Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
If Obama, or anyone in State or Defense, had been able to make decisions that would have prevented these deaths, how the event was initially characterized would be irrelevant, the fact that nothing could have been done to save these people does not change the fact that characterization after the fact is irrelevant to the core facts surrounding the murder of these good people.
Look, if political decisions in contradiction to standard procedure had prevented actions that would have saved these folks, then America would be outraged, but the reason America is not outraged is because that is simply not the case.
If that understanding changes with new facts, then opinions will change, but you have to see that the GOP outrage is based entirely on being mad about stuff of which there is no evidence had happened.
As Hillary said (and is not always quoted out of context) “With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans, what difference at this point does it make?”
Are we really so petty that how the attack was immediately characterized is the most important thing in the world? How would understanding that better save lives? How would learning that this was political save lives?
And beyond that, what if we ultimately find out the description is true that this was neither a pre-planned coordinated attack, nor a spontaneous uprising based on a video, but in fact an opportunistic attack by people intent on an attack at some point, that took advantage of the timing and the events in Egypt.
The GOP is attempting to smear the administration on the basis of a bunch of "what if they were thinking this..." arguments with no basis in fact.
Volcker made it worse so it could get better. How did it work out for you after the policies of Carter's appointee began to show results?
Would you rather a couple of bad years followed by a few good decades, or just a couple of slightly less crappy years followed by a couple of much crapper decades?
Carter made a long term decision when his re-election relied on short term opinions. THAT IS LEADERSHIP!
If you disagree with what I have said, debate it, but you seem to be saying that it doesn't matter if his policies led to decades of good growth, that couple of bad years makes it an emotional decision not to give him credit even if he is entitled to credit.