Fox News pundits O’Reilly and Krauthammer fault Obama for calling Boston bombings a “tragedy”
If you Google the words “Boston Marathon” and “tragedy,” you get 937 million results, an indication that lots and lots of people consider what happened this past Monday in Beantown truly tragic.
And rightly so. Among the definitions for “tragedy” in my Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary is this: “a disastrous event: calamity.”
Therefore, I think I was perfectly justified in using the term “tragedy at Boston Marathon” in a headline on a post here just a few hours after the bombings.
But a pair of Obamaphobic blabbers on Fox News Channel are of a DIFFERENT OPINION:
On “The O’Reilly Factor” on Tuesday, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer told Bill O’Reilly that he — O-Reilly — was right to criticize President Barack Obama on Monday’s show for describing Monday’s Boston bombings as a “tragedy.”
Krauthammer asserted that the Monday attack was “beyond a tragedy” because of its motivations and likened it to the improper response from some following the shooting of former Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
“Obama is not the first to use ‘tragedy’ in describing events like this,” Krauthammer observed. “A bus accident is a tragedy. An attack on a bus is a crime or it is an act of war. When FDR addressed the Congress after Pearl Harbor, he didn’t say ‘December 7, a day that will live in tragedy.’ He said ‘it is a day that will live in infamy.’ It has to do with agency and cause. I mean, an accident is a tragedy and it has a cause and has to do with fate, serendipity. An accident — luck.
“But when the agency is human evil — that is beyond a tragedy,” he continued. “It’s a crime. That is what we’re dealing with here.”
What nonsense! “Tragedy” is nowhere defined as purely accidental or just a matter of bad luck. Nor did Obama imply that the bombings were not a crime.
What we have here, folks, is a classic example of overreach by a couple of commentators who recognize that they’re paid to disparage Obama for the enjoyment of Fox News Channel’s more dimwitted viewers — most of whom, I would guess, don’t own dictionaries they could use to check the definition of “tragedy.”
Krauthammer and O’Reilly aren’t going to like the headline on this magazine cover: