While the press was doing a sack dance on the heads of Republican Benghazi Committee members, celebrating Hillary Clinton's triumph, another, more important group of people were far from impressed.

The families of the victims of the Benghazi terrorist attack wanted answers to questions that were raised in the immediate aftermath of the attack on September 11, 2012 and were outraged that none were forthcoming from the former secretary of state.

Fox News:

"The thing that was shocking – one of the pinnacle moments – was the revelation she told her family there was a terrorist attack while she told America something else," Smith's uncle, Michael Ingmire, told FoxNews.com. "Mrs. Clinton is a serial liar."

Smith, an information officer, and Woods, a former Navy SEAL, died along with Doherty and U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens when Islamic militants stormed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and set it ablaze before attacking a nearby CIA compound with machine guns and rockets.

Stevens, the first U.S. Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979, had repeatedly asked the State Department for increased security at the consulate prior to the attack but his requests were not granted. 

In the hours following the attacks, the Obama administration learned they were carefully planned assaults by Al Qaeda-related militants but Clinton and others would go on to tell a different tale: an anti-Muslim YouTube video caused spontaneous protests and angry mobs were to blame for the attacks.

"So if there's no evidence for a video-inspired protest, then where did the false narrative start?" Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan asked Clinton during the hearing Thursday.

"It started with you, Madam Secretary," he said. "You could live with a protest about a video, that won't hurt you, but a terror attack would."

Clinton rejected Jordan's claim, describing the situation in the hours after the attack as "fluid" and the details unclear.

"I am sorry that it doesn't fit your narrative congressman, I can only tell you what the facts are," Clinton said.

During the Watergate hearings, all the major witnesses were grilled by the chief counsel, John Doar.  His expert questioning pulled information from witnesses that the mostly amatuerish efforts by politicians could not.  There was less TV face time for members of Congress, but the hearings were better for it.

Hindsight is 20/20, but would it have been better if the committee had employed an expert questioner who could have bored in on some of these major questions, forcing Clinton to reveal more than she wanted?  She was extremely well-prepared and was mostly successful.in either deflecting or obscuring most of the major points Republicans were trying to hammer home.

As it stands, the whitewash of events surrounding the attack on our consulate and CIA station is firmly in place.  I don't know what else the committee could have done to shake loose the truth, but what's clear is that their efforts came up short.

Meanwhile, the families are suffering the indignity of their own government lying about the circumstances of their loved ones' deaths.