9/19/16

Prologue, or maybe an Epilogue…

I wrote the post below on Sunday. Events moved very fast and the facts have changed, proving my point beyond doubt.

First, there is now a suspect in custody and he is a US naturalized citizen born in Afghanistan, a Muslim. I assume that will remove any doubt in Mayor de Blasio’s mind about this explosion not being a terror act. Also, law enforcement sources are now saying that it is likely that the NJ events (another one late Sunday night) and the NYC events are connected. Another nonsense statement from the mayor shot to pieces.

The efficiency and proficiency with which law enforcement acted here is to be praised, although let’s remember that, in large part, that is due to the complete sloppy way in which this miserable person acted. I doubt that there could have been anyone so ineffective even if they tried to be.

Also, according to de Blasio, there is no one else the police is looking for. It is strange that one such ineffective person can do all that alone.

I wonder.


9/18/16

Mayor de Blasio was very informative in his press conference last night following the explosion in Manhattan.

He did confirm that it was an intentional act as opposed to an accident. That is nice to know as both CNN and MSNBC were going out of their way to speculate that maybe it was some sort of construction related accident etc. So it was truly helpful for the mayor to lie to rest that canard.

But he then went on to say:

  • The explosion had no terrorist connection “at this point”
  • And wasn’t related to a pipe bomb explosion at a charity run in New Jersey earlier Saturday; again, “at this time”
  • We have no credible and specific threat at this moment

Let’s analyze these nonsensical politically-correct and misleading statements:

  • “No credible threat.” I suppose that a credible AND specific threat is only if al-Baghdadi calls the mayor directly on his personal and private cell phone to inform him, “There will be a terror act on such and such date at such and such hour in the following location. Thank you and have a good day.”What is the meaning of both credible and specific otherwise? Since when do we get to that level? If we do, it will be immediately neutralized so it is not a threat anymore. This is, again, one of these political euphemisms that politicians use in order to avoid the truth. Is there ANY doubt that there is a threat against Manhattan? That EVERY September, with 9/11 and the UN General Assembly, is ALWAYS a heightened threat month?
  • “No relation to the NJ pipe bomb.” Really? So fast? Possible, but doubtful. I will leave it at that. I would have thought that a more responsible statement, and a more accurate one, is to state that we do not know yet. Remember Benghazi…let’s not out of one side of our mouth declare a fact and out of the other side excuse it later when it becomes obvious that it is wrong by saying, “Oh it was too early we did not know.” If you do not know, then say it is too early and we do not know, rather than state a fact.
  • “No terrorist connection.” Hmm. So what was it? A criminal act? Mafia? Protection demand against the residence for the blind building just across the road? Highly unlikely. The probability, high likelihood, is that it was terrorism related. Law enforcement had a more measured take on the situation: The FBI and NYPD would not rule out terrorism as a possible factor but said it was too early to determine the exact cause. Most normal people would assume that, although it is not 100% for sure, it is most likely to be a terror related act. A strange one and not very effective. Maybe some sort of a test run or executed by “inspired” amateurs, but one way or another likely to have a clear terrorism nexus to it. But not some politician of the progressive Democrat persuasion. For them the conditional response is first to deny any terror related connection. Later it will become old news.

Needless to say that CNN (I suppose MSNBC, too, but I was watching CNN for most of the night) amplified and repeated this senseless notion time and time again. The one used by the mayor, not the one by law enforcement.

On CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday morning Jack Tapper went further. Bear in mind that of the CNN crowd, Tapper is the least bad. He is generally pretty decent, trying at least to remember that his job and his professional ethics is to report facts and to leave his personal bias at home. Obviously the Trump train derailed even him. So he started his show today by grilling Chris Christie, and the first question, more or less, in very somber tone related to the fact that Trump told a crowd in Colorado at about 9:15 pm last night that a bomb exploded in Manhattan. According to the question, it was not the appropriate “presidential” thing to do. By the way, Trump did not say that it was a terrorist act. I think he did not say it because it is SO obvious that even he did not feel the need to tell the crowd that it was terrorism; it is implied.

