My problem is not that Ted overtly blamed Trump.
My problem is that:
A. He made a political statement of any sort before the bodies were cold, and
B. Twisted Trump’s statements about NATO members pulling their weight into a ‘withdrawal’, again before the bodies were cold
C. Intentionally drew an association between Trump’s policy and the risk of such attacks, again, as bodies remained well above room temperature.
I find it distasteful.
.
.
.
I listened to Ted on O’Reilly tonight and literally cringed multiple times. I am having trouble staying with him as acceptable.
For example, as a lawyer Ted knows words matter and words have meaning. Just engage him in a conversation about the word “infringed” in 2A. A topic on which he is correct. Now enter my world - “carpet bomb” has a meaning, and even after discussing the matter with Bill, he still went back to the phrase, even when he admits what he means is not the phrase he’s using.
That left me with only one impression: the phrase “carpet bomb” has been field tested and/or focus group vetted, and regardless of the true meaning of the phrase he’s going to use it because it’s been deemed effective, even if when he explains his position he is not actually advocating actual “carpet bombing”. That’s problematic for my impression of a man who is trying to sell himself as the un-politician.
Exactly, he didn’t “blame” in the sense that he said Trump planted the bombs.
He plainly juxtaposed the attacks and Trump’s policies to say that Trump’s positions would enable more such attacks, or something like that.
Bottom line is he knows Trump was the one who warned about Brussels and Cruz took a cheap shot that had no place in the aftermath of the terror attack.
I really have become disillusioned with Cruz. Saying he’s the “most conservative” is no longer enough for me. I think he’s a long winded opportunist.