It’s getting hard not to think that Obama has taken complete leave of his senses.
President Barack Obama has called the terror attack on Jews in a kosher supermarket in Paris last month an act of random violence, rather than a terror attack or an antisemitic attack.
Obama’s remark appears in an interview with Matt Yglesias of Vox.com. The president calls the attackers “violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” He glides past the religion of the attackers or the victims in an attack that claimed four innocent lives.
The fact that there was a connection between the kosher deli shooter and the Charlie Hebdo killers means nothing to Obama:
On Friday, Prime Minister Manuel Valls told reporters that the incidents were connected and that the shooter had communicated with the Kouachi brothers — suggesting that Wednesday’s attack might be part of a bigger plan. “The latest advances in the investigation allows us to establish a connection” between the two incidents, Valls said on Friday afternoon, while he was meeting the grief-sticken staff members of Charlie Hebdo, at the offices of the French daily newspaper Libération.
Yet Obama tells his bootlicker Matt Yglesias that the deli shooting is simply “random” and Yglesias just swallows. It’s not “random.” That deli was targeted.
Then Obama makes the stupefying assertion Iran won’t develop a nuclear weapon because it’s – get this- not Islamic.
We are presenting to them in a unified fashion, the P5+1 supported by a coalition of countries around the world are presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
And if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that in fact, according to their Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal.
Firstly, someone needs to inform the king that Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Secondly, let’s crank up the Wayback Machine and see what Iran (Yes, Barack, THAT Iran) said back in 2012:
Official Iranian media outlets published a commentary Sunday titled “The necessity for the Islamic world to have the atomic bomb,” laying the groundwork for Iran’s refusal to accept limits on its illicit nuclear program.
The essay’s author, Alireza Forghani, is the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province and an analyst and a strategy specialist in the camp of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
“The fatwa from Imam Khomeini [the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution] said ‘all Islamic countries have Islamic blood,’” Forghani wrote. “Therefore the Islamic world should rise up and shout that a nuclear bomb is our right, and disrupt the dreams of America and Israel.
Having a nuclear bomb is our right,” he argued.
The guys at the Conservative Treehouse have a nice timeline of Obama’s “evolution” on Iran getting nuclear weapons.
Perhaps Obama feels he can deflect concern over Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions by whipping out the shield of Islam, as he does with every Islamic terror incident.
In the Vox interview Obama asserts that the threat of ISIS is overstated:
Do you think the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos, as opposed to a longer-term problem of climate change and epidemic disease?
Absolutely. And I don’t blame the media for that. What’s the famous saying about local newscasts, right? If it bleeds, it leads, right? You show crime stories and you show fires, because that’s what folks watch, and it’s all about ratings. And, you know, the problems of terrorism and dysfunction and chaos, along with plane crashes and a few other things, that’s the equivalent when it comes to covering international affairs.
Really? Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in September:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) wrote in an op-ed published Monday that the United States “must lead an aggressive, international effort to confront and eliminate” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) that includes sustained airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote in USA Today that the threat posed by ISIS to the U.S. “cannot be overstated.”
“This is the most vicious, well-funded and militant terrorist organization we have ever seen, and it is very quickly consolidating its power,” she wrote.
Coincidentally, Obama is seeking a new open-ended AUMF to fight the overstated threat of ISIS. Why does one need an unlimited AUMF to fight an “overstated” threat?
All kidding aside, does Obama really believe what he’s saying? Is he that much in denial of reality or is it something worse? What I do know is that this country cannot be protected the threats that the President does not take seriously. If he truly believes what he’s saying, then he is psychotic. And I’ve said that before. The guy cannot even say “Islamic extremism” but he can call his fellow Americans “enemies.” Something is very wrong.