Letter’s words overstated tragic events at Benghazi

OlympiaJanuary 27, 2014 

One day, in the darkness of the past, a primitive human realized that his gift of language gave him almost limitless power to communicate. But as is too often the case, what man can learn to use, he can learn to misuse.

History does not record the result of this first misuse. Possibly nothing more than a simple argument between a man and his wife. Maybe it produced more serious consequences. Not too long ago, a frequent writer to The Olympian, who should have known better, used his words to mislead blatantly. He referred to “the catastrophe in Benghazi.”

Of course, I know that four Americans had been killed in an attack there. But was this Benghazi attack a catastrophe? Perhaps more important, what is a catastrophe?

In 1914, angry words were exchanged between Vienna and Belgrade, and soon over 25 nations were caught up in a Great War that cost 7 million lives. In 1556, 830,000 Chinese were victims of a giant earthquake.

I think we’d all agree these were catastrophes. But four people in Libya? I don’t think so.

A word like “catastrophe” really has no clear meaning by itself. It needs some adjective to clarify. Using the Benghazi example was clearly an attempt to vilify my president through the use of a verbal lie.

By the way, where was your president and secretary of state on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001?

The Olympian is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service