Sacrificial political offering
Regarding “GOP picks Benghazi panel members” (Nation & World, May 10):
Were there lies and deception surrounding Benghazi? Of course, but let us be real. Lies and deception have become the trademark of this administration; it’s not necessary to dwell on this issue solely for political gain. The vast majority of Americans know the real story — some citizens care, and some do not. Apparently, most elected Democrats do not care.
The important questions the American public deserves to have answered are: Why was there no effort to reinforce or rescue those Americans under attack, and who made that decision? This nonsense about “nobody issued a stand-down order” is ridiculous. No stand-down order was issued.
The American people — mothers, fathers, grandparents, and young men and women considering military service — have a right to know the answers to those two very relevant questions. Deserting our forces under fire is totally foreign to our military culture, tradition and history. We need to know: Is this the kind of leadership we now have in our national command authority?
The loudest, most aggressive demand for these answers should be from Hillary Clinton. Those were her subordinates we abandoned. But her response is merely what difference does it make. It should make a huge difference as to whether or not Americans are willing to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way under this leadership.
I served 40 years on active duty in the Army — I loved it. And I strongly subscribe to our constitutional paradigm, which subordinates our military to civilian leadership. However, given the lack of leadership and lack of loyalty our troops are receiving from our current civilian leadership, I could never encourage a young person to enlist knowing he or she may be among the next sacrificial political offering.
Darrell W. Katz
A lack of honesty
Democrats are charging that the proposed eighth probe of the Benghazi disaster is politically motivated. Of course it is! What action of Congress is not politically motivated? Politics drives their every action. Therefore, their every action must be viewed through the lens of political purpose.
The office of the president, however, is expected to rise above the partisan politics and take actions that are in the best interest of all the citizens. The president is not expected to be perfect.
But the president is expected to be honest with the populace. We have every right to expect that we will receive information about successes and failures from the administration that is not filtered through the lens of political purpose.
Unfortunately, our president has shown that he is willing to knowingly provide invalid, distorted and inaccurate information to us. The most obvious example of this is the claims made about the effects of Obamacare on our health insurance.
It is also obvious that the incident at Benghazi is another example of misinformation being provided to us by the president. Rather than providing a false cover story about that disaster, a competent president would have acknowledged that mistakes were made by the administration that led to the deaths of four Americans, two of whom volunteered to provide help and were sacrificed.
A competent president would have taken immediate action to defend our people and our embassy.
In the aftermath, a competent president would have taken immediate action to uncover and discipline those members of the administration who were responsible for the disaster.
If those responsible, the president and the secretary of state, had immediately taken action, there would have been no need for even one probe, and certainly not eight.
So, yes, the probe is political, but the administration has invited these ongoing probes by failing to be honest with the country.
James P. Whitaker
Another angle of the Benghazi scandal that I think is important but has received little, if any, attention is this: Why did Susan Rice make all those Sunday appearances anyway?
This wasn’t a U.N. matter, and she was completely out of the loop. I would have thought the “spokesman” should have been either the secretary of state, the deputy, or the assistant secretary in charge of Libya. Or even the acting ambassador by satellite.
I think that having Rice out front made it 100 percent political. She was no more credible, or better, here than Jay Carney would have been.