The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice of the Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

No need to publicly disclose what went wrong in Libya

  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • LINKEDIN
  • PRINT
  • E-MAIL
Text Size: A | A

No need to publicly disclose what went wrong in Libya It isn’t enough that we lost Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya. The finger-pointing now starts as to who said what and when. We all know that he was brutally murdered by a group of cowardly extremists. As for the nuts and bolts of the matter, they should be critiqued in closed session and only on a need-to-know basis. Then, and only then, should a determination ...


You Must Log-In or Subscribe to Continue Subscription Offer Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Advertisement

comments

ThePhilistine
November 4, 2012
4:12 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Bertha, I wonder how those who support BIG government that were in the devastating path of “Sandy" feel about the governments response. I guessing they are thinking, "I wish I had gotten more food clothing fuel private insurance and medicine supplies before the storm" not "I wish there was more government" After most disasters headlines read more like people are enraged the government botched the response rather then singing praise to politicians.

Santino
November 4, 2012
7:55 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Mr. Coveney says, "Leave the intelligence to the pros."

And we all see how well that worked out.

steveleary1
November 4, 2012
10:02 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

When I saw the banner on your letter I thought that you were being facetious. Mr. Coveney - Our government and the President blatently lied to us. They said that this attack was the result of a video and continued to say so for 2 weeks after the attack when they and everyone else knew it wasn't true. They then blamed "bad intellegence", but we have seen from the classified cables that have come out that this wasn't true either. Do you honestly think that the administration will give us a fair assessment of what happened ? Or will this be another Fast and Furious where
our government helped supply guns to Mexican drug cartels, but could not find " Where they did anything wrong " when they investigated themselves.

FrankLowe
November 4, 2012
11:32 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Mr Coveney,

I wholeheartly agree with you. There's no reason for those of us little people to know the facts in governments goings on, even when Americans are murdered in foreign countries. We wouldn't understand anyway, we're just not smart enough. If fact, I'm far too stupid to question anything our grand exalted leaders do.

I have a great idea for a follow piece for you. We should just leave all the decision making up to the pros, in fact I'm not even smart enough to pick elected representatives, we should let the pros pick them for us.

I have to go now, I'm on hold for Mayor Bloomberg, I'm waiting for him to tell me what I can have for lunch.

ronzo
November 4, 2012
4:07 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Re: The responses to the Coventry letter about Libya. All presidential administrations, Republican or Democrat hide truths, exaggerate facts to their advantage, and make statements that are comfortable to them. But how does anything about this Libya event directly affect anyone's day to day life here positively or negatively? Or is it because it smacks of something military which is adored by the folks who get some thrill about guns and badges that give them some sense of power over others, and that's why they're all in a tizzy over this?

gina99
November 5, 2012
7:41 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Bob Coveney-You're kidding right? Obama went on for weeks knowingly lying about some video as the cause for this Islamic terrorist attack on 9/11. In Watergate no one died. We have learned that real time video was watched at the State Department. You sound like some Obama defender trying to defend the disgusting cover up. What happened to the transparency we were promised? Obama either knew and lied or is an incompetent. Either way he is out.

tonijean613
November 5, 2012
9:23 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

To John GryGiel: Why are you attacking the low hanging fruit? Please show us who and where the employers are willing to hire the people recieving any form of "welfare" ?? Do you realize that the people you are most likely referring to are not able bodied or desirable for hire for many reasons. Who will hire a person with non- violent felony record say for selling Pot? What do you think of those over 50, white collar, college degreed people who may have lost a high income job but now are getting welfare in in the form of an "unemployment check" ? Are they not deserving if they dont immediately go out and take a minimum wage job? Are they lazy and undeserving if they cant find a new job or because employers are now descriminating against older people and hiring younger workers who will do their job for 50% of what they were earning? or worse, their jobs are outsourced to never come back or given to foreigners with H1B Visas?
ALL of us pay taxes to have access to "social safety nets" whether Unemployment, medicaid, medicare,dissability, food stamps, social security, Section 8 Housing. Those qualifying for such benefits are on different thresholds based on different assets. And not everyones dissability is physical and visible. One could argue that high income earners with a spouse still fully employed, and strong financial assets - shouldnt even qualify to recieve Unemployment- or any other benefit until they sold their home and assets and used up every dime of savings. But I dont think that is a route to maintaining a stable, sheltered, fed and medically cared for society.

