|
Re: Bombing in Boston
Unless a pundit happens to be an FBI or BPD investigator, I don't think I really give a damn who they think is responsible. Yesterday, for instance, the "pundits" were all convinced that it was a Saudi student turned terrorists here on one of "Obama's visas". Today, that student's been released and cleared of all suspicion.
I respect the government for trying to ascertain some facts before they make assumptions or point fingers. Remember Bush fingering the "Axis of Evil" in the wake of 9/11 (Iran, North Korea and Iraq)? Remember how those countries had nothing to do with the attack, or any sort of cooperation at all? And remember how we went to war with one of them for no reason? Kind of glad to see the Administration avoiding those sorts of missteps. As to his supposed "failure" to mention the word terrorism in his speech yesterday: not only is it still a bit premature to do that sort of thing (there's still the possibility that this is the work of some random psycho), but Obama was making a conciliatory speech to the public. He wasn't ignoring the threat of terrorism so much as A) waiting for the facts to come and and B) trying to comfort people and reassure them that justice would be done. It's not really fair to expect a policy statement or a war declaration there.
It disgusts me that some pundits are using this tragedy as a means of making cheap jabs at the President, or to make a political statement of some kind.
|