Readers Write (Oct. 24): Benghazi hearings, ISIL suspect, cost of college, business communication

Former U.S. Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska will always be remembered for having described former President Bill Clinton as "an unusually good liar."

The U.S. House's Benghazi Select Committee hearings well served to counter any lingering curiosities about what is it that Hillary and Bill Clinton actually have in common.

Hillary did Pinocchio proud.

• • •

Clinton calmly and intelligently answered the disrespectful, browbeating, ignorant questions of the latest Benghazi committee — for 11 hours! It just shows she can handle anything, including the presidency. The taxpayers are out nearly $5 million, courtesy of this partisan attack committee. But now we know what she's really made of. Thanks, GOP.

Guled Omar is being confined while awaiting trial in February for terrorism conspiracy ("Family: ISIL case suspect ill-treated," Oct. 23). He is in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, and his limitations are compounded in other ways that make him unhappy and uncomfortable. How is this treatment going to make this young man (or his friends) any less eager "to aid ISIL in its fight to carve out an Islamic-run state"? For his protection, keep him separate from other prisoners if necessary, but why further alienate him? Why not demonstrate that America is a place of peace and kindness?

Why not use this time to educate and help him understand the opportunities that could be his if he opened himself to them?

We find out on the front page that Omar is unhappy with his solitary confinement. The article states that his brother, Ahmed Ali Omar, left the state more than a decade ago to join Al-Shabab. We have to go inside the paper to find out why it is important that these brothers be apprehended and treated the way they are and should be — as we see an American special forces soldier was killed in a rescue of many in Iraq facing "imminent mass execution" by ISIL, an organization Guled Omar actively sought to join, in its philosophy, and its mission, to destroy "infidel" human life. Such activity is not consistent with a civilized society. Until the families of the Guled Omars of the world actively work to disgorge these monsters (for that is what they are) from their midst and their families, and they are purged from their religion and our midst, then yes, may they be segregated from all elements of society, convicted and, if appropriate, executed, for their crimes against humanity.

May the unhappiness their families face then be channeled toward preventing this from happening again, rather than complaining that a son cannot buy a candy bar from the commissary. Those who faced imminent execution due to Guled Omar's colleagues and friends would be excused for seeking far more from him, and his family, for what was about to happen to them because of his ideology, and for what he himself was about to be involved in (and his brother already is).

And a heartfelt thanks to the as-yet-unknown family of that soldier who died to save those he could not have known, in defense of the right of our world to be free of these monsters and their ideology. Let us take a moment today to kneel in front of a flag and say a silent prayer in thanks for these best of us. May all of us, including the family of Guled Omar, do all we can to be truly worthy of that soldier's sacrifice.

To the Oct. 23 commentary writer who will be saddled with her son's $90,000 college tuition debt ("College debt drags down parents, too"): Cry. Me. A. River. I am tired of reading yet another parent's lament about our state's immense private college costs. I, too, would enjoy the luxury of a Cadillac, but I am quite content driving my aging Nissan.

Our sons earned degrees at the University of Minnesota with little financial assistance from us. Both had joined the military to defray some of the cost with the help of the GI Bill. One son completed a doctoral degree and is no less valued and respected by his peers and students than if he had spent tens of thousands of dollars more on his education; the other son just landed his dream job.

I enjoyed reading and discussing "The delicate art of being a woman in a meeting" (Oct. 18), as it sparked a lively exchange with several of my female friends. We all recognized the inherent truth in the lighthearted historical translations. I surprised my friends a bit, however, by then speaking affirmatively of the seldom-defended art of equivocation.

I will be retiring soon from several decades in the telecommunications industry, and I find myself reminiscing on the early years of my career. I was told then, both directly and indirectly, that the way to be successful in the world of work was to be "like a man" in dress, communications and presence. The notion was that men were unemotional, focused, supremely confident and driven, and that these were naturally very good things. As my career progressed, I gradually noticed, however, that (1) no man who completely fits the above description exists — or to equivocate a bit: if he does, I haven't met him; (2) an emotion that many (not all) men feel free to display at work is anger and its variants, though that anger is rarely labeled as an emotion; and (3) that the most capable and successful men and women I knew at work are the ones consistently able and willing to display genuine empathy and consideration for the feelings of others.

Is it possible that a style that can allow for the occasional expression of hesitancy in business communications may have had its start rooted in inequality and insecurity but has evolved to be a communication choice that is both healthy and productive? Is it harmful to acknowledge that there are several legitimate ways to view an issue? And even — sit down if you are standing — leaving some room for the possibility of personal error or misjudgment in business communications? Looking back at the past 35 years, I do not regret even one minute spent taking the time to consider the point of view of others, customers and co-workers alike, and reflecting that consideration in my business communications. I do regret the times when I did otherwise.

Being blunt has its place — don't get me wrong. But in terms of a more consistently productive approach, my vote is with Stephen Covey's "Seek first to understand, then to be understood." If and when that approach to business communications becomes the one that is recommended, emulated and valued, we will have arrived — men and women alike — at a better place.