Return to story

What's (and where's) the story on 9/11/12?

November 16, 2012 12:10 am

Joe Sucha got it right ["President has Benghazi blood on his hands," Nov. 13]. If the debacle at Benghazi isn't treason, it is pretty close. Where is the follow-up news on this disgrace?

It seems there is a frantic effort by the administration to whip up the best smokescreen possible over the Petraeus affair to divert attention from this egregious sacrifice of the brave men who fought to the death in service to this country.

I fought in World War II and Korea, surviving the battle of Chosin Reservoir, and I know the desperation of fighting against overwhelming odds to hold on at all costs. If there is any conceivable reason for abandoning those men, I want to know what it is. Help was on the way but recalled. The men who ordered this request for help are now being punished by the country they served.

Why? If this is not reason for impeachment of this incompetent president, then what is? The people of this country want and deserve answers to this disgraceful catastrophe. Will we get it, or will it be hidden by smokescreens and diversions until it is forgotten?

Bob Hayden


Heroes 'cut' to death?

The events in Benghazi continue to be kicked around for political gain. Mary Walsh's piece in Viewpoints ["Will Benghazi be Watergate 2013?"] has irked me to respond, perhaps because I find it obscene to use the tragedy of fallen men for a political agenda.

Security in Benghazi was not what it was supposed to be, mostly because lawmakers underfunded it, citing deficits that apparently did not matter under another administration. It has since become trendy to suggest the president failed the men who were killed.

I would suggest that we as a nation failed them. Those who use the national debt for political gain, after having voted for tax cuts, wars, and, yes, deficits, are not among those we send into harm's way. At the sharp end of the stick, American power is sometimes more of concept than reality, yet people are on duty there to protect American interests. The State Department's request for security funding was rejected and, in the end, men died.

As congressional hearings begin, those who seek to assign blame should perhaps take a quick look in the mirror.

Erik Nelson


Here's the outrage

Donald J. Horan asks, "Where in God's name is the outrage?" in his Nov. 10 commentary, "Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi." It's right here.

I'm outraged, and every decent American should be. It was tasteless enough that President Obama sat and watched the operation against Osama bin Laden and then made his death a key accomplishment in his election campaign. But to know for seven hours that four brave people were in fatal danger, to deny them help, to relieve military commanders of their commands who wanted to help them, and then to fly off to Las Vegas to party--that's disgusting.

And all this was done so that Obama's re-election boat would not be rocked. Even more reprehensible is the media's downplaying of the scandal. Now they are trying to divert the public's attention from the whole debacle by focusing on David Petraeus' peccadillos.

This incident cannot be swept under the carpet. The congressional hearings on this affair should be open to the public. National security is not an issue here. These unnecessary deaths are.

Remember the circus of congressional hearings over Watergate? At least nobody died in Watergate.

Pat Phillips


Copyright 2014 The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company.