Need for more answers

I was surprised to see The Seattle Times’ editorial on Libya [“The Benghazi timeline without the politics,” editorials, Nov. 5]. The Times really hasn't spent a lot of time reporting on this.

The editorial board obviously is supporting the various positions put forth by the Obama administration. I don't understand and would like clarification on two issues: How could this brilliant, compassionate president send his ambassador to the U.N.to present positions that the president knew were false? How could the president go to the U.N. and mention this video six times yet never mention terrorism?

— Gary Williams, Snohomish

Media mischaracterize Fox News

The Times’ editorial board misses the mark in its characterization of Fox News’ “twisted narrative” concerning Benghazi. Absent alternative narratives from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or MSNBC, which have all decided to forgo any vigorous reportage of the issue, we are left with what Fox News has to offer.

— Todd Brannon, Seattle