|

Fox News pundits O’Reilly and Krauthammer fault Obama for calling Boston bombings a “tragedy”

Screen-Shot-2012-10-23-at-9_42_34-PM-620x345

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.”

UPDATE: Uh-oh!

Krauthammer and O’Reilly aren’t going to like the headline on this magazine cover:

BIAVGLkCEAAVATt

Share:

27 Comments

  1. O’Reilly is just an entertainer and will say anything to get a jump in his ratings but as for Krauthammer despite his psychiatric training lost his marbles a long time ago.

  2. Neftali

    Call the Boston bombings what it really is – terrorism. However, liberals, because they are so sensitive, don’t like to use the word “terrorism”. It implies an acknowledgement toward Bush’s “War on Terror.” And we can’t have any possible references that Bush was right, can we liberals? It took over a week for the Obama administration to call the Benghazi incident an act of terror, preferring to instead call it a protest uprising on a youtube video. So the same thing applies here. The bombing wasn’t a terrorist act, it was simply a “tragedy.”

    Oh…wait…I’m not supposed to mention Benghazi either. That’s another touchy subject for the liberals.

  3. Brian Opsahl

    If your going to lie about …yes you will be called out for that
    The President said the day after the Benghazi attack in the rose garden that terrorist attacked again.

    Maybe you forgot the last debate where Romney got his butt kicked trying to say the same thing your pushing. and was proven wrong on the spot by Candy whatever her name is…remember Nef…? wow you guys are dumb.

  4. Benghazi? Did something happen in Benghazi?

  5. Brian Opsahl

    I have never in my life heard any liberal say what your making up Nef…ever..well except you.

    and exactly how was Bush right …and about what..? so now you own the word terrorist
    Can I ask a question…? are you off your meds today..?

  6. Neftali: You just make this stuff up, don’t you?

    Who says liberals don’t call the Boston bombings “terrorism”? I call it “terrorism.” The Obama administration calls it “terrorism.”

    Only ill-informed wingnuts think we libs don’t use the T-word. That fiction arises from the crapola about Benghazi — your utterly representation above, for example.

    Sometimes you’re pretty weird. It’s like you get a dose of nuttiness every other day and then sneeze it all over these threads.

  7. Craig Knauss

    Wow, Nef, you hit a new low. Or maybe you are in desperate need of a dictionary.

    The WTC attack was tragic. The WTC attack was terrorism. It was both. The words are NOT mutually exclusive.

    The West, TX plant explosion was tragic, but not terrorism. The shoe bomber’s attempt was terrorism, but not tragic (he failed miserably).

    The Boston bombing was BOTH, tragic and terrorism.

  8. By the way, Neftali, the T-word was used as a tag in the fine print at the bottom of my first post on the Boston bombings on Monday afternoon. And it’s been used as a tag on many of my subsequent posts on this matter.

    But, hey, if you want to believe we libs don’t like to use that word, go ahead. Make a fool of yourself.

  9. Craig Knauss

    Pat,

    Is there any way of getting court-ordered enemas for O’Reilly and Krauthammer? Both of them, especially Krauthammer, look like they need one.

  10. Neftali says this: “It took over a week for the Obama administration to call the Benghazi incident an act of terror…”

    On the day after the Benghazi attack, President Obama said this:

    “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

    He referred to “acts of terror” in connection with the deaths of “four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.”

    The right-wing extremists who will never give this president an ounce of respect pretend that Obama said no such thing. The liars!

  11. He called it terror and he promised that justice would be done.

    Any updates on that?

  12. doc: He got bin Laden, didn’t he? Your boy Bush couldn’t do that.

  13. By the way, doc, what was Bush’s record in dealing with the numerous terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates during his presidency?

    It was pretty poor, as I recall.

    Nor did your wingnut buddies in Congress make a big stink about those attacks, even though the death toll of Americans was much greater that in Benghazi.

    Ah, you poor saps and your Benghazi bugaboo. It just hasn’t worked out for you, has it? Some of your kind thought it would lead to Obama’s impeachment. Romney thought he could ride that hobby horse to the White House. Instead, your entire crusade on that matter has been a big fat failure.

