As transparent as a black hole

The Obama administration has been as transparent as a black hole regarding the attack on our personnel in Libya.

It has obfuscated since day one. There was real-time coverage of the event. Hundreds of national security people received real-time emails. American drones overhead covered the event live.

The Libyan government said an al-Qaida affiliate was responsible, while the administration clung to the offensive video scenario. The administration couldn't concede the truth because since the moment it took office it has denied there's a war on terror or that terrorists are at war with us.

It is an article of faith with the administration that the killing of Osama bin Laden ended all aspects of al-Qaida and anything opposing that view had to be denied.

On Sept. 25, in a speech to the United Nations, President Obama said six times that the attacks across the Islamic world resulted from the video.

Everyone needs to acknowledge Fort Hood wasn't "workplace violence" and al-Qaida wasn't dismantled by the death of bin Laden. If we don't, we will get another 9/11-style wake-up call.

Gregg Manning

Clayton

Administration clearly covered up attack

Even the question of what started the attack in Libya is a distraction as part of the cover-up.


Advertisement

Sending Ambassador Chris Stevens to Benghazi without proper protection and denying assistance during the attack means President Barack Obama, and possibly others, are guilty of four homicides.

Criminal negligence in the first case, and outright murder in the other three.

If President George W. Bush had done something similar, he would have been forced to resign within two weeks.

The news and further revelations should have had front-page coverage nearly every day from Sept. 11 through Nov. 5.

Bob Rickman

Benicia

Administration has shown wisdom

Yes, the administration has been appropriately transparent.

Despite hysterical cries from Sen. John McCain claiming it's "worse than Watergate," there's no comparison. Watergate was a planned breach of the law to benefit President Richard Nixon's re-election. The attack on Benghazi was a tragic incident perpetrated by our enemies.

In the days after the attack, there was an investigation to catch those responsible. Did Americans need to know immediately who they were? Was it wise to wait so we could seek out the attackers and not alert them? Absolutely.

The outrageous claims of a cover-up benefit only those who constantly lie in wait for something with which to attack President Barack Obama, who the day after the attack said, "No acts of terror will shake our resolve."

On Nov. 14, Obama answered a Fox reporter saying, "Immediately upon finding out our folks were in danger, my orders to my national security team were do whatever we need."

National security and diplomacy depend on the caution and wisdom Obama, Hillary Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus showed at that critical time. That's what we need to know.

Sam Van Zandt

Walnut Creek

Administration is not transparent

When Libya first happened, what did President Barack Obama do? He flew to Nevada for a fundraiser, then sent out U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five talk shows Sunday morning to blame it on a video.

This has been a cover-up from the get-go. If President George W. Bush had been in office when Libya happened, it would have been splattered on the front page of every newspaper in the country, and reported on all the major networks to this day.

This is worse than Watergate; no one died in Watergate. We lost four American lives -- an ambassador for heaven's sake. This administration is hiding the truth.

Shame, shame on the media for not reporting the truth. They protect this president no matter what he does. Transparency in this administration? What a joke.

Cathy Ledbetter

Newark

The attack on the consulate in Libya

More and more it looks like our "consulate" in Benghazi was really a CIA operations facility that was interacting with local informants and gathering local information, as it could.

So, should the Obama administration have been more "transparent" about all this, days before the election, based on a variety of viewpoints and sources of information, some "unclassified," some "classified?"

If you think so, then you probably think that Susan Rice should have been the one to officially "out" our totally "illegal" CIA facility there, albeit in a relatively unstable foreign country and in the midst of the complication of the death of Ambassador Stevens.

But would that have made Fox News happy, days before the presidential election? Of course not!

Susan Rice was a messenger. She let be known what she knew at the time.

The election is over, folks. Barack Obama is going to be our president for four more years. We need to move forward.

George Fulmore

Concord

Transparency clearly avoided

Only the pro-Obama Times would post such a question in light of the overwhelming evidence that the Obama administration has done everything possible to avoid transparency in the Benghazi attack on the American consulate.

From President Barack Obama's address to the U.N. General Assembly to the televised assurances by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the attack was a spontaneous demonstration resulting from an obscure and amateurish anti-Islamic video, this has been an absurd denial of reality.

These declarations by Obama and Clinton were an effort to distract the voters' attention from the fact that al-Qaida is alive and thriving. However, nothing they say can distract us from the very real fact that four Americans were murdered by terrorists while Obama denied them the available and nearby military aid.

When the congressional investigations of this incident are concluded, the staggering evidence of presidential misfeasance will impel the House of Representatives to impeach and the Senate to convict and remove President Obama from office. Whether these bodies of blustering politicians with little courage will do their constitutionally mandated duty is problematic.

Ernest Hampson

Pittsburg

Benghazi case has been a cover-up

President Barack Obama lied about almost every facet of the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi.

He lied about the events leading up to the attack; he lied about the attack itself; he lied about the events after the attack; and then he had his people try to spin the lies. But, in a sense, it was completely transparent. Everyone knew he was lying.

The disgusting thing is that the purpose of all the lies and deceit was to maintain the ridiculous charade that Obama was doing fine protecting America from terrorism. Obama had to maintain the charade until after the election. So he lied about it. And his comrades in the media covered his back for a long time. But even they could not keep a straight face.

The truth is that Obama, with the aid of the Democratic Party, has taken more steps than any other figure in American history to place Americans and the American way of life at risk.

Jay Todesco

Concord

Has been absence of transparency

Transparency is absent in the Benghazi murderous attack to which President Barack Obama refers to as "bumps in the road."

Instead, we hear misplaced indignation from the president to those who question the veracity of the talking points Ambassador Susan Rice delivered on numerous TV shows at the request of the White House. Yet, Obama chose to add to the confusion by stating, "She had nothing to do with Benghazi."

Some claim Rice's talking points had been edited from the original version. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes admitted that the only edit made by the White House was changing "consulate" to "diplomatic facility." By whom were these and other edits made and why?

Hopefully, the ongoing investigation will satisfy the American people's right to know that "transparency is operating in such a way that it is easy for others to see what actions are performed" in order to learn the truth.

But as the investigation proceeds, so does a fast-moving bus.

Irene Lynch

San Ramon