I'm sure you could find just as many - probably more - people at the other end of the spectrum who preach love and forgiveness to all terrorists, or otherwise advocate surrender. Also, these isolated quotes look fairly damning, but I'm assuming the same speakers also issued words of sympathy as well; it's not fair for you to pick and choose, take one over the other. Limbaugh is right, too, isn't he ... if this attack was meant to be as 'successful' as the World Trade attack, then it simply wasn't. How could anyone state such an opinion without you grabbing the sentence in isolation and presenting it here as an indictment against him?
I don't follow the American news media or keep track of such things, so I'm making assumptions here. If you tell me that none of these people spoke any words of compassion for the Londoners, or that there aren't people in the world who think that global warming and Africa are disproportionally way way way more important than terrorism, then I'll accept same.
I'm sure you could find just as many - probably more - people at the other end of the spectrum who preach love and forgiveness to all terrorists, or otherwise advocate surrender.Then by all means, please do--but I don't think you'll be able to. Also, we're not talking fringe people here, these are people--especially Hume and Limbaugh--who are pretty much at the core or conservative spokesmanship. The equivalents would probably be Al Franken and Dan Rather, or something like that. Franken is an easy comparison for Limbaugh, and though Rather is far from being as liberal as Hume is conservative, let's go with it for the moment. Can you imagine Dan Rather saying, "Hmm, all these people got killed in a terrorist attack, I could make a killing on the market right now"? Do you think the right wing would not go nuts railing about such a remark? Or if Franken tried to trivialize the London bombings as an "unsuccessful attack."
Furthermore, it is not even so much that these things are right or wrong--maybe Hume was right, and it's the right time to go profit-seeking. The point is that these things are heartless, cold and politically manipulative at a time when people with a loud voice in society, just hours after all those people were injured and killed and a country is in mourning, should be issuing words of condolences and sympathy. How would you feel if your father was killed in an attack, and you turn on the radio to hear Al Franken say, "ahh, the attacks weren't that bad," or turn on the TV and see Bill Moyers say that your father's death could work well politically for the Democratic party.
Now, if the statements are made much later, when mourning has passed, that could be different. A lot of it has to do with the immediacy and with common decency.Also, these isolated quotes look fairly damning, but I'm assuming the same speakers also issued words of sympathy as well; it's not fair for you to pick and choose, take one over the other.As stated above, I disagree. To test that, go ahead and try to find quotes from the other side on the London bombing that were as bad or as numerous as this.
The closest I can recall to something even close to that was when Bill Maher said that it's wrong to say the 9/11 terrorists were cowards because a coward wouldn't crash an airplane into a building; and that by the same token, firing a cruise missile from across the world at someone is not an act of bravery. Now, this was nine days after 9/11, not the same day as the attacks as it was in Limbaugh's case. And, as you point out below, both commentators had correct points to make (more on that below). But while the right wing railed furiously at Maher and he lost his TV show, Limbaugh does not face even the slightest bit of discipline. Even if you are to take into account the differing number of people killed, the reactions are still disproportionate. And I stand by the supposition that if Franken had said something like that, he'd be feeling a lot more heat than Limbaugh is now.Limbaugh is right, too, isn't he ... if this attack was meant to be as 'successful' as the World Trade attack, then it simply wasn't.First of all, Limbaugh wasn't comparing this to 9/11. He was talking about how many people were hurt or killed out of all the people in the system that day. Second, these were the worst attacks in London since WWII--which includes the IRA engagement, and that's saying something. The Sarin Gas attacks in Tokyo killed even fewer people, but they jolted the nation and changed it forever. Which is what terrorism is all about.
Also, aside from the reasons stated above, the statement is open to criticism because it is inconsistent with other statements he makes, and with the statements and stances made by those he supports. Neither he nor anyone else tried to downplay 9/11 even though the exact same logic could be applied: there were 25,000 commercial flights in the air that day, and only 4 were hijacked; that's 1 in 6,250. In a year, it would be 1 in 2,281,250. Counting the number of dead, in the air and on the ground, on 9/11 and comparing that with the population of the U.S., your odds of having been killed were almost a hundred thousand to one. Even with a 9/11 each and every year, you're more likely to be killed in a car accident.
Did you hear Rush espousing that logic about 9/11? Hardly--quite the opposite, in fact. And yet, somehow he is capable of applying that numerical logic to the London attacks, completely ignoring the very point of terrorism--and does it in a cold, heartless way on the very same day as the attacks.