The difference it makes is whether or not the officials were competent in their administrating and handling of government business. If it was a religious riot because someone defamed the illiterate pedophile prophet of Islam, then it is largely unforeseen and difficult to predict. If it was an attack by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9/11 in a war torn area known to have active Al Qaeda cells operating, well then it is a failure of government and someone needs to be replaced at their job.<quoted text>
You are absoulutely right. What difference does the motivation for the attack make? From what I saw, the major outrage from congress is over whether the White House/CIA was wrong about the motivation of the attackers. Maybe that is because congress refused to authorize funds for updated security at those outposts and outrage about that would get congress in the soup too.
As for congress not authorizing monies, congress doesn't deal with that level of detail in the budget. While it can grant money for specific purposes, the lack of doing so didn't stop the state department from providing security nor did it stop the DOD from assisting the state department. That failure to act, that failure to provide what many people think would have been simply an obvious necessity that other years had without question, the failure to provide security on one day that has a specific meaning outside of any crap movie trailer, rests completely on the administration and the departments under it.