Published: Monday, Sept. 16 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Even John Bolton, the furthest right of the right wing defense hawks admitted
that, in real time, it would have been impossible to determine whether to pull
security away from our embassy in Tripoli and shift it to the consulate in
My comment today is not directed toward the author of this letter. It is clear
what her motive is. My question is to the editors of the DN Editorial page. I
know you have a number of letters to choose from when deciding which ones to
publish on this page. Why on earth would you print this letter that is so
uninformed about what really happened in Benghazi and what the motivations of
the president were. Why would you promote such vile hatred towards the leader
of our nation when your heading states that you "encourage a civil dialogue
among (your) readers". Is this letter encouraging such civility or is it
just inciting outrage on both sides of the issue. Does it offer understanding
of the facts; does it bring us together as a nation in coming to a common
understanding of the dark forces working against us and how we can, together,
work to rid this world of such evil forces? When you encourage irresponsible
rhetoric that does nothing to enlighten us you only reduce your own stature in
the journalistic profession. Is this letter representative of the best you had
to choose from?
"My question is simple: Why?"Why? Because your whole premise
is totally faulty.
My question is simple: Why do so many people listen and parrot everything they
hear from college drop-outs on AM radios?
Because you are not privy to the same information as the president. That is why.
The election was only a few weeks away. Pres. Obama couldn't risk his
chances by sending in planes and troops to rescue our Ambassador Stevens and
others. So he put out a cockamamie story about a spontaneous uprising due to a
video offensive to Muslims.
President Obama won.Romney lost.Time to get over it.
There is only one explanation for this letter - FOX "news" and this
newspaper's increasingly uncritical embrace of far-right politics.
DANGER - listening to large doses of radio broadcasts featuring loud mouths
with microphones and agendas to sell in order to sucker people into sending
money into their already huge bank accounts can have deleterious effects on the
@ Diane: Let me get this straight...2002, US Consulate in Karachi,
Pakistan attacked, 10 killed2004, US Embassy in Uzbekistan bombed, 2
killed, 9 injured2004, US Consulate in Saudi Arabia stormed, 8 killed 2006, US Embassy in Syria attacked, 1 killed2007, US Embassy in Athens
grenade launched into 2008, US Embassy in Serbia set fire to2008, US
Embassy in Yemen bombed, 10 killedand not a peep from you about the
injured and dead from these attacks or the US response to them.My
question is simple: Why?
Maudine - it is because this is about politics. Not ethics. Not morals. Not
actual historical events. This is about political talking points, and taking
advantage of the deaths of 4 men to gain political points. Flash
back to the Pat Tillman event... where he was killed by friendly fire.
Americans killed Americans. And then the then current administration tried to
cover it up. It was only later it was found out that the story initially put
forward was not true.This Benghazi side show that has been
created..... purposely trying to twist these events that occurred when there
were literally dozens of like events going on in the region. it is not only
distasteful, but makes a mockery of these mens lives. Tillman's life....
no big deal. The 4,000 other lives lost. No biggie. The 100,000 plus
civilian lives.... we can get over those. A singular event that we
didn't have assets in theatre to prevent.... this rises to treason for
some.Must be nice.....
Congress cut funding for embassy security worldwide. Maybe that's why.
Ah, yes, another uninformed rant about Benghazi. A hardy perennial on the DN
My question is simple: Why do so many liberals equate college graduates as the
only source of knowledge? Are these all not worth listening to their wisdom
based on the lack of college degree? John D. Rockefeller, Richard Branson,
Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Henry Ford, Dave Thomas, Pete
Cashmore, Rachael Ray, Sean Connery, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Larry Ellison of
Oracle, Paul Allen of Microsoft, Dustin Moskovitz of Facebook, Michael Dell of
Dell Computers, Brian Dunn of Best Buy, Anna Wintour of Vogue, Barry Diller of
IAC, John Mackey of Whole Foods, David Geffen, Ralph Lauren, Ted Turner,.David
Plouffe, Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin, Jan Brewer of Arizona, Gary
Herbert of Utah, Maya Angelou, Gore Vidal, August Wilson, Mark Twain, William
Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Robert Frost, Joseph Brodsky, Harper Lee, Woody
Allen, Clint Eastwood, James Cameron, Robert Redford, Michael Moore, Sidney
Pollack, George Clooney, Hillary Swank, Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Oprah Winfrey,
Larry King, Ellen DeGeneres, Jimmy Kimmel, Joy Behar, Rosie O'Donnell,
Brian Williams, Peter Jennings, Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Nina Totenberg
of NPR, Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post, William Safire, Alicia Keys,
Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Steve Earle, Jon Bon Jovi.
