Still no closure on Benghazi
More than a year has passed since the attack on the U.S. outpost in Libya, yet the country and loved ones of the four Americans who were killed there are still without clear answers.
The families of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, embassy employee Sean Smith and former U.S. Navy SEALs/embassy security personnel Ty Woods and Glen Doherty have no closure. The country in general has moved on to other issues facing our nation, but we must never forget the families left without answers.
President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and other key government officials have moved on without regard for the continuing grief of the families of these fallen heroes. We say time heals all wounds, but that applies only when there is closure, and we certainly don't have it on Benghazi. These government officials have a responsibility to the American people, and we have every right to expect better from those making decisions that affect the well-being of all of us.
We have seen “bait and switch” on the Benghazi attack. The American people are not stupid and did not accept the government's explanation that the attack was caused by some obscure video that insulted Islam.
Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, and Ty Woods' father, Charles, recently testified before the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, looking for answers on the Benghazi attack. All of the committee's Democrats except two left the hearing before Mrs. Smith and Mr. Woods testified. They should be ashamed of themselves. What does this say for the standards of our elected officials?
We need to make sure our voices are heard loud and clear at the next election.
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.
- Blame misdirected
- Voters capable
- Progress not reflected
- Scapegoating easy; solutions not
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Duty to disclose
- No ground troops