Note at :51, Obama uses the lawyerly term "allegedly". Fair enough. But then, at 1:01, 1:06, 1:30, 2:54 and 3:19 on the video, (five times in two and a half minutes), the Lawyer-in-Chief refers to the "suspect". Suspect??? This guy is subdued with flames shooting out of his Underoos, trying to blow up a US passenger jet and Obama can only refer to him as a "suspect"?
Why does this guy sound more like some city's Assistant District Attorney than the President of the United States and the Leader of the Free World?
Cross posted at Say Anything
Mark Steyn's take: Putting aside the stuff that was just plain wrong (this guy's an "isolated extremist" - oh, yeah?), the President's remarks had a horrible desiccated complacency. "Alleged..." "suspect..." "charged..." - because this is no different from a punk holding up a gas station, right? In all their alleged allegedness, this Administration has an allergy to the concept of war, and thus to the tools of war, including strategy and war aims. In essence, they've accepted a Fort Hood model for this challenge: every so often, something will happen and people will die, and we'll seal off the crime scene and take the alleged suspect into alleged custody. But it's reactive, and it cripples our ability to prevent the death of innocents.
Posts
You hit it just right with the "lawyer-in-chief" title. Sadly as soon as the "alleged" terror the "suspect" was read his rights--did he lawyer up or did this young man just feel like running his mouth. The truth is that vital information will never be forthcoming and the likelyhood that lives may be lost in the future by treating this and other cases as criminal incidents and not acts of war against this nation. I don't know what it will take to wake these people in Washington. Perhaps a bomb down the White House chimmey, something that effects the "Lawyer-in-Chief" personally.
ReplyDelete