Unless you re an idiot, you know that while the terrorist attacks in Benghazi were a tragedy, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were at fault for the attacks. Of course, Republicans have never exactly been the sharpest knives in the kitchen. For years, the Right has been waging a desperate war on Clinton, Obama, and sanity with their asinine Benghazi investigations. All across conservative media, we hear that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or both murdered four patriots with their bare hands while blaspheming God s name and murdering babies (or something; it s hard to understand what they are talking about at times).The Republican Benghazi  scandal  has been slowly going up in flames for quite some time now, but a letter from Trey Gowdy s former counsel has completely decimated any hope they have of getting anything useful out of the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars they wasted on this senseless exercise. Nevertheless, Republicans continue to claim that Obama and Clinton prevented the military from taking action that would have saved the lives of the Americans who died in the attacks. This is the drumbeat to which Republicans have goose-stepped as they attempted to railroad the Obama Administration in court   but as much as they try to deny it, reality is a thing. Even more unfortunately for Republicans, their own former counsel in the matter was very clear that no one did anything wrong.On May 16, Rep. Elijah Cummings, the voice of reason in this mess, sent a letter to Gowdy to remind him that his own attorney disputed many of the GOP s claims:Unfortunately, your letter failed to include any statements from your own former Republican Chief Counsel a retired three-star general with more than 33 years of service in the United States Army who repeatedly commended the military s actions on the night of the attacks during closed interviews with Defense Department officials.For example, on January 8, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. During that interview, your former Chief Counsel stated:I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region. And, sir, I don t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.Gowdy s former counsel also acknowledged that it was impossible, given time and distances, for military forces to arrive fast enough to make a difference:Your former Chief Counsel acknowledged that it is clear from the time and distances involved that none of the military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save lives.He stated:And, again, sir, I don t mean to suggest that anything could have been done differently to affect the outcome in Benghazi, and I think you would agree with that.But most importantly, there was nothing that could be done at all:In addition, on January 13, 2016, the Select Committee conducted a transcribed interview with the Defense Department s former Chief of Staff, Jeremy Bash. During that interview, your former Republican Chief Counsel stated:I would posit that from my perspective, having looked at all the materials over the last 18 months, we could not have affected the response to what occurred by 5: 15 in the morning on the 12th of September if Benghazi, Libya. So let me start with that positing or that stipulation.Your former Chief Counsel also stated:I don t see any way to influence what occurred there. But what I am worried about is we re caught by surprise On 9/11, we ve got nothing postured to respond in a timely manner and you can debate what s timely, what s untimely, but nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi. The conclusions of your former Republican Chief Counsel match almost exactly the findings from more than two years ago of the House Committee on Armed Services, which conducted its own investigation into the attacks in Benghazi,  Cummings wrote, noting that Rep. Buck McKeon, the Republican Chairman of the Committee who led the investigation at the time, was satisfied that  given where the troops were, how quickly the thing all happened and how quickly it dissipated, we probably couldn t have done more than we did. There you have it. Barack Obama killed no one. Hillary Clinton killed no one. If anything, Republicans are trying to distract from their own responsibility in the matter. ThinkProgress reported in 2012 that Republicans had cut funding for embassy security because defending Americans abroad was not a  priority :For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department s Worldwide Security Protection program   well below the $2.15 billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012 .[In 2011] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans  proposed cuts to her department would be  detrimental to America s national security    a charge Republicans rejected.[GOP vice presidential nominee Paul] Ryan, [Rep. Darrell] Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.These cuts occurred, of course, not long before the deadly attacks the GOP is so desperate to pin on their favorite enemies.Go figure.Featured image via Getty Images (Chip Somodevilla)/Getty Images (Eric Thayer)