So, how quickly after any event should someone decide to politicize it as if spinning an event to one's own purposes was actually the best words you could use on one of the hugest tests of your stupid billionaire bucket-list candidacy for higher office?
Oh, wait, I'm being facetious again. What I'm basically saying out loud is that if the first thing you think to do when a tragedy happens is blame terrorists (like no duh, everyone thinks this is a possibility now and even has a list of suspects, so don't get too self-congratulatory, eh?) and act like no one else is as smart as you are, to go ahead and assign blame when it could for all you know when no investigation has turned up jack or squat yet be a mechanical problem, assume no one else is on it and don't even grant a momentary thought to the families and friends of the victims, well, that is a refreshing difference, isn't it?
As in--no, this is a sign of a not-at-all refreshing political opportunism, because no sooner did Trump have it in his mind that this was so entirely terrorism, he was blaming Hillary Clinton for not knowing it was going to happen (like she gets email alerts from terrorist networks or something) and not knowing who did it. Like he does know? Or ever had any clue about foreign policy ever at any time?
This is, for me, like shades of Mitt Romney trying to slag the Obama Administration over Benghazi in September of 2012. There was never anything particularly culpable that anyone normal would have gotten from the Obama Administration response, as even Trey Gowdy might admit today after umpteen investigations.
So when Donald Trump wants to make any kind of claim about who might be qualified--in answer to Hillary Clinton stating he very much isn't? He might want to start by acting as if he even was qualified by knowing when to shut his mouth. Tempus loquendi, tempus tacendi.
