A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Pueblo Chieftain, Nov. 26, on testimony by former CIA Director David Petraeus on the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya:
Former CIA Director David Petraeus has told Congress that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack but the administration withheld the suspected role of al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping them off.
The recently resigned spy chief explained that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to alert them that U.S. intelligence was on their trail, according to lawmakers who attended Gen. Petraeus’ private briefings.
The retired four-star general addressed the House and Senate intelligence committees in back-to-back, closed-door hearings as questions persist over what the Obama administration knew in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks and why its public description did not match intelligence agencies’ assessments.
Recall that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday TV news programs just five days after the attack to insist that it was the product of demonstrations against an anti-Muslim YouTube trailer. Ms. Rice is a member of the Obama Cabinet, and so the question has been posed, “What did the president know and when did he know it” about the CIA intelligence estimate that the attack was indeed a terrorist operation.
Lawmakers who questioned Gen. Petraeus said he testified that the CIA’s draft talking points in response to the assault on the diplomatic post in Benghazi that killed four Americans referred to it as a terrorist attack. He said that reference was removed from the final version, although he wasn’t sure which federal agency deleted it.
Republicans remain critical of the administration’s handling of the case. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Petraeus’ testimony showed that “clearly the security measures were inadequate despite an overwhelming and growing amount of information that showed the area in Benghazi was dangerous, particularly on the night of September 11.”
In fact, Gen. Petraeus told lawmakers that protesters literally walked in and set fire to the facility, according to a congressional official who attended the briefing. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens died from smoke inhalation. Gen. Petraeus said security at the CIA annex was much better, but the attackers had armaments to get in.
While the full depth of Gen. Petraeus’ testimony hasn’t been made public, what has been discussed about it continues to raise questions. The slaying of an American ambassador is serious business and the citizens of this nation deserve to know the full facts about the administration’s handling of the entire affair.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Reporter-Herald, Nov. 24, on the Benghazi investigations:
At the intersection of foreign policy, secret spy missions and domestic politics, the facts can be scarce, and the truth behind them scarcer.
While the opponents of President Barack Obama see the circumstances of Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya, and the response of the administration as impeachable offenses, the president’s ardent supporters seem to see the loss of four American lives in the service to their country as a cost of doing business in the Middle East.
Of course the truth is somewhere in the middle.
The deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, an aide and two security contractors in the diplomatic station in eastern Libya are a troubling reminder of the instability of the region; revolutions in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen and Syria have loaded the area with heavy weapons and groups looking to wield power over their countrymen. While the United States had not put troops on the ground in Libya, it had cooperated in providing air cover to the rebels against Moammar Gadhafi and had a continued presence in the capital of Tripoli as well as the wellspring of the revolution in Benghazi.
As it has become widely known, the CIA was playing a role in Benghazi, too. While details of the agency’s operations have not been revealed, there are many reasons the United States would want to have a presence. First, with resurgent terrorist and Islamist groups at work in northern Chad, Mali and other African nations, knowledge of their workings was in the national interest; second, with turmoil continuing in Egypt and Syria, work to bolster groups who would work with the United States also was key. Groups opposed to U.S. intervention certainly would have a motive for an attack, and it has become clear they were responsible.
So why didn’t the president and his ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, come out and say these things in the days after the attack? Because the work of American diplomats as well as that by the CIA need to remain under cover at least long enough for American people and property to be brought to safety.
While the work of secret operatives and clandestine operations seems to run counter to the American ideal of open government, such work is necessary in some instances to advance and protect our interests overseas.
As the investigation into the events at Benghazi continues, Congress and the media need to be mindful of the risks they may be placing onto their fellow citizens working overseas in clandestine efforts. Speculation, innuendo and from-the-hip accusations will not serve the national interest, nor will giving the administration a free pass over the loss of life.
However, a methodical probe into the incident will allow the United States to protect its people and assets while shedding light on the truth.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Daily Sentinel, Nov. 25, on the potential for natural gas:
The world seems almost to float on giant reservoirs of natural gas, we have learned in recent years, as hydraulic fracturing has freed up vast amounts of gas and revived dormant economies in the Northeast.
