To the Journal editor:
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi that is all I am hearing on Fox News and on C-Span. The individuals making all the noise are suggesting a cover up. Boy if it was a cover up it wasn't done very well.
After looking back a little on history I would suggest it is pure and simple politics. Well, at least I hope it is, because if my other opinion is correct somebody really needs to help us.
After watching C-Span rebroadcasting a hearing on Benghazi, I have a question: We know four Americans were killed. If we were able to get 10 or 10,000 more troops to Benghazi before any Americans were killed, does that mean the 10,000 would be immune from bullets and all would have been saved or does it mean with more Americans in the line of fire more Americans would have been killed?
As proof, just look first at 1983: Reagan was president and 241 Americans were killed in Beirut. Under Clinton in Mogedishu, Somalia, 18 Americans dead. And, of course, don't forget the big one under (the second President Bush) over 1,000 killed on American soil. If you count all the deaths that followed, well over 10,000 have died and a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 left in complete turmoil. If you do a little research to find out how many fact finding hearings there were, I believe you will find there were very few, if any. You may say this president is lying.
I would say look at (the second President Bush) and all the WMDs we found. In conclusion, my opinion and maybe others, is that this is either a witch hunt or Republicans are mad that like prior Presidents in similar situations, having the lowest body count is proof of a cover-up and failure.
Just look above Republicans 241 and well over 1,000, Democrats 18 and 4. A bit morbid, but in my opinion true. Sad isn't it?
Gary J. Guster