From the article you posted:

Gowdy's aides blamed the State Department for the disclosure, and the agency [the State Department] acknowledged Monday a "human error" led to a failure to delete a name from the email in question.

I'm glad I could correct your "human error".

I think that most people like you seem to conveniently forget that by February 2011, the French were already actively moving to intervene militarily on behalf of the anti-Khadafy rebels. They had reached the point of exasperation with Khadafy concerning his own repeated designs on and threats against neighboring Chad, a former colonial territory that was heavily dependent upon France for its own defense.

Paris was therefore fully prepared to finally resolve their own significant issues with the Libyan dictator, heedless of whatever position Washington ultimately took on the matter, and was perfectly willing to use the internal upheaval against the Libyan dictator to its own advantage.

(France has long viewed northern, western and central Africa as an inherent and near-exclusive part of its own sphere of influence, and has a history of active military interventions in the region since the end of the colonial era in the 1960s. France was the only western country to attend the African Union summit in 2013. Most recently, French forces entered Mali that same year to actively support the government against militant Islamic Maghreb rebels that were threatening its overthrow. And for quite some time now, Washington has been perfectly content to let Paris take the lead in the region.)

As early as February 25, 2011, President Nikolas Sarkozy had stated publicly that "Khadafy must go," thus signaling his own government's intent to remove the Libyan strongman if he failed to immediately cease his attacks on his own people.

United Nations Security Council Resolution No. 1973 also authorized member states to undertake all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas against Khadafy's military assault in Cyrenaica. It passed on March 17, 2011 with ten affirmative votes and five abstentions. No one voted against the measure.

The international military intervention in Libya, which commenced on March 19, 2011, and concluded with Khdafy's death the following October, was a NATO operation that ultimately included 19 states. It was not a unilateral Anglo-American exercise, as was the case in Iraq.

U.S. involvement in NATO's Libyan intervention was limited to providing satellite surveillance of the battlefield for NATO forces, and the U.S. Navy's firing of about 110 Tomahawk missiles at Libyan government targets during the first week of "Operation Unified Protector," which severely crippled Khadafy's own air defense capacity and allowed NATO air forces per UNSCR 1973 to quickly establish and enforce the "no-fly zone" over Cyrenaica without significant opposition.

Combat sorties over Libya in support of anti-Khadafy rebels on the ground were the exclusive province of the French, British and Canadian military, and that NATO air campaign was conducted under the command of Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Now, it's a perfectly legitimate point to argue that both the UN and NATO were obviously not prepared for what occurred in Libya in the wake of Moammar Khadafy's downfall and his summary execution at the hands of the rebels in October 2011, and should have acted proactively to shore up the initial ruling coalition in Tripoli as a means to seek socio-political rapprochement and stabilization of the country.

And for that failure, the United States does bear no small measure of responsibility as the first among equals in the NATO alliance. President Obama and his administration really should have pressed France much harder to take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that the resultant power vacuum in Tripoli didn't devolve into chaos, especially since it was Paris which had sought Khadafy's removal in the first place.

But your apparent willingness to lay that failure entirely at the doorstep of Hillary Clinton, in her former capacity as President Obama's Secretary of State, is both simplistic and entirely dependent upon your willingness to ignore both: (a) the events that actually took place in Libya and the rest of North Africa in 2010-11; and (b) the harsh reality of our own U.S. domestic politics during that same period, which effectively limited and quite likely hamstrung Washington's efforts to exert any significant influence in North Africa during the events comprising the "Arab Spring."

Chip: it isn't the redacted name that's the important part of this - it's Gowdy manufacturing a lie in order to support an investigation for the ulterior purpose of taking Clinton down.  

Rep Cummings:

Unfortunately, you sent your letter on October 7 without checking first with the CIA. Now that we have done so, we have learned that your accusations were incorrect.

As a result of your actions, the State Department yesterday asked the Select Committee not to reveal the individual's name publicly, not for classification reasons, but to protect the individual's privacy and avoid bringing additional undue attention to this person.

And the unbelievable claim that up till now no investigator EVER examined the ambassador's emails..

Never mind how implausible Gowdy's claim is, if no investigator had ever looked at the ambassador's emails, what would that say about the competence of the quite rabid Benghazi investigators?