Staff Reports
Secretary of State Antony Blinken appears to have taken a masterclass in avoiding accountability, and it’s no surprise that Chairman Michael McCaul of Texas has finally had enough. After a series of failed attempts to pin down Blinken on the botched Afghanistan withdrawal, McCaul has decided to wield the subpoena, which has become the go-to tool for anyone dealing with a reluctant witness in Washington.
McCaul’s patience had nearly run out as he recounted the many times Blinken ducked his requests to appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The ongoing saga included an official hearing scheduled for May 22, requests for appearances that extended to August, and numerous reminders highlighted by McCaul in a letter sent on September 3. It’s a classic case of the Secretary of State trying to dodge a well-deserved grilling. Apparently, Blinken thought he could play “telephone” with the Committee instead of actually showing up and answering the tough questions about what went wrong when the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan.
House committee subpoenas Antony Blinken over refusal to testify in Afghanistan withdrawal probe
The House Foreign Affairs Committee subpoenaed Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Tuesday over his refusal to provide testimony related to the Harris-Biden administration’s… pic.twitter.com/9OLYgWAmCh
— Melissa Hallman (@dotconnectinga) September 4, 2024
The crux of McCaul’s argument revolves around the fact that the State Department was pivotal during the Afghan evacuation and the subsequent withdrawal. He was quick to point out that, as Secretary of State, Blinken bore the ultimate responsibility for these significant decisions. So when current and former officials testify that he was the key decision-maker, it plants a big ol’ target on his back for the Committee’s questions. After all, the American people are entitled to know how their government bungled this operation so severely that it could’ve been the plot of a bad action movie.
Despite repeated nudges for Blinken to step up to the plate, it seems the State Department has preferred to communicate by way of telephone tag rather than committing to actual dates—much to McCaul’s exasperation. The Committee was more than accommodating, pushing back deadlines and giving Blinken every opportunity to “nail down” a date that worked for him. Yet what came back was more radio silence, which, given his job description, is hardly an inspiring tactic from someone aiming to represent American interests abroad.
As McCaul prepares for the hearing on September 19, he leaves Blinken with a simple message: put your money where your mouth is or face contempt charges. If Blinken misses this deadline, it seems he might find his job description upgraded from “Secretary of State” to “Contempt of Congress.” Blinken’s behavior raises a fundamental question about leadership, accountability, and whether he believes the rules apply to him.
In the end, Blinken’s pattern of avoidance highlights a stark contrast between the expectations of leadership and the reality of a government mired in evasiveness. For the American public trying to glean what happened in Afghanistan, this saga feels like yet another chapter in the book of political mismanagement. Let’s see if Blinken can be persuaded to show up and take his lumps, or if he will continue playing hide-and-seek with the Committee, which is just trying to do its job.
