families, along with the rest of the American people.
On rare occasions, Congress has determined that an issue is of such surpassing significance that a focused, resource-intensive inquiry is called for, and it creates a special investigatory committee. Among the very first was one formed after the election of George Washington in order to investigate the disastrous defeat of the St. Clair expedition in the 1791 Battle of Wabash. Since then, Congress has convened select committees to investigate everything from Teapot Dome to Pearl Harbor, from Watergate to Hurricane Katrina.
With some exceptions, these committees have attempted to conduct their work in a bipartisan way, issuing consensus reports signed by both Democrats and Republicans. They have had well-defined scopes, moved quickly and dissolved when they were done. Congressional inquiries into Hurricane Katrina, Pearl Harbor and Iran-contra were all completed in less than a year. Even the bipartisan 9/11 Commission established by Congress produced its report in 19 months.
When the House speaker, John A. Boehner, announced the creation of the Select Committee in May 2014, he claimed it would “ensure the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack.” He took this step, despite the fact that eight standing congressional committees had already investigated the attacks, as had the independent Accountability Review Board.
I know, because I assisted with one investigation, conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, which debunked the many conspiracy theories alleging malicious actions or a vast cover-up. The committee’s Republican chairman at the time was even excoriated by members of his own party for the investigation’s objectivity.
When I was asked to join the Select Committee, I was deeply skeptical about its true mission, and questioned whether I — or any other Democrat — should participate. After eight investigations, what could a ninth contribute? But I was determined to do my part.
Since its formation, the Select Committee on Benghazi has been aimless and slow moving, not knowing what it was looking for or where. It has acted in a deeply partisan way, frequently failing to consult or even to inform Democratic members before taking action, and selectively leaking information to the press. After 16 months and more than $4 million, the committee has gained no additional insight into the attacks in Benghazi. It has nothing new to tell the families of those killed or the American people.
But it does have emails. Lots of emails. Some of them are from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But none of her emails tell us anything of consequence regarding the events of Sept. 11, 2012. They don’t substantiate the bogus theory that the State Department ordered the military to “stand down” or that there was gun running, or that the secretary somehow interfered with the security provided at the diplomatic facility or annex.
Nor were any of the secretary’s emails marked classified at the time she received them. Some in the intelligence community believe that a subset of them should have been, a conclusion with which the State Department disagrees. That’s not an uncommon clash of views. As the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, I am deeply interested in making sure that all classified information is protected. And yet, as a member of the Select Committee charged with finding out the truth about the attacks, I am appalled at how much we have lost sight of the mission — if indeed that was ever the point.
Whatever their original purpose, the Select Committee’s leaders appear no longer to have any interest in Benghazi, except as the tragic events of that day may be used as a cudgel against the likely Democratic nominee for president.
The committee is solely concerned with damaging her candidacy, searching for something, anything, that can be insinuated against her. With all of the committee’s obsessive focus on Mrs. Clinton, you would think that she was a witness to the killings, instead of half a world away.
Some of my colleagues think this is just good politics. And already, other ambitious committee leaders are hoping to get in on the act with their own inquiries and attacks on Mrs. Clinton. This is a terrible mistake, and it would be no less offensive if it were a Democratic majority going after a Republican candidate. Do we really want to see future select committees ginned up to attack other likely presidential nominees?
A committee that cannot tell the American people what it is looking for after 16 months should be shut down. Otherwise, Benghazi will come to be remembered not for the tragedy that claimed four American lives, but for the terrible abuse of process that now bears its name.
Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, is the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and serves on the Select Committee on Benghazi.
