Re: “,” July 3 editorial.
The Post says itap time to close the book on the Benghazi investigation. Really? In the midst of one of the most important presidential campaigns of our lifetime, with one of the key figures in the Benghazi debacle as the likely Democratic nominee, we should just “close the book”? Really? Move on? Come on.
The Post states “mistakes were made” and then characterizes the lying about the causes of the attacks as “mendacious subterfuge.” The article continues: “Itap hard to understand what the administration hoped to gain.” Really? What it hoped to gain was to prop up President Obama’s lie that the war on terror was all but won to improve his election prospects two months later.
The other “mistakes” were a result of gross incompetence from the top down, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Incompetence combined with mendacious subterfuge is not what I want in a president.
Rusty Staff, Denver
To characterize the Benghazi attack as a “tragic event” and then not understand this administration’s motivation for bizarre attribution to the referenced obscure video amounts to a whitewash dismissal of the House Select Committee on Benghazi’s final report. Repeated requests for more security by Ambassador Chistopher Stevens was either ignored or rejected by the State Department.
The obvious reason for this dereliction of duty? It did not fit the narrative by this administration that terrorism was on the wane, and they did not want the “optics” of increased security, especially during the election cycle. Hillary Clinton callously asked, “What difference at this point does it make?” To those who lost loved ones, the truth makes a lot of difference. Those who lost their lives did so for purely political reasons.
David Oyler, New Castle
Submit a letter to the editor via or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
