One normally only condemns that which requires condemnation, something about which there exists doubt as to its moral status. When he finds it necessary to remind us that the cold-blooded murder of police officers is a bad thing, to\u00a0whom, exactly, is he speaking? Not to me, nor to anyone I personally know. We already have no doubts on that score. \u00a0It means that there’s almost nothing he could say that would be strong enough.<\/p>\n
\n
Why has he put himself in this rhetorical box to begin with? No comment should be necessary. The only reason we were waiting for one from him is because he’s opened his mouth so many times, on so many other subjects, that to *not* say something here would carry its own weight.<\/p>\n
That doesn’t even touch on the quality of Obama’s comments about the Cambridge Police, the New York Police, or the Ferguson Police, all of which have tended to assume that there was some police misconduct, even in the absence of credible evidence to that effect.<\/p>\n
I think that people who claim that Obama is in large part personally responsible for either the police murders, or the environment that makes them acceptable to some people, are going too far. I do think he’s in some\u00a0small<\/em> part responsible. \u00a0People don’t talk unless they believe that their words will have some effect, Presidents especially so. \u00a0In the past, that meant that presidents weighed their words and the occasions for them carefully.<\/p>\nNot everything requires a presidential comment. \u00a0In this case, he’s got enough on his plate trying to manage the executive branch of the federal government without trying to be the country’s police commissioner, to be sure.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n