Word of the Day v. 2.0: Travesty

November 23, 2009 By

This is sort of related to last Thursday’s word of the day:

trav — es — ty [trav–uh-stee], n., any grotesque or debased like­ness or imitation.

This is exactly what the 9/11 con­spir­a­tor trial will be.  The lawyer for one of the ‘jihadists’ said over the week­end that the five on trial will plead not guilty, but will explain “why they did it.”  So, this will be a trav­esty of jus­tice — a trav­esty of a trial.  Every­one knows — well, let me rephrase…Every­one but the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion  knows that it will be a show trial.  Michelle Malkin wrote a very nice arti­cle on the sub­ject, includ­ing a snip­pet of what Obama pre­vi­ously said about the 9/11 attacks.  Let me repost what he said here, just eight days after the attacks:

We must also engage, how­ever, in the more dif­fi­cult task of under­stand­ing the sources of such mad­ness. [Editor’s note:  The ter­ror­ists are mis­un­der­stood.] The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fun­da­men­tal absence of empa­thy on the part of the attack­ers: an inabil­ity to imag­ine, or con­nect with, the human­ity and suf­fer­ing of oth­ers. Such a fail­ure of empa­thy, such numb­ness to the pain of a child or the des­per­a­tion of a par­ent, is not innate; nor, his­tory tells us, is it unique to a par­tic­u­lar cul­ture, reli­gion, or eth­nic­ity. [It wasn’t the ter­ror­ists’ fault — it was society’s.] It may find expres­sion in a par­tic­u­lar brand of vio­lence, and may be chan­neled by par­tic­u­lar dem­a­gogues or fanat­ics.  Most often, though, it grows out of a cli­mate of poverty and igno­rance, help­less­ness and despair. [Give the ter­ror­ists more money, and they’ll leave us alone.]

Are you freakin’ kid­ding me??  And this man now holds the most pow­er­ful posi­tion in the world now?  Gimme a break.  So it is appar­ent that the rea­son Obama and Holder want to give these guys a “fair trial” in our civil­ian court sys­tem is because they feel sorry for them — they were mis­treated by society…Well, I say “wah, wah, wah”.

Maybe we need a reminder of what these guys have done, specif­i­cally à la Daniel Pearl.  Also, don’t for­get the threat against Deb­bie Schus­sel, a con­ser­v­a­tive colum­nist.  (Warn­ing:  graphic pho­tos in the link.)  Like I said last week:  This is not a trial of the ter­ror­ists.  It is a trial of the Bush Admin­stra­tion, the CIA, and our national secu­rity.  Obama has failed in his oath to pro­tect and defend the Con­sti­tu­tion and the Amer­i­can peo­ple.  He has made us less safe, and I hope this is the prover­bial nail in the cof­fin to his re-election in 2012.  In fact, I hope that this solid­i­fies the GOP win next year.  Most Amer­i­cans (around 80–90%) oppose this trial.  I just hope that per­cent­age trans­lates into oppo­si­tion to his stupidity.

Filed Under: Politics, Terrorism Tagged With: , ,

Eric’s Word of the Day v 1.0: Obfuscate

November 19, 2009 By

I used to include a word of the day on my old blog, but it kind of fell by the way­side.  I have decided to start it back up; but this time, it will be polit­i­cally– and current-event-oriented.   And coin­ci­den­tally, Dictionary.com’s Word of the Day fits right in with what I was thinking.

Obfus­cate \OB-fuh-skayt\ , tran­si­tive verb;

  1. To darken or ren­der indis­tinct or dim.
  2. To make obscure or dif­fi­cult to under­stand or make sense of.

  3. To con­fuse or bewilder.

Eric Holder, Dear Leader O-bow-ma’s illus­tri­ous Attor­ney Gen­eral, has man­aged to define this word recently using all three def­i­n­i­tions.  I’ll give you some examples:

1.  Holder obfus­cated the future of the War on Ter­ror by allow­ing the 9/11 mas­ter­mind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his cohorts to have a “fair trial” in civil­ian courts, even though Holder admit­ted we’re at war and these guys were caught on a bat­tle­field in a for­eign coun­try by our troops.

2.  Holder man­aged to obfus­cate his deci­sion by giv­ing dodgy answers in the Con­gres­sional hear­ing yesterday.

When he was asked what would hap­pen if the ter­ror­ists were acquit­ted, he replied:  “Fail­ure is not an option.  These are cases that have to be won.  I don’t expect we’ll have a con­trary result.”   Wait…what??  I thought the whole rea­son for our court sys­tem — a civil­ian jus­tice sys­tem — was to pro­vide those on trial with a fair one, where they are inno­cent until proven guilty?!  And yet both he and Dear Leader Obama have already given the ver­dict of guilty to these ter­ror­ists even before the trial has started!  If that is the case, then these guys can never receive a fair trial in a civil­ian court — which leaves only one con­clu­sion:  This will be a show trial (i.e. cir­cus) in which our inter­ro­ga­tion meth­ods, the CIA, and our national secu­rity will be judged and not these ter­ror­ists.  This will directly result in a weaker national defense, and we’ll be less safe than we were before 9/11, if we’re not already.

3.  And with his deci­sion, Holder has man­aged to obfus­cate the pub­lic and no doubt the fam­i­lies of all the 9/11 vic­tims.  All we can ask is, “Why?”

Filed Under: 9/11, Politics, Terrorism Tagged With: , ,