He's Right, I'm Left, so who's wrong? A reluctant dialogue.

He's Right. I'm Left. Who's wrong?
 A reluctant dialogue.

At the outset of this Presidential campaign, I promised myself that for the first time on my adulthood, I was sitting this one out. Oh, I plan to vote alright. As a matter of fact, I'm going to vote as many times as the gate keepers will allow. .I just don't want to be caught in the strum un drang of the run up to to the election again.  No more public editorializing, no more FB rants, no more jokes at the candidates' expense.  No siree, none for me.

It's not because I lost interest or misplaced my sense of humor. Last time around, I enjoyed myself largely because the R candidates themselves were so goofy. I mean if ya couldn't find something inherently silly about Mittsy, Newt, Herm and Moonbeam Bachman, you were missing a whole lot of giggles.

Fun aside, there was a dark undertone; something so mean spirited and rancid in the rhetoric of the tea party campaigns in particular that I found it all mentally and emotionally exhausting.  

That hangover lingered but this time it's different and not for the better. First, there were so many R candidates I couldn't keep them straight. There was nothing endearing about any of them. Dull, shallow and timid minds with nothing of import to offer. 

Even worse, the runaway lead  candidate in the clubhouse from the moment the starter gun was fired is a man as thoroughly self-serving, despicable, frightening and dangerous a public figure as has risen in my lifetime, Finally, the increasingly sour rhetoric from certain factions repulsed me. 

So, I took it all in and instead swore a vow of political abstinence.

After months of silence, I decided I missed the overall congeniality of FB and took a peek. 
Within two minutes, I stumbled upon a post from a fella I had known for several years as a teenager whom I always regarded as a gentleman. 

What he wrote was simply so incendiary that I cast my vow of disengagement aside and I rose to the bait. 

What follows is our entire exchange. I posted it here for two reasons. First, because FB will not allow me to post my most recent portion of the dialogue either due to space or formatting issues.  (I considered the possibility that my redoubtable debate opponent had blocked me but to his credit, that was not the case). Second, because while it is apparent that neither of us are particularly expert on the issues, I feel our exchange is representative of the kind that average Joes like us routinely engage in and therefore, illuminates the difference between the competing factions we ostensibly represent; to oversimplify, he being of the Christian right, me a self-styled Kennedy Democrat. 

To avoid any confusion,  my debate partner is hereinafter referred to as THE RIGHT GUY. I'm the GUY THAT IS LEFT.  I have changed the actual names of others in the interest of privacy and have not included comments from partisans who weighed in on either side other than it was a lot of "Go right at 'em",  and give 'em hell" - the usual  pugilistic stuff.  

My portion of the final exchange was fully sourced with links but most of these were lost due to formatting issues that I don't have time to repair. Those I could readily find I added at the bottom of this post. 

Otherwise, this is the complete exchange to date absent all but one editorial comment and  the wise cracks (trust me, setting those aside was not easy).

First, THE RIGHT GUY opened with this:  

"I am ashamed and embarrassed for this joke of a president obama! Can't stand to watch or listen to him anymore. Can't wait till he is gone! Narcissistic, arrogant, incompetent, deceiver. I'm I (sic) clear?"

THE RIGHT GUY continued:

 "And oh btw same goes for the liar criminal hillary". 

THE GUY THAT IS LEFT responded as follows:  

"I have stayed away from Facebook to avoid reading comments like these. I took a look tonight and within 2 minutes saw your post. I understand that you don't like the President or Hillary Clinton. Now, spell it out. Put some substance behind your name calling. Precisely what has happened to this country and what have "they" left (or not left) your kids -(because you sure as hell are not speaking for mine). While you're at it, explain to me, if you will, why your candidate (whom I to assume is either Trump or Cruz) offers a better alternative."

I hope you will argue from policy rather than personalities. Otherwise adjectives like, "narcissistic, arrogant, incompetent and deceiver" can be easily applied to Republican candidates who fit that description far better than either the President or Hillary Clinton.

