Not really in the same ballpark of venomous bluster, though, when considered in context. Bush was deliberately and explicitly invoking that tone of Wild West bravado:
The statement you quoted from Obama, on the other hand, was made in a more nuanced major policy speech and was stated soberly as a specific policy objective:
As a non-American, I would say those statements are the same. Obama just dressed it up more.
It was Bush dressing it up as some vague Old West American virtue. Obama explicitly tied it to American policy and put it into real life context. Nothing “dressed up” about that.
Bottom line: we will kill him.
The bare meaning is the same, but context matters.
Yes, Obama made it clear that the US would ignore the national sovereignty of other countries to kill bin Laden.
Yes, there’s a difference between seeking out someone in your own country, a person subject to its laws, in which you have control of vast police power to find and detain them for trial, even if that trial may result in an execution, and trying to do the same for someone in another country, with a government you can’t control, which government has a history of doing things to oppose your own government. Your options in that case are much more limited, and sometimes may only be, “Bomb them and accept any consequences of that.”
But we are having problems putting our own traitor in prison.
To me Obama’s was more chilling. Not cowboy posturing but statement of fact.
But let’s be clear as we bring it back to thread: making it clear that killing a terrorist is the intent and goal is a very different thing than potentially murder incitement of an American citizen who displeases you.
…but only because you’re being thwarted by a government hostile to the American people!
Moderating:
Many of you have gotten waylaid into another hijack. Some of you are engaging in this a lot lately. I’d rather not name names, but if you see yourself in this mod note, please be more mindful of your posts in various threads going forward to make sure you’re discussing the topic of the thread.
Discussion of Trump’s death threats in connection with this case are fine. "Whatabout"ing about Bush and Obama’s similar language belong in another thread.
Getting back to Trump’s death threats: why is that Biden stumbling a bit seems to get more media time than a candidate for President threatening to execute the former Chief of Staffs and to have shoplifters shot on sight? Which of those is more of a threat to a civil society, and which gets more air time?
Possible wishful thinking, but could it be possible the Judge is working around the fraud case schedule in NY because she is going to do something drastic? Probably not jail but maybe gag all his public comments?
I think “The Media” are actively avoiding rebroadcasting each and every morsel that comes out of Trump’s mouth. It is simply BS and bravado and is only red meat for his base. Rebroadcasting it only helps Trump. Even speaking against it helps Trump.
If the DNC has any strategic sense, they will be already making attack ads with sound bites with Trump saying “should be executed,” and “shot on sight,” and others, not mentioning who, specifically, Trump wants to eliminate. Then connect these remarks with what a dictator of a “Banana Republic” might say. The DNC shouldn’t air such ads until after the Republican Convention, but they need to be collecting the sound bites now.
Then “fairness” means that you don’t publicise any slips by Biden, because that only helps Trump.
I think it’s just simply that Trump saying incendiary and potentially illegal stuff is just business as usual, while a stumble by Biden doesn’t happen every single day.
It’s sad but Trump has really worn people down by being so bad so often that they get bored. Or maybe it’s like that horrible stench you stop smelling after awhile since your nose just gets used to it.
Note - that the Judge in the NY case just issued a gag order regarding any form of threats made via SM, Email, etc against any of the court staff, after one of “the defendants” did so complete with identifying information. Along with a notification that there would be severe consequences for violating said gag order. I bring this up in -this- thread because I suspect that this WILL be referenced in this case, and likely the Georgia case in terms of why severe limitations will be be imposed upon Trump and his team because of prior violations.
I think we can count on it.
-heh-
But I’m being careful to not cross the streams… err, threads, with the other cases information unless it’s directly relevant!
I appreciate it. But believe me, I also understand how easy it is to get confused. I’ve done it myself a time or two.