Hi readers. I’m thinking terrible tragedies only involve killing 300 or more unsuspecting travelers. But wossname’s come right out and strongly implied the 295 killed in the Ukraine “might be a terrible tragedy“.
I really hate to see anyone messing around with the English language this way. If the word “might” can be placed in a sentence ahead of “be a terrible tragedy” the terms of engagement need to be defined for the purposes of clarity.
Hells bells readers. You know me. I’m not pickypickypicky about this sort of thing. If one policician, or 295 regular normal people, or some specified number of a particular ethnic group is what’s required to make a terrible tragedy it’s no affair of mine. But planners need to know what the hell is needed. Who the hell wants to know about non-terrible tragedies? Which will almost certainly happen now, thanks to this ambiguity created by the wossname, President of the US.
What the hell is the matter with these people?
Old Jules
So Far From Heaven 
Yes, it “might” be a tragedy. Wossname has no clue what he says half of the time. If it isn’t prewritten, he doesn’t stand a chance. What to do, what to do?
Hi Bev. Lousy job the man has. J
O.J.,U I was not following the sequence of events closely enough to know when POTUS let fly with this one. . . it seems to me it was made during a hastily put together press briefing shortly after we became aware that a Malaysian plane was out of contact and there was one heluva plume of smoke on the Russo-Ukranian border. If that is the sequence of events, then confirmation of a crash hadn’t yet occurred, so while it might be a tragedy, nothing was known for sure. On the other hand, if the i offending statement was made after confirmation of the crash had been received, then it’s time for a revisit to Public Speaking 101 is in order.