I think you're beginning to highlight my point...
Everyone is playing word games. Language is critical. By calling Obama a murderer, rather than solicitor of murder or something more accurate, nobody then looks any further for the actual murder or murderer; we've already found him! There's only 1. That is the implication of continuing to call him a murderer.
Why so much outrage directed at Obama, and none against "drone pilots", for example? Because rather than calling them "joystick murderers," to stigmatize the actual act, most are content with focusing on Obama as the murderer.
As I've said elsewhere, I think this is counterproductive. Most will couch what the troops do in euphemisms because it's uncomfortable to call them murderers. So I was subtly suggesting that the only way to change the thought paradigm around foreign policy is to attach the murder label to its rightful individual, whoever it may be.
Uphill battle, to say the least, this I realize.
But nowhere did I say Obama is not morally culpable, or even legally culpable. He is both, in many ways.
But the language is so critical to what is discussed or what isn't discussed; to what is stigmatized, or what is insulated. The act of murder itself, when it comes to the state, is insulated... It is, in effect, subsidized by a lack of criticism and/or stigma as it pertains to those who actually commit it.
Instead, we blame the King, whose hands haven't committed the actual acts for which he is held in such high contempt (deservedly so).
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: