Your straw man is way off. The logic is 1) The State Department (not the CIA, not the DoD) royally screwed up and people paid for it with their lives 2) How does the president protect his hire, the Sec of State, who is also the presumptive Dem. nominee in 2016, after she reduced security in a increasingly dangerous area while her subordinates were requesting more security and other nations closed their missions? Simple, do not let Clinton testify for a number of months. Do not let the number two man in the region testify (the number one man was already dead). Send out a sacrificial lamb to do the news curcuit and blame it on a youtube video. You try and let it blow over, cow your own party members into silence and accuse the other party of being partisan. The real issue is not the military response to the attack. More probably could have been done, but its just too hard to say with any certainty. What is certain is that the president and the Sec of State have been caught telling lies to cover their butts. Which is more important, that a certain candidate gets elected in 2016 or that person elected is actually competent? Any military commander who had fouled up like Clinton would’ve been fired immediately. But she is too valuable to the Dem’s politcal machine. If Obama would have fired her, this issue would have already gone away.