I still go back to the position that we should never have been there in Benghazi because the host government could not be relied on for protection.
But Obama desperately wanted to say that our ousting of Ghadaffi was successful and everything was peaches and cream. Wasn’t his campaign slogan something about Bin Laden dead and GM alive?
Seems like ultimately we may have been there to run arms to terrorists, but that’s not the subject of this hearing. In the meantime, the question if our reason for being there was above-board is why were we there BEFORE it was secure
Of course, that gets back to the guffawing that was done in Iraq when “insurgents” were able to get weapons before we were able to secure them. Maybe it comes down to the idea that it was stupid for us to interfere in Libya’s own civil war, when the regime in power at the time was currently a very good ally against terrorism and those seeking to oust him were largely terrorists themselves... But then it’s the “Obama Doctrine” for the US to oust allies in fighting terrorism, in favor of Muslim extremist terrorists. We’ve done it in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Libya, and Obama’s working on doing it in Syria too...
Ultimately this does come down to “politics” - if “politics” means the Obama Doctrine of supporting Muslim terrorists and shafting everybody else. But that’s a subject for a different hearing.