Kerry deserves faint praise
Kerry deserves faint praise
On Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists attacked the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three defenders died in the attack.
President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are ultimately responsible for the deaths. The terrorists were never caught and the cover-up continues.
On Sept. 11, 2013, no terrorist attack made the news. I give our new secretary of State, John Kerry, credit for this. His deeds, however, do not impress me; his flawed character forces Obama to be more vigilant.
Kerry revealed his character when he ran for president. He is an egoist, most concerned about his own survival. Does that also not describe Obama?
Kerry's not a team player. If another Benghazi-type attack happens on Kerry's watch, he will sing like a canary to Congress and the American people.
That is good for us, but bad for Obama. Kerry keeps Obama more vigilant and honest. That is a good reason to keep Kerry around.
Hillary Clinton is an old-school Democrat and a team player. She was willing to be responsible for Benghazi, but never told us any details about what went wrong. She certainly never told Congress or the American people of Obama's blunders.
I'm sure she was — or will be — rewarded for her silence.
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.
- Animal abuse
- Food for thought
- Poisoned long ago
- Appreciate caregivers
- The real big spenders
- Trophy shot trumps learning
- EPA not the problem
- Speak up on illegals
- Bible under attack
- Gruber, then & now III