Appearing before Congress, with veins bulging on her temples and fists clenched, Hillary Clinton bellowed,  “What difference does it make?” in regard to how four Americans died in Benghazi.

What difference does it make? It doesn’t matter who murdered four Americans?

Perhaps if it had been her child who was shot full of holes, she’d be singing a different tune.

The mother of Sean Smith, the communications officer murdered on September 11, says it makes a difference as to why her son’s calls for help went unanswered.

Seven hundred Special Ops veterans sent a letter to Congress demanding that a comprehensive congressional investigation begin immediately—they think it makes a difference.

Over one hundred Representatives (led by Congressman Frank R. Wolf) are backing the passage of House Resolution 36, calling for a “Watergate style” investigation into what happen that fateful night-THEY think it makes a difference.

It seems like everyone in the country thinks that finding out who murdered four Americans and why no one sent help does make a difference.

The only ones who think it doesn’t make a difference are Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

We already know, partially, what happened. The bull dog in the House, Darrell Issa, leading the charge, released a preliminary report on April 23, that spells out that, with emails and documents as proof, Barack Obama knew the consulate had been attacked by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists “almost immediately.” That he and his cronies, fearing the news of an attack by a group that he had been blathering about “being on the run” would hurt his re-election campaign. That the intelligence community had put together a series of talking points about what happened that were literally rewritten by the White House, changed from “attack” to “demonstration” and obliterating any reference to “Islamic extremists.”

The Weekly Standard yesterday, supplementing the information in the House investigative report, actually got a copy of the multiple revisions of the talking points, which proves that Susan Rice’s famous Sunday morning news show hit parade and Obama blathering about an “offensive” anti-Muslim YouTube video were literally created out of thin air. They knew in less than twenty-four hours that it was a pre-planned terrorist attack that had nothing to do with a protest or YouTube video:

A cable sent the following day, September 12, by the CIA station chief in Libya, reported that eyewitnesses confirmed the participation of Islamic militants and made clear that U.S. facilities in Benghazi had come under terrorist attack.

Oh, but there’s more. Enter Hillary Clinton. The House report has proof that Slick Willie’s other half personally signed off on denying additional security to the consulate, which means that yes, Hillary Clinton perjured herself during her congressional hearing, as she stated she had nothing to do with it. Per the report:

A cable signed by Hillary Clinton April of 2012 denied then-Ambassador Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.

In a strange aside not found in the report, in April of 2012, the same month Hillary Clinton denied the additional security requested by then-Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz, Obama nominated Cretz for the post of Ambassador to Ghana.  And here’s where it gets strange: Cretz was sworn in by Hillary Clinton on the day of the Benghazi attack, September 11, 2012! 

Was this a coincidence, or did Cretz—and more specifically Obama—have foreknowledge that an attack on the Benghazi consulate was going to occur, using Christopher Stevens and other Americans as “collateral damage”?

What exactly is Obama hiding that would require a coverup so convoluted that it makes the Nixon Watergate break-in coverup look like child’s play?

Would Obama spend weeks blaming an obscure anti-Muslim YouTube video—even going so far as having the producer of the video—Nakoula Basseley Nakoula arrested, and take his story to the world stage at the United Nations, simply for political damage control?

We know the Saudis funded and organized the attack on the consulate through a hacked email from Hillary Clinton crony Sidney Blumenthal to Clinton. And we know Obama is controlled in part by the Saudi government, as evidence in the recent suppression of Saudi national/Boston Marathon bombing “person of interest” Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi—whereby Obama directly colluded with the Saudi government to try to quietly deport Alharbi.

We know Obama was funneling weapons to the al-Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels, using Benghazi as a gunrunning hub.

But is that the end of Obama’s secrets? What exactly was going on in Benghazi that was so horrendous that such a convoluted coverup had to be perpetrated by the Obama administration? Was there some secret rendition site in Benghazi where the “anti-torture” Obama was in fact torturing prisoners, as evidenced by the mammoth study released by The Constitution Project on April 16? Was Obama in fact covering up a massive torture factory? Was he trying to stave off what many call The Constitution Project’s blueprint for an indictment against Obama as a war criminal?

Darrell Issa’s comprehensive investigation into what happened in Benghazi and why it was covered up is a good start, but America must demand that they stand with Congressman Frank R. Wolf in backing House Resolution 36, calling for a comprehensive “Watergate style” investigation in order to pull back the curtain on Obama’s Benghazi secrets.