Unwillingness to confront Islamic terrorism and call it what it is hit new depths yesterday as both the White House and the State Department put on a comedy performance unequaled since . . . well, since the last time our president said something about it.
Faced with the absolute fact that the Paris attacks were Islamic terrorism and that one of the targets, a Jewish deli, was hit precisely because it was Jewish, the spokespeople for this administration adamantly refused to say the motive was to kill Jews. If you get the chance to listen to the verbal twistings of Josh Earnest, in particular, you will come away amazed and rather sickened by the obfuscation.
Then, to make the comedy routine complete, they later tweeted that of course this was anti-Semitism, and that’s what they have been saying all along. Really? What about the press conferences you just completed, where you refused to say it? They’re still relying on the meme that you can fool some of the people all of the time. Unfortunately, they are right.
Incidentally, in case there is any question at all, the attacker at the deli stated, for the record and prior to being killed himself, that his aim had been to kill some Jews.
Only someone who is ideologically blind can fail to understand what’s really happening. That explains a lot.
Even though he can’t bring himself to identify this terrorism with Islam, he does attempt to make distinctions, nonsensical though they may be:
But he does pride himself on his deep knowledge of religious matters.
He’s not alone, of course. He has a staunch ally:
How can this absurdity continue? Well, there are a number of factors in play, and they say a lot about our society at this time:
Last week, the administration came up with its “strategy” to tackle world problems. Obama sent out Susan Rice once again to play the fool (remember all her appearances to explain how a video caused Benghazi?). She said that we don’t face “existential” threats like we did back in WWII or the Cold War. The “strategy” then went on to focus on climate change as one of the biggest security threats we must deal with. ISIS? Don’t worry about that.
Well, Hitler wasn’t an “existential” threat to the United States in the 1930s, but he was allowed to strengthen to the point where he became one. Are we going to allow that to happen again?
For those who don’t see the resemblance, here’s an illustration that might make it more clear:
Teaching history is what I do. One of the reasons I do it is the hope that we actually will learn from the past and not repeat policies that are foolish, unworkable, and downright dangerous.
Is anyone paying attention?