I am a Vietnam-era veteran with no political party preference; since 1972 I’ve voted for Democrats, Republicans and Independents. My presidential choice didn’t always win, but I consistently tried to show respect. Until now, no president in my lifetime possessed qualities and attributes that would prevent him from being president. At times it was difficult to support these presidents, but free speech gave me the right to question the direction of our country without reprisal
I am at a crossroads. I cannot find it in my heart, my mind or my conscience to unequivocally support the current president. I don’t enjoy this. But the leader of this (already) great country must be honest, trustworthy and ethical — and support the best interests of all ethnicities, races and religions. Sadly, our president does not come anywhere near this description.
Frankly, I wish I didn’t have to make this decision. But the continual misleading statements and validated lies, sophomoric and crude behavior, disparaging remarks about women, minorities, immigrants and the handicapped, and critical and insulting remarks about our closest and enduring allies leave me little choice. Combine this with the president’s positive statements about Russian President Vladimir Putin, and I just shake my head in wonderment and angst.
Why are rational Americans tolerating this boorish, foolish behavior? Don’t Americans recognize a selfish, self-serving bully who criticizes anyone who disagrees with him? My father — a patriot, World War II veteran and the greatest man I have ever known — would be appalled at our president’s lack of integrity, empathy and compassion.
My dad told me, “You will never reach higher ground if you are always pushing others down.” The president should heed my father’s advice. Continuing his behavior will divide our country, alienate our strongest allies and create the real possibility of a major multi-national war.
I debated about writing this letter until I got the ad for the purchase of a “fully-functional Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum” in my morning paper. Is this how we make America great again? When were we great? Was it when we brought captive Africans to our shores for slaves? Was it when we wrote that “all men are created equal,” except for non-whites, women, or even “white” men who did not own property? Was it when for the purpose of increasing representatives to the House in Washington we agreed to count slaves as three-fourths of a person? Was is when the native peoples of this country were repeatedly driven from their treaty-designated lands if those lands became desirable by white men? Was it when women were denied entry in medical schools, law schools, fired as teachers if they married, and couldn’t vote? Was it when Jewish and non-white people couldn’t live in certain areas? Was it when American citizens were harassed, tortured and hanged for not being white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants? Was it when American citizens of Japanese descent where taken from their homes and placed in internment camps? Was it when people of different racial backgrounds could not legally fall in love and get married in certain states? Was it when we retaliated against Iraq when we knew they were not responsible for 9/11?
Please, is this where we place our pride and greatness? And should I, with no background check, be able to buy a fully functional, gold-plated gun covered in “patriotic” symbols as a symbol of that pride?
When will the Clinton haters just put the Benghazi story to rest? People upset about Hillary Clinton’s comment at the Benghazi hearing have been either misled, have poor reading comprehension or are just plain lazy. The main exchange between Clinton and a Republican senator is readily available online — go check it out.
The full context of her quote is: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from happening again, senator.”
The implication is that Clinton said the deaths of the personnel in Libya did not matter. That is misleading. The truth is, she was saying the cause of their deaths should not be the focus of the hearings, but rather understanding how the process failed. That is how it was when 241 servicemen were killed in Lebanon in 1983, and when 13 U.S. embassies were attacked during the George W. Bush years.
She was right. The motive of the killers would not have affected the outcome of the tragedy. Better security and intelligence on the ground might have made a difference, but requests for increased diplomatic security were denied by the Republican Congress, which approved nearly $320 million less than requested by the administration.
Sen. Marco Rubio, in a debate, lied when he said that Clinton lied about Benghazi, and was awarded two Pinocchios by the Washington Post’s fact-checker for the lie.