From the Toronto Star:
(Hillary Clinton) said she found it "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."
What was Hillary so upset about? A search of the internet turns up this gem:
As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
Oops. That's not the one -- that's a speech from Ward Churchill.
If you are searching the web for Hillary Clinton's statement attacking Ward Churchill, good luck.
Hillary reserved her outrage for a line from Ann Coulter's new book:
'These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."
(from NBC's Today Show)
Now, Ann is always too bombastic for my tastes. The problem is, her valid point is lost in the outrage over her over-the-top comments. IN this case -- if you enter the public arena on a political side, your ideas should be debatable, but with these activists, as with Cindy, their supporters would cry foul whenever someone disagreed with them, because of their loss.
But nobody believes they asked for it, or were happy at their loss, any more than Cindy is happy she lost her son, regardless of how she uses that loss, and her son's memory, for her own personal political vendetta.
But the outrage from the left over Ann, and their relative silence about Ward Churchill, is revealing -- as is the almost uniform denunciation of this comment by Ann from the right.
Outrage for political purposes is itself unseemly.