    And I recall the zeal with which you pushed the cause. You seemed so certain that it would be Obama’s undoing. You even accused him of casually watching the carnage on closed-circuit TV and doing nothing about it.

    Big fat failure, doc. Big fat failure.

  14. Ask a simple question…….

    Liberals are just so darned predictable.

    If they weren’t so dangerous, it would be amusing.

  15. Craig Knauss

    Liberals are dangerous, doc? Are you kidding?

    Where I live we have loads of unhinged rightwingers who think they need a 9mm to go to church or just check their mailbox. I am 100% serious. And this isn’t a high crime area.

    I worked in Chicago and near suburbs for 27 years. No gun. I did shop inspections in Gary, IN. No gun. I did work in Phily, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc. No gun. I’ve stayed in NYC, Newark, D.C., St. Louis, New Orleans, Memphis, Ft. Worth, Albuquerque, Oakland, San Fran, and almost all of the 10 most dangerous cities. No gun. But rightwingers in my neighborhood need one to go to the mall.

    And you say liberals are “dangerous”? You’ve gotta be freakin’ kidding

  16. Doc has made almost 5000 comments on this site. All of them are just so darned predictable.

    If he wasn’t so amusing, he would be dangerous.

  17. tex: Doc’s comment count is now at 5,018.

    That’s more than half as many as this blog’s posts. But it’s only a small fraction of total comments, which number in the hundreds of thousands.

  18. I assume my major prize will be arriving shortly. Please let me know if it will be fragile.

  19. Craig,

    Sometimes ideas are far more dangerous than bullets.

  20. doc said: “Sometimes ideas are far more dangerous than bullets.”

    Well, the Republicans have certainly proved that, haven’t they?

  21. Brian Opsahl

    Hey Doc,since Benghazi is suddenly now so important how about you ask your Republican congressmen to fund more money for that security in the Embassy’s so if something like this happens again we will have the REQUESTED amount of staff to handle potential TERRORIST attacks….it’s always after the fact these experts come out of the woodwork to know what should have been done, but never before…why is that…fox news

  22. I think the gang related crime in Rockford and Chicago and many other metro centers is a form of terrorism. Especially those acts where people are shot at through windows while they’re sleeping/watching tv, or walking on a street, or that man who rammed his car into the back end of the car in front of him on Kishwaukie St recently, then got out of his car and tried to rob the guy. Because its terrorizing entire cities and affecting the desirability and livability of the city. Is terrorism defined only as acts that have mass casualties or excessive and random acts that terrorize a community of civilized people?

    I’m grateful to the city leaders of Rockford that just this week that went public and said crime is the key factor affecting Rockford’s economy. Finally, someone in a leadership position stood up and said we got a problem and made it the top issue.

    http://www.wrex.com/story/22006414/2013/04/17/state-of-winnebago-county-address-focuses-on-fighting-crime

  23. Brian Opsahl

    Funny thing Robert about those guys ….are they not the same guys who have stood by as there very decisions have brought this behavior on. In fact several of them have worked against the Police department for Union reasons instead of what works to solve and prevent those crimes in the first place.

    Morrissy and his chief has polorized that entire departmaent with the they no whats best routine,and look what we got from it….?

  24. It takes the people to hold their leaders accountable. As I’ve said in a previous comment, the apathy of Rockford’s citizens is a big problem. I saw a comment on another board that applies to Rockford and all cities, “Any city can be good or bad depending on whether or not the citizens care enough to be engaged in it’s success.”— Reggie Roberson

    http://exhilaraterockford.com/

  25. Craig Knauss

    “Sometimes ideas are far more dangerous than bullets.”

    When some of our local morons feel they need to have a loaded 9mm in their pocket to attend church, I think it’s pretty much a draw.

    And they feel they should be armed to go to restaurants, the mall, schools, and even health care facilities.

    And it’s not the Libs who are doing this.

  26. Brian Opsahl

    Craig
    most of the time it is a coward that hides behind those guns

  27. “Call the Boston bombings what it really is – terrorism.”
    Yes. we were at war with a teenager and a 20 something. And we won! USA! Number 1!
    I bet we could even beat three guys, if we put our minds to it.
    Does that make your life more tolerable now?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>