[billorites]

"Something like that had to be hidden, at any cost."

I'm not so sure.

What really happened in Benghazi that makes the revelation of a romantic tryst preferable to disclosure of the truth?

Do you think the exposure of a gay career diplomat is going to raise all that many eyebrows?

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Could very well be another distraction.

[adorno]

Do you think the exposure of a gay career diplomat is going to raise all that many eyebrows?

It's not about the exposure of a gay diplomat. It's about the embarrassment about the events and the causes of the massacre in Benghazi. The democrats would not want to have to defend the events leading up to the attacks, especially if the events were about the gay ambassador's trips to meet up with his lover or lovers. Imagine having embassy staff and embassy guards serving the ambassador for the purposes of his sexual encounters; that would be very indefensible and very embarrassing; hence, the need to hide the real reasons for the attacks.