Gowdy said important questions remain unanswered: Why was the U.S. in Libya? Why were security requests denied? Why was the military not ready to respond quickly on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? And why did the administration change its story about the nature of the attacks in the weeks afterward?
“These questions linger,” he argued, “because previous investigations were not thorough.” He dismissed as ineffective the work of seven previous investigations, including several led by current and former Republican colleagues.
Gowdy called Thursday’s marathon session — with just a single witness, Clinton — “a constructive interaction.” But said he did not know whether the embattled panel gained credibility.
Cummings, who frequently guided Clinton though friendly questions, said he thought she “did an outstanding job.”
Clinton kept her cool throughout, but sparks flew briefly after Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, accused her of deliberately misleading the public by linking the Benghazi violence at first to an Internet video insulting the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
Clinton said that “some” people had wanted to use the video to justify the attack” and said she rejected that justification.
The Gowdy-Clinton exchange hit at the core of the protracted partisan feuding on Capitol Hill. Republicans said they were pressing hard to learn more about the manner in which President Barack Obama and his top aides characterized the attack.
For Clinton, the hearing offered opportunity and a potential for gaffes, as well, while affording her a high-profile platform to display self-control and a command of foreign policy. But it also left her vulnerable to claims she helped politicize the Benghazi tragedy.
“There were probably a number of different motivations” for the attack, Clinton said, describing a time when competing strands of intelligence were being received and no clear picture had emerged. Speaking directly to Jordan, she said, “The insinuations that you are making do a great disservice” to the diplomats and others involved.
“I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative,” she added. “I can only tell you what the facts were.”
There were no notable missteps by Clinton and, beyond her exchange with Gowdy, few heated interactions. She never raised her voice, as she had at a Senate hearing on Benghazi in January 2013, when she shouted, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Instead, it was the panel’s members who engaged in the nastiest moments, dueling one another about political motives, as Clinton looked on.
