In a blog post in the National Review titled “No, Niger isn’t ‘Trump’s Benghazi’,” David French answers the calls that the mission in Niger was “Trump’s Benghazi.” He states that while there are many reasons to thoroughly investigate this tragedy, there is not any evidence at this time that would point to any kind of cover-up by the Trump Administration.

                Mr. French dives deep into the particulars of both this mission in Niger, which was one where the special forces soldiers were training allied forces, and also the terrorist attack in Benghazi, which lead to the death of U.S. soldiers, and an ambassador. He also looks into the cover-up by the Obama administration. Mr. French’s conclusion is that, though the ambush in Niger is an extremely sad tragedy, it is nothing more than what happens all the time in the war on terror. In contrasting Niger with Benghazi, Mr. French says that the cover-up/lie of the spontaneous demonstration of a you tube video is why Benghazi deserved much more scrutiny than Niger does.

                While I enjoy David French’s writing style, the telling thing to me here is his background. On reading his bio on the National Review website, it struck me that not only is he a veteran, in this case U.S. Army Reserves, but he is also a lawyer, “concentrating his practice in constitutional law and the law of armed conflict.” To me this lends quite a bit of credibility to his writing on this subject. You would expect him to know what he is talking about.

• In an editorial in the New York Times on October 4, 2017, entitled "The Debate That Goes Nowhere," Andrew Rosenthal states that it is time to begin the debate about gun control. Mr. Rosenthal, a gun control advocate, has written this editorial to his base liberal readers. He advocates, "It’s time to talk about taking away guns — not everyone’s guns and not all of them, but a whole lot.". One thing that Mr. Rosenthal fails to propose is how he intends to decide which guns would be removed. While a credible writer, and honestly one who I would not mind reading more of, I could find nothing in his bio that would lead to me consulting with him on issue of gun control or responsible gun ownership. Mr. Rosenthal also fails to present any evidence to support his claim that gun control is the only way to solve this problem. He makes lots of general statements, such as “There is no good reason for a civilian to own rifles like the ones used by the Las Vegas killer and even less to own many of them.” But how does he know that? What criteria is he using to arrive at that number. Is he stating that all the guns the shooter had are unnecessary? Where do you stop banning and regulating guns? While I personally support the 2nd amendment, I believe there is room for both sides to give in compromise. That can only happen when there is clear communication between both sides, and both sides are willing to budge in their stances.