Now the next step—finding a way to make greater use of natural gas as a transportation fuel—is before us.
As was the case a few short years ago, we know there is great potential for natural gas, but significant hurdles remain.
We see a role for the Colorado Legislature to clear one of those obstacles by making it easier and less expensive for businesses to offer compressed natural gas, or CNG as it’s called, first to other businesses and perhaps eventually to large segments of the traveling public.
Under the current regulatory scheme, a business wishing to offer natural gas as a fuel must first compress it. It’s an easy-enough process, requiring a compressor and containers large enough to hold enough gas for a few fill-ups.
The problem is that when the business flips the switch to begin compressing the gas, its electricity demand spikes and that spike sets the high level at which the business is charged for the day’s worth of electricity.
To be sure, Xcel Energy has to have a system that can meet sudden surges in demand—that’s why they call it a demand charge, after all—without affecting other customers.
It’s also true, though, that establishing an economy in which clean-burning natural gas plays a greater role in the local and national economy will require some creative approaches and thinking beyond the demand rate.
But the prospect for economic benefit is great. And clean-burning CNG is better for the environment than gasoline.
Some see the demand-rate issue as a chicken-and-egg question: Which will come first, lower prices or more CNG vehicles?
A better way to look at it is the “Field of Dreams” approach.
We know that Americans are in the market for less expensive fuel, but strongly prefer to go where they wish, as they wish. This has historically put us at the mercy of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries It’s galling, as well, that much of the money we send overseas for oil goes to causes that endanger the United States, its friends and allies.
Vast supplies of domestic energy in the form of CNG allow us to sidestep that dilemma and bolster the American economy.
That won’t come easily, however, as the early experience with the demand charge demonstrates.
We urge legislators from the Western Slope to find ways to take maximum advantage of the region’s pre-eminent natural resource. They should work with the fuel industry, the Public Utilities Commission and Xcel Energy to do just that.
If we build it, they—fleet vehicles, semi-trucks, buses and eventually family cars—will come.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, Nov. 24, on a new book about Columbine:
The release of a new book that includes observations from the parents of one of the Columbine High School killers has cracked the door just a bit wider on one of the biggest unanswered questions of all: Why?
Although more than 13 years have passed since the massacre, there remains much to be explored about how Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris came to the point of carrying out the attacks that left 13 victims dead.
The aim is prevention—to give parents, teachers and others knowledge that might enable them to detect warning signs and intervene.
As we have seen in the years since the mass shooting, the actions of Klebold and Harris have been repeatedly imitated.
The more society can understand the personalities and conditions that preceded their rampage, the better.
To that end, the comments of Susan Klebold, mother of Dylan, paint a picture of a grieving mother who could not understand why her son would do such a thing.
She told Andrew Solomon, author of “Far From the Tree: Parents, Children, and the Search for Identity,” that she prayed during the unfolding tragedy that her son would kill himself—and then regretted that prayer.
After seeing the so-called “basement tapes,” in which Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold raged on video, she saw a different person than the one she had raised.
“I saw the end product of my life’s work: I had created a monster,” Susan Klebold told Solomon.
Those comments are not out of line with the introspection and shock she expressed in a lengthy piece published in 2009 in O, The Oprah Magazine.
Susan Klebold concludes the piece with this: “I only hope my story can help those who can still be helped. I hope that, by reading of my experience, someone will see what I missed.”
And that’s exactly our point.
Perhaps professionals with emotional detachment and expertise could see what the parents could not and maybe still cannot readily perceive.
Did the mix of the problems of Harris and Klebold lead to action greater than either of them would have undertaken alone?
That is why we were so dismayed in 2007 when a federal judge ordered that depositions from the parents of the killers to be sealed for 20 years. Those depositions took place in 2003 in connection with a lawsuit filed by families of some of the victims.
It’s possible the documents could shed substantial light on how Harris and Klebold came to become the Columbine killers.
Beyond Susan Klebold, the parents—those who could assuredly offer the most insight into the killers’ thinking—have spoken little publicly, if at all.
It’s a shame, since there is still much to be learned.
Editorial:
