Scrolling down to the end of this article, I came across this:
(bolded for emphasis)"As protesters awaited for sympathizer Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., to join
them, Michael Berg, father of Nicholas Berg, who was beheaded last year by terrorists in Iraq, blamed Bush for his son's death. Other demonstrations were planned throughout the downtown area."
My thought was: "Yeah, that's right. Blame the president for the murder of your son at the hands of terrorists." Are people so clueless as to not follow logic? Also, would this man have blamed Clinton if the act had occured under his rule? I highly doubt it.
How would Bush be to blame for this man's death? Did he kill him? No. Berg was murdered by terrorists. Blame them. The sole blame should be visited upon those who perpetrated this despicable act. The father's anger should be directed not at the president who is trying to ensure against this acts, but at those who commit the acts.
No, I don't get all of my news from FoxNews, but it seems as though I find a lot inside their articles:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145062,00.html
Is it just me, or does it seem like this is just a little too trivial? Who cares? Different cultures, different signs. Seems like a pretty uptight group of people over there. (Oh, and that hand signal doesn't mean a sports team to me... just means bull* - as in cut the bull* - see... a different interpretation and I'm American... fancy that.)
No comments:
Post a Comment