At first I thought it was simply stupid. At first I thought someone screwed up. That’s not it. Obama chose not to go. He didn’t want to go. He didn’t want to offend Islamic terrorists and have to call them what they really are. He didn’t want to have to admit that we’re still at war with Islamic extremists. And more.
At first the Obama regime wasn’t even going to address the issue until it started taking flak from all sides. Politico thought the White House was “out of step”:
Wait, White House aides said Sunday, as they saw coverage come in of the anti-terrorism march in Paris — Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is there? Jordan’s King Abdullah? The presidents of Gabon, Benin, Niger? Not to mention the leaders of the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Italy and other major allies — and even Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov?
Somehow an event that the French didn’t even announce until Friday had quickly gathered momentum, drawing about three dozen foreign leaders to Paris to express their outrage at the killings of French citizens at a satire magazine and a Jewish supermarket last week. America’s representative, Ambassador Jane Hartley, looked a little out of place.
They bought the bogus story that White House aides didn’t bother to even ask Obama. The White House then threw the press a bone:
“I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there,” Earnest said.
And the left wing media, so anxious for their messiah’s image, swallowed it and said “Well, they sort of apologized and it’s time to move on.”
Which is exactly what Obama wanted.
Ed Henry sparred with Josh Earnest about Obama’s inability to say “Islamic extremism.”
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS: You speak about taking on all forms of violent extremism.
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: All forms of violent extremism would be discussed in the context of the summit. Obviously the most potent, and also the most graphically displayed in recent days is motivated by individuals who seek to invoke the name of Islam to carry out these attacks, and that is certainly something we want to work very hard to mitigate and we have a strategy we have been working on for some time to do that.
HENRY: Why isn’t this summit on countering Islamic extremism?
EARNEST: Because violent extremism is something we want to be focused on, it is not just Islamic violent extremism that we want to counter. There are other forms.
HENRY: Paris, Australia, Canada. Isn’t that violent Islamic extremism?
EARNEST: Certainly the examples you cite are individuals citing Islamic teaching — individuals have cited it.
Somehow, Obama knows more about Islam than anyone else.
On the Kelly Files, State Department spokesperson Marie
Barf Harf said the White House doesn’t use the term Islamic extremism because there are other kinds of extremism but couldn’t name one:
MARTHA MACCALLUM, “KELLY FILE” GUEST HOST: Every time we see this exchange it seems like the answer is so tortured. Like it’s so difficult to say what everybody around the world seems to feel so clearly it is. And what the leaders have said in Canada and Australia and Paris where they have felt it potently and personally, they’ve all said quite clearly the battle is against Islamic extremism. Why is that so hard to say?
MARIE HARF, STATE DEPARTMENT: Well, it’s not hard to say, but it’s not the only kind of extremism we face. I would recommend folks looking at this administration’s counter-terrorism record. I would remind people that more terrorists who claim to do acts of violence in the name of Islam have been taken off the battlefield in this administration than other any previous one because of our counterterrorism operations and our efforts that we put in place. But that’s not the only way you counter this kind of extremism. Much of it Islamic, you’re absolutely right. But some of it not. So we’re going to focus on all the different kinds of extremism with a heavy focus on people who do this in the name of Islam, we would say falsely in the name of Islam, but there are other forms of extremism —
MACCALLUM: Tell me, what other forms of extremism are particularly troubling and compelling to you right now?
HARF: Well, look, there are people out there who want to kill other people in the name of a variety of causes. Of course, Martha, we are most focused on people doing this in the name of Islam. And we’ve talked about with ISIL, part of our strategy to counter this extremism is to have other moderate Muslim voices stand up and say they don’t represent our religion. They speak for their religion more than we do certainly and we need those voices to stand up. In addition to all the other efforts we’re undertaking.
MACCALLUM: I just think a lot of other countries probably listen to the way we’re talking about this and scratch their heads and wonder why it’s so hard to spit it out in a lot of these conversations.
Both of these exchanges were pathetic. You have to wonder why these flacks keep shredding their own dignity time and again for Obama.
The Obama regime’s response to the attacks by Islamic terrorists? Attack the press:
President Barack Obama has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation’s defenses forces, the White House’s press secretary said Jan. 12.
“The president … will not now be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform” whenever journalists’ work may provoke jihadist attacks, spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House’s daily briefing.
The unprecedented reversal of Americans’ civil-military relations, and of the president’s duty to protect the First Amendment, was pushed by Earnest as he tried to excuse the administration’s opposition in 2012 to the publication of anti-jihadi cartoons by the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
In 2012 the Obama regime hammered the publishers of Charlie Hebdo for insulting “the prophet.”
“We are aware that a French magazine published cartoons featuring a figure resembling the prophet Muhammad, and obviously we have questions about the judgment of publishing something like this,” Carney told reporters during a midday press briefing at the White House.
“We know these images will be deeply offensive to many and have the potential be be inflammatory,” Carney said in a prepared statement.
Ever hear Obama say “the future must not belong to those who slander Jesus Christ”?
It’s ironic that Obama could call fellow Americans “enemies” but not call Islamic terrorism what it is. This is the same regime that called returning vets “domestic terrorists.” There was no trouble identifying “right wing extremism” and “radicals” on the right. Homeland Security made a big deal of right wing extremism:
Titled: Rightwing Extremism: current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment
1) The election of the first African American President is spawning domestic terrorism. “Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration….”
2) Possible new legislation to restrict gun laws may spawn domestic terrorism.
3) Returning military veterans may resort to domestic terrorism. Right wingers may “recruit” combat veterans “to boost their violent capabilities.”
4) An recent example of rightwing extremism is the shooting deaths of the three police officers in Pittsburgh, PA on April 4, 2009.
5) “Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy…” “Anti-Semitic extremists attribute these losses to a deliberate conspiracy conducted by a cabal of Jewish “financial elites.”
6) Violence is expected due to “rightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration….”
Opposed to abortion or illegal immigration or in favor of gun rights? You’re a “right wing extremist.”
The Obama regime has no problem saying “right wing extremism” but there is no such thing as “Islamic terrorism”? Why?
Byron York argued that Obama intentionally snubbed the meeting in France because he didn’t want to admit that there is still a war on terror, which would mean that Obama was again wrong:
So when the president chose not to attend the Paris march, nor to send the Vice President or Secretary of State, the problem wasn’t a tin-ear sense of public relations. It was Obama’s actual attitude toward the terror threat facing not only Europe but the United States. We’ve dealt with the big stuff, Obama has declared, now let’s move on.
It sounded good — until the bullets started flying.
I agree, but I think it’s more than that. I think Barack Obama has taken on the mantle of the Defender of All Things Islam. Above everything.
In his book The Audacity of Hope Obama wrote:
Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Cherif and Said Kouachi were born in France. They were citizens.
The Defender of Islam. Above everything. In the face of all reason. In denial of any involvement of Islam in violence and extremism.
Mecca, we have a problem.