DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Monday, December 21, 2015

Obama: Media Shouldn't Cover Mass-Casualty Jihadist Attacks That Fuel My Gun Control Agenda

by JASmius

And everything is everybody else's.

No, really.  The other day, King Hussein implied that the reason why he wasn't aware of the American public's entirely understandable concerns, raised by the Paris and San Bernardino jihadist attacks, of Islamic terorism in general and the Islamic State in particular is that there hadn't been enough cable TV coverage of either:

"In his meeting with the columnists, Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments."

Of course, his argumens are all wrong, so he was probably better off reposing in his blissful ignorance, marveling at the same thing he sees in all of us.

He repeated this line the next day:

But Obama said he now realizes that he was slow to respond to public fears after terrorist attacks in Paris and California, acknowledging that his low-key approach led Americans to worry that he was not doing enough to keep the country safe. He has engaged in a blitz of public events lately to try to convince them otherwise, including a visit on Thursday to the National Counterterrorism Center. [emphasis added]

That have all failed, because they're transparently delusional and Chip Diller-esque....

.....which only adds to the public's terror anxieties.

The problem is not that Obama has a "low-key approach" to fighting the Global Jihad; it's that he ISN'T fighting the Global Jihad.  Where is this guy's "low-key approach" to "fighting climate change"?  He never stops shrieking in Chicken Little-esque fashion about that.  But that isn't a real threat, and Muslim terrorism is.  And he just doesn't give a damn about the latter - at best.  At worst, he's sympathetic to and allied with it.  And more and more Americans are now recognizing it.

So, naturally, The One continues to double-down on his imperious attempts to damp down public fears that only succeeds in further stimulating them:

Just weeks after the shooting in San Bernardino, Barack Obama is seeking to downplay the reach and impact of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), saying America's strength is "not threatened" by the [Muslim] group.

"This is not an organization that can destroy the United States," Obama told NPR in an interview released Monday. "This is not a huge industrial power that can pose great risks to us institutionally or in a systematic way."

Yet another classic Obama strawman.  Like anybody has suggested that ISIS could carry out a strategic nuclear first strike against American territory with thousands of nuclear missiles and warheads.  But all it would take is one nuke, whether in a suitcase or in a van, set off in the right place, to change - for real - our country forever.

And O went so far as to deny that even that much was possible:

"They can hurt us, and they can hurt our people and our families. And so I understand why people are worried."

I wonder if he realized what he had just said in those two sentences.  They're not supposed to be able to hurt us, hurt our people and our families.  Preventing that is supposed to be both his job and his sacred constitutional duty.  And he just admitted there that he couldn't - or wouldn't - do that job.

I don't think he could admit that and legitimately understand why Americans are worried.

But Obama remains "confident" that the U.S. will prevail over the terror group at home and abroad:

Why?  Answer: He's not, because that's not his true objective, but he wants everybody to believe it, and to believe that he believes it.

"We are pounding ISIS's core structure in Syria and Iraq.

Pin-pricking for the six o'clock news.

We have put together a coalition that is increasingly effective.

"We" have put together a "coalition" that was always a joke and is now scattering to the four winds because he refuses to lead it by seriously bombing ISIS and redeploying serious U.S. ground forces to the Iraq/Syria theater of operations.

We have seen ISIS lose about 40% of its populated territory in the region."

They've gained territory there and in Libya and Afghanistan, infiltrated thousands of jihadists across Europe and radiological weapons along with them, smuggled nukes into the United States....he continues to write ISIS off as the "jayvee team" to this day, despite the mountain range of evidence to the contrary.  That's why Americans are wetting their pants in fear - because they know that for all intents and purposes, nobody is protecting them.

And their president just might be on the other side.

"The most damage they can do, though, is if they start changing how we live and what our values are," he continued. If Americans "remember who we are and make sure that our resilience, our values, and our unity are maintained," Obama pledged that "ISIS will be defeated."

Again, I want to see him say the exact same thing only substitute the words "climate change" for "ISIS".  I bet he physically could not say it.

"Changing how we live"?  That's inevitable.  When besieged by an army of bloodthirsty berserker barbarians, changing how we live is, to a large measure, simple common sense.  We have to heighten security, he have to secure the borders, we have to reallocate government resources from domestic programs to military and intelligence ones (Well, that's what we SHOULD be doing).  Heck, if we had "changed how we live" preemptively, we might not be under siege by an army of bloodthirsty berserker barbarians in the the first place, because how we were living is what encouraged them to attack us to begin with.

You know what creates the most dramatic changes in how we live?  Mass-casualty jihadist attacks that "we" fail to prevent.  Does anybody believe that the U.S. would have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq  or enacted the Patriot Act, etc., etc., etc. - or, ultimately, elected Barack Obama in the first place in reaction to it - if not for that bright, clear, sunny Tuesday morning over fourteen years ago when three hijacked airliners destroyed the World Trade Center and crippled the Pentagon, and a fourth almost wiped out the U.S. Capitol and Congress along with it?  You prevent dramatic "changes in how we live" by making modest changes preemptively to prevent mass-casualty jihadist attacks from ever happening at all.  Which makes it difficult to believe that he doesn't seek to prevent the modest ones in order to ensure that the massive ones can transpire for him to exploit.

"Who we are," "our values," mean who HE is and HIS values, which sure as shinola aren't OUR values.

And "unity"?  This man actually invokes "our unity" after spending the better part of a decade dividing Americans by every means and along every line humanly conceivable?

Save a guffaw or six for this punchline, my friends:

Barack Obama acknowledged in an interview released Monday that his administration may have fumbled its anti-ISIS communications strategy, but he insisted the plan itself was working and suggested saturated media coverage of the group could be fueling terror fears in the United States. …

But he also pinned Americans’ renewed unease about terror attacks on U.S. soil to blanket media coverage of ISIS attacks. The November ISIS terrorist massacre in Paris, which left 130 people dead, led to “a saturation of news about the horrible attack there,” Obama said in the interview.

“If you’ve been watching television for the last month, all you have been seeing, all you have been hearing about is these guys with masks or black flags who are potentially coming to get you,” he said in the NPR interview. “So I understand why people are concerned about it.”

“Look, the media is pursuing ratings,” he added later. “This is a legitimate news story. I think that, you know, it’s up to the media to make a determination about how they want to cover things.” [emphases added]

First the media wasn't covering ISIS enough, now they're covering ISIS too much.  Or they were covering it too much for him to get away with continuing to ignore it.  Or something.

Exit quote from Captain Ed:

"Gee, I don’t recall Obama complaining about media ratings when they covered his ridiculous claim that “al-Qaeda is on the run” back in 2012. He didn’t complain about ratings when he and Joe Biden claimed that the war in Iraq was over and that they had won it. Obama didn’t seem to mind the media coverage of his dismissal of ISIS in January 2014 as the “jayvees.” Suddenly, now that his administration has to answer for their deliberate ignorance while a regional threat metastasized, now it’s the media’s fault.

And the White House's response?  See the pic above.

No comments: