Did Hillary Clinton send gay ambassador to Libya intending to provoke?

http://www.examiner.com/article/did-...al-provocation

In Pakistan, the staff of the US embassy in Islamabad was placed in serious danger after being ordered to host a homosexual pride event. Pakistanis rioted outside the embassy and burned American flags.

Friends of Christopher Stevens in Chicago say he was gay. A member of the Serbian diplomatic team based in Chicago told HillBuzz.org that the State Department knowingly sent a gay man to be the ambassador of Libya. HillBuzz.org reports "in Chicago’s diplomatic circles at least there is no doubt that Chris Stevens was gay."

The question is, did Hillary Clinton know this? If so, she knowingly sent him into an environment where his presence would be considered a provocation. Hillary Clinton's track record in North Africa is absolutely dismal. The US State Department has successfully turned Libya and Egypt upside down and placed militant Islam in charge of those nations.

Clinton claimed that Libya and Egypt would become western style democracies. She even made the comical assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood was "committed to democracy." Now Clinton's "democracy activists" are murdering Christians in the streets of Egypt, burning American flags, and calling for holy war against Israel. Clinton seems hellbent on bringing the same chaos to Syria as well.

As much as I dislike her for her policies and her putting her personal ethics second to her political aspirations (giving her husband a pass for his oval office actions with M.Lewinski), I can't see her intentionally putting somebody in danger. Now could she have been naive enough to actually believe the idea that the Middle East has or was going to change to the point that they would not kill somebody for sexual orientation? IMO that is much more likely than basically sacrificing an individual...and why would she? The killing of Ambassador Stephens has ZERO upside for the democrats. Even they can't spin it into something positive.