September 13, 2013
The First Rule of 9/11 Memorials...
...at least to hear Dana Milbanks tell it, is: "Do not talk about what happened on 9/11".
On the other side of the Capitol, conservative leaders joined the eccentric Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) at what was supposed to be a “memorial service for the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001 and 2012.” But the 3,000 who perished in 2001 got just a few passing references at the 35-minute event.
The “primary purpose” of the gathering, in the words of organizer Jerry Boykin, a retired Army general, was to remember the four men who were killed in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost there. More to the point, the conservatives had assembled to blame the Obama administration for the deaths and to demand further investigation of the resulting “scandal.”
Or maybe it's more like, "Talk all you like, so long as you stick to the pre-approved script."
Who gets to set the rules for what's permissible during a 9/11 memorial? Is discouraging dissent and free speech some heretofore unknown function of our much vaunted free press? Oddly, I don't recall criticism of the President being off limits during the Bush years, even on the anniversary of 9/11.
Especially on the anniversary of 9/11. During the Bush years, publicly thumping the President bid fair to replace baseball as the national pastime and the press not only refrained from noting the distastefulness of it all but jumped on the bandwagon with wild abandon.
Are those horrid Republicans poaching the king's deer again?
Perhaps Herr Milbanks is suggesting there's no connection between the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 and the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi on 9/11/2012. How impudent - downright rude, really- of them to point out that America responded to the 2001 attack, but has so far done nothing about the 2012 attack. Or maybe he's concerned that there were too few ceremonies commemorating 9/11 this year - that there was too little media reflection and commentary? That unsanctioned remembrances would prove to be a distraction from the main event?
Or perhaps it's just unseemly for a free people to demand accountability from their leaders on the first anniversary of an attack that killed 4 Americans and injured many more.
Incroyable! The peasantry have grown far too uppity, wethinks. Someone in authority should tell us to pipe down.
Posted by Cassandra at September 13, 2013 05:47 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Milbanks is an asshole.
Nice day outside, though.
Posted by: spd rdr at September 13, 2013 04:00 PM
The view from the 7th floor is absolutely gorgeous. Wish I were outside!
Posted by: Cassandra at September 13, 2013 04:45 PM
Seems to me the lefties use any anniversary as an excuse to prate about their favorite subjects--in order: racism,unfair income distribution,gun control and oppression of women.
Posted by: CAPT Mongo at September 15, 2013 09:47 AM
Really? I usually encounter "American imperialism" in the #1 spot -- normally with a reference to the 9/11/1973 anti-leftist coup in Chile backed by American policy. Then we move on to stories about how America started al Qaeda in Afghanistan as a means of fighting a proxy war with Russia, and...
Posted by: Grim at September 15, 2013 01:43 PM
Hafta give you a nod for expressively calling the Dims out.
Someone once said that 'patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.'
I'd modify slightly to fit the present batch of Dims: 'Outrage is the last refuge of the utterly incompetent.' How *dare* you question my opinion(s) or policy(ies)?
Afraid spd may win this thread, Progs have become so predictable you can mock them for their foolish words, *before* they speak.
Posted by: CAPT Mike at September 15, 2013 03:46 PM