Share This Page

The Thursday wrap

| Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

A new book by Fred Burton and Samuel Katz — “Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi” — says the State Department, Pentagon and the FBI were informed that the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, indeed was a terrorist attack just minutes after it commenced. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed. Yet the Obama administration long has claimed the Sgt. Hans Shultz defense of “We know nottttthhhhhhing!” It's been obvious for quite some time that the administration lied. But will it ever tell the truth? ... More than a few pundits are calling more than a few Republicans “isolationists” for being wary of attacking Syria for its alleged chemical weapon attack on its own people. One, Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal, argues that “isolationism has never served the interests of America or the GOP.” That's true. But neither can reckless forays into civil wars, forays for which we can't feign surprise when those we shoot at shoot back. ... Penn National Gaming says it will collect $50 million in tax breaks for Lawrence County for a new horse track and gambling facility in New Castle, reports The Philadelphia Inquirer. Penn National honcho Steven Snyder says county officials are “committed to monetize a significant portion of the local share tax that they are going to receive to make sure this facility gets done.” Sorry folks, but taxpayers have no business bankrolling casinos.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.