A SECOND BOSTON MASSACRE
The infamous Boston Massacre occurred on March 5, 1770, when British soldiers killed five American civilians and injured six others. A boy was wounded in the attack, which proved to be a watershed event leading directly to the American Revolution. American resolve became adamant, like granite, against the mother country, as she continued to quarter her soldiers in American colonies in order to have her despotic way with the colonists. It was about power and politics.
On April 15, 2013 – 243 years, one month, and 10 days later – a second Boston Massacre occurred, this time for the entire world to see. Three people have reportedly died, with an eight-year old boy among the fatalities. Another 170 were injured, many critically. A substantial number of the injured lost one or more limbs in the blasts.
Boston was wired with explosive devices. At least four of them were located at the finish line of the legendary Boston Marathon in Copley Square. Two of them exploded there, and one at the Kennedy Library. This fact, I think, speaks volumes of Boston’s poor security.
President Barack Obama quickly responded to the events by saying: "On days like this there are no Republicans or Democrats. We are Americans, united in concern for our fellow citizens ... We still do not know who did this, or why. But make no mistake about it. We will get to the bottom of this. We'll find out who did this, we'll find out why they did this."
On one notable point, President Obama is correct: authorities do not yet know who perpetrated this atrocity. This is a fact that should be boldly underscored. Yet it defies all understanding to have entertained, from the beginning until now, the thought that the act was not one of terrorism. The only question is who.
The Obama administration, like an ostrich, has often tended to put its head in the sand with respect to terrorism at home and abroad. Call me cynical and callous, but this President’s assurances of getting to the bottom of anything ring hollow to me.
Dr. Nidal Hassan, a radical Muslim, who went on a murderous rampage in the name of Allah within a military installation in Killeen, Texas, was not branded a “terrorist” by the administration. As I remember, this incident was characterized as “workplace violence” by the Department of Defense.
Then, there were the murders in Benghazi, Libya that were an obvious act of terrorism. Any commonsense analysis of this episode rendered but one conclusion: terror. Yet administration officials denied it ad nauseam. Secretary Hillary Clinton, when questioned about these shocking events, in which an American ambassador and other American citizens were killed, rhetorically asked, “What difference at this point does it make” how they died? Her disgraceful words demonstrate how averse the President and his administration have been to calling “terrorism” what it is and dealing with it as such.
In both these instances (and there are many others), we observe the foolhardiness of political correctness. The President, you see, does not wish to cast himself as an unfashionable Joe McCarthy who suspects there is an enemy behind every bush. He opts for the other extreme -- the world as an essentially rational, friendly place. In his Cairo speech in 2009 to the Muslim world, his policy seemed clear enough: to pacify and to applaud Islam rather than to place it under a pall of suspicion and to confront it. "Let's just all be friends" was the sophomoric implication.
His political correctness, born of a blind idealism steeped in dreaming innocence and a naïve vision of the world, is only one reason for his aversion to the terrorism label. There is another. The word conjures up memories of Al-Qaeda, which everyone is supposed to recognize has been decisively defeated. This is why the truth about Benghazi was buried during an election year. It ran counter to the administration’s political narrative of victory over Al-Qaeda.
Because the real truth about Benghazi still lies officially buried, and because the Second Boston Massacre constitutes an indubitable act of terrorism, I have no confidence that the administration is capable of a fair and accurate investigation. The day after the bloody mayhem in Boston, President Obama's back was to the wall. He had to come clean and to admit that the FBI is investigating the bombings as an act of terror. Hurray for him! This is quite a concession for a President who tends to make of reality whatever he pleases. His promises are just as illusory. He, like Alice in Wonderland, lives in a world that does not exist. Since by nature he is almost incapable of even saying the word "terrorism," he has little hope of ever ridding the world of it. Perhaps this politician is our most notable post-modern President, structuring truth and reality however he desires. But can we imagine evil away? I hardly think so.
Yet the real issue here is not Barack Obama, who in Beatles' parlance is and always has been a “no-where man.” The question is whether Americans, particularly Bostonians, will come to recognize that the world is a dangerous place and has become all the more so since 2008, thanks to a weak President who despises traditional American culture, bows to Saudi princes, and is apologetic to Third World thugs. My hope is that the American people, especially those who are sleep-walking to disaster with this guy, will wake up.
April 17, 2013