These are pretty good questions - I'd like to know the answers to them also.
To address some of the answers you've gotten here -
@Equalist - the 12 embassies that were attacked under Bush were all acts of terror - they were suicide bombings, truck bombings, arson. There actually WERE investigations on all of them - but since there was no help called out for and refused, since there was no "stand down" order given, and since there were no Americans killed - the answers to the investigation were not hidden - they came swiftly and satisfactorily. We cannot say the same about Benghazi. The country is asking - this is standard procedure. The Democrats are politicizing - they are calling this a witch hunt and making accusations instead of just answering the questions.
@ UR Just A Resource - it's true that the President's daily schedule is published. Getting the news in his daily briefing at 8:00 AM is not enough - you say "If something is known about it" - according to Gregory Hicks, he called the US State Department at 10:00 PM, which is 4:00 PM our time. Take your pick - the President of the United States chose to do nothing while our embassy was attacked, or the President of the United States was out of the loop. Or - the President of the United States DID take action, but doesn't want us to know what that action was.
According to Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defense, Obama had a meeting with him at 5:00 PM about this - this is an hour after the first phone call came - and Obama left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege up to them. Obama did not call or communicate in any way with the Defense Secretary that night. No calls. He did not check in.
(I know, I know, this is a "right wing" web site - so ignore all the commentary and just go right to the video).
So my question is - which is worse? Is Panetta telling the truth, and the President of the United States is THAT disengaged from operations? Or is Panetta under orders to say this - because they all know this will lead back to the President and the decisions HE made - and Panetta's testimony represents "Plausible Deniability" - because if Obama was not there, others will take the fall ...?
The last thing Panetta says in his testimony is, "The biggest problem that night was that no one knew what was going on". Pardon? Greg Hicks testified that he began his series of phone calls with the State Department - then to the Libyan Government, then to the Libyan military - then to several others, and then called the State Department again. There is this thing called "The Internet". Twitter. Email. Instant Messaging. Text Messaging. Do we believe Panetta? "We were not aware" Or do we believe Hicks? "I made several phone calls".
It completely baffles me why American Citizens are not ALL asking what happened - why so many are so quick to blame this on a politically motivated Republican attack on Obama. Don't people want to know?
At this point, we're just asking questions. If the answers come, we will be happy. If we keep getting press releases, avoidances, "stories" - well it all just starts to look suspicious. Why not come forward and answer the questions, and put this to rest?