Multiple Sources Already Answered This Question

• 

  PolitiFact

  “When we checked with Gowdy’s staff, they pointed us to testimony given by Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, who was stationed in Libya as a site security team commander in Libya from February 2012 to August 2012.” But Politifact then interviewed Lt. Col. Wood, and determined that he “used the phrase more rhetorically than literally.” Politifact further explained: “In fact, there’s clear evidence that several other western nations had a presence in Benghazi immediately before and well after the attack on the U.S. compound. We rate the claim False.”
  Source: PolitiFact, May 16, 2014
• 

  House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Democratic Staff Report

  Multiple interviews by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee revealed that Ambassador Stevens championed the U.S. presence in Benghazi. “As one official said, ‘nobody knew Libya better than Chris,’ and ‘Chris strongly recommended that we maintain a presence in Benghazi.’” Another State Department official explained that Ambassador Stevens considered Benghazi and eastern Libya to be “critically important components to understanding Libya” on both a “symbolic level” and in order “to have a window into the Islamist extremism that was developing primarily in the east but in other parts of Libya, to have a window into the tribal dynamics, which are very important.”
  Source: House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Democratic Staff Report, Sept. 19, 2013
• 

  Embassy Tripoli Defense Attaché

  “I don’t think you can replicate the experience and knowledge that Ambassador Stevens had per se.” He added: “[I]f anyone understood the importance of eastern Libya to the totality of Libya it was Ambassador Stevens. So in my opinion, he felt it was important to have an American presence there just because of the significance not only of Benghazi, but of the east in general.”
  Source: Transcribed Interview with Congressional Staff, Jan. 31, 2014
• 

  Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Bipartisan Report

  “Some nations closed their diplomatic facilities in Benghazi as the security conditions deteriorated during the summer of 2012, but other nations stayed along with the United States, contrary to some public reports and statements that the U.S. was the last country represented in Benghazi.”
  Source: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Bipartisan Report, Jan. 15, 2014
• 

  The Independent Accountability Review Board

  “The Board found that Ambassador Stevens made the decision to travel to Benghazi independently of Washington, per standard practice. Timing for his trip was driven in part by commitments in Tripoli, as well as a staffing gap between principal officers in Benghazi … The Ambassador did not see a direct threat of an attack of this nature and scale on the U.S. Mission in the overall negative trendline of security incidents from spring to summer 2012. His status as the leading U.S. government advocate on Libya policy, and his expertise on Benghazi in particular, caused Washington to give unusual deference to his judgments.”
  Source: Accountability Review Board, Dec. 18, 2012
• 

  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that Ambassador Stevens “believed that it was important for him to go to Benghazi” that “he was someone who really believed strongly he had to get out there” and that “he was given great deference by the rest of the government.” She also explained that she did not order Ambassador Stevens to go to Benghazi on that date: “Chris Stevens did not ask anyone for permission to go to Benghazi; I don’t think it would have crossed his mind.”
  Source: Testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Jan. 23, 2014
• 

  Accountability Review Board Chairman Ambassador Thomas Pickering

  In a deposition before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Ambassador Pickering testified that Ambassador Stevens “had been in Benghazi for a considerable period of time; knew many, if not most, of the leaders; was seen to be well thought of in Benghazi; and had—if not adulation, he had a status of high favorable profile in Benghazi. And it was the combination of his background and experience and his knowledge of Benghazi, which exceeded that of many others in the State Department at least, that had people turn to him for advice and counsel on Benghazi.” Ambassador Pickering also described that the series of security incidents in Benghazi did not provoke more of a reaction at the time because there was “a process of rationalization that went on,” where they considered each incident to be a “one-off, unlikely to happen again, not part of a buildup of activity.”
  Source: Deposition before House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, June 4, 2014