Share This Page

Diplomatic doublespeak

| Monday, May 20, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Diplomatic doublespeak

Regarding The Associated Press news story “Diplomat absolves Clinton on Libya security” (May 13 and TribLIVE.com): People like Thomas Pickering, who's attempting to remove blame in regard to the Benghazi murders from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are what make the State Department wimps go.

They live in a world of theory that cannot let go of the asinine mentality that states if we treat people nice, they will reciprocate in kind and we can all sit around the campfire, roasting marshmallows.

The words that State Department people use are coded and understood only by those engaged in doublespeak. Any sentence uttered by these morons can mean many things, dependent upon one word within it.

If Hillary Clinton, who allegedly ran State, was unaware of the inadequate security in Benghazi, why? Is something as important as protecting the lives of our diplomats in a hostile country not worthy of the head of that department?

One rifle squad of Marines with the support of one .30-caliber machine gun would have beaten off the rabble who took down our outpost and left four Americans dead.

This administration had better hope there is no God, because if it ever stands in front of him, there will be no diplomatic doublespeak to spin its way out of its responsibilities.

Nick Liberto

Blawnox

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.