THE RIGHT GUY: 

"Ok so Harold the basketball tournament was much more interesting than this nightmare political primary. smile emoticon I could argue policy all day long with you, but really will it make any difference since we are coming from very different ideological perspectives? I am a delegate to the Colorado convention on 4/9, and was committed to Rubio, but now free to vote for whoever. So as far as Obamas policies, I could name many but I suspect what I think is bad you would think is good?! Obamacare, no serious ISIS strategy, illegal immigration, Iran deal, Cuba trip, doubling national debt, stagnant wages, higher regulations, no school choice, and a general belief that more government is the solution to everything. And that's just a few! So unless you're open to voting for a Republican, I suggest we talk about the Red Sox, and hopefully Big Papi going out with a championship. wink emoticon"

THE GUY THAT IS LEFT:

 "I did not intend to argue with you or try to sway you to my position.  I was curious whether you could provide me with a measure of insight into the appeal of either Republican candidate (Rubio no longer being germane to the discussion). Instead, your response was to give me a brief checklist of topics that form in some measure, the basis for your antipathy for President Obama (who, as you know, is also not a candidate). You articulated nothing in support of any alternative candidate. This causes me to conclude that you either can't or just don't care enough to articulate them. Pardon me for not being distracted by sports talk but I have never witnessed a Presidential campaign (with the arguable exception of '68 and '72) that so filled me with fear and trepidation for the stability and safety of this nation as those of Trump and Cruz. I am dismayed that you are a delegate and fervently wish that was not so. The only consolation I take from this exchange is Mary's comment that "nasty" doesn't suit you. I agree with that. I trust that you were merely celebrating the ugliness that has descended on us in a moment of high spirits. I would close with Peace as a benediction but amid all the clamor for boots on the ground, that seems untimely and inappropriate. Take care.

THE RIGHT GUY:

Like I said we come to this debate from totally opposite perspectives. But I do agree that this is the weirdest election season I have ever seen! And we both ways have our fears as to the outcome, but for different reasons! Peace and take care. And M.is right nastiness doesn't soot me, but I'm afraid this election will be from both sides. 

THE GUY THAT IS LEFT:

B. permit me this coda: After you posted a scathing ad hominen attack on President Obama's character and integrity, (the logic of which eluded me entirely) I asked you to explain the appeal of the Republican candidates from a policy rather than a personality perspective. I also asked what you believe has been taken away or lost to the country that must be reclaimed. After assuring me that you could discuss policy all day, you refused to do so, ostensibly on the grounds that "we come to this debate from opposite perspectives". Your refusal to engage in meaningful dialogue causes me to conclude that either 1) you do not have a confident grasp of the issues or your ability to articulate your positions beyond name calling and slogans or 2) that you do, but reject the possibility of there being any benefit to an exchange of ideas. Either way, those are chilling conclusions. You are a delegate to a political convention. If you don't know the issues, then do your homework - read widely, study carefully and cast a vote that has thought and conviction behind it. If you are truly close minded, stay home, watch baseball on the tube, and leave the campaign to those who believe the flow of ideas nourishes a free society. If you don't agree with that last proposition, then you are truly on the wrong side of history.

THE GUY THAT IS LEFT continued, 

Let's lighten the tone with a quickie quiz, shall we? Among the things you listed that you found objectionable about the President was his trip to Cuba. I refuse to believe that you think opening up to Cuba was a bad policy decision so, for purposes of this game, I assume that you resent the fact that he was in Cuba attending a baseball game when terrorists struck Brussels. Now, for all the Hollow Points in Uselessville, dig into your memory bank and tell me; where was George W. when the towers were struck, what was he doing and how long did he remain in place? Look it up if you need to, it's all about learning.

THE RIGHT GUY WROTE BACK:

Well if the tone is going to be condescending*, then forget it. Actually I have no issues with the baseball game, but more with how he did the whole Cuba thing by executive order instead of debating it with Congress and the people of our country. You and he say you want dialog and debate, but then he just does what he wants when people disagree with him. I agree our Cuba policy was old and needed to be changed, but not by executive order. I am not a fan of executive orders regardless of who does them, because they bypass the process and can just be changed by the next guy in power. I don't think the framers had this in mind, in giving so much power to the executive branch.

*Lone Editorial note: Right guy has a point there. 

THE GUY THAT'S LEFT:

Your attack on the President was personal and vicious . I questioned the reasons for your animosity and invited you to discuss policy. You refused. There are many in and outside your own party who would like to better understand the reasoning behind right wing politics. You can either articulate those reasons or you can't. Refusing to do so bespeaks both condescension and arrogance. The sum total of what you have articulated in support of your politics is that you disagree with the President issuing an Executive Order easing travel restrictions to Cuba. Unlike your friend below, I don't think you have made yourself clear on anything at all beyond that lone issue. What you have done is confirm my own worst fears about the radical right and renewed my resolve to speak out against your party and politics. Thank you for that. PS http://democracyinamericas.org/.../Background_Information...

THE RIGHT GUY:

Harold, like I said earlier a political discussion is pointless since we come from totally opposite perspectives. You view me as radical right while I view you, obama, and Hillary as radical left. So we both have the same fears and motivations. Here is an example: Do you think Obama and Hillary mislead the public and the victim's families about what happened at Benghazi? Surprise me and say yes, else any further policy discussion is useless and confirms my fears of the radical left.

THE GUY THAT'S LEFT:

Benghazi? The pimple on the elephant's ass that you want to scratch is Benghazi? Sigh. Okey dokey. ....As soon as time permits, be glad to revisit that incident and the sequelae. In other news. I had no idea that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are members of the radical left. Those cads! The New York Commie Jew too, I bet. You have me convinced. I vow to remain vigilant even as their evil cabal conspires to seize our civil Liberties and pitch each one into the ditch reserved for We the People.

THE LAST WORDS FROM THE GUY THAT'S LEFT:

“If you answer one question inartfully or incorrectly in some form or you misunderstood it or you misspoke, it ends up being a big story. That doesn’t happen with other people” – Donald Trump

B, you asked whether I believe the President and/or Secretary Clinton lied to the American public about Benghazi. You intimated that if I couldn’t respond with an unequivocal “yes”, we would have nothing further to discuss.  As much as I might like to accommodate you in order to preserve and extend this dialogue, the situation and circumstances of the compound attack are too complex for that level of simplicity and deserve a more considered response.

I spent a fair amount of time preparing this response. I ask that you afford me the courtesy of reading it. Please note that, as initially prepared, each of my factual assertions were fully sourced but FB formatting will not allow me to insert most of the links.

At the outset, the question, as you posed it, is open-ended without reference to a time frame and you did not identify exactly what “lies” you believe were told. This forces me to guess at your meaning.

For this purpose, I assume you are referring to the 3 days following the September 11, 2012 attack and that by “lies” you mean the delay in branding it an organized terrorist attack.

My answer to your question as I understand it, is this:

I do not believe President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton or the administration’s spokespeople, deliberately lied in official pronouncements about the Benghazi attack in an attempt to cover up malfeasance by the State Department or to protect themselves from political consequences.   

My reasoning is as follows:

To me, a lie is deliberate prevarication with the specific intent to deceive or mislead.

I believe that all government leaders mislead or withhold information from their citizens at one time or another. What we choose to call a lie is another matter entirely.

We can all cite to numerous examples of government officials lying to the public. Nixon lied about Watergate to save his administration. He withheld details of his secret plan to end the Vietnamese war to get elected. Reagan lied about whether his administration traded arms for hostages in order to wage an illegal war in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton lied about having sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. Winston Churchill and the British government refused to release information for 70 years about their role in destroying the French Navy in a successful ploy to bring the U.S. into WWII.

I do not believe that is what happened in the aftermath of Benghazi. Instead, I believe that in the hours immediately following the attack, there was conflicting, fragmentary information and very little reliable intelligence available as to what happened and who was responsible. I accept that the first official pronouncements reflected confusion borne of what Secretary Clinton called, “the fog of war”.  

Within 48-72 hours of the attack, as further information became available, the administration’s language became more explicit, “act of terror” became the operative wording and the President’s resistance to using the phrase “terrorist attack” drew criticism from certain quarters.

What seems to me to be most difficult for some to reconcile is the desire for immediate revenge through military intervention as opposed to the potential for greater long term gains through cooperative relations with the host government. 

