Let’s talk about something else–Obama’s aversion to discussing radical Islamist

Let’s talk about something else–Obama’s aversion to discussing radical Islamist–34h.,b3a

After the 9/11 attacks, politicians divided into two  camps. The 9/12ers were the largest. They were mostly liberals and Democrats who felt the world wasn’t much different than it had been the day before the attacks. America was not in great peril. The 9/l0ers downplayed the threat of Islamic jihadism.

President Barack Obama.”He treats the killing of innocent Americans by radical Islamists as horrific but not a cause for nationwide fear or anxiety. Obama is President 9/10. He downgraded the international terrorist threat. He claimed ISIL, as he refers to the Islamic State, is “on defense” and “under more pressure than ever before.” Obama characterized the killer. Omar Mateen, as merely a “homegrown extremist” and noted the  absence of evidence the attack had been planned or ordered by ISIL.

After Mateen killed 49 people a gay nightclub in Orlando, he was described by Obama as an unlikable loner. He “took in extremist information and propaganda over the Internet,” the president said. “He appears to have been an angry, disturbed, unstable young man who became radicalized.

It’s hard to imagine another president who would have responded as Obama has to the Orlando bloodbath. He started with formulaic words about the malevolence of the attack and what he was going to do about it. Then he changed the subject. That’s his pattern.

Obama must like boilerplate because he delivers so much of it. “Over the coming days, we’ll uncover why and how this happened, and we will go wherever the facts lead us,” he said in his initial response, hours after the carnage ended. Then he declared Americans must “change” their feelings about gays. What did American feelings have to do with the terrorist attacks.

The day after that. President 9/10 boasted about how well the fight against ISIL was going and raised two Other subjects. One was gun control, the default position of Democrats when there’s an attack by an Islamic extremist or any mass killer. But what really angered Obama was criticism of his refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam” or to attach the word “Islamic” in to anything      having to do with terrorism.

In defending himself, Obama said ISIL shouldn’t be seen as legitimately Islamic. Identifying it as a band of ca believers in “radical Islam” would imply they “are the true leaders of over a billion Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.

The phrase “Radical Islam’ distinguishes between  extremists and moderates. Why does he downplay the seriousness of the terrorist threat? Why is he a 9/10 president?. Nor has Obama explained why he and Democrats eagerly change the subject when terrorism is a hot topic. Last week, they began talking up gun control within hours of the Orlando attack. They elevated Donald Trump’s  response to Orlando to top billing. And Obama turned his take on “radical Islam” into a big story. The media played along enthusiastically.

source–weekly std, fred barnes, marc thiessen, wash post, david harsanyi, federalist


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s