Opinion

Benghazi bombshell: New holes in prez’s story

The Issue: Gen. David Petraeus’ account that al Qaeda was responsible for the Benghazi attack.

***

Answering the questions left by Gen. David Petraeus’ testimony is not rocket science; proving them is another matter (“Petraeus Leaves Questions,” Editorial, Nov. 17).

Everything that President Obama does is for self-serving purposes, ergo the omission of “terrorism” from the public statement. In the event of an act of terror, Obama would have had to minimize his campaign time to attend to America’s interests.

The Democrats’ claim that the omission of al Qaeda was to protect classified information is laughable, since the White House has released more classified data than Julian Assange.Elio Valenti

Brooklyn

Has the murder of US Ambassador Chris Stevens become less relevant because Petraeus had an affair and resigned? All we hear about is Petraeus’ mistress and his resignation, but Benghazi is far more important. When will our government finally tell us what actually happened and stop trying to cover it up?

My plans to join the US Air Force were affected by this, because if I am protecting my country, I feel like the government won’t protect me.

If I lay my life down for this country, I should feel safe, and so should my family.Alexa Oliva

The Bronx

I find the explanation that no one knows who altered the CIA’s talking points to be utterly absurd in this day and age of modern technology and forensics.

If no one in government can answer a simple question, then how can we possibly rely on them to find the murderers of the four Americans in Benghazi?

This is truly becoming one of the saddest chapters of dysfunctional government in American history. What is equally sad are the journalists who are missing a golden opportunity to become the next Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

Frank L. Palumbo

Palm Harbor, Fla.