jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (9 posts)

The left keeps harping on GW Bush seven years later, they want Benghazi to go aw

  1. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    The left keeps harping on GW Bush seven years later, they want Benghazi to go away, is this reasonab

    Is this reasonable, or can the left make their own rules. GW Bush didn't do a great job, especially about 911, but there is a new sheriff in town for over the last 7 years. Shouldn't the focus be on what Obama did?
    He begged for the presidency, and he campaigned that he would fix the US. So when he didn't make good on his promises, he and the left push it back on to GW Bush.


  2. dashingscorpio profile image86
    dashingscorpioposted 2 years ago


    What I have observed is whenever Obama is attacked by the right the left turn around and compare his actions to Bush.
    I think that is to be expected.
    Not only do they bring up 911, his handling of Katrina, and the Iraq invasion but there is also "The Great Recession".
    Truth be told it's that last one that got Obama elected in the first place and not his "promises". Immediately after Obama was elected president Senator Mitch McConnell came right out and said the Republican's goal was to make Obama a "one term president".
    That statement alone announced to the world that gridlock was going to be the way to insure Obama would not be able to keep any campaign promises.
    The only reason he got Obamacare passed was because when he first got elected he had a clear majority of Democrats in the Senate.
    As common with most presidents the people tend to vote for the opposition party in congress two years later. Clinton had to contend with a Republican congress, Bush had a Democrat congress, and Obama has a Republican congress. Even back to Carter and Reagan there has been this phenomena where voters don't want to see (one party) in control of both the executive and congressional branches.
    However in the past there existed "Moderate Republicans" and "Conservative Democrats" among congress which made it possible to make "bi-patrician deals" from time to time. That doesn't exist now!
    Once the "Tea Party" came along  it pushed the Republican party to the far right and Democrats responded with being stubborn in their views. Suddenly anyone who "compromised" was seen as being a "weak traitor" on (both sides) of the aisle!
    Historically simple things like a confirmation of Attorney General Loretta Lynch; the Senate approved her on a vote of 56-43 after a wait of 166 days—longer than any nominee in {30 years}!
    If you were president and the opposition party had made up it's mind it is going to say "no" to {everything you attempt} you would have a hard time keeping your promises too! He is the first president to have ever had to provide his birth certificate or be accused of being a dictator for using executive orders like every other president.
    Essentially the goal was to strip him of any presidential power even now the Republicans say they will not even have a hearing on any nominee he would appoint to the Supreme Court BEFORE he chooses someone! Reagan got Judge Kennedy confirmed his last year. The Senate can vote (no) but to say we're not going to even have the hearing lets you know just how dug in congress is when it comes to doing their normal job.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      The US has been declining since the faked oil shortages of the 70s, and it couldn't have been done without the divergent goals of both parties.
      Neither party has the solutions but both parties contribute to the problem

    2. dashingscorpio profile image86
      dashingscorpioposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Very true!

    3. savvydating profile image95
      savvydatingposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Correction: Keep in mind that the Democrats and the UN agreed that the invasion of Iraq needed to take place because of a former treaty that had been broken by Hussein repeatedly. The decision to go to war was a unilateral decision made by many.

    4. profile image0
      PeterStipposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well said Scorpio.
      As for the crisis we are now in. That started with the Reagan Thatcher era . And the free market system developed by Martin Friedman.

    5. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      We haven't won a war since 1898 because politicians of both parties, more on the left have sacrificed military victories for politics. Before WWII, Europe was free, during the war, Eastern Europe under Nazis, after war USSR. Not a victory

  3. tamarawilhite profile image91
    tamarawilhiteposted 2 years ago

    The reason Benghazi, Fast and Furious and other scandals remain ongoing is because Democrats have been stonewalling every investigation, and as details drip out, then say it is old news, let it go.
    And they do it for every single scandal.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image29
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      So they have a different view when it is against them, compared to when they go for the other side.