Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Obama: Media Overstates "Random" Terror Threat, Creates Alarm

by JASmius



The president he's always wanted to be:

Barack Obama said he doesn't blame the media for an "if it bleeds, it leads," strategy, noting in an interview with Vox editor in chief Ezra Klein and executive editor Matt Iglesias that policy stories are often an unsexy sell.

O's policies certainly fit that description, since they were never "sold" in the first place.

In his interview, however, the president weighed in on his belief when asked if the media "overstates" terror threats and creates alarm.

"Absolutely," Obama responded.

Of course.  Because why would mass murder and religious cleansing in the rise of a bloodthirsty jihadist state, perhaps with nuclear weapons, out of the carcasses of Iraq and Syria that is sending the Middle East into a downward spiral of all-out war be newsworthy?

He added in response of how he believes the Iraq war impacted U.S. national security: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris. We devote enormous resources to that, and it is right and appropriate for us to be vigilant and aggressive in trying to deal with that — the same way a big city mayor’s got to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive."

But, noted the president: "We also have to attend to a lot of other issues, and we’ve got to make sure we’re right-sizing our approach so that what we do isn’t counterproductive. I would argue that our invasion of Iraq was counterproductive to the goal of keeping our country safe." [emphases added]



Of course.  Because fighting Islamic Fundamentalists and resisting jihadism "breeds more terrorists," but surrendering to them and letting them run wild....what?  Wins them over?  Cultivates their gratitude?  Because we started it by....what?  Existing?  How dare we defend ourselves?

Almost sounds like his Uncle Jeremiah, doesn't he?



So if the Islamic Fundies kill us all one at a time instead of all at once, that's perfectly okay with Barry?  Evidently so, because that way, he gets to ignore the whole thing, pretend it isn't happening, and most of all, doesn't have to identify and call out - and fight - the enemy.  Whereas something like 9/11....not so much.  Which will make the next 9/11 (or worse) so gosh darn educational for what it reveals about how Barack Obama really regards jihadism.  As if the above Vox quote doesn't do that already.

Can you picture O's version of Dubya's bullhorn speech....?



....No, you can't, because there's no level place to set up his teleprompter.  But even if there was, why would "the president" need to comment on some "violent, vicious," but ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, and TOTALLY NOT IDEOLOGICALLY-MOTIVATED "zealots" "randomly" flying hijacked airliners into Manhattan skyscrapers, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol?  After all, that would only serve to "overstate" the jihadist threat, and when we do that, "the terrorists win".  Except they're ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, and TOTALLY NOT "terrorists".  Just "random" "violent, vicious" "folks".  Or unspecified "zealots".  From the Church of Seinfeld, I guess.



For those of you who think that Barack Obama says idiotic and intelligence-insulting things like this just to enrage his political enemies for his own amusement - I happen to think that he does that AND believes every word he's saying - you have to admit, he's provoked the motherlode of outrage on the Right.

Charles Krauthammer:

“We complain he doesn’t have a strategy in the war on radical Islam — the reason he doesn’t have a strategy is because he thinks there is no need for a strategy because it is random violence,” Krauthammer said. “He thinks, and he says it openly, this is like the fighting of crime in the city. There is no unifying ideology of the criminals of a city. You go after one after another.”

Obama basically thinks the issue of Islamic terrorism would go away if the press would just stop hyping the danger it presents, Krauthammer said, which is all the more terrifying.



Jonah Goldberg:

The more novel problem is his disgusting description of the deliberate targeting of Jews as a random shooting. It’s as infuriating as his administration’s insistence that the Fort Hood shooting was just “workplace violence,” though more hypocritical. When a theologically inspired Jew-hating terrorist runs across Paris to hold a Kosher market hostage, and then executes Jews in accordance with his ideological and religious dogma, it is not random violence or street crime. Period.

There was nothing random about it, at all. There are about 310,000 Jews in the greater Paris area. Out of close to 12 million inhabitants. The odds of killing four Jews randomly are pretty daunting. But, thankfully, you don’t have to do the math because Amedy Coulibaly said openly and proudly that he was targeting Jews. No one disputes this, except for Barack Obama.

Jim Geraghty (from today's Morning Jolt e-newsletter):

This fits with the administration’s “workplace violence” classification for the Fort Hood shooting, as well as Obama’s passionless public statement after the Paris attacks and his skipping Paris and D.C. anti-terror rallies to watch football.

In his mind, there is no broad threat, just a series of random events....

This is in perfect contrast to Obama’s recent statement that American Christians have to get off their high horse because of crimes committed during the Crusades. All of us must act with humility because of centuries-old brutality while the president effectively argues with a terrorist about what his true motive is.

But that isn't really what he's doing, folks.  Rather, Barack Obama is the front-man for the global jihad by using his position and bully pulpit to deny that this enemy even exists.  He is the one-man smokescreen that conceals the Islamic Fundies' dreams and plans to wipe out the West altogether.  It just hasn't been made universally clear yet because another mass-casualty attack here at home - which is what it would take to get and galvanize full public attention - hasn't yet taken place, although there have been some near-misses.

But when the next 9/11 (or worse) hits, Barack Obama's true role in the jihadists' master plan will be exposed for all to see.  Because he will not climb atop the rubble with a bullhorn and rally the American people to resist the enemy; instead, he will continue to deny that the enemy exists, deny even that the attack took place, or lecture us that we "had it coming" because of our "moral high horse" and "Islamophobia".

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: This is what sixty-two million Americans voted for, not once, but twice.  And never before has so ill-considered a pair of elections had such disastrous consequences, the worst of which are still to come.

No comments: