Chicago Tribune writer John Kass thinks Obama is the luckiest president in history because of Hurricane Sandy.
I’d post a link but the Trib would make you pay to view it. Ugh. So I’ll try to summarize at the risk of doing it poorly:
Kass draws a twisted analogy between Obama’s lack of immediate rescue response in Benghazi to his very quick and authoritative stance in response to the disasterous mega-storm. Are the two really analogous: a deliberately provocative act in a country where we are the foreign enemy vs. a natural disaster on our own turf where we are the sole arbiters of public safety? Not to minimize the heinous nature of terrorism, but comparing these two situations is like comparing a sucker punch in a dark alley downtown to a bee sting in your front yard. Military action in the Islamic world is tricky business and deserves a second thought, especially when sending in troups would be seen as aggression and cause potential escalation and retaliation all over the Muslim world. The bullies were trying to pick a fight. It is a tragedy that people died, but Obama did not cause that attack, nor does he own full responsibility for those deaths, although I’m sure he feels the weight of the loss. We are risking lives every day in embassies in countries where we are unpopular.
But to say Obama is lucky because of loss of life and as yet uncalculated levels of destruction from Hurricane Sandy? That’s a cynical view of the world. Obama isn’t lucky, but Mitt Romney is sure running from reporters who try to get him to say whether he still plans to cut the FEMA budget.
May the wiser man win this fight.