What was so important about Benghazi that we didn't follow our own standards; we didn't follow the waiver process;

The most fundamental question is, why were we there in the first place?

We should not move on until there is a complete understanding of why requests for additional security were denied.

It shouldn't be a partisan issue, should it? Republican, Democrat, shouldn't matter?

The number one question I get back home about Benghazi, the number one question I get, why were we there?

I do not believe so, sir, no.

We have got more facilities probably than any other country in the world, 285, and none of them use that designation today.

Not exactly a title that inspires confidence, screams stability, does it, Mr. Starr?

The number one recommendation--frankly, the one that many of the other 39 hinge upon--says we need to create at the Under Secretary level, an Under Secretary for Diplomatic Security.

I think it is a great idea, but I am not alone.

Clear back in 1999, Secretary Albright said the same thing.