Share This Page

Buck stops at top

| Wednesday, May 22, 2013, 9:12 p.m.

President Obama on May 13 called the Benghazi hearings a “sideshow.” During her post-election testimony on the subject late last year, Hillary Clinton defiantly asked, “What difference does it make?” Both seem to brush off any blame — not just for poor communication of the tragedy, but also for the poor handling and sad outcome of the event itself.

When I worked in the airline business, anytime there was a fatal accident, top brass (read: CEOs) immediately became engaged — as they should. The Benghazi situation is no different. When lives are at stake, leaders spring into action. If the president and the secretary of State were not deeply involved (as they insinuate) while the tragedy unfolded, why not ?

I have to ask: What is the real story? Obama and Clinton didn't feel the need to be involved? Or were they involved — but don't want to carry the political baggage from a poorly managed operation that went tragically wrong?

Diplomats' lives were at stake. Sadly, we lost four good men. And all our leaders have to offer in defense of their response — “sideshow”? “What difference does it make?”

Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you, former Madame Secretary of State. Neither of you deserve the honor of leading this great nation any longer.

Tim Walters

White Oak

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.