Tell us how you really feel.

Not interested in seeing the movie, and less interested in stirring the Benghazi pot, but it seems to me like the movie is trying to be based of the facts of the soldiers on the ground, not "why" this happened (which would probably be a political thriller and something Bay isn't capable of making), but "what" happened.  "This is what it was like there."  And of course the soldiers wouldn't know the true story at the time, they never do.  For the purposes of the movie, or indeed of most war movies, the reason isn't important, it's the mission, "we have to do this" or "we have to survive that."  And Bay isn't going to risk p1ssing off half his potential audience by implying Hillary is the villain, especially if the trial/investigation/witchhunt/whatever was still going on at the time he was making it.  In fact, leaving that stuff out will probably make the movie age better, since we'll probably know more about it in the future than we do now.  This is why you need a certain amount of time between a real event and a movie version of that event, you want a clear context of those moments.  Think "Argo."

On top of that, don't forget that Michael Bay uses the military a LOT.  He's going to be making Transformer movies until the day he dies because it's so hard to get a green-light, and a lot of production owes to the fact that he can use the military, so he's not going to risk that by making the actual Secretary of State a villain in  a true story.  Fvck, the Avengers couldn't use actual military stuff because the military couldn't understand the power structure of SHIELD, and that's something that does NOT matter!  But this does, the military can't play politics or be used as a prop to support one view or the other.