A series of White House emails related to the attacks on the American embassy in Benghazi two years ago and the subsequent reaction by the Obama administration were obtained by conservative watch dog group Judicial Watch on April 18, and the release of those documents has once again brought Benghazi front and center.
The GOP, headed by Speaker John Boehner, responded to the release of the new documents by creating a new House committee to further investigate the attack on the American diplomatic mission and subsequent death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
Not everyone is happy about another committee, however.
“Benghazi is and has been for some time a witch hunt that perverts all notions of democratic accountability,” The Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky wrote on Wednesday. “[It] obviously carries one purpose and one purpose only — the humiliation or worse of as many Democrats as possible.”
But of course, not everyone agrees with Tomasky's assessment of the probe into the attacks.
Boehner has claimed that the emails revealed a new level of government stonewalling that justifies reopening the case, a view echoed by USA Today’s Kirsten Powers, who believes the “White House [overlooking a] tsunami of evidence,” has brought this investigation on itself.
“They were willfully ignoring information that the attack was preplanned by groups with terrorist links, a fact that undermined President Obama's re-election claim that ‘al-Qaida is on the run,’ ” Powers stated. “Cherry-picking intelligence is a big no-no.”
Investigations into the attack at Benghazi have been ongoing for almost two years, resulting in 13 hearings, 25,000 pages of documents and 50 briefings, as measured by Politico, but many continue to argue that there is more to be learned from a deeper investigation.
"Despite all the congressional Democrats’ snickering and posturing this week, a Select Committee on Benghazi can answer one question that remains unanswered," The Daily Beast's Ron Christie wrote in a dissent to his colleague Michael Tomasky's article. "Where was the president of the United States the evening of September 11, 2012, and what steps did he take that evening?"
Still, some are critical of the GOP’s constant digging, not because there is no need to investigate but because they believe the GOP’s motives are suspect. Many pundits are skeptical that an investigation would be solely for the good of the country; instead, they argue that politicians clamoring for answers are doing so simply to humiliate the White House.
"Are there any useful lessons to be learned that weren't covered in the independent accountability report on the attacks?" The Atlantic's Connor Friedstorf asked in his article "The Selective-Outrage Comittee on Benghazi."
"If so, I doubt movement conservatives will learn them."