(UPDATE #1):Just when we are falling all over ourselves with praise for the guy, he goes and pulls something like this.
We apparently have a statement from the White House regarding the religiously-motivated assassination of Private William Long. It reads as follows:
“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”
Thank god the wait is over... there are a couple of problems with this situation, however.
First, we have yet to see the above statement at the White House.gov web site under “statements and releases” where the statement regarding the murder of Dr. George Tiller resides.
Secondly, is the language. Tiller’s murder left the President “shocked and outraged” but Long’s merely “saddened”. And Tiller’s death is rightly called a “murder” by the President, yet Long’s death is placed in the “loss” category…. like freaking baseball standings.
Semantics, you say? “Words have meaning”, or so we have been told.
Solving the banking crisis, getting the economy back on its feet and navigating the country’s way through a hostile climate abroad is tough, difficult, complex stuff. This ain’t.
This is about as simple as you can get and yet the guy still manages to completely botch it.
This one is in the category of the "worst idea ever" although that particular "worst idea ever" is still #1. "A" for effort, though, sir.
There is an old adage about being in a house of ill repute with currency adorned with the busts of dead U.S. Presidents overflowing one’s pockets and yet that person still not being able to fulfill the terms of the commonly-understood house contract that would apply perfectly to our President.
(here endeth this sorry, sad-sack update)
We know this is going to sound like gotcha politics, though it is not meant to be. Could the fact that President Obama has not expressed his shock and outrage of the murder of Private William Long at the hands of an Islamic extremist have anything to do with the fact that he’s attempting to make nice with the Islamic world in the Middle East right now?
We reiterate what we said before – murder is wrong - so how is it then that one religiously-motivated assassination warrants an immediate response from the White House yet another religiously-motivated assassination does not?
For a man who did his best to downplay any connections to Islam during the campaign (a subject which we refuse to address) and who tried to bolster his credibility with the military, this omission is, at best, tone deaf and at worst, a disgustingly shameless planned negligence
Sir, may we remind you that you had no official connection to George Tiller yet you are William Long’s Commander-in-Chief. It is incumbent upon you to respond accordingly.
We'll be standing by.
Posts
18 comments:
Tiller was killed by a terrorist. Long died due to a man-made disaster. That's why one gets the press and the other doesn't.
Our military are only for show; abortionists keep women from being punished with a baby.
I refer to comments on "More than just sticks and stones" post.
Have you not discovered fair play and equality is not part of their doctrine.
Point it out all that you will, but unless it hits them square in the face, the rebuttal will be sarcasm and without merit.
'Dawg
KT, you may be being facetious but you are on to something. A mindset and culture that would "downgrade" terrorism to a morally-neutral "man-made disaster" would naturally look at the assassination of Pvt. Long as non note-worthy and thus not worth commenting on.
Frankly I'm surprised he managed to show that much respect for the Long. His contempt for our men and women in uniform is palatable...and his endearment to terrorists and their plight is barely veiled.
An American soldier gets killed by an Islamic extremists under the Obama administration and a somber statement is put out.
Many American soldiers get killed by Islamic extremists under the Bush administration, and Bush makes it a policy to not ever go to their airport arrival on American soil OR even allow the media to report their arrivals (A policy reversed by the Obama administration).
"His contempt for our men and women in uniform is palatable", indeed.
- Mongo Looking at These Comments Above With Particular Incredulity
Notable difference between "killed overseas in a war zone" and "gunned down in the US while at home on vist-your-school leave."
Do we get to harp on Clinton for abjectly failing to respond to terrorisim when it was over seas?
- can't believe Mongo even tried to twist that.
Fox, tell me the difference between an American soldier being killed by someone with a perverted vision of an otherwise noble religion in one part of the world versus another, and I'll concede the point.
- Mongo's Perception is that The War on Terror is a Global Endeavor, or Did America Fall Off the Map?
Mongo-
Convince me that all religions involved are noble and I shall.
For the non, I'll say that standing in a parking lot of a mall and being gunned down is a great deal different than being in a combat zone and being gunned down.
I'll also point out that I brought nothing of religion into it-- dead for political or other philosophical reasons is just as dead as for religious ones, and generally as incoherent.
Didn't you hear? There is no war on terror.
Besides, the UN is behind us!-- back at base camp, manning the desks.
Mr. Lloyd, I guess the difference is, there are millions of one mindset and only a handful of the other.
On an individual basis, the anti-abortionist gunman and the suicide bomber are not that far apart.
On a sociological level, there are not pro-life churches preaching death to abortionists, whereas mosques and their benefactors (like Hesbollah) that preach death to infidels.
This makes the comparison unfair, don’t you think?
Well, there ya go...
I'm comparing apples to apples (An American soldier killed by an Islamic extremist on American Soil v. American soldier(s) killed by Islamic extemists on foreign soil, and see no difference.
And you all are comparing apples and oranges: an American soldier gunned down by an Islamic extremist v. a doctor being gunned down in a church, and the President's reaction.
What the American soldier and the doctor have to do with one another, I have no idea -- other than they occured days apart and the President commented on both, independently. Any insinuation that the President, based on a comparison between the two statements, doesn't give a damn about the troops is absolutely asinine, and more than a little indicative of the Far Right collective state of mind. But I actually, in a way, welcome that sad state of mind being brought into bold relief in forums like this because it further isolates, like a pariah, this kind of thinking from the rest of America.
- Mongo Would Give You a Bigger Microphone if He Could
P.S. I for one still consider it a War on Terror. There are terrorists. Those terrorists want to destroy us. We must defeat those terrorists. Even Obama's Cairo speech makes those facts very clear. If whoever is in charge of "the message" now wants to call the War on Terror "The Apple Dumpling Gang Goes to Waziristan", that's fine. That doesn't change the game.
I for one still consider Mr. Lloyd a moron, but reasonable non-sarcastic well thought comments have given me pause.
Yes it's a stretch to compare the two killings re: the president's reaction. But we also need to consider recent terrorism protocol whereby the administration warns against this type of terrorism in the same vein with others.
When the Department of Homeland Security has issued an emergency assessment entitled “Rightwing Extremism" and put the radical anti abortionist in the same height of risk, why shouldn't the "Right" consider them "apples to apples"?
Apples vs Apples:
gunned down on American soil in situations that should be zero-risk.
Apples vs Oranges:
killed in a safe situation vs an unsafe one.
Apples vs Oranges:
In one supposed-to-be-safe killing, the president immediately made a nation-wide announcement, deplored the violence, and offered extra security measures; in the other, he remained silent-- despite a perfect chance to say something about the "sad loss" when he put in the new Army guy-- and when he finally makes a statement, it's lukewarm.
P.S. I for one still consider it a War on Terror. There are terrorists. Those terrorists want to destroy us. We must defeat those terrorists.
Thank goodness we agree on this.
"I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.” - Obama Quote via BwD Post
That's "lukewarm"??
Further, if you are announcing that the Far Right through observable fact is in the same boat as Al Qaeda and needs to be protected against... Well, ummmm... I don't even really need a trademark smart-ass response for that one.
It speaks for itself.
- Mongo Finds This Mindset Truly Disturbing
*points up to top* See comparison at top.
Further, if you are announcing that the Far Right through observable fact is in the same boat as Al Qaeda and needs to be protected against... Well, ummmm... I don't even really need a trademark smart-ass response for that one.
Not sure where you pulled that out of; prolly don't want to know. Heavens knows it's been fashionable to call anyone to the right of Pelosi a nazi, terrorist, jihadist and what-have-you for far too long....
Out of curiosity, define "far right"?
Define neo-con
Dawg-
a few possible (similar) meanings, from where I've seen it used with deducible meaning, and similar to the term "neo-Catholic":
to indicate "converts" to conservatism-- new conservatives;
to indicate "a new style of Conservative," generally more philosophically orthodox than the "old;"
mildly libertarian on social issues, big believer in universal human rights-- and the goodness of supporting them abroad when possible.
Neo-Neocon's nom d'cyber is a play on two of these meanings.
Post a Comment