Busiek's not so reliable info on the Benghazi case

He linked to the following item:

GOP-controlled House committee reports on Benghazi. Will it quiet anyone down? Probably not. http://t.co/j1TVk70ifs
— Kurt Busiek (@KurtBusiek) November 22, 2014

The info he's gotten is not entirely accurate, and Joel Pollak begs to differ from him. Consider:

1. President Obama's dereliction of duty. We know that after being briefed early in the evening at a prescheduled meeting, Obama failed to monitor the attacks in the Situation Room, or even to maintain contact with his national security team. He claims to have issued "three directives," but there is no evidence of that, and some testimony contradicts that claim. He went to a fundraiser the next day, declined for days to refer to the events as a terror attack (despite later claims to the contrary), and blamed a YouTube video for the attack.

2. Hillary Clinton's dereliction of duty--and intimidation. In addition to failing to provide additional security to Benghazi when requested, Clinton enthusiastically promoted the story about the YouTube video, long after it was known to be untrue. She also allegedly tried to stop witnesses from cooperating with Congress.

3. The media's role in the cover-up. CBS News covered up the fact that Obama had lied to the public, and CNN's Candy Crowley famously intervened in the second presidential debate to help that lie along. Instead, the media targeted Mitt Romney's criticism of the administration's reaction to an attack on the Cairo embassy.

Even if the military and some other authorities took proper action, Obama's staff did not, and that's the main issue critics have with how this was all handled. So why should anyone quiet down and let the issue go? And why doesn't Busiek think it's a concern there's barbarians out there making this world a dangerous place?