Anderson, Chris and Don and their assembled pundits are discussing the assassination of General Soleimani, the Iranian general. They all agree that he was a “bad actor”, a “bad guy”. They don’t say “bad hombre”,but it’s knocking at the door. This appears to be sufficient to warrant execution, it’s the timing and ongoing strategy they are concerned about.
Why I ask myself are they talking like characters in a 1950’s western?
Why are they talking like school kids?
Bad guys, good guys – “goodies and baddies”.
Back in the Classroom:
Teacher, by the end of the major combat phase of the Iraq war, 7,419 Iraqi civilians had been killed, primarily by U.S. air-and-ground forces, is George Bush Junior a bad guy, a bad actor, a bad hombre?
No, child, every American president is good.
Teacher, were those innocent civilians “collateral damage” or “victims of terror”?
That is a complex and morally confusing question, child. Here in America we do not like confusion.
Teacher, why do the American media continue to refer to the Canadians killed in the Ukraine Airlines crash as Iranians.
It’s less confusing that way, see above.
Teacher, is President Trump a bad guy, a bad actor, a bad hombre?
No, child, President Trump is a liar, a racist, possibly a crook and possibly a sexual predator but he is not a bad guy, a bad actor, a bad hombre.
Teacher, why are Anderson, Chris and Don so angry with him? Why the sanctimonious, po-faced editorials?
Because he is un-statesmanlike and because they have become lazy and are content to trot out the same tired outrage every day of the week. Their ambition is limited, they are happy just to be “not Hannity”.
But teacher, they seem like nice guys.
Your point is?