Ever since I read the comments to this Moon of Alabama posting, with all the varying conjectures and inconsistencies in the Official Story, I've been thinking that there was only one interested party who really benefited from the Benghazi attack. Even 'al Qaeda' failed to benefit, as Christopher Stevens was on their side, in the middle of provisioning their cousins fighting in Syria. No, the single, solitary beneficiary of the attack was the private security company hired to make sure it didn't happen. As a general rule, if one party:
was the sole beneficiary of an event; and
was supposed to prevent that event, but didn't
you would probably want to take a good, hard look at their possible culpability.