Enough with Benghazi, already.

        Yet one more letter in  Sunday's Daily Sun  screaming the word "Benghazi" as an anti-Clinton shibboleth, yet with absolutely no factual understanding of the overall issue involved. The writer cites a "stand down" order given which led to the deaths of four embassy staff.  No such order was given,  and every single surviving  armed respondent interviewed confirmed it under oath to the  Senate Intelligence committee. The committee did find confusion was rampant on the ground ,  not because of anything done by anyone in Washington , but because of poor on scene coordination.

        A second finding, that security was less than desirable and/or necessary, was corroborated, but so was the fact that Ambassador Stevens had twice refused additional security when offered by AFRICOM commander, General Carter Ham, in the month preceding the attacks.  A third allegation, that US military personnel could have responded in time to save lives was categorically refuted by every single military commander  with regional responsibility.

       A  Republican controlled House  investigative committee  drew these same conclusions, yet we are continually bombarded with fiction by voting citizens with obvious agendas  having nothing to do with any factual information, but much to do with partisan prejudice.

       One must assume that if the writer of Sunday's letter  truly believes that SecState  Clinton  bears personal responsibility for four deaths in Benghazi, then they must hold George W. Bush, by the same standard , even more loosely applied,  accountable for the 2,977 deaths resulting from the events of  9/11. I mean, after all,  another Clinton left a security brief (ignored by the Bush team)  warning of Al Qaeda specifically and the threat of domestic attacks specifically. Ridiculous, isn't it?