He said a bomb exploded. That says it all, right? According to Tapper, that was inappropriate. Christie handled it pretty good, but it could have been handled better. In the panel segment, Tapper made things even worse. In what was clearly a pre-planned, invited question he asked Juliette Kayyem to explain the mayor’s comment about it not being terror related. Kayyem had to twist and turn and invent and with all her summersaults made absolutely no sense trying to invent an excuse of justification for the mayor’s statement. It was so bad that one of the other participants Tom Fuentes, an ex FBI assistant director, had to chip in to try and save the day and sort of suggested that if de Blasio declared it a terror act, the FBI would take control of the investigation from the NYPD. Even that is nonsense. The decision to take control or not by the FBI does not rely on a public statement by the mayor. It relies on the facts on the ground. If the mayor used the same language that BOTH NYPD and FBI used (mentioned above) how would that change the entity in charge?

Bottom line: CNN went through hoops to try and save the credibility of the mayor; again showing how unprofessional CNN is. The truth and the facts notwithstanding, they will always defend the Democratic politician, especially in today’s environment.

Big surprise.

On Sunday morning, NY Governor Cuomo, a Democrat (but one of the more reasonable ones), summarized the situation succinctly and eloquently:
“A bomb going off in NY is generically a terrorist activity. That’s how we’ll consider it. And that’s how we will prosecute it.”

Needless to say, most of the media when summarizing his comments focused on the next part of what he said, which was motivated, in my view, to let de Blasio off the hook: “there is no known link to international terrorism.” Some of the media outlets did not even quote the first part of the sentence and others that did actually had the temerity to say that the governor was “echoing Mayor Bill de Blasio, who labeled the incident ‘an intentional act.’”

Jesus….

Some may question why it is wrong to be non-definitive, to state that facts are not clear yet, to not rush to judgment. The answer is that, of course, there is nothing wrong with that. But that is NOT what is happening. Democratic politicians and their media cohorts apply this supposed “caution” ONLY when it suits them and mostly in terms of terrorism.

For instance, it is entirely OK to rush to judgment and make pretty definitive statements (always keeping the potential qualifications in the “small print” or its audio equivalent) when it is progressive story lines; police brutality against blacks is, of course, the main example of that. It is always the policeman’s fault when we have a police involved shooting of a black man. They NEVER use the same reserve and effort to cool down the situation. Also, in gun shootings, which are clearly not related to terrorism, the immediate reaction before the bodies are cold is to scream gun control and, at times, to blame right wing groups and even Republicans by name. The famous case is that of former Democratic Representative Gabby Gifford, who was tragically shot and badly hurt few years ago. The immediate reaction by the media and Democratic politicians was to blame the shooting on a right wing extremist, on Republicans and mostly on Sarah Palin (who was at the time still “hot property” in the media). The fact that it was later found out that this was simply an insane man with, if at all, left-leaning tendencies (and totally irrelevant anyway) did not stop them.

It is also worth noting that these politicians and media outlets will NEVER simply say: we do not know. They will say it is too early to say, but there is no link to terrorism yet. This way they create the impression that it is not terrorism in the hope that by the time the proof that it is emerges it is not a front page story by then. How about just leave it at too early to say? Or how about the most correct way of handling it, which is to state that on its face this looks like a terror attack probably carried out by some sort of Islamic extremist, HOWEVER we must and we WILL keep all options on the table and see where the investigation leads us.

Is that not the most logical, correct, and fair way to handle these situations?

P.S. At the same time as the bomb exploded in NYC, in Minnesota a man stabbed eight people in a mall. According to the local police chief, the man referenced Allah and asked at least one of the victims if he was a Muslim. BUT!!!! Drum rolls . . . he declined to call the attacks an act of terrorism, saying the suspect’s motive isn’t known yet. Really…and, by the way, ISIS took credit for this attack.