The 2012 U.S. Presidential election is tightening according to latest polling data, but from our measure, the pulse of the nation consistently reflect a strong desire for continuity of leadership. Even in the glare of intense scrutiny over the "Benghazi Incident", the Obama administration still retains support of most demographic voting blocks to ensure another four years in the White House.
However, in this last ditch effort to damage the president's record on foreign policy and national security, congressional henchmen worked the cameras shamelessly yesterday. Led by Darrell Issa, the uber political partisan Chairmen of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, GOP hacks unleashed another fast and furious blitz against the administration's competencies in protecting its foreign service personnel in Libya.
With sustained attacks mounting from the GOP's straw man Mitt Romney, his blistering yet unfounded criticisms of the president is a clear effort to bring President Obama's entire approach to U.S. foreign policy into question. This strategy of going after one of the president's strengths is expected to degrade heretofore perceptions of a sterling record of international accomplishments.
Unfortunately, the blatant politicization of the Benghazi incident has Republicans entering dangerous territory that could undermine current and future debates over government expenditures. As reported in the Washington Times, "Since 2010, Congress cut $296 million from the State Department’s spending request for embassy security and construction, with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts, according to an analysis by a former appropriations committee staffer." This action was taken of course, in the name of smaller government.
Preaching and pushing for smaller government has consequences and incidents like Benghazi is one of them. Maintaining a state of the art military with a global reach and international influence, requires substantial outlays of funds the U.S. haven't had in decades. Ergo, something has to give.
Of course, one has the option of raising taxes to pay to look large, but that is a non-starter for the hardcore individualists and the "1%ers" who own them. Arguing for the rich, one could simply take needed resources from the people to maintain America's Big Stick stance in the world.
By reducing basic services, forgoing investments in infrastructure, dismantling public education, while repealing the Affordable healthcare Act and forgetting about research and development, you're more than 90% in affording global dominance and defense of the "Homeland".
The only problem with that argument is, what will be left of the Homeland will be hardly worth defending.