As the details of the final Benghazi report come to light, the mainstream media would have you believe that there’s nothing new to learn about what happened that horrific night in September 2012. Headlines like The New York Times’ “House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton” scream “nothing to see here,” while Clinton herself proclaims it’s time to move on.”

All of that notwithstanding, we continue to learn new and inexplicable (seemingly indefensible) details about Hillary Clinton’s State Department’s many failures to make adequate provisions for the men on the ground in Benghazi. Like why the State Department withheld requested weapons from agents on the ground in that war zone.

The Gateway Pundit reported:

FOX News reported on Tuesday the State Department withheld the requested weapons from agents on the ground because they were not “aesthetically pleasing.”

Adam Housley: When we talk about those with reactions I spoke with including one special agent who was on the ground that night who says to me in Benghazi, quote, ” the report continues to show how ridiculous the State Department makes it to give support to a special agent on the ground when he says he needs support. There were about 10 of us who continually asked for more weapons and more security in Benghazi and were routinely denied.”

And we reported on that because the State Department told him it wasn’t aesthetically pleasing to have a belt-fed machine gun, for example.

Not aesthetically pleasing enough? Maybe for Greenwich, Connecticut, but we’re talking about Libya here. And by the way, have you ever seen a government building that hasn’t looked like a decrepit, unkempt mess? I wish they were really concerned about aesthetics sometimes.

[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]