This is reminding me a bit of an argument I had back when the right-wingers went bonkers and attacked our president, after the USS Cole was hit, killing 17 sailors. I asked the right-wingers whether they'd been similarly pissed off at our president when the USS Stark was hit, killing 37 sailors. However, since that one happened under Reagan, not Clinton, they'd never even heard of it, much less thought to be angry at the president about it. Yet the Stark attack, unlike the Cole attack, very directly implicated a specific poor policy of the president. The Stark attack happened when Hussein "accidentally" fired on one of our ships after finding out that we'd secretly been arming his enemies, the Iranians. That illegal arming of Iran was a Reagan-administration policy, as was the idea of sailing our ships into the middle of a war-zone where we'd recently been caught playing both sides. It was a combination of corruption and poor decision making at the most senior levels, but since it was a Republican administration, it was allowed to slide with little attention. These things only become big issues when there's a Democrat in the White House.
As bad as that witch-hunting mentality was in the Clinton years, it's even worse in the Obama years. At least the Clinton-era security lapses were big enough to merit serious attention (the Nairobi bombing, the Cole, an OK city were all big events). With Obama, we're talking about obsessive attention to two little attacks in Benghazi, each of which resulted in only two deaths. Put together, they're the kind of death toll we'd expect in a traffic accident, not a major international incident.
