To the Editor:
Re “Justice for 9/11” (editorial, May 4)
The difference between an editorial and a commentary is that the latter may be strictly the opinion of the writer, but the former should be drawn on a blank canvas. Surely the editorialist has an opinion, but for the sake of journalistic integrity it should present both sides for consideration by the readership: make a point and defend your position. Last week’s editorial was a basic talking point for President Obama. It was a piece lacking journalistic integrity, and intentionally meant as a puff piece: you failed to tell the full story because your comments and obvious bias could never support it.
To your points:
Obama made a decisive decision. We have the best military in the world bar none. It took Obama nine months from the time he was reasonably sure bin Laden was at that compound to mission date. Do you think in that time bin Laden might have moved on? Why the delay? It took Israel seven days to plan and execute the Entebbe Raid on July 4, 1976. Again, our military can move on a moment’s notice: it was not any lacking on their part, but perhaps an inability of the president to make a decision?
Republicans as “childish”. You failed to mention the original “birthers” – Bill and Hilary Clinton. You also fail to point out that for two years Obama used his lawyers (and who paid for them?) to prevent the release of his birth certificate. He only released it when his poll numbers were tanking on the subject. Contrary to our political tradition, candidate Obama never released that document, his medical and school records, major writing in college, etc. If anyone is “childish” it’s the Downtown Express for its churlishness.
The “Arab Spring”. Your juxtaposition of comments leads one to believe Obama is responsible. Two years ago the people of Iran, facing death for rebellion, begged for our moral support and Obama refused to lift a finger. He was against Mubarak, but failed to notice or mention The Muslim Brotherhood and other pro-Islamists in the vanguard. And even Democrats were/are confused by what our goals are in Libya — no doubt because Obama doesn’t know himself.
Obama at Ground Zero. Both Former Presidents Bush and Clinton wanted nothing to do with that crass attempt for votes, which was Obama’s visit. Without realizing it, you acknowledge the political reason by proclaiming “…to reap political capital…” On the backs of 3,000 victims? Shameless.
Finally, The Address To The Nation. In a speech peppered with personal pronouns, he only mentioned President Bush’s name once: to agree with him that all Muslims were not responsible for 9/11. He, and you, fail to mention the following.
With former, and Democrat, CIA Director Panetta acknowledging that, without “Enhanced Interrogation,” the trail to bin Laden would not have been acquired. Enhanced Interrogations (only three important terrorists, including the mastermind of 9/11, were waterboarded), rendition, CIA interrogation sites in Europe, etc. led to bin Laden and other leaders. Obama eliminated all those programs immediately upon his election. Had he been in office on 9/11 we never would have captured bin Laden and other terrorist leaders, because those procedures and methods would not have been in place. Is it any wonder that he, and you, fail to mention President Bush?
And what can only be called an obscenity, Obama’s hand-picked Attorney General Eric Holder, in spite of two Justice Department investigations clearing them, now seeks a Special Prosecutor with the intent of trying those very same CIA interrogators for supposed violations of US law. How does Obama praise the same people his administration seeks to jail? Are you so lacking in knowledge, or so blind to the truth, that you fail to mention this?
You have the right to say and do whatever you want, but don’t you have pride in your profession; and don’t you have the courage and integrity to tell ALL the facts to inspire a lively debate? Apparently not. Like Obama you fail to tell the truth, because you would wither under the brightness of it.
John Brindisi
