I will never understand why some just have to always, ALWAYS spew a negative snipe. You have absolutely no grounds to doubt whether one knows or not. Very rude and derogatory and now I'll do it....as if you care!

Anyway here is the answer; to get the perspective it goes back to more than just the question. So here is the dialogue starting with Johnsons question ultimately leading to her what difference does it make response:

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?

Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Now that I have passed the security question may I procede?

This is a classic post by someone who has no intentions what so ever to carry on a legitimate discussion. Starting with the challenging "I doubt it" snipe. And then the other classic of name calling. ANd the referral to George Bush adds what value?

It is either follow the party or get ready for the discourteous catharsis. No added value to the discussion.

A don't engage candidate!