Two years in the making, 800 pages long, gripping in tone, the report of the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi — released Tuesday (June 28) — is the definitive account of the Sept. 11, 2012, Libya attacks that killed four Americans: Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and CIA contractors Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
On the question of how Clinton and the Obama administration reacted, we see more than enough evidence to reaffirm our opinion that the secretary of state failed a crucial chance to show decisive, principled leadership.
— Editorial Board
Our contribution to the committee’s report draws five conclusions.
First, the Obama administration misled the American public about the events in Benghazi.
Second, security in Benghazi was inadequate given the risk to the facility, and Secretary Clinton had missed the last clear chance to protect her people.
Third, when things went badly, America did not move heaven and earth to rescue our people.
Fourth, the administration broke its promise to the American people to bring the terrorists responsible for the attack to justice.
Finally, we make note of the disappointing fact that the administration did not cooperate with our committee’s investigation from the very beginning. In fact, they obstructed our work from day one.
— Mike Pompeo, Jim Jordan
After more than two years and over $7 million, the eighth investigation into the Benghazi attacks … can only be seen as a Republican political vendetta against Hillary Clinton.
The report broadly chastised the Defense Department, the CIA and the State Department for failing to understand the serious security risks in Benghazi and for maintaining facilities there that they could not protect.
The administration obviously needs to do better to protect American diplomats but Congress has to approve sufficient funds to underwrite the effort.
— Carol Giacomo
The New York Times
This report shows (Hillary Clinton) has earned the mistrust (of Americans).
As have her fellow Democrats on the Select Committee. From the start they treated the House investigation the way Mrs. Clinton’s State Department treated Benghazi—as a political issue. They refused to participate in the investigation and spent most of their time denouncing it as partisan. Their minority report on Benghazi contains no fewer than 23 mentions of Donald Trump.
The scandal of Benghazi is that instead of leveling with the American people, Mrs. Clinton and others who knew better opted for a more convenient—and corrosive—spin.
— Editorial Board
The Wall Street Journal
SCOTUS abortion ruling
In a 5-3 ruling on the last day of the term, the Supreme Court struck down Texas’s restrictive abortion regulations. The first abortion decision in nine years, and the most sweeping since Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992, the case is a timely reminder of the importance of presidential elections and Supreme Court appointments.
But take a step back from the immediate victory for reproductive rights, and the case serves as a sobering reminder, as well–a reminder of the significance of state elections and their long-term consequences.
— Nicole Hemmer
On (June 27), the Supreme Court struck down a set of Texas restrictions that shuttered half the state’s abortion providers, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used her concurring opinion to blast a key argument for the state’s tighter regulations — that terminating a pregnancy in a clinic is dangerous.
“When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures,” she wrote in a concurring opinion, “women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners … at great risk to their health and safety.”
— Danielle Paquette
The Washington Post
The Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt marks a dramatic escalation in the controversial jurisprudence of abortion.
Never mind that these same justices would never in any other context besides abortion credit a regulated industry’s claim that it should not be made to comply with duly enacted health and safety regulations because they are too costly.
It has stripped from states the authority to extend additional protections to women such as clinic safety standards or admitting privilege requirements for abortionists. This is a breathtaking misappropriation of power.
— O. Carter Snead
(The Supreme Court’s) ruling on abortion, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, … stemmed from a 2013 Texas law mandating that only abortion clinics that employ doctors with admitting privileges at local hospitals and meet outpatient surgical center standards would be allowed.
The Supreme Court’s ruling was an abortion-rights victory. But it still doesn’t guarantee women access to abortion services.
— Melissa Batchelor Warnke
Los Angeles Time