I was hoping that Congressman Trey Gowdy would be asked to weigh in on the NY Times’ now widely panned Benghazi report. The South Carolina spitfire was a guest on Fox’s On the Record with fill-in host, Dana Perino, and he did not disappoint.
Asked to comment on the report, Gowdy professed, “I want to congratulate the New York Times. It only took them 15 months to figure out how to spell Benghazi – so maybe in the next 15 months, their reporting will catch up with the truth.”
Continuing, he said, “I’ll tell you two things they got wrong. Number one – the video was translated into Arabic in early September of 2012….What in the world explains the violence in Benghazi prior to the video being translated and released? Our consulate was attacked way before the video was released. The British Ambassador was almost assassinated way before the video was released…the international Red Cross was attacked twice in Benghazi – well before this video was ever released. So if the video was really the impetus for the violence, what in the world explains the violence prior to the release of the video?
In respect to al Qaeda, he noted that “whether it was al Qaeda or a subsidiary, or a holding company, or a limited partnership – to quote Hillary Clinton - what difference does it make?! Who cares whether it was al Qaeda proper or a subsidiary? Four Americans are dead, and it wasn’t a spontaneous reaction to a video - it was planned.”
Gowdy also asked the question many House Republicans have been wondering in light of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi prior to the attack, “why were we even there? Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi, that night?”
He told Perino that he’s read the NY Times report six times. “I want you to read it six times and tell me if you can tell who the Secretary of State was when Benghazi happened. Because her name wasn’t mentioned a single. solitary. time. in this exhaustive NY Times piece – not once.”
When Perino noted that lots of people are assuming that the article was meant to “clear the decks” for Hillary so she won’t have to deal with Benghazi as a campaign issue, Gowdy reacted with mock consternation, “oh heavens no – that couldn’t possibly have been their motivation – could it be?!”
On Monday night’s Special Report, Charles Krauthammer said the NY Times Benghazi report was undeniably about protecting Dems, and Hillary – “obviously a political move.”