Obama issued a statement about the "heartbreaking loss" of Michael Brown. He followed that up in a speech:
"Of course, it’s important to remember how this started. We lost a young man, Michael Brown, in heartbreaking and tragic circumstances. He was 18 years old. His family will never hold Michael in their arms again."If this guy Obama was my butcher, I'd tell him to get his thumb off the scale while he's weighing my rib roast. "Heartbreaking", "tragic", "His family will never hold Michael in their arms again." Another case for your consideration: an elderly gentleman gunned down in his home without warning. Those who loved him would undoubtedly see this as "heartbreaking", and "tragic". And I can assure you, that his family will never hold Usama bin Laden in their arms again!
You see what I did there? More importantly, did you see what Obama did there? Staying true to form, Obama draws his conclusions without the necessity of waiting for the the benefit of any facts. This guy Michael Brown may have been an A-student choir boy, or just some thug resisting arrest. We don't know. While to his parents it's heart breaking, if this guy was terrorizing his neighborhood, then his death was far from "tragic" for his victims. Would it hurt the man who dithered for six years not approving the Keystone pipeline, to wait at least as many days before pontificating over the character of a man he did not know? Who died under circumstances yet to be determined? Or, at the very least, to use the neutral language of a statesman instead of emotionally charged weasel words, until after all the facts are in?
Assuming that Michael Brown falls somewhere in the spectrum between beloved Robin Williams, whose family will never hold him in their arms again, and Usama bin Laden, whose family will never hold him in their arms again, why should the president... of the United States, who never seems to be able to find the time to perform the actual duties of his office, interject himself into racially charged local matter with emotionally charged language that could inflame those already given to riot and disorder?
Obama claims to "be a better speechwriter than his speech writers". Shall we infer then, that it was his intent to use such dishonest, emotionally charged rhetoric to subtly maintain the inflamed passions that sparked the looting and civil unrest of Ferguson, MO? Before you tug our heartstrings with the tale of a poor, elderly man gunned down in his home, whose family will never hold him in their arms again, tell us of the 3,000+ Americans he killed in a single day. Context is everything.
Next time, Mr. President, make the "gutsy call" to get all the facts before you weigh in on subjects both above and below your pay grade. Your followers will not hold you accountable, but history will.
Cross posted at Proof Positive