13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from the right who deliberately ignore anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.
Here is an interesting article excerpt from Elizabeth Scalia as to your question.
"...But the answer is actually pretty simple: yeah, there were x-number of embassy attacks under Bush and they did not require investigations. For that matter there were all of these attacks on embassies and American interests under President Clinton, and they didn’t require investigations, either.
Why not? Well, because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.
And during the Clinton years, the attacks — which took place an average of every 18 months — were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different, either.
And while our embassies were attacked under these presidents, and others, none of our Ambassadors were murdered (along with Navy Seals) while multiple stand-down orders were given against mounting a rescue.
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies. Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that — even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred — repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN where the “video” was blamed six times
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then too late. None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said — two days after the event — that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence. And none of their Secretary of State’s successors started out his term by quickly announcing that he didn’t intend to talk about the attacks, either.
:::UPDATE::::Just breaking, now he says he will!:::END::
But mostly, the reason “no one investigated” attacks under Bush or Clinton is because no one lied about what they were, or refused to be clear about what their responses had been."
I personally would like to know if Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and/or the White House political team stopped any potential rescue of the Ambassador and the murdered others in order maintain the campaign rhetoric that al-Qaeda was largely defeated.
Wouldn't you like to know that? Or why the murderers that did it are running around free as birds? Or why the urgent requests for security were denied - even though the Ayman al Zawahiri, the, al Qaeda's emir called for revenge for the killing of Abu Yahya al Libi and also used the occasion to argue that his organization's ideology is alive and well - ON SEPT 10TH! How much genius does it take to decide more security was necessary, even if it did conflict with the current campaign narrative.
(Just for fun look at MY post the day it happened-turns out I was pretty close.)
If George Bush robbed banks, molested collies or defaced library books, what does it have to do with what happened in Benghazi and why something isn't happening now to those that did it?