It's partisan hackery for sure on both sides, but the point is valid : security of embassies (and consulates) was shown to be lacking before just as now.
Definitely 95% of the hype over Benghazi is easily partisan bullshit. It's the same thing round and round, just as there was ludicrous BS during the Bush years. If the standard held for embassy/consulate security responsibility is held solely at DoS/Executive branch level, then it's clearly partisan to ignore the Bush-era attacks and focus like a crazy person on Benghazi.
The real story on Benghazi, and what I don't think anyone will really be happy about, is that they were burned by the CIA on it. Response to an attack is not directed as a military operation from either DoS or the White House, otherwise we'd be paralyzed constantly by problems in the chain of command. What is interesting to me is that the SOP for this kind of thing was completely blown, to a level that shows that it was deliberate. Accepting that, now you have to ask yourself why that decision was made. It's pretty clear that it wasn't a political decision, but rather a measured, cold choice that valued something else over those lives. It's clearly BS that we couldn't have done anything, at the very least getting security on site after the fact to collect the documents and materials on scene. Once you find out WHY they were burned, you will have the answers to the whole thing. The DoS and White House were bystanders to the whole thing, and the lack of an armed response is in complete contrast to the decisions they have shown to make on a constant basis (send in the SF, send armed drones, etc), as a general blueprint on their anti-terrorist tactics.
The cloud of bullshit on the issue is astonishing, and most of it is transparent partisan attacks focused on 'getting' Obama rather than anything related to finding the actual answers that matter.