Reader responds to Sentinel editorial on Jan. 6

Posted

It’s been said that you can’t win against someone who buys ink by the barrel, especially when you are limited to 300 words. But I can’t let the Jan. 6 Sentinel lead editorial pass without comment.

It is inconsistent and misleading for the editorial to criticize CBS for calling Jan 6 event an “insurrection” instead of an “election protest,” and then later on state that the event was an “attack.” It seems to me that an “attack” is closer to an “insurrection” than it is to a “protest.”

It doesn’t matter that no one yet has been charged with “insurrection.” Many have been charged and convicted of acts of violence against police officers, including the Capitol Police, District of Columbia Police, National Guard officers, etc. All these potentially deadly acts were directed at the US representatives and senators during the unlawful attack while those elected officials were carrying out the business that they do for us, the citizens of our country.

The editorial’s accusation that the FBI “MAY have had” either advance warning of the attack, or that some of the participants “MAY have been” FBI informants, is an unfounded claim. It is misleading, merely repeated rumor-mongering.

This whole Jan. 6 ugly mess is a direct result of the former president’s lies claiming that the election was a fraud. As Republican columnist Kathleen Parker’s article notes, on the same page, in every court proceeding and state recount that has been done the fairness and honesty of the 2020 election has been upheld. Thus, where are the election precincts that were “manipulated,” as the Sentinel’s editorial claims?

The last paragraph of the editorial warns against being misled by “tricksters in politics and the media.” As I see it, this editorial is an excellent example of how “media tricksters” can mislead us.

— David Kobernuss, Taberg 

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here