Yeah, Hillary. I don’t guess it makes any difference that you guys mislead the American people. No big deal that you guys let terrorists attack the US Consulate and kill Americans, then lied about it. Innocent protestors don’t bring militant style weapons with them to a “peaceful” protest. But what difference does it make, I suppose?
1. If the State Department mislead people, they did so following the CIA’s talking points, who purposely left out information so as not to interfere with their ability to complete their investigation. But I understand. Your need for complete and accurate information instantaneously far outweighs things like protecting sources and actually being able to follow up on leads regarding people who killed Americans.
2. I can’t see where anyone has lied about the attacks in any way that was malicious or intentional. The State Department followed the best intelligence they had based on the information they got from the agency whose primary function is intelligence. In the time since, they have released a thorough report that points to a lot of issues—including significant budget cuts—that explain this, strides are being taken to correct these issues, and all the important people have taken responsibility for what went wrong. What more are you looking for? Resignations? This is hardly the first time someone has died at an embassy or consulate because something somewhere went awry. Generally, not only does this not generate this sort of controversy, it almost never results in the Secretary of State or the President resigning.
3. Hindsight is 20/20. I will again point out, though, that the State Department was simply parroting the information the CIA gave them. I don’t see anyone insisting, though, that heads should roll at the CIA. That probably has a lot to do with the fact, though, that it’s much harder to make a political circus out of CIA people saying, “We didn’t tell you this shit because we actually wanted to nab terrorists. So sorry we didn’t consider your feelings first.”