So I'm listening to Relevant Radio (Catholic radio) in my car, and the host says that Obama didn't use the words "terrorism" or "terrorists" in his speech in Egypt and didn't refer to terrorism at all.
Obama DID mention terrorism in his speech. He may not have used the word (why reinforce a stereotype: "All Muslims are *terrorists"?), but he referred (with anger in his voice) to "Al Quaeda" and spoke at some length about the innocent people (of America and various nations) who were murdered on 9/11. (Thank God I had heard NPR's airing of the speech earlier in the morning.)
I am NO fan of Obama's extreme anti-life policies or his Socialist drift (and I certainly didn't vote for him), but if we start attacking him for the good things he does (or worse, falsifying information), we will lose all credibility. It becomes an attack ad hominem. This is gravely dishonest.
Interestingly enough, I was on Chicago's 94 inbound where there were billboards for BOTH "Relevant Radio 950" AND "Chicago's Progressive Talk Radio 820." Hmmm, I thunk, I wonder what 820 is saying about Obama's speech? So I tuned in: "Breaking news! In a zoo in Germany, two male penguins are caring for an egg rejected by its biological parents!"
God bless America.
____
*Maybe we should retire the terms "terrorist/terrorism" all together. Makes 'em sound real powerful and scary. My mother says we should say "cowards/cowardism."
