After the military operation in Libya to kill Khadaffi, the state department brokered a deal between Libyan rebels to sell their no longer needed weapons to the Syrian rebels which were being backed by President Obama.
Ambassador Stevens and the others killed in the Benghazi attack knew about the arms deal. It was top secret, and Congress was never told about it.
Facts are somewhat sketchy as to what triggered the attack because those secrets may have died with those who were killed. But it has been proven that it had nothing to do about anger over a Mohammed video.
In piecing together the puzzle, my research at the time led me to first understand that Obama drew no distinction between true freedom fighters in both Libya and Syria and al Quaida and Isis allies who were on their side to help oust Khaddafi and Asad of Syria. In fact, there was no vetting process to determine which factions were legit and which were al Qaeda and ISIS.
Obama armed the Lybian rebels and assisted them with military strikes against Libyan forces so that they could complete the mission of having Khaddafi killed.
After the mission was complete, those in charge in the state department to carry out Obama's policy of supporting the Syrian rebels assisted the Lybian rebels in arranging an arms sale to the Syrian rebels.
There was growing concern in the United States that any arms sent even legitimately and above board to the Syrian rebels could fall into the hands of ISIS which now had a strong presence in Syria.
Much like what happened in Iran-Contra, because the president was getting much pushback on arming the rebels legitimately, his "Oliver North" people went with the secret gun running operation.
The difference between Iran-Contra and Benghazi-gate, however is that Reagan never actually knew about the deal whearas Obama did. Also, no one died in Iran-Contra and those involved eventually told the story.
Benghazi-gate is Iran-Contra on super steroids and is thousands of times worse (people died, the president and secretary of state knew and we were arming al Qaida and ISIS, our enemies!)
After ruling out all other possibilities, the only smoke I could find was when al Quaida in Libya became concerned that the deal would go bad because there was talk back at the State department that the deal might be too risky.
It can only be deducted that al Qaida either perceived they were getting shafted in the deal or something actually went down in the embassy that would actually have caused them to get shafted in the deal.
Either way, it doesn't matter. The light answer is that Obama didn't want to have to own a terror attack on our embassy and had it covered up. The heavy answer is that it was an arms deal gone bad. Either way, the killing of our people and the ensuing cover-up was an outrage.
The email from Hillary Clinton to Chelsea Clinton clearly shows proof that it was a terror attack. But it was even more than that. Something triggered al Qaida to attack. The motive was beyond terrorism, it was anger and revenge.
During the attack, an order to stand down was issued to our military who could've possibly saved those lives if they were allowed to engage. It can't be proven who gave the order because everyone was sworn to secrecy,
However, had those four lived, they would've been compelled to testify under oath to Congress and spill the beans on the whole operation. It would have destroyed the Obama presidency and cost him the 2012 election. Thus the stand down order. Thus the allowance of the death of those 4 people.