Originally Posted by jettio
What you say about relief troops chomping at the bit to go in is based on what credible source?
Seems to me that the controversy over the next Sunday talking points were fully hashed out to the entire electorate before the election.
Can you explain why you think it wasn't? Every criticism that could be made about that was made by the folks supporting Romney's election and opposing Obama.
Wasn't it the case that the GOP lost its sense of honor and decided that after Clint Eastwood and Mitt Romney had a joke of a convention, and Bill Clinton and Barack Obama had an effective one, that the Benghazi attack could be the chance to swing the election, especially after Susan Rice toured the Sunday shows and the Lybian government immediately stated that it was a terrorist attack not necessarily provoked by the outrage over the blasphemous film..
Find me the one stupid mother*cker that did not know that the people that stormed the mission were bad people.
1) There have been a number of reports about relief troops ready to go and frustrated at not getting the order to go in.
2) Who cares if negative reports about Benghazi came in before the election?
It's still bad behavior for the administration to lie about it. It's like a con man trying to defend himself against the charge of fraud by saying "X was a greedy moron to think I could sell him the Brooklyn Bridge". While this statement is true, that in no way excuses the impropriety of the act.
3) In constitutional terms, I do think Watergate is worse. In that Nixon was attempting to use Presidential power to mess with the outcome of a "free" election. In Benghazi, the Administration is acting within the scope of their foreign relations power. Now, we can question their use of their power. The constitutional question comes about the veracity of their answers to Congress.
However. the original act, was not unconstitutional. It might be incompetent, but the administration has full discretion in conducting foreign affairs, and the President is the Commander in Chief. The decisions about Benghazi were Obama's to make and he was acting withing the scope of his proper power.
P.S. What do you mean theory? We know the administration was lying when they tried to lay the blame on the movie. They knew it wasn't true. Their own admissions make that clear. That's the key point. Though, I don't think that mere lying to the public is an impeachable offense.