Benghazi questions linger
I found the news story “Jihad in Libya: A matter of economic uncertainty, some say” (Dec. 9 and TribLIVE.com) unfulfilling in completeness. It alludes to why the ambassador was in Benghazi. The national media talk about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and the White House misleading the public about the cause of the ambassador's death prior to the election. Both of these issues have great importance.
The most important question the story and the national press have avoided like the plague is: Who allowed these four Americans to die and why? With armed forces on standby and less than one hour away, we did nothing. Yet a member of the armed services recently died rescuing an American doctor overseas.
The president and his staff broke faith with the American armed services by blatantly allowing these four Americans to die. We unabashedly expect our men and women to answer the call to arms. They won't know whether or not they will be helped when placed in harm's way by our country.
Mr. President and Congress, what are you going to do when there is an executive order or declaration of war given and uniformed members of the armed services don't answer the call because you broke faith?
Show commenting policy
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.
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Duty to disclose
- Oberdorf firing
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban II