You need to understand a cancer to treat it.
Justin Trudeau’s comments about root causes and the Boston bombing are
perfectly sensible.
They show a politician who has something substantive to say.
The comments are also consistent with sensible politicians of
all political stripes.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, following the Oslo terror attacks, was
widely quoted saying “we have to demonstrate and persevere and work together to
try to find the root causes but also try to pre-empt and interrupt these types
of attacks”.
Both Trudeau and MacKay
were correct.
11 comments:
The media and the conservatives want everyone to make the trivial soundbity comments everyone makes when a tragedy occurs. When Justin makes a thoughtful reasonable attempt to consider why something happens they jump all over him and tell him it is not
appropriate. I think it is appropriate to try to figure these things out and I bet the victims do too.
I agree with your post. Seems the people who are jumping all over Trudeau for his comments are mostly people who support Harper and want Trudeau to fail.
There is a time and a place to talk about "root causes" and it's not while they are still spraying the blood into the gutter.
"Both Trudeau and MacKay were correct."
And neither are Prime Minister.
Tho one is a wanna-be.
PMs don't come out of the gate after a terrorist attack and look for root causes.
PMs first concern is always public safety, not the possible hurt feeling of the terrorist.
But, The Rat, if you turn on a US news station today, chances are you'll hear the words "root causes" in connection with Boston. Lots of people are talking about it, trying to understand. Maybe partly to understand why, and partly to understand if anything can be done to prevent this.
Here I must disagree with Rat -- we all want to know "why". And the Why may allow us to figure out how to stop a repeat.
Trudeau says that this happened because the person(s) who did this was "excluded", yet prior to that interview, we knew absolutely NOTHING about who carried out the act. So how can he be sure this person(s) did this because they was "excluded"? It could have been ANY other reason the person would have had to justify it, and we didn't know yet at that point, but somehow Trudeau did?
This arrogant little fop IS in over head.
Trudeau was quick to take a morally neutral position. At best is ill advised, at worst borders on sympathy. Reminds me of Chretien mentioning poverty as a cause for 911. The 24 year old Boston terrorist drove a late model Mercedes.
Times like these call for a Rudy Giuliani. He refused Saudi money after 911 when they blamed US foreign policy. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/11/rec.giuliani.prince/
Someone please help me understand Liberals. Where are the Henry (Scoop) Jackson Liberals today? I cannot find them.
Our so-called democracy has come to a sad state when thoughtful comments are condemned and memorized and regurgitated talking points are the norm. It is shocking that the pestilence of character assassination ads have been imported from the USA. The media is obsessed with the content of ads themselves instead of either ignoring the garbage or at least questioning why we are having to put up with this crap.
Yo, Reformaratory trolls (aka The Rat, wilson & Rotterdam)
You know who else takes the "liberal" view of looking for "root causes" of terrorism?
Stephen Harper
Seriously, you Reformatory trolls should leave the Liblogs alone, you only embarrass yourselves.
From David Frum:
"Trudeau spoke in the passive voice, about people who "feel excluded." It's possible to feel excluded for no good reason at all. Yet the implication lingers, it is that if people "feel excluded," somebody is excluding them. It's easy to draw the inference from Trudeau's words that he thinks the real culprit in cases of terrorism is this unknown excluder, not the unfortunate victim of exclusion who merely detonated the bomb that was somehow prepared for him by vaguely oppressive social forces.
In Justin Trudeau's comments on the Boston attack, we see a worrying formula: first, emphatic certainty ("there is no question"), expressed (as Andrew notes) vaguely and incoherently, all in service of an idea that is objectively wrong. Overconfident and mistaken: that is not the stuff of which successful prime ministers are made."
Post a Comment