You realize that when you call a consulate an embassy, you kind of undermine your own point.
Beyond the nitpickery, it's stunning that Republicans, who are calling for huge cuts to the State Department's budget, are looking to point fingers over what was essentially a security failure. It's even more stunning that people are looking to point to this event as an indication that Obama's overall Middle-east strategy has failed; ten Libyans gave their lives trying to defend the American Consulate and thousands staged a counter-protest in the days following the attack. Finally, it's absolutely mind boggling that people are pointing to this (or Mali) as signs that Al-Qaeda is back. Anybody who knows anything about Al-Qaeda at this point knows that it is more of a brand name than a coherent organization: Obama, the CIA, and the US Military shattered the organization. Any militant with a desire to draw attention to his cause can slap the AQ name on it, and it appears that's what happened in Libya.
Forty years from now, the wars in Iraq and Libya will be studied as a pair. The Iraq war will be seen as the end of, and ultimately the failure of, the Revolution in Military Affairs. Libya will be seen as one of the answers* to the strategic question posed by the failure of the RMA in Iraq. Obama's limited use of force in support of a popular uprising will influence generations of military and political thinkers to come.
*FM 3-24 will be seen as the other answer, one which ultimately demanded way more than our country was willing to give.