The currency of diplomacy is precise and reasoned language, not loose, bellicose rhetoric. When literally every word counts, subtlety and nuance matter far more than threats and hollow sabre rattling.

At the time of the Benghazi attack, relations between the U.S. and Libya were greatly improved. In 2006, the Bush administration had rescinded the U.S. designation of Libya as a state sponsor of terrorism.  Following the Benghazi attacks, the Libyan government issued a formal apology and pledged assistance in finding the perpetrators. 

Against this backdrop, the Obama administration’s State Department was trying to preserve relations with the Libyan government. What emerged in public statements over the next several days then, were not intentional lies, but, as befits an open society, a public, albeit halting search for language that condemned the violence but did not rebrand the Libyan government as the responsible party.  

I accept that the administration withheld the public release of intelligence information because I believe the intent was to protect U.S. interests internationally and not to protect the individual actors themselves. This is where we most clearly differ.

As far the subsequent hearings, are concerned, I return some questions back to you.

There have been many previous attacks on U.S. embassies.  None have generated anything remotely resembling the level of scrutiny of Benghazi. Why it that? Is it a function of the fact that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were involved, both of whom have implacable enemies within your party; including yourself?

Depending on the source of information, there have been 21 formal investigations into what happened at Benghazi. That includes 8 public hearings, two in the Senate and six in the House. That is one fewer than the 22 held after the 9/11 attack on the WTC and 20 more than were conducted following either Watergate or Iran contra. Does this offend your sense of proportionality at all?

Do you think it is an appropriate use of Congress’ time and resources when last October, before the most recent eleven-hour public inquisition even began, House majority leader Kevin McCarthy announced the purpose of the hearings was to bring Clinton’s poll numbers down?

What purpose was served by forcing Ms. Clinton to endure questions such as the sequence from the congresswoman (her name escapes me at the moment but she was the one who stacked the emails on the table and announced that she had counted them all), who asked the Secretary whether she went home the night of the attack, if she was alone at the time and if she remained alone for the remainder of the night?

Do you condone that level of impertinence?

Throughout the hearings, there have been repeated expression of regret and admissions of mistakes. Secretary Clinton has accepted responsibility for shortcomings in security preparations. Changes in security have been made.

Not one single investigation has concluded that Hillary Clinton committed any personal or professional acts of malfeasance.

Yet the ceaseless and unseemly denigrating of her integrity continues unabated. Why?

For months there has been a fixation with the use of private emails. No, it doesn’t sound wise to me either, but if Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice each freely admit they did it too and Bernie Sanders, Ms. Clinton’s rival for the Democratic nomination, said that he doesn’t care, why do you?

I submit that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are well intentioned, intelligent, committed people of good faith who have devoted their lives to public service.  To brand them as duplicitous scoundrels (my words; it sounds more civilized than liars, thieves or cheats), or as anything less than patriots is unreasonable and unfair.

Finally, if you are unable to appreciate the humanity of the moment when Secretary Clinton said of this incident, “I lost more sleep over this than any of you”, I fear that you have excised compassion from your heart in favor of unbridled and unreasoned hatred. If that is true, it is a damning shame.

Ps I am sure you have heard from your supporters throughout this dialogue just as I have heard from mine. I doubt any minds were changed – certainly not yours or mine – but I fervently hope you will consider the effect of intemperate, insulting language next time and live up to the claim that “nasty” doesn’t suit you by giving folks who have given of themselves far more than any of us, the benefit of the doubt. I will strive to do the same with every Republican candidate regardless of their positions – with the exception of Donald Trump.  That is a gateway to insanity that must not stand.

SPACE RESERVED FOR THE RETURN OF THE RIGHT GUY 

AND THAT IS WHERE WE STAND AS EVENING FALLS ON THIS, THE 1st DAY OF APRIL, 2016.  NO FOOLING.

PS For those with any further interest:  

Republican report on Benghazi

Time magazine analysis

Assessing the hearings

A Benghazi timeline

The High tech lynching of Hillary Clinton, a Republican perspective

Hilllary Clinton is a pathological liar