Fletch Daniels writes at the American Thinker about Democratic presidential candidates‘ interesting use of the word “but.”
This past week saw the rise of the Democrat “but” warriors. Every viable remaining presidential candidate, with the exception of Bernie Sanders, included an identical sentence construct in response to President Donald Trump’s decision to erase the world’s worst terrorist leader.
When “but” is employed in a sentence, particularly a political one, the wise course of action is to pay little heed to what came before it. The writer’s true feelings are reflected in what follows, even if he is not quite bold enough not to include a caveat.
A few examples, focusing only on what came after that key word, illustrate this point:
Joe Biden: “… this action almost certainly will have the opposite effect (of deterring future attacks). President Trump just tossed a stick of dynamite into a tinderbox, and he owes the American people an explanation[.]”
Pete Buttigieg: “… there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we are prepared for the consequences[.]”
Elizabeth Warren: “… this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war,” since apparently the best way to avoid war is to project weakness and never respond.
Most of the lesser lights employed similar strategies. Sanders is crazy enough that he didn’t bother with the “but,” instead aiming for the jugular, aligning himself with the Squad wing that reflects the energy in the extremist party.
