Letters on Benghazi hearing, lying politicians, O’Donnell irony, political pendulum, Putin

Benghazi hearing not a waste of time

The Oct. 23 Eagle headline “Clinton confronts GOP critics in Benghazi hearing” should have read, “Clinton was brought to shame in Benghazi hearing.”

Hillary Clinton and the State Department had been informed in the early stages of the attack that it was a hostile attack and not a protest gone awry.

Clinton told her daughter in an e-mail soon after the attack that it was a terrorist attack. She also told the Egyptian prime minister the day after the attack that it was a planned attack.

However, she insisted to the American people that the attack was a protest over an anti-Islam movie that spontaneously went violent.

I do not like being lied to by our leaders just so President Obama could be saved embarrassment and be re-elected.

In response to recent letters to the editor: I hope that the letter writers now see why the Benghazi hearing was not a waste of time and not nonsense. The editorial cartoons should have shown Clinton as being roasted and the loser of a fencing match.

We need to stop terrorists as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan under President George W. Bush. The vacuum left by Obama has led to the Islamic State taking over the region with special vengeance against Christians.

I hope that our next president has the character of Christ to present the truth and be a protector of our nation and Christianity.

All are unqualified

“Clinton repeatedly lied about attack” (Oct. 28 Letters to the Editor) ended with the statement that “a person (referring to Hillary Clinton) of such weak moral fiber who is willing to do or say anything to win an election is completely unqualified to hold the office of the president of the United States.”

Using the criteria of being willing to do or say anything to win an election, one would have to consider almost all state and national politicians as completely unqualified to hold any public office, let alone that of the presidency.

O’Donnell irony

Sen. Michael O’Donnell, R-Wichita, launched a billboard campaign against his opponent, Lynn Rogers, warning voters that Rogers is raising their property taxes (Oct. 22 Eagle). I don’t suppose I am the only voter who finds it ironic that a person who once avoided paying property taxes altogether is now warning others that their property taxes are going up.

Some of us still remember that when O’Donnell was first in office, he was living in a house designated as a parsonage of the church where his father was a minister, which was not subject to property taxes. Only after this information became public did he hurriedly pay the property taxes due on that house and then buy another house.

Another irony in O’Donnell’s past is that in June he voted in favor of House Bill 2109, which increased the state’s sales and cigarette taxes. Then he voted against a later tax bill, Senate Bill 270, that dropped the future cut to the sales tax on food. So not only did O’Donnell avoid paying property taxes until caught, he has also voted for the most regressive of all taxes.

Clearly, O’Donnell’s fear that voters will remember his record and vote against him a little over a year from now is well-founded.

Swing to the left?

Fort Hays State University professor Chapman Rackaway used a clever analogy comparing changes in popular political positions – discussed symbolically as far right, moderate right and centrist – to those of a physical pendulum (“Pendulum ready to swing back?” Oct. 25 Opinion). He seemed to suggest that citizens would prefer an almost stationary centrist political position, but I don’t think he took the analogy far enough.

Physical pendulums don’t immediately slow down and stop in the balanced center location of their vacillations. They race through that position to settle, if temporarily, at a position far to the opposite extreme. If political pendulums are similar, and he is correct that such changing attitudes could develop – and are desirable? – it is more likely that we’d end up with a pretty leftist political situation in Kansas.

War with Putin?

Every time I read columnist Charles Krauthammer’s opinion I have to laugh. He keeps complaining that President Obama should do something to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin (Oct. 24 Opinion). What does he want Obama to do?

The only way I know he could stop Putin is to start a war. How have our other recent wars worked out? I would like to know if Krauthammer complained when President George W. Bush did nothing when Putin went into Georgia.

The only way to stop Putin is with force. Is Krauthammer willing to do that?

This story was originally published October 30, 2015 at 7:04 PM with the headline "Letters on Benghazi hearing, lying politicians, O’Donnell irony, political pendulum, Putin."