House Panel Hears Testimony On Libya Attack
But partisan chatter marks the day
Eric Nordstrom, the State Department official responsible for the security of American diplomats in Libya until July 2012, spoke before a House panel this afternoon to address last month’s attacks that killed four members of the U.S. mission in Benghazi, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. Despite comments made to congressional investigators in which Nordstrom said that calls for better security went unheeded, his testimony at the panel had a different timber.
He told the panel that the “ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault.”
His testimony pushed back against comments made earlier in the day by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard who, while stationed in Tripoli, characterized his two visits to Benghazi as a “struggle.”
The panel has its work cut out for itself. Beyond determining the security shortcomings and investigating the State Department’s assessments of the security (among many highly charged matters), some members of the panel have already retreated to partisan postures.
On Tuesday, committee members engaged in a series of partisan attacks. Democrats and Republicans said that the other party had shown scant interest in dealing with the broader issues of intelligence warnings and security matters, and had focused instead on trying to show that their party was better equipped to address volatile and shifting national security challenges.
We’ll have more as this develops.
Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180
WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.
I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at email@example.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.
We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.