Stand down!

[Doug S.]

Jim you're almost as good at deflecting attention from the truth as the Obama administration. Dredging up incidents (with your usual one-sided liberal bent) from 30 years ago from a dead president is a bit irrelevant to the original post. Using the Bush analogy is also irrelevant as there's no evidence of any attempts to cover up.

While I can't speak for Jim (he does an admirable job of speaking for himself, IMHO), I think I share many of his beliefs.

We both believe that the issue is not "the issue" under discussion, whether or not it be the Beghazi incident or the marine attack.

IMHO...the issue IS that the ultra-conservative (radical fringe?) seems to be upset beyond belief by the things that the current administration has done, or has not done, depending on what the issue is under discussion. However, they fail to recognize that there have been many such failures by presidents of a more "Conservative" nature. What they are railing against is just standard operating procedure in politics and both parties have been guilty of the same transgressions as the Conservatives believe BOB has committed. Yet, there has been NO acknowledgement by the conservative contingent as to the egregious nature of the transgressions committed by the presidents with whom they more closely identify. This just seems to be an issue of anger (hatred? Go ahead, Larry, have some fun with that) toward a president who is not guilty of any act not committed by prior presidents, regardless of political orientation, other than having what many believe to be the wrong color skin.

Jim points out the failures of the previous presidents very well...yet there is no outrage by the conservatives, only anger at the much less costly (in numbers of lives) actions (or failure to act, as they believe) by our current POTUS.

As for the "cover-up" issue...when have you seen a political party in power NOT try to cover up their actions when they know their actions will not be popular? SOP, once again, and nothing to be alarmed about regarding BOB (unless, in the interest of fairnes, you are equally alarmed at the actions, or failures to act, of prior POTUS with whose political ideas you are more closely aligned).

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

While I can't speak for Jim (he does an admirable job of speaking for himself, IMHO), I think I share many of his beliefs.

We both believe that the issue is not "the issue" under discussion, whether or not it be the Beghazi incident or the marine attack.

IMHO...the issue IS that the ultra-conservative (radical fringe?) seems to be upset beyond belief by the things that the current administration has done, or has not done, depending on what the issue is under discussion. However, they fail to recognize that there have been many such failures by presidents of a more "Conservative" nature. What they are railing against is just standard operating procedure in politics and both parties have been guilty of the same transgressions as the Conservatives believe BOB has committed. Yet, there has been NO acknowledgement by the conservative contingent as to the egregious nature of the transgressions committed by the presidents with whom they more closely identify. This just seems to be an issue of anger (hatred? Go ahead, Larry, have some fun with that) toward a president who is not guilty of any act not committed by prior presidents, regardless of political orientation, other than having what many believe to be the wrong color skin.

Jim points out the failures of the previous presidents very well...yet there is no outrage by the conservatives, only anger at the much less costly (in numbers of lives) actions (or failure to act, as they believe) by our current POTUS.

As for the "cover-up" issue...when have you seen a political party in power NOT try to cover up their actions when they know their actions will not be popular? SOP, once again, and nothing to be alarmed about regarding BOB (unless, in the interest of fairnes, you are equally alarmed at the actions, or failures to act, of prior POTUS with whose political ideas you are more closely aligned).

Cheers!

Doug

It's not the cover-up, it's the people that died when everyone in government was shucking and jiving trying to figure out how to spin some bullshit film into the reason for the attack instead of dealing with it and sending help in the seven hour time span they had. It was to cover up the lack of action when Stevens asked for help months before.

 

[Doug S.]

It's not the cover-up, it's the people that died when everyone in government was shucking and jiving trying to figure out how to spin some bullshit film into the reason for the attack instead of dealing with it and sending help in the seven hour time span they had. It was to cover up the lack of action when Stevens asked for help months before.

I understand, Al.

Were you as pissed about the failure of Gee-Dub to provide an appropriate level of protection for the navy vessel where over 200 were killed after having requested increased permissions/supplies months before the terrorist attach? If not, I'd just be curious...

...are you NOT pissed because Gee-Dub was a "conservative" POTUS, or...

...were you NOT pissed because, perhaps, Gee-Dub did not, as you put it, "... trying to figure out how to spin some bullshit film into the reason for the attack instead of dealing with it and sending help..."?

I'm not criticizing, Al (not trying to divert attention from the topic under discussion, either)...honest....just trying to understand whether your issue was the loss of life, which from the nature of your comments copied above appears to be the case, or the attempted spin regarding the details of the attack by BOB's crew, because you jumped all over the length of the delay getting better protection, so I'm back in the boat named "I'm Not Sure" here.

We have previously discussed Hillary Clinton's appeal as a politician (I did finally go back and respond, hope you found it)...during the congressional hearings I found myself admiring her for standing up to the onslaught of criticism and stating emphatically something to the effect of "...who cares what the reason for the attack was, 4 people were killed". She thereby demonstrated a good grasp of what was wrong. She does have a way of coming out of these fracases smelling like a rose, IMHO...just as she did after the Monical L. incident and subsequent failed attempt to impeach her husband.

My point is that we, as Americans, should have been equally disgusted by the loss of 4 lives as the loss of 200+ lives (and, obviously for the purposes of this discussion. vice-versa), and we should NOT have been surprised (nor should we have been pissed-off) by the attempts to spin the details, because both parties have long been guilty of such actions (try looking at Tricky-Dick's sordid history for the story of a real master at attempts to spin--his "When the president does it, it is not illegal" while defending the Watergate break-in is one very sad attempt...not rivaled even by Bill Clinton's "...it depends on what your definition of "is" is.)"

I don't see much criticism of the screw ups of the conservative presidents going on in these discussions...I"m just sayin'.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Yes I was. Just because one has a political view, it shouldn't blind them to the mistakes made by those they vote for. GWB made mistakes and so has BO.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Doug, I think you have forgotten what Watergate was.
The Watergate scandal was a major political scandal that occurred in the United States in the 1970s as a result of the June 17, 1972, break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., and the Nixon administration's attempted cover-up of its involvement.

It didn't involve getting multiple blowjobs in the Oval office and lying about it.

And it didn't involve falling asleep on the job while people were dying, blaming it on a stupid video and going on a fund raiser the next day.

Watergate was a big deal because nothing like that had been publicized before.

Benghazi is living proof that if you drag something out long enough, the normal know nothing on the street will eventually say " that was a long time ago, what's the big deal"? and actually act offended when it's brought up.