To you, yes. But in the context of foreign policy and security (which you know, we have a whole portion of the State Department dedicated to), it does kinda matter if you were gunned down whilst walking down the street in a foreign country, or dragged out of a theoretically secure US diplomatic building after its security was overrun by an attack.
Let's see. Rodger Davies was killed just outside the US Embassy in Nicosia during a demonstration and Cleo A. Noel, Jr was inside the Saudi Embassy in Kharoum when he was taken hostage and later killed.
Neither one of which involved our ability to actually secure our own diplomatic buildings.
You know. Two of the ones you dismissed outright.
I'm not dismissing their deaths. I'm dismissing their relevance to this specific case. Can we agree that allowing one of our buildings to be stormed by armed gunmen and our ambassador dragged out of said building into the street and then killed is a bigger failure of US security protocols than having an ambassador killed on the street, or while in some other countries building? The only correct answer btw is "yes". The former is a tragedy, but unfortunately does happen. The latter is a monumental failure of security, not just because of the loss of life, but because of the failure to secure potentially sensitive documents and information contained within the building(s).
And when the decisions that lead to that failure were so obviously driven by what was claimed to be a "better" approach to foreign policy in that region than that of the previous administration, it leads one to conclude that the convenient "mistake" regarding the claimed reason for the attack is unlikely to have been a mistake at all. It's not hard to see why an administration that made such a big deal about how they knew better how to manage policy with regard to Islamic groups might have a strong desire to make this look like anything other than the planned attack that it was. A planned attack by terrorists calls into question their entire approach to that aspect of foreign policy. A protest in response to an offensive video supports their "if we don't do things to **** them off, they wont hurt us" approach.
So yeah, forgive me if I find the idea that this wasn't intentional completely ludicrous.