I have only a few questions? Did the administration let four great American citizens die for politics? If so, no crime but disgusting. Did we exhaust all resources and the four deaths were an inevitability? If so, well, that's life and it is horrible that they died.
Is there an active obstruction of justice? That is a major problem if so, it's actually what took Nixon down during Watergate, not the burglary itself(over eager campaign staffers) and even then nobody died.
Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.
Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton
Both parties are wrong about the scandal: It’s not Watergate and it’s not nothing.
Both parties are wrong about Benghazi. Existing evidence does not point to a far-reaching cover-up on the scale of Watergate, as Republicans want you to believe. But it is not, as the White House claims, nothing.
The administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. installations in eastern Libya was inaccurate, irresponsible and shrouded by campaign-style spin. It belied President Obama’s oft-broken promise to run a transparent government.
If nothing else, Benghazi is a blow to the credibility of the president and his potential successor, then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. This could be big.
Credibility is Obama’s strong suit, a key reason why his personal approval ratings continue to buoy soft job approval scores. He can’t afford to lose that trust.
Credibility is Clinton’s vulnerability, dating to the unjustified financial accusations that triggered the Whitewater investigation. Doubts persisted about her veracity and authenticity throughout the 2008 presidential campaign.
Where the administration is most vulnerable is on questions of trust – an issue that, once exposed, can impact how votes consider the president’s words and deeds on all matters. This should be the White House's greatest concern after Wednesday’s hearing on the events leading to the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and two security officers. Four points:
The original sin: It took the president and his team too long to acknowledge the fact that armed Islamic militants had penetrated the diplomatic compound. Coming as it did during a tense re-election race the administration’s determined reluctance to use the word “terrorists” seems informed, if not driven, by political considerations. When United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice suggested on Sunday talk shows days after the attack that it had begun with protests against an anti-Muslim video, high-ranking diplomat Gregory Hicks said, “I was stunned. My jaw dropped and I was embarrassed.”
The call. Hicks’ emotional testimony Wednesday accused the administration of political machinations and bullying. Hicks told lawmakers that he was ordered not to talk to members of Congress about the attack. When he did so anyhow, and a State Department lawyer was excluded from the meeting because he lacked the necessary security clearance, Hicks said he received an angry phone call from Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff. Mills is well-respected and known for her fierce loyalty to Clinton. If Hicks is to be believed, issuing a no-communications order is an inherently political act and, by definition, a blow for transparency.
The demotion. Hicks told lawmakers he was given a scathing review of his management style after the attacks and was later “effectively demoted.” The State Department strongly denies his account, saying it had not and would not retaliate against Hicks. We don’t know who is telling the truth, but Hicks’ testimony forced Obama’s aides to make a devil’s choice between letting the allegations stand or calling a respected and long-serving diplomat, effectively, a liar. They chose the latter.
The review. The administration’s review of Benghazi criticized the “grossly inadequate” security at the diplomatic compound and led to the dismissal of four State Department officials. Witnesses said the investigation, led by veteran retired diplomat Thomas Pickering, was inadequate. “They stopped short of interviewing people who I personally know were involved in key decisions,” testified Eric Nordstrom, an official in the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security. The testimony of these credible whistleblowers may raise doubts in voters' minds about how honestly the Obama administration faced its failings. Despite that, the Pickering report is a scathing indictment of State Department security efforts on Clinton's watch. If she runs for president, embassy security will be a credible and durable issue.....snip~
Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton - NationalJournal.com
Might have to do with the fact of realizing those in these positions need to know they can trust in their government. That if harm comes their way. That we will do everything in our power to come and get them out. That a Benghazi can never happen again. People need to be operating without hesitation and concerns over questioning that what will happen if they do this or that. Clear Warning signs cannot be ignored. Even Clintons own review hit the State up over their own failures with security.
Clearly there is a lot of miscommunication taking place and non communication as well Like Panetta and General Dempsey testifying that the State never requested assets. Then testifying that from 2am til the next morning that neither had talked to Clinton. Panetta saying he talked to Obama Once. The same with Clinton. Then Hicks validating that Clinton only called Libya once. That Clapper didn't contact other Dept heads as well. So IMO these issues need to be resolved. As they cannot be allowed to take place going forward. These people need to be in touch with their people of their respective Depts and on top of their jobs. When such events happen.
If whatever Administration is out misleading the people, and even if it wasn't their intention to do so. Then they need to address that issue and clarify even if it admits that it's initial assessment was wrong.