When lack of condemning really is condoning

Lovely. Rep Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) holds a town hall, and one of his constituents, to the chuckles of the others there, suggests Obama "should be executed as an enemy combatant" — and Bridenstine, rather than suggesting that's, at the very least, an uncivil and unhelpful suggestion or comment, instead hops on her remark to talk about how "lawless" Obama is.

Until the video of the whole thing goes up on YouTube, and then, a week later, his office finally says: "A public figure cannot control what people say in open meetings. I obviously did not condone and I do not approve of grossly inappropriate language. It is outrageous that irresponsible parties would attribute another person’s reckless remarks to me."

If you not only let "grossly inappropriate language" and "reckless remarks" go by without any objection, but sit there and sip your coffee and then offer further arguments supporting the commenter's thesis about the president, then you are in fact condoning them, Rep. Bridenstine. And you do in fact raise the very real question of what exactly you approve of.