Warren Weinstein was working in Pakistan. Had body guards and everything so he’s really a lot more sympathetic than random college kids romping through Iran or spray painting cars in Singapore. Al Q is demanding a bunch of prisoner releases and other US actions in exchange for his release.
Wouldn’t it be great if President Obama, should he entertain the faux pas of recognizing any communication from a terrorist organization, responded with, “How about you release him right now, and we don’t kill everyone you want released and tie them to the bombs we’ll continue to drop on your leaders & allies?”
And then followed through. Dude would OWN the redneck voters.
I think the last pres who would have had the balls to say it was Reagan. Dunno if he would have DONE it, but I could see him orchestrating an “open mike moment” to get the message out…unofficially.
Yeah, Reagan is not really the poster boy for being tough with terrorists, in addition to paying ransom, he also pulled the US out of Beirut after a terrorist attack. The incident is one that bin Laden pointed to as evidence that the US was a paper tiger and would back down if subjected to more attacks.
It wouldn’t improve my opinion. It’s a rash thing to say, and pointless. The Al Queda crowd would love to get tied to bombs and dropped. That would prove how evil America is and how great these men were to die for their cause.
A simple “We don’t negotiate with terrorists” would be what I’d want any president to say, if they said anything.
I didn’t really intend for this to be a divisive thing, or even to imply that I would not in fact be horrified if BO actually had an open mike event in which he muttered something in the spirit of the OP. Rationally, I know Al Q is a complex problem that requires something more sophisticated than a good ass-whuppin, and I also know that anyone who does not support BO today, is unlikely to support him in November no matter what he does.
It’d be satisfying, like seeing a smart-mouth getting his nose swatted, and entirely unproductive. But I can’t be the rare exception who can entertain both rational and irrational desires, can I? Sorry. Just venting some completely hipocrytical frustration. It’s not so much that I think the USA and BO are paragons of glory and goodness (Although I think the net effect of both is generally positive), I just think it’d be nice if people could look at someone/something they disagree with and simply disagree with it without getting all emotional and hateful about it. Whatever. I give up trying to use humor and hyperbole around here.
“Here we can see how our enemies are so despicable they will force a man, who knows under what compulsion, to beg for his life. That’s not how we deal with these issues. We have reason to believe they intend to kill him anyway and are merely playing a cruel game with him, his family and our people. Any further demand or any action on their part other than his immediate and unconditional release will be evidence of that. We’re not playing along. Any terrorist who goes around intending to kill Americans must know, we will seek by all means to kill him first. That is all we will say for the public record.”
On the side-issue: As his quote shows Reagan, a politician with good political advisors, knew that the people would respond better to the Big Boss saying “our intentions were good but things got out of hand” than to hearing him try lawyering it out over every jot and tittle – that’s a job for the supporting cast. Besides as a last-termer he knew he could afford to direct some of the heat on himself.
