mr. toner: i think we have a knowledge that in the past, brad. couple of things there, one is we have a knowledge and took seriously the request for security the embassy made and try to provide and respond as quickly as we could to the request for increased security on the ground, i think with a few relative exceptions, and i can get into those if you like, that have more to deal with, frankly, the profile that we wanted to have on the ground, and not necessarily the concert -- security concerns, because we tried to address them, but -- and we also, the other qualifier there is as other past , andtigations have found others have spoken to, including aarb, was the attack on benghazi was intense and we did not have enough assets on the ground to rebuff that, and it would have been difficult to have the assets on the ground to rebuff that. that said, we will take the lessons from benghazi and have been working hard to address them. brad: my last one. there seems to be a recurrent theme in the repo

mr. toner: they did not. ? >> why not? mr. toner: it returns to the point i was trying to make with , as regrettable as this incident was, and it was aoubtless that, there was not for furthere investigation into the incident. we did interview the person, who by the way came forward and offered their recollection of what happened, but beyond that we didn't feel, the legal office did not feel they needed to pursue this further, did not have the grounds to pursue this further. >> well, either you want to find out or you don't. and if you want to find out, i don't understand why you would not ask a question that even somebody like me, who is not a lawyer and, would think of. maybe there's a record here, a phone call. and i don't understand why they wouldn't -- you don't have a broken rule or a broken lock. but what i don't understand, it all goes to credibility. if the idea is to do a credible review, even if it is not an investigation, why wouldn't you turn over every stone? mr. toner: we have to be mindful of the privacy of indiv

. -- why .mr. toner: a couple of convinced because it happened because of political concerns this administration had. why did we stay in benghazi? mislead the american people? why did they take so long -- why weren't they talking about americans military going in civilian close. it was political concerns that drove this. that is what we outlined in our report. i would encourage you all to read both because it tells that and that should not happen in a country as great as ours. citizens tosks its go to dangerous places and to do difficult things. these are people who were in the military and clandestine services. they go willingly and they know acknowledging that there are a risk. ,f they end up in harms way historically they arrest assurance assured that their country will do everything it can do to rescue them. theyis not guarantee and know there is an inherent risk and the understanding is that their nation will move heaven and earth to save them. that did not happen. four people were murdered. that is

mr. toner: it is a good question, and i spoke a little bit about this just now -- we do accountability -- anything new. we spoke about accountability. accountability has been important. the accountability review board, in its findings, did assign some level of accountability in saying there were bureaucratic failings within the bureau of diplomatic security. we all know that. we're all aware of those findings, and we have worked to address them in a variety of ways. know, we don't believe there is anything new in this report. -- that points fingers to any other individuals or entities within the state department. >> now that this investigation is wrapped up, and assuming there is not another one, do you feel the state department erred in having this outpost in benghazi in the first place? now -- no.so, there was a lot, and i saw the press conference as well at 10:00 this morning. i had the allegations put forth congress. members of that benghaziis was important. we all know what libya looks lik