Okay, so I just want to understand IF my head is in the sand, or not:

Benghazi "issue" is two things:
A) Security requests came in, were ignored/lost/denied and later 4 people died -- maybe those security requests could have prevented it.

B) There may have been an attempt to minimize the Benghazi situation by reporting it as "spontaneous" (related to dimwit film) vs. pre-meditated.

If that's really the issues then

A) I'm fairly certain that every "disaster" story has this narrative. How is this unique? This was -- as disasters go -- on the small side. There's *always* monday morning quarterbacking on disasters... The bridge/levee that wasn't maintained. The dots that were not connected. But it's hardly surprising at all is it? Is our strategy to increase security everywhere that people ask for it? If that's the case, we'd never get in to see a seahawks game, or fly a plane. The realities of limited budgets collide with uncertain intelligence and general fears that the sky is perpetually falling. The result are some fine monday morning quarterbacking opportunities. Since Benghazi we've had HUNDREDS of homicides stateside, and those fired up about Benghazi -- if they were HALF as interested in what "security" requests people have made to address those -- would be more credible.

B) What am I missing on the spin here? This was some combination of uncertainty and spin in the early going. I guess what gets people fired up was its proximity to the election? But *IF* there were flat out coverup/lies told here -- how is this even remotely different than the flat out lies told on the campaign trail? If you view this through a political lens, do you hold your own candidate (and self) to the standard you're after here? We're in a twist about what was said for a week? Good god, Mitt and Barack campaigned for MONTHS.

Why this is the #1 story on Fox News, while Israel and Gaza are shelling each other, is beyond comprehension.