@JSF..... no one is talking about these people. Can say I have seen Michael
Dell comment on Libya..... have you? the ones we have heard from, Glenn Beck
for one, the mouth from the south Rush Limbaugh for another.... demonstrably
have no college education. They also have no military experience. They also
have not experience in public service. The sum of their experience is they
spew their opinions on the radio for ratings, just like Howard stern and his
crowd.Jon Bon Jovi.... are you kidding me.... a rocker without a
college degree..... totally shocked. There are a lot more without degrees that
have far more credibility than the likes of jimmy Kimmel.
ECR,I couldn't help laughing just a little while reading your rant.
Because it reminded me so much of myself and others back after 9/11 trying to
defend what President Bush was doing in Iraq (all the while pretending we were
patriots and anybody who questioned the President in a time of war was
"unAmerican"). Your rant was word for word the same stuff
you used to get from the Republican defenders back then. It's almost
comical how quickly and completely the shoe has switched to the other foot
now... (now that there's a Democrat President making the tough
decisions).I'm happy to say that I have learned from the
mistakes President Bush made. I didn't realize they were mistakes as they
were being made, but what I learned is.. you can't guarantee what will
result from an attack, even a limited attack. I think he thought it would be
over after the shock-and-awe and the vote, but when the Iraqi people started
looting the museums and killing each other for being Sunni or Shiite.... We
had to stay and provide security. The same goes for limited strikes
... We don't know what will result from limited strikes in Syria (long or
short term).Asad said his reaction would be something America would
never expect. They may not be able to attack us, but what if they start
attacking their own people (he's been known to do that). What if they
target Christians in the region (they've been known to do that). What if
they combine with their leaders in the region and attack Israel (we know they
WANT to do that).I'm just saying... you don't know what
their reaction would be, so your "limited" strike may lead to something
you aren't expecting. You can't tell us for sure that it will end at
limited strikes (that's what I learned).I at least learned
something from our mistakes. It seems YOU have learned nothing and possible
even UN-Learned what you knew during the Bush administration.You are
playing political games here IF you were against what Bush did in Iraq and are
FOR what Obama is doing in Syria. That's all I'm saying. I think
this is my last post so don't expect a reply.
2 bits - Thanks to you for your "rant" too. But what does it have to do
Really you only took those names out of the list. I don't propose they are
experts on every subject but maybe, those you discredit have more information
and have studied a subject more than you. Just because you disagree with their
positions and they don't have a college degree does not mean they have
nothing to offer. This is true liberal hypocrisy. I don't think you with
a college degree have more to offer about Syria than anyone else. "There are a lot more without degrees that have far more credibility"
"They also have no military experience. They also have no
experience in national public service. The sum of their experience is they spew
their opinions on TV and radio for ratings." Are you talking about Obama?
Wow, the uninformed lemmings on the left are really out today. The problem is
that the facts don't back up what Hillary or others have said.The first question is why was the Ambassador going to a consulate located in a
highly unstable area in the first place? Next, some of you say that nothing
could be done, but official documents show that there was a team that was able
to get close to the consulate by 1AM. The attacks started at 9 PM. They
didn't get into where the Ambassador was located until 4 AM. Are you
saying that in 7 hours they couldn't get anti-terrorist teams or aircraft
from Spain, Italy, or anywhere else in Europe to give the Consulate cover fire?
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments