As we used to say in the pre-CD, pre-iPod days: BROKEN RECORD!
As Hilary Clinton made abundantly clear during her questioning by Issa’s committee, the funds required for such broad security were cut, severely, by the Republicans, during the previous administration, making a Benghazi inevitable. As Mr. Issa was at that time a member of Congress, is he willing to accept his degree of responsibility?
Should it be any congressman, or should it be the Secretary of State, who shoulder this responsibility? The Secretary of State, that’s who. WE HAVE A GOVERNMNT WHO IS HOPING FOR A WAR. A war would take attention away from their failings. A draft would solve unemployment numbers. In a shooting war en masse, most may not come back. Maybe Kissinger philosophy of only having 500 million people world-wide would be aimed for. Government has gotten truly colossal in scope, it’s the demented ones in governments who have it all fouled up. In reality, any government can only support itself by taking what has been earned by others, for themselves. The only question is, is it taxation, or extortion.?
A government that is hoping for a war? Really! Where did you pull that one from, because you CERTAINLY have NOT been around for the past five years. We have done everything we could to AVOID war in Syria, and it is being successful. We avoided boots on the ground in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, etc. We are pulling our troops out of Afghanistan, and almost all are out of Iraq, ALL hard fought gains by a Democratic president, in the face of stiff opposition from Republicans in Congress.
In a shooting war, with the draft, most would not come back? Even in Vietnam that was not true. Over one million American combatants and only 55,000 were killed. How many years in Iraq and Afghanistan, and only about ten percent that many deaths (although large numbers of injured and PTSD – typical for ANY war, conducted by ANY government. Even in the Civil War, the bloodiest war in our history, MOST DID COME BACK.
In every era of our history, the US has been involved in some war or another, so this fantasy you have about the government just now coming to be warmongers is just that, a fantasy. The biggest change has been the recent financing our wars with public debt rather than through taxation, a change that has brought this country to its economic knees, and a policy for which conservatives are entirely responsible. It’s called “Reaganomics” or “voodoo economics” (George H. W. Bush, 1980), or how about “trickle-down”? They are all the same thing, putting the economic burden of wars on the middle class and the poor, as if they didn’t already bear the gravest burdens of war. You think you are a patriot, when in fact you are nothing but an anarchist.
I am certainly not an anarchist, you know that’s a cheap shot of a rant. Look at weaponry available today worldwide. tell me who will survive a shooting war en masse? I am above all, a realist.
Consider that nothing was done about the numerous embassy attacks that caused many deaths during the Bush years why would anything be changed because of one attack on a consulate resulting in 4 deaths?