House intensifies Benghazi probe. Do voters approve?

The US House of Representatives is set to create an investigative panel to look into the Benghazi affair. Polls show support for that move, but it's driven primarily by Republicans.

|
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R) of South Carolina, seen here in the Capitol in Washington Wednesday, has been tapped to lead a special select committee to investigate the attack on the US diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya.

Do voters want a more intensive congressional investigation into the Benghazi affair?

That question arises because House Republicans are moving to provide the nation with just that. Last week a GOP-led House panel subpoenaed Secretary of State John Kerry to appear and testify about the administration’s reaction to the Benghazi tragedy. This week Republican lawmakers are set to create a select committee charged with probing the Benghazi affair full-time.

There aren’t a lot of updated polls on Benghazi, so numbers on the public reaction to this subject aren’t definitive. But some recent surveys indicate that Americans do indeed approve of a continued congressional investigation into this subject.

A Rasmussen poll released on Monday found that 51 percent of respondents agreed that Benghazi merited further investigation. Thirty-four percent disagreed, while the rest weren’t sure.

Half of respondents to the Rasmussen survey said they weren’t satisfied with the administration’s explanations of Benghazi events.

In April, 60 percent of respondents to a Fox News poll agreed with the perhaps leading statement that “Congress should continue to investigate the Obama administration’s handling of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the deaths of four Americans until someone is held accountable.”

That is down from the 65 percent who answered in the affirmative to that question last November, according to Fox data.

However, underneath these top-line numbers there is a deep partisan disagreement about the importance of Benghazi, who is to blame for the US deaths, and what Congress should do text. Much of the enthusiasm for pursuing the subject comes from the Republican side of the political aisle.

For instance, in the Fox survey, 77 percent of Republicans said then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was either a great deal or somewhat to blame for what happened in Benghazi. The corresponding number for Democrats was only 35 percent.

A new Pew Research poll on Mrs. Clinton and her presidential prospects shows a similar split.

Asked to rate aspects of Clinton’s career about which they felt negative, Republicans picked “Benghazi” as their top item. Twenty-eight percent of GOP respondents said it was the one thing about Clinton they most disliked.

In contrast, only 8 percent of Democrats said Benghazi was Clinton’s biggest negative.

Overall, this shows that Republicans may have convinced themselves that Benghazi would be a liability for Clinton if she runs in 2016, writes Washington Post political expert Aaron Blake. But they have yet to convince the rest of the nation.

“Benghazi has yet to register as an Achilles heel for Clinton with the American public,” writes Mr. Blake in "The Fix" blog.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to House intensifies Benghazi probe. Do voters approve?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2014/0508/House-intensifies-Benghazi-probe.-Do-voters-approve
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe