I know the republicans aren't calling the shots, I was just pointing out they only complained because Obama didn't go through congress, not because of what he actually did. As for the syrian rebels, yep the republicans are calling to arm them too (as are the democrats). McCain, graham, lieberman (although technically an independent he carrys huge favor among the republicans) all called for arming Libya rebels.

*Afghanistan not Iraq.

You would have to find proof he deliberately didn't order the rescue to improve re-election chances. Sadly he'll get a pass if all the republicans can prove is he lied about the video being the cause.

The emails that turned out to be doctored? Those ones?

Since some people are in denial here is the full speech about benghazi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Nu6VZ9DeVc He calls the attack an "act of terror", don't take my word for it watch the video. I'm not denying they lied about the video being the cause, not at all. However, the average american simply doesn't care whether a video caused it or terrorists just straight up attacked it, as you can tell from his re-election.

It was about benghazi.

Do you have any proof though? If not, its just speculation, and therefore he can't be impeached.

In all fairness, Obama did call it an act of terror: "Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe. No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." Now, if you could find evidence that there was no rescue specifically because the president was worried about re-election chances, that should be grounds for impeachment right there. However outside the right wing media people simply aren't interested whether he called it a "terrorist attack" or "an act of terror", or whether a video was the cause for it or not. If they did, he wouldn't be president.

Thats my point, that is a big deal. Saying it was over a video or just a, well I guess "normal" terrorist attack doesn't mean much to people. I'm afraid republicans are focusing too much on the video aspect.

The republicans have to get people like Issa under control, him running around on FOX complaining Obama called it an "act of terror" and not a "terrorist attack" trivializes this whole thing and makes the republicans appear to be just in it for political points. They have to find something more than just the video talking points, that isn't enough to stir up any real controversy. The american people don't care if it was because of a video or just a straight up terrorist attack, I mean we're at war sometimes people die. They have to focus on the denial of security requests, the fact there was no rescue attempt, or they risk this turning into another solyndra where nobody cares.

I like Christie because he took on the unions and balanced the budget in a liberal state. Plus he's the most popular republican governor in the country. He won't appeal to the base, but he would steal so many liberal and independent votes from the democrats, which they need.