Hillary Clinton's name doesn't appear in the bipartisan portions of the Senate review of the tragic September 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, but you would not know that by looking at the media.

“For Clinton, Benghazi report has some good, mostly bad - but no ugly,” blared a Washington Post headline. “Benghazi report ups pressure on Hillary,” claimed The Hill.

The report, released earlier in the week by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has been a Rorschach test for the media, and as is almost always the case with Hillary Clinton, they are stretching to see something nefarious.

According to the Post, the report “is likely to provide fodder" for Clinton's political opponents, even though the Post acknowledged that the only references to the former Secretary of State came from partisan Republicans in an addendum, not from the review itself.

CNN's Wolf Blitzer said the report was “fueling heated debate, partisan debate, about her leadership,” while correspondent Elise Labbott insisted that Clinton would “have to address Benghazi during” any 2016 campaign.

Inexplicably, Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin accused media of being too “incurious” when it comes to Clinton and called Benghazi Clinton's “drip, drip, drip problem.” Partisan Republicans are certainly happy that the media is carrying their water. Almost on cue, Sen. Marco Rubio said the report should justify further investigations ... into Clinton.

The question of “leadership,” however, has been a lopsided one as it played out in the media's campaign to use the Senate report as an indictment of Clinton.

Clinton has "deflected questions" about Benghazi, according to The New Yorker's Amy Davidson, who argued that Clinton “does not come out well” in the Senate report -- again, a report that never mentions Clinton. Davidson's explanation? “The State Department made mistakes when [Clinton] was its leader.”

Clinton herself has acknowledged ultimate responsibility for any bureaucratic shortcomings that played a role to the tragedy in Benghazi. “I do feel responsible,” she said under questioning by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN). “I feel responsible for the nearly 70,000 people who work for the State Department. I take it very seriously.”

So everybody agrees that Clinton had ultimate responsibility for leading the State Department.

That makes the question of what that leadership looks like critical, particularly since the media seems determined to parrot the right-wing narrative that Benghazi is a singular reflection on the former Secretary of State.

What is problematic about the way the media has used the Senate's review as a reflection on Clinton's leadership is that the reports ostensibly exploring Clinton's leadership make no mention of the fact that one of her last acts as Secretary of State was to fully accept and begin implementing the findings of the Accountability Review Board, an independent, nonpartisan review panel that looked into what went wrong and how to prevent a similar tragedy in the future.

That review, like the Senate report that led to the latest bout of Benghazi mania, also singled out bureaucrats, not the Secretary of State, for scrutiny over diplomatic security failures. Four mid-ranked department officials were suspended for those failures; according to Ambassador Thomas Pickering, one of the chairmen of the ARB, their “future career[s]” are “finished.”

One of the pillars of the right-wing's Benghazi hoax has been to accuse Clinton of being dismissive of the tragedy during her Congressional testimony when she asked “what difference, at this point, does it make” what led the attackers to target the diplomatic facility on that day.

Often left out of the sound bite is what Clinton said next: “It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

The Accountability Review Board laid out dozens of recommendations as to how to prevent future tragedies, recommendations largely in line with those contained in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report. Those recommendations are being implemented.

It's woefully inadequate to leave that fact out of a discussion of leadership.