I'm cribbing from some of my online commentary...
Just as investigating the cover-up of Watergate revealed what was being covered-up, so too it will be here.
And the best part is getting the people from the CIA Annex and asking them if they had to sign an NDA.
Really, the Administration forcing people to do that shows that there is something to cover-up. And that would be signed under duress, and thus null and void.
The President has responsibility for those that serve under him, especially a hand-picked Ambassador sent to a place undergoing a civil war with terrorist attacks on-going. That is HIS representative there, HIS Ambassador sent there by HIM to do this job.
Where were the assets to extract him and his team in case things went south? Where were the naval and air assets necessary to do that in a place that is undergoing such turmoil? Who sends an Ambassador and critical national security personnel to such a place WITHOUT AN EXTRACTION PLAN?
Why was Stevens and, indeed, all the personnel put in such a vulnerable situation with no way out?
That isn’t a political question. It is a question that involves the Head of State, Head of Government and CinC: that is his responsibility to make sure that those people are protected with all means necessary and NOT having a way to get them out is dereliction of duty of the highest order because it was done ON HIS ORDERS.
That is before you even get to the cover-up. Investigating the cover-up will shed light on these questions because they are integral to the cover-up, itself.
The power of the Legislative Branch is to check the power of the Executive via ensuring that the Executive is executing the laws properly and carrying out the duties of President. Watergate was a cover-up for a burglary for political gain, and this investigation into Benghazi will have that as a side-show, as well as the lack of care shown to those under the President's direct guidance and protection was done in an attempt to win an election. That is political in nature. The acts of neglect are matters of State directly attributed to the Presidential duties and no President is beyond such review. I cannot think of a case similar to this one in which a personally appointed Ambassador for a specific mission in such a dangerous area was left without adequate protection and ready forces to get him out if things went to pot. That is because Presidents take their job seriously and don't do such things unless it is absolutely and positively vital to the US and he is ready to explain that vital interest if things go wrong.
To date we have not gotten that, which is, in itself, dereliction of duty as Head of State. Blaming the exercise of First Amendment speech as the focal cause for the attack is a gross attack on the rights of American citizens which is beyond the pale for any politician of any party to perform, not to speak of the President doing so and having cabinet members back him up on that. There was zero justification for that, but that, as awful as it is, is just part of the cover-up and meant to be inflammatory and distracting from the actual events they are meant to hide.
Anyone trying to paint this as merely politics is missing the actual job of the President that was not done on multiple counts.
Even President Carter tried to rescue the Embassy personnel in Iran.
President Obama couldn't even manage THAT.
Or ordering the military to sanitize the site where this took place so that the INTEL carried by the Ambassador on operations in-country and in-theater would not fall into the hands of our enemies. That was never done and that is the job of the President as well.
Why wasn't any of this done?
What is being covered up is woven into the fabric of the lies told after it. And the best place to start with any after-action investigation is with the survivors.