Martin Bensky (Letters, Feb. 4) poses Benghazi questions, such as, "What in Hades was the ambassador doing in Benghazi when he knew . . . it might be fatally dangerous?"
Here's a prospect: Ostensibly pursuing lower-key business, his real motive was to assess, onsite, the threat to his people and use his office to lobby for improved security.
The British and Red Cross left; a hole was blasted in the consulate wall; threats of further attacks were made; and days before the attack, Libya warned of dire security concerns.
It's clear that Stevens took up his concerns with Washington, D.C., but it's not clear who knew and why no action was taken.
Next, Bensky alludes to sparse and speculative scenarios, precluding judgments, blame and punishments -- this five months after the tragedy. My question: if not yet, will we ever know? Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton survived before congressional panels with key questions left on the table. In a huff, she posed, "Why does it matter?" It matters if threats justified actions that could have saved the four lives. Responsibility, which she claims, needs to include accountability.
And Obama, great theater in the second debate, claiming terrorism in the Rose Garden, then hitting the circuit to blame the video. And where was he during the attacks?
BURT JOHNSON, Richland