J.D.
November 5, 2012
9:51 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Ronzo,
It directly affects our military men and women who probably fear for their lives to serve under Obama. When morale is low, our military is not as effective. It also makes young men and women less likely to want to serve our country. It scares the hell out of parents who have children in service. Obama's lying and lack of action emboldens our enemies...I could go on and on...how much time do you have?
But you don't have to believe me...look here: http://www.redstate.com/alanjoelny/2012/...

JLibertarian
November 5, 2012
1:28 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

tonijean613:

Please tell me where in our Constitution is says that the government and by extension the people, are responsible for any social safety nets. I know that you will not find it anywhere. Don't get me wrong. As a Roman Catholic, I believe in helping those who are less fortunate than me or have been hit by a hardship. But I would much rather give them money or food or clothing or even better than all of those, training for them so they can do the things they need to do to become self-sufficient. And after they help themselves, they can then help others who need help.

Let me tell you a story. I was in a grocery store yesterday in line to check out. In front of me were three people. It looked like a husband and wife and their female friend. They looked like any average American. Their clothes were typical clothing of anyone, you know not rags or something you might think of as a stereotypical person on welfare. But the friend had an EBT card. She was also going to give the man money for her share of the groceries. He declined so she offered her EBT card. He declined saying he would have to give her money for it. He then asked her when the card gets replenished. She said the 2nd of each month. As I watched him I could see his mind churning and then he said, that was two days ago. Then he asked it is empty now? The friend said oh yes, I spent all the funds but I can spread out the food for the month. The man then told her that last year he and his wife got $138 in food stamps and that they only paid $4.06 for groceries out of pocket. That was because they utilized a food bank. The friend said that she used to use food banks too and mentioned she offered someone (I think her daughter) the used of her car to go to the food bank but the person never goes. I was amazed that this woman had a good amount of money on her to give to her friends for her share of groceries. What I came away with was that this is what President Obama has reduced our nation to. A dependency society instead of what we used to be - self-reliant.

I am going to tell you something that you may not understand. The more the government gives to people, the more they will expect. And when the government can't afford to give people any more and start to cut back, the people will be very unhappy. If you don't believe me just take a look at what is going on in Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Spain to name a few places.

JLibertarian
November 5, 2012
1:45 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Richard Alvarez: You had better learn your history. President Hoover believed in Keynesian economics and as such increased government spending to levels unseen before for any peace time period after the 1929 stock market crash. That was the primary reason the economy did not recover and sent the nation into a depression. President Franklin Roosevelt actually ran against all of that spending but when he got elected he doubled down on the government spending. Can you say LIAR! That only prolonged the Great Depression, which wouldn't have been "great" at all if the government didn't spend so much.

Merrie Wardell: You don't think that Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt because you are getting yours and to hell with those younger than you. Can you say selfish? And let me get this straight, despite the fact that all of your working life you paid Medicare taxes on your wages, you still have to pay a Medicare premium out of your Social Security check. Why do you think that is? And guess what? With Obamacare, your Medicare Advantage coverage is going to be gone.

Social Security is unsustainable in its present form because it wasn't properly funded and the people put in is not invested in anything so it can earn interest and dividends like a regular pension is. That is how a pension grows but Social Security relies on more people paying in more money so those that are collecting it can get paid. Eventually, there will not be enough people paying enough money into the system to sustain it unless there is a huge population growth and more people working. With so many people out of work now and for the last two years those working have paid 2% less in contributions, the Social Security fund is in precarious financial position.

ronzo
November 5, 2012
3:21 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

JD - It is a terrible shame that our young people must take jobs in the military as a last resort because the job prospects for them is so dismal. Parents should not have to fear for their children's lives if the politicians would stop making our military the world police force at our expense. And it a shame that our military has to be kept at such a high costly level to the taxpayers just to provide jobs for our young Americans. If you read redstate.com I think I know where you stand so there is no reason to respond.

Newsworthy
November 5, 2012
6:22 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

John Donohue raises an interesting point about reducing the Social Security retirement age to 50 (or less). This would vastly increase the number of recipients drawing benefits, while equally reducing the number of workers paying into the system. It would also ensure that Americans spend from 1/3 to 1/2 of their entire life in retirement. Now for the negative aspects - wait, that WAS the negative aspect.

John, that's an idea designed to solve your personal problem (which I share, BTW) but it is not a solution to any of our problems in the long term. Retirement age should be increasing, as our life expectancy is increasing. We have no reason to expect to supported by society for such an enormous part of our lives; that's laziness, irresponsible and self-centered. Besides, it would be boring.

Advertisement