Obama compares AIG to suicide terrorists
Yesterday was certainly not the best day in President Barack Obama’s career. He made two major gaffes. Firstly he compared his own horrible bowling skills to ‘the special Olympics,’ thereby insulting physically disabled athletes who are, regardless of their handicap, able to perform exceptionally well on the sportsfield. Secondly, the brand new president compared insurance company AGI to a suicide bomber.
The first ‘outrage of the day’ is, as far as I’m concerned, over-the-top. Obama made the comment while appearing on Jay Leno’s The Tonight Show. He thought he was funny.
Like most of you, I didn’t think the joke was particularly funny but unfunny jokes aren’t criminal. It was a butched joke, nothing funny about it, but to pretend that we’re all so terribly insulted is ludicrous.
The second ‘outrage,’ however, is an entirely different affair altogether. You don’t compare someone or something to a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers are a very serious threat in different parts of the world. They have killed many people and more suicide bombers will undoubtedly kill innocent civilians in the future.
Although AIG made some mistakes and should be held accountable – interesting to see by the way that Obama and his staffers take little to no responsibility themselves while they should’ve known about the bonuses, etc. – but to compare it to a suicide bomber is ridiculous.
You can almost follow Obama’s reasoning: AIG tries to victimize as many innocent civilians as possible with its insurances (just like terrorists with their AK 47’s). I’m pretty sure the company’s conditions are as extreme, radical, and dangerous as Al Qaeda.
Good to know as well that Obama has tremendous respect for businesses. It’s also great to see he’s able to express that respect by expressing sympathy for people who live in regions of the world where suicide bombers bomb themselves and dozens of innocent civilians into the next life regularly.
An unlucky choice of words, to put it mildly.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
I respect your opinion, but using the word “handicap” in a phrase like “regardless of their handicap” is a major gaffe itself.
The politically correct word is “disability.”