Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

I guess I just don't need to concentrate on the "talking points" from the "talking heads" of the respective parties.... Benghazi was a tragedy, actually more like a tragedy of errors! Just one more place in the world that we are trying to ram our form of government down a countries throat and they rejected it..... These were diplomats in a hostile country, I doubt they thought there lives would be laying around eating bon-bons and checking out the local museums. It's a tragic loss of life, but no more tragic then the loss of life that goes on everyday in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, both the local population and our troops are having their lives wasted on a lost cause. Why is Benghazi the only point of interest when it comes to murder? Heck, we can't do a thing about the murder rate in our own country, how could this government (or any government) think the could control the loss of life in other countries?

IMO (and I don't need talking points to influence my opinion) this whole election is nothing but a contest to see who has the best spin people, has little to do with the issues that actually effect the lives of the average people right here in this country! I've still seen or heard nothing positive on this thread or in the campaign itself that is something I could latch onto as someone trying to improve the situation in this country! Hate to sound cold, but a few lives lost in Benghazi pales in comparison to the thousands of lives lost in the last decade in the Mideast. Again, I don't need any political party telling me what my priorities are, and how to interpret what is said by the candidates.

Thoughtful??? Just too damn fed up to be thoughtful!!!!! This whole political process has come down to what's best for me and my party and no longer has any consideration for the plight of the blue collar guy in the street.

I still can't vote for either of the candidates, I like the idea of a Ryan/Biden write in, but if not that then I'm back to deciding between Kilroy and Pat Paulsen! They both seem to be equally qualified with the candidates that the two parties have crammed down our throats!!!!

Maybe someday we'll go back to elections being decided by the quality of the individual running and not by who has the best spin on the latest talking point or who can entice the biggest bucks from "private donations"..... But that sure as heck won't happen this time around!!!! If either candidate was worth being thoughtful about, I might try it again.......

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I guess I just don't need to concentrate on the "talking points" from the "talking heads" of the respective parties.... Benghazi was a tragedy, actually more like a tragedy of errors! Just one more place in the world that we are trying to ram our form of government down a countries throat and they rejected it..... These were diplomats in a hostile country, I doubt they thought there lives would be laying around eating bon-bons and checking out the local museums. It's a tragic loss of life, but no more tragic then the loss of life that goes on everyday in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, both the local population and our troops are having their lives wasted on a lost cause. Why is Benghazi the only point of interest when it comes to murder? Heck, we can't do a thing about the murder rate in our own country, how could this government (or any government) think the could control the loss of life in other countries?

There is a huge difference between troops in a combat zone and diplomats in dangerous city (you and I have both been in combat zones). And just in case any readers are thinking cheap shot thoughts, this isn't an endorsement of our soldiers being killed, and not valuing them less than ambassadors or assistants.

Soldiers are trained for combat, equipped for combat, expect combat, and are prepared daily for possible attacks. I'd be willing to bet that the commanders of the various units in or near combat zones were prepared, ESPECIALLY on the 9/11 anniversary, for something to happen. Diplomatic corp people are not trained, and armed for that sort of thing. They may (hopefully) have intelligence assets to warn them of potential attack, but need help from their higher ups to defend them or get them the hell out of there. As we learn more and more each day (hopefully it won't be buried for the sake of protecting the "guilty" parties) we find out that those guys in Benghazi expected something could happen. It appears there was plenty of correspondence where they asked for "home office" to do something for them. How much intel did we have? We don't know for sure, but if we had it why didn't we act on it? If we didn't have intel, why not? Have we disembowled the intelligence network to the point we're not getting enough to warrant taking the risks of having diplomats in a too dangerous area? If so, why weren't they pulled out? It looks like Al Queda was the responsible murderers. If so, were we wrong to assume that killing Bin Laden was sufficient to render them powerless? Or, were they still in existence, don't need Bin Laden to operate, and wanted to throw in our national face their ability to kill inspite of our government officials bragging about killing their "leader" at their political convention for a week? If those are just "talking points" and not valid questions about competent leadership and decision making then we're going to be paying some big penalties for short sightedness. These aren't partisan questions, these are citizen questions based on real potential problems and real outcomes. It's politcal posturing that's trying to take attention away from these important questions........................and that posturing should be condemned.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

There is a huge difference between troops in a combat zone and diplomats in dangerous city (you and I have both been in combat zones). And just in case any readers are thinking cheap shot thoughts, this isn't an endorsement of our soldiers being killed, and not valuing them less than ambassadors or assistants.

Really??? No difference. Dead is dead. Be it civilian, diplomat, soldier, or whatever, dead is dead. As for the rest of the talking points, the usual discredit the incumbent stuff. Whichever party is in power the other side is going to do whatever they can to discredit whatever the Administration does! The Dems did it when Bush was in office, now the GOP does it when Obama is in office. Bush swore to get Bin Laden, never got it done. Obama got him, and the Republicans say he had nothing to do with it! Had it gone wrong, then of course it would have been all Obama's fault!

The stuff never changes, there's no truth, just spin! What's it matter anyway, they're all still dead, soldiers, civilians, and diplomats. No amount of spin will bring any of them back to life. I disdain the media, the political parties, and all involved to use the death of any American as a talking point to make their side look better. The correct spin seems to be much more important then the lives lost..... Truly a sad state of affairs in our country when the loss of human life becomes a posturing tool for the spin doctor's....