"On September 11th, the day he died, Mr Stevens wrote to Washington officials detailing a dispute involving the leaders of two prominent Benghazi militias who were responsible for security in the city, according to the Daily Beast.
The two men, Wissam bin Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, claimed that the U.S. was lobbying for centrist politician Mahmoud Jibril to become Libya's prime minister.
They said that if he won the vote, they 'would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a critical function they asserted they were currently providing,' according to Mr Stevens.
Despite that warning, Mr Stevens did not ask for more U.S. troops, and commented that Benghazi officials believed the city was becoming safer."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214665/Libya-consulate-attack-Ambassador-Chris-Stevens-told-officials-security-worries-day-died.html#ixzz29lWM7aGE

"Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who was head of a Special Forces 'Site Security Team' in the country, said officials felt 'like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers' after a number of troops were withdrawn from Libya in August.
He told CBS This Morning that worried embassy staff had approached him to ask if they would still be safe when his team had left.
'I could only answer that what we were being told is that they're working on it,' he said.
He added: 'Shooting instances occurred, many instances involved the local security guard force that we were training.
'Constantly, there were battles going on between militias, criminal activity and that became increasing danger as time went on as well.'
Mr Wood claimed that other senior officials, including Mr Stevens, had requested a boost in the U.S. security presence, saying: 'We felt we needed more, not less.'
Although his team was based in the city's capital Tripoli, Mr Wood said he would have accompanied the ambassador to Benghazi had he still been in the country.
State Department officials said that as the Site Security Team was intended to help re-open the embassy in Tripoli, their departure from Libya was irrelevant to the subsequent security situation.
They also claimed that Mr Wood did not know the details of the situation in Benghazi, which is 400 miles from the capital.'

So, Ambassador Stevens, according to this account, did not request more security prior to the attack in any meaningful way that would have suggested a dire urgency.
That would have meant a phone call to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton which she did not receive from Stevens.
Lt. Col. Andrew Wood did not know the circumstances involving security at the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.
If Chris Stevens had concerns about security because of elections than he could have done more to protect himself by being in Tripoli instead of Benghazi where a better security existed at the embassy there.
But he didn't.
It wasn't until the day of the attack that Stevens expressed his concerns about of two prominent Benghazi militias who were responsible for security in the city and around the U.S. Embassy there.
It is reasonable to think that had Chris Stevens been more concerned about the imminent danger that he and his staff may have faced in Benghazi, he wouldn't  have expressed this directly to Clinton - not through the 'usual diplomatic channels' but with a phone call?
Now, are we going to second guess Chris Stevens now? Of course not. He can't defend his position.

Chris Stevens held high hopes for the Libyan people. He should be honored for having given his life to help the Libyans bring freedom to their country. He was trying to help them shape their democracy. It was the right thing to do- helping them defeat Gadaffi and helping them afterwards.

Maybe because he had been a friend to so many of the Libyan people, he underestimated the real dangers from those that were not his friends.
The intelligence agencies must have seen the election as a possible source of security compromise and would have advised the ambassador to remain in Tripoli.
Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi that day with the elections that he knew were happening?
Why did those security officers that died in the attack, not remain at the embassy and had to travel to get there when the attack began?
There are many questions that remain unanswered.

And , 'No', we're not going to second guess the motivation and wisdom of our former Ambassador to Libya out of respect for him and what he was trying to do.
But that doesn't seem to stop Republicans from accusing the President of being dishonest.

The GOP is politicizing the death of Chris Stevens.

What do Republicans know of respect? Absolutely nothing.
Republicans claim they are only interested in getting to the bottom of this.

They 'feel' that Americans deserve the truth.
What? The way the Republican Party told Americans the truth about their reasons for going to war in Iraq? Really?
Now, Americans are supposed to believe that Republicans would do anything to help Americans be safer by their investigation into the Benghazi deaths of Chris Stevens and three other State Department workers?
Hardly.
This is another Republican attack on President Obama just in time for the Presidential elections that's designed by them to try and diminish the President's accomplishments.
It's hard to compete with having given the order to kill Bin Laden, so the GOP pushes this 'false concern' that Obama's administration isn't going to tell the American people the truth.
Obama said we'd get to the bottom of what happened and those responsible would be brought to justice.
I believe him.
He said he'd go to the 'ends of the Earth' to get Bin Laden and he did.
Did Bush? Did Romney say that he would? No and No.
This president has done what he's promised to do foreign policy wise. The GOP has not.
Now the GOP want credit? For what? Bin Laden's death?

Republicans say Bush laid the ground work with his investments into security.

Didn't Bush, when asked, also say he didn't care where Bin Laden was? Sure he did.

You have to admire the GOP's persistence with their revisionism of history under Bush. It's called lying not spin.

Now they want Americans to think that they are concerned about American lives? That's laughable.
Did they show this 'concern' when they sent Americans to war in Iraq for no good reason?

Thousands of Americans died in that war.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians died because of 'Republican concern'.
This is the kind of 'concern' that Americans can do without.
Republicans show themselves to be only interested in what's politically expedient for them by calling for an investigation into Benghazi and blaming the president before all the facts are known. Americans are disgusted by Republicans for having so little regard for the dead.
And then now, to seize on a statement made by Obama on the John Stewart Show, a word taken again by the pathetic GOP, out of context word, optimal' is just another example of how low these folks will go to seize power from a democratic president that truly represents the middle class.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/262947-mccain-obamas-libya-comment-is-very-regrettable

http://www.thedailyshow.com/
It wasn't enough that the GOP prevented meaningful job legislation from being passed over the last 4 years but now, they're exploiting a dead U.S. Ambassador and his memory.
Is Chris Stevens responsible for his own death?
Every man is responsible for his own death to some degree because of our assessments and simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Let us not forget, it was the terrorists that killed these brave Americans. Let's honor their memory with an honest investigation for the reasons it's deserved instead of simply wanting to score some cheap political points by the Republicans.
The GOP: can they go any lower than pond scum? Probably.

Calm down, guys. You'll get your chance again to run the deal when you grow up and accept personal responsibility for the messes you've created.

You're just not there yet. And I don't see much progress. People don't like bullies.

The Truth doesn't matter to the Republican Party anymore. Their party is an enemy to the United States that seek to undermine anything that's good any more.

Republicans, continue to do what you're best at doing.

That would be 'nothing'.

Anytime you attempt something, you screw it up and cost us money and lives.

Now you say say you 'care about' those lives? I don't believe you.