I keep reading, even here, about the attack on our "embassy" in Benghazi. Didn't happen. We had a consulate in Benghazi. This is critical for the present issue, because the security in our consulates, in general, is much less than the security in our embassies.
(Country A sends an embassy to country B to deal with the government of country B. It opens consulates in country B to deal with the citizens of country B. If a Chicagoan wants a visa to visit Italy, he goes to the Italian consulate in Chicago. The Italian embassy is in Washington.)
Now, our ambassador was at our consulate. That is because he was a proactive guy who went all over Lybia. The Embassy, however, was in Tripoli. We had security in the consulate, although inadequate for what happened. We had more security in the embassy.
The challenge to Republicans is whether they want less money to be spent on diplomatic security, which is how they voted, or do they want security at consulates at the level we now have security at embassies.
Or do they simply say that the Obama administration's foresight is worse than the Republican House's hindsight?