From my (x)Wife (Cheri) about the Deaths of American Embassy employees in Libya:
Let's say your child is at school.
The school is raided and your child is killed.
Your child is dead along with three of his classmates.
The principal goes to a dinner that evening to raise money for the PTO and blows off pursuing anything regarding the incident.
As a mother...how would you feel?
Christopher Stevens went to work and was killed...
Along with other Americans.
Supposedly over an anti Muslim video.
He is dead.
And President Obama went to a fund raiser in Las Vegas with Jay Z.
Now.
Pray tell.
Where are all the people that were spinning around on their heads when George W. didnt run out of that classroom, but instead finished reading the story. AND was reamed.
I am not asking you to argue...
I am asking you to think.
Just reconcile the facts...NOT what Fox News spouts or what CNN reports.
What is the difference?
And no Republican has the answer...nor Democrat.
Both parties are swallowed up in money and power and general deception. Inept to lead and lacking courage to make change.
Here is my rant.
Peg me as you wish.
Watch Israel.
Read the Prophets.
Pray.
A lot.
A political party or affiliation is moot. Fight your battles, sling your mud, condescend with you smug retorts ( both sides...both sides)
Mark my words.
It's about to get real up in here.
This is a comment from Cheri at Idle Chatter, I had accidently deleted it instead of approving it for publication:
ReplyDeleteIt may, in fact, be "about to get real", but there is a fundamental difference in the two situations you compare.
By the time Obama attended his fundraiser, the attack on the embassy was over, the victims were dead, and whatever (probably futile) initial steps that could be taken had been taken.
In contrast, while the situation on 9/11 was admittedly rapidly developing and confusing, Bush had been told that this country was actively *under attack*, but still made a decision to stick with his schedule.
Having said that, I will say that I think it does no good to vilify Bush for his choice (or Obama for his, for that matter). I may not have made the same one, but the truth is, I don't know for sure. More important, though, is that whether he read the book or rushed from the room made no real difference. It was a matter of mere minutes before he was actively addressing the situation at hand. And while we might like to think that the world could have been changed, lives saved, peace regained if only the president had been more responsive, anyone who lived through that day could tell you that's simply not the truth. It is also not true that justice for the ambassador and his staff could have been won had the president skipped his fundraiser.
There was little to be gained by lambasting Bush for his immediate, inconsequential decision, and there is even less to be gained by raising the issue again simply to lambaste Obama for his.
Just my .02.
Sorry about deleting.
DeleteReply:
While I value your thoughts on the issue, I do disagree. With the ongoing unrest in Arab countries and the ongoing threat to our personnel there, he "could" have done more. He could have immediately recalled all foreign diplomats, he could have continued to receive briefings from State Department and CIA Chief, he could have taken a more powerful stance with the offending countries (our "allies" and "enemies" letting them know this would not be tolerated).
Instead he made a conciliatory remark denouncing a video which most likely is merely the facade over a planned attack.
He, previously, could have cleared his schedule to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu, instead of deciding an appearance on David Letterman was more important.
While I admit playing armchair quarterback, especially in hindsight, is a futile endeavor, there is always something to be done, and America needs a President who can lead. (Irrespective of party affiliations)
Again, thank you for your input.