Re "Benghazi's smoking guns," Opinion, May 14
Two questions came to mind reading Jonah Goldberg's column.
First, who cut the security funding of diplomatic missions a year before the Benghazi attack? (The Republican-controlled House.)
And second, why were there no similar allegations made when multiple attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions killed dozens of consulate workers during the George W. Bush administration?
To use the deaths of four brave Americans as a way to undermine the president is below contempt.
All of the talk about the talking points and how long it took for help to arrive in Benghazi misses the crucial questions.
Upon word of the attack, there apparently was no way to get help to stop it. And whether it was labeled terrorism swiftly enough is not really relevant.
The most important question is why, in such an unstable country, the ambassador traveled so far from the embassy without appropriate protection. That should never happen.
Also, it's worth finding out if there were urgent requests for greater security and, if so, how those requests were handled.
Marina del Rey
Letters: Jolie's choice
Letters: It's UC, not McDonald's
Postscript: Reagan the Berkeley basher