Should They or Shouldn’t They?

The Democrats in the House of Representatives are facing the question as to whether they should participate in the Republican generated Special Committee on Benghazi. Since there have already been seven such inquiries (four in the House, two in the Senate, and one independent) in addition to the internal investigations in the State Department, Democrats are inclined to view this as a political sham.

I recommend that if they can get the rules amended so that they can fairly participate (under the Republican-authored rules, for example, Democrats may not even be present for some of the testimony) that they should participate in the following manner.

They should appoint the maximum number of members granted and for each hearing pool their minutes in the hands of one individual. This may or may not be the same person from hearing to hearing, but the questions of the participants should be just two:

1. Sir/Madam, you gave testimony in the former XYZ inquiry. Has your testimony changed at all from then? and

2. (If a diplomat or staff assigned to a diplomatic mission) Did your mission request additional funding for security during your tenure? Was it granted?

Comments based on the answers to these two questions would focus on the facts that Republicans have no new information to reveal and that Republicans repeatedly requested cost cutting in the State Department, including blocking increased funding for embassy security. In other words, the reason security was lax is directly attributable to Republican budget cutting.

I think that Republicans would take such a beating from this that they would conclude the sham hearings in short order or suffer the political death of a thousand cuts.