President had a week’s warning, did nothing

To the editor:

So the Muslim extremists attack our embassy in Cairo with no intervention by the Egyptian government, and what does our brave president do? Nothing. The Muslim extremists have attacked a diplomatic outpost in Libya and killed the American ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues, and what does our brave president do? Nothing.

At the very least, as we now know he had nearly a week’s notice that there would be such an attack on the 11th anniversary of 9/11, he could have contacted Egyptian President Morsi and told him in no uncertain terms that unless he prevented such an attack there would be major consequences to America’s support of the Egyptian government and that $1.3 billion in foreign aid to that country would cease immediately.

It probably wouldn’t have done much good to have so advised the Libyan government because it is still in shambles after the fall of Gadhafi.

Instead of taking a strong position on these attacks on American sovereign territory, what did his administration do? They apologized to the terrorists for Americans’ behavior that might have antagonized them. Is this the kind of government that true Americans want? I don’t think so.

All those who voted to elect Barack Obama in November 2008 to prove they weren’t racists should vote him out in November 2012 to prove they are not morons.




To the editor:

It is unconscionable that after our embassies in Egypt and Libya were attacked by radical Muslim extremists, the president of the United States apologizes to the Muslims and does nothing to rectify the situation.

Knowing that it was the 11th anniversary of 9/11, why wasn’t the security at these embassies beefed up?

Barack Hussein Obama will lose this election in November by a large margin, because he is very incompetent on foreign and economic policies. The American people will vote him out of office as they did with Jimmy Carter when he messed up the Iran hostage situation in 1979, and Mr. Obama will secure his place in American history as the worst president ever.



The faux president

To the editor:

It really turned my stomach to see Mitt Romney in a dark suit flanked by two American flags, upstaging the president in announcing the deaths in Libya.

He looked like the faux president he is. It was offensive to make political hay out of such a tragedy.



Poor judgment

To the editor:

It is extremely revealing, when we consider a Romney presidency, to examine how he handled the tragedies in Egypt and Libya. On the “unanimous” advice of his foreign policy advisers, he chose to slam the president and attempt to make political points.

Several articles state that he used “poor judgement” in speaking out before “learning of the gravity” of the situation. Another article shows Mr. Romney leaving the news conference where he made these remarks with a somewhat weird smile on his face, while the faces of the media reflected grief and sadness.

If you are truly considering voting for this man in November, please look at this situation and reconsider. He would wreak havoc with the relationships that the U.S. has worked hard to build.

Mitt Romney is an opportunist out of his league, and is absolutely not qualified to be president of the United States.



Correct response

To the editor:

I opened Thursday’s Review-Journal, saw the front page headline “Romney criticized by own party for foreign policy gaffe,” and cursed. To have the only person on the national stage who correctly responded to the latest in a series of attacks on the sovereignty of the United States openly criticized by members of his party is yet another example of Republican leaders who should be Democrats.

American lives were lost and American property destroyed by Islamist zealots who openly despise the United States of America. They despise the freedoms and liberty that have made us so special and unique in all the world. But Mitt Romney is criticized for asserting those values that contrast to President Obama’s apologetic response to Libya and Cairo.

The president is apologizing for our right to freedom of speech! He belittles an American citizen for creating a video that is critical of Muhammad, but asserts nothing when hundreds and thousands of Christians are summarily executed throughout the Middle East. He then trots out his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, to lecture the world on the peaceful purpose of foreign consulates around the world and how important it is to respect their sanctity? This is insanity.

Please raise your hand if you believe apologies and lectures are going to change the minds and intentions of those who perpetrated this latest example of barbaric behavior or the minds of their ilk who believe as they do. History is rife with examples of the failure of appeasement. Enemies, from the beginning of time, have never been defeated by words, only by demonstrated superior force combined with rhetoric that demonstrates a willingness to use it.

Mitt Romney should be exalted for his forthright support for the values that Americans hold dear, and he should be heralded by his party leaders for underscoring these differences with President Obama in this area of foreign policy.



No Sassenach

To the editor:

On the front page of your issue dated Sept. 11 you printed an article stating that English tennis player Andy Murray finally won a major. This is an insult to every single Scottish person. Please print an apology. Andy Murray is Scottish!



Spies in the sky

To the editor:

My opposition to the use of drones is not based on Fourth Amendment grounds only, as is the Review-Journal’s (“Drone restrictions,” Sept. 12), but rather includes additional arguments based on the principle of land ownership, and also on the “plain view” doctrine of law enforcement. You know: the principle that if a police officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to contact a citizen and he sees evidence of a crime “in plain sight,” that evidence can be seized and you can be charged with a crime, even though not related to the original encounter.

What’s to stop these drone operators from spying on citizens while en route to the property or area covered by the search warrant? Are they going to increase government income by “accidentally” finding ordinance violations while en route to a property covered by a search warrant? If this is how the government will enforce laws, then why do we need to pay so many actual officers? After all, we’ve seen they can lie to their supervisors and go on a road trip to another state and get caught and still have jobs.

Where is the limit to governmental intrusion and spending? Can we shoot these drones down if they fly into the reasonable privacy space over our homes? It is trespass, you know. Do we now have to roof over our backyards to maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy?



UNLV football

To the editor:

The picture of UNLV football coach Bobby Hauck with the caption “Hauck, Rebels: We’re moving forward” on the front page of Tuesday’s Review-Journal was priceless. If the situation doesn’t improve, Mr. Hauck could run for office.



News Headlines
pos-2 — ads_infeed_1
post-4 — ads_infeed_2
Local Spotlight
Home Front Page Footer Listing
You May Like

You May Like