WASHINGTON -- Politicians are notorious for pushing witnesses to say things in hearings that will reinforce a certain conclusion. Somewhat less common is the lawmaker who completely ignores the testimony he elicits.
But the creation of the new House select committee to investigate the oft-investigated Benghazi attack offers a fine example in Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.).
Last week, Mica, a member of Rep. Darrell Issa's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing during which he questioned retired Brig. General Robert Lovell, who was running the military intelligence operation involved in monitoring the Sept. 11, 2012, assault in the Libyan city on the Mediterranean coast.
Mica noted that he and Issa had visited the U.S. military facilities in Germany, Italy and Spain before the Benghazi attack, and that they had been told the military would be able to respond in just such an emergency. Mica pressed Lovell repeatedly, demanding to know whether the general thought forces could have and should have been able to reach the beleaguered outpost.
Lovell answered that they could have done so if the capabilities had been in place, and that there should have been a way for the military to respond. He emphasized that he was testifying because he wanted to make sure that in the future, such capabilities would be on hand. But he agreed adamantly with the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose report concluded that the military did all it could do on that tragic night. "That's a fact," Lovell said.
But this Thursday, shortly before voting to create the new committee, Mica said exactly the opposite, casting what Lovell would have liked as if it were what actually existed.
"We know our military had the ability to save those Americans," Mica said Thursday, in apparent contradiction of Lovell's testimony. "We know that the State Department had the ability to keep those Americans safe, and no one acted."
Watch it above.
Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.
But the creation of the new House select committee to investigate the oft-investigated Benghazi attack offers a fine example in Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.).
Last week, Mica, a member of Rep. Darrell Issa's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, held a hearing during which he questioned retired Brig. General Robert Lovell, who was running the military intelligence operation involved in monitoring the Sept. 11, 2012, assault in the Libyan city on the Mediterranean coast.
Mica noted that he and Issa had visited the U.S. military facilities in Germany, Italy and Spain before the Benghazi attack, and that they had been told the military would be able to respond in just such an emergency. Mica pressed Lovell repeatedly, demanding to know whether the general thought forces could have and should have been able to reach the beleaguered outpost.
Lovell answered that they could have done so if the capabilities had been in place, and that there should have been a way for the military to respond. He emphasized that he was testifying because he wanted to make sure that in the future, such capabilities would be on hand. But he agreed adamantly with the Republican-led House Armed Services Committee, whose report concluded that the military did all it could do on that tragic night. "That's a fact," Lovell said.
But this Thursday, shortly before voting to create the new committee, Mica said exactly the opposite, casting what Lovell would have liked as if it were what actually existed.
"We know our military had the ability to save those Americans," Mica said Thursday, in apparent contradiction of Lovell's testimony. "We know that the State Department had the ability to keep those Americans safe, and no one acted."
Watch it above.
Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook. Reported by Huffington Post 10 hours ago.