Benghazi and Watergate

Is there a principled difference between the Watergate and Benghazi scandals?

The Watergate scandal occurred when Nixon's surrogates broke into the Democrat party's headquarters (Watergate hotel) to wiretap phones and steal campaign secrets. They were caught. A question arose as to whether the president or his people were involved in planning the break in. The president recorded conversations potentially relevant to the investigation, but refused to give them up to the special prosecutor. When the special prosecutor requested the tapes, Nixon had him fired. Eventually the Supreme Court orders Nixon to release the tapes to a subsequent prosecutor, which he did, however, a part of the tapes was erased. The tapes also tend to show Nixon took action to cover up the break in. Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment.

The Benghazi scandal is the result of an attack on the American embassy killing four Americans, including our ambassador. Before the attack, the embassy requested additional security, but was denied. During the 8 hour attack, reports say the embassy requested back-up, but again the request was denied. Some have surmised that the drones or a gunship overhead could have provided support if they had been allowed, but they were not. Others reports indicate that general Ham ordered a rescue team to go in against his orders, and so he was promptly relieved of his duty.  Failure to deliver back up was blamed on the CIA, but the CIA promptly denied that it had refused the request for back up. For weeks, the attack was blamed on a flash mob responding to an obscure Mohammed video. However, intelligence available almost immediately, combined with the length (8 hours), nature (planning and use of RPGs),and date of the attack (September 11) all indicated that it was not a spontaneous demonstration, but a planned terrorist attack. Nevertheless, the Administration had a civilian arrested for the video. The Administration is refusing to answer questions about whether the embassy requested back up.

Do you think there is a principled difference between the two? And which is worse? Some arguments both ways:

• They are different and Watergate is much worse. The Watergate burglary itself was illegal. Regardless of whether Nixon sanctioned the break-in, the cover up that he participated in was obstruction of justice and warranted removing the president. (But then, Clinton, too, should have been removed from office.)
• Rejoinder: there is no distinction on this point. Nixon was the head of a coequal branch of government, and the Supreme Court has no authority over what he released if he deems it a mater of national security. Nixon was well within his power to refuse to release the tapes. In fact, if illegality is what matters, Benghazi is worse. Obama actually violated the law when he had the filmmaker arrested in the middle of the night.
• One possible distinction here is that Nixon paid "hush" money to the burglars, which I'm guessing is illegal. Although it's quite similar to Clinton having Monica Lewinsky placed in a cushy job after her internship, for which she was not qualified.
• Watergate is worse, because Benghazi is a foreign policy matter. The President is the Commander-in-Chief and is given the discretion to fight military conflicts and conduct foreign policy. If we distrust his judgment, the remedy is political, not legal.
• The two scandals are different in their implications for the damage they do to our democratic system of government. Our government and political system only work if politicians campaign within the rules, i.e., legal limits. The burglary, although ineffectual, had it worked, would undermine the entire American political system.
• Rejoinder: Johnson successfully wiretapped Goldwater, and that incident isn't even a footnote in the history books. Similarly, some reports indicate that Kennedy actually stole the 1960 election, and no one seems to think this has undermined our system of government.
• Benghazi is like Watergate, but much worse. Both are politically damaging scandals for the president. Both involve cover-ups. Both involve stonewalling. But Watergate was an amateur-hour burglary, with no serious repercussions. In contrast, four people died in Benghazi because of the President's or his Administration's bungling. Then an innocent person was arrested to provide political cover for the president.

Am I missing any good arguments?