Posted on 06/15/2016 4:58:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
A day after President Obama went on a rant about why he doesn't use the phrase “radical Islam," CNN asked if the leaders, like Hillary Clinton who have used the phrase, have undermined U.S. strategy. What should’ve been a relatively straightforward briefing on the threats posed by ISIS turned into a tirade against Republicans and Donald Trump from the president. He also used it as a staging ground to lecture us about reinstating the so-called assault weapons ban and confirming a treasury nominee that’s been held up for over a year.
Yesterday, CNN’s Michelle Kosinski pressed the White House on the president’s meltdown, asking why does the Obama White House get so defensive when people criticize him, and members of his administration, for not saying a phrase that accurately describes the threat we face from these organizations, as they are adherents to radical form of Islam. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said that it doesn’t help in our strategy against ISIS, saying it helps the terrorists, and if the GOP wanted to be tough of terrorists—they should strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights based on a secretive, due process-absent government list that places those individuals on said list based mere suspicion. Moreover, Kosinski pressed Earnest by asking whether French President François Hollande and Hillary Clinton have undermined U.S. anti-terror strategy for using the phrase in various statements and speeches (via Free Beacon):
Reporter hits White House for strawman, hypocrisy on lambasting GOP over 'radical Islam' rhetoric
“Does the president, or you as well, not see a distinction, though, between calling what happens Islam and calling certain acts radical Islamic terror?” Kosinski asked. “I mean, some people would say what’s the difference, and if you’re getting specific enough to call something radical Islamic terror when it clearly is, why is that such a big deal?”
[…]
Here’s the problem, Michelle,” Earnest said. “The counterterrorism strategy articulated by Republicans is that the president should utter the magic words to defeat ISIL. That’s their strategy, and the president says, let’s define our enemy, and let’s make sure we define our enemy precisely. Our enemy is not the religion of Islam. Our enemy are radical, violent extremists that seek to pervert Islam and seek to advance a narrative that they are representing Islam in a war against the West. That’s false. That’s a myth. That’s not true.
“So the question really is, why aren’t those Republicans in Congress actually focused on things that aren’t just magic words, but are a tangible contribution to our homeland security? Let’s close the no-buy-no-fly loophole … Let’s hire 200 additional ATF officers. Let’s pass an AUMF that actually authorizes the commander-in-chief and our men and women in uniform to win this war against ISIL … Time and time and time again they refuse, because they think that somehow the magic words are somehow more important.”
[…]
“Are you sure that anyone sees these magic words as a strategy, though, and they’re not just pointing out the fact that the president hasn’t wanted to say them for a very long time? Even though others have, including Hillary Clinton?” Kosinski asked. “It just seems like when he talks about people painting this with a very broad brush, it seems maybe as if you’re painting this with a broader brush than some of those critics mean from the beginning.”
“What other critiques have those critics offered in terms of fighting ISIL?” Earnest shot back. “They haven’t. This is the thing that they constantly come back to. I’m not the one who constantly brings up radical Islamic extremism. That’s not me.”
[…]
Are they then undermining values and strategy?” Kosinski asked.
“I haven’t heard them criticize the president for not using the magic words, and I think that’s the point,” Earnest said.
No one is saying that if we just say radical Islam, our current plan to defeat global terrorism would work. That’s absurd. This is about accurately describing the threat posed by these groups. When a terrorist opens fire in a public forum, shouts “allauh Akbar,” and later electronic evidence points to radicalization by extremist groups, like ISIS, then it’s pretty clear that the terrorist was a radical Islamic terrorist. This dancing around the term because it somehow helps with their narrative is ridiculous. If we don’t say radical Islam, they won’t attack us. If we close down Gitmo, the terrorist won’t attack us. If we pass a so-called assault weapons ban, the terrorists won’t be able to buy firearms to kill us. It’s the gross naiveté of liberals. And in part, it makes no sense for Obama to be doing this. Based on what we know, the use of drones, the kill list he maintained and personally approves for those strikes, the increase in military assets to the Middle East to fight ISIS—he knows the threat. My god, not even Bush had a personal kill list.
If ISIS wants to use footage of our leader saying radical Islam to recruit—fine—chances are we’ll find those recruits and kill them. And then we’ll kill them some more. Will there be an end in sight? That remains to be seen. There’s a reason why folks at DoD call this fight the long war. In the meantime, at the very least, the folks driving current anti-terror policy can (and should) describe the threat we face as one pose by those who are radical Islamists. After all, at some level, I think the Obama White House knows this to be true.
Kosinski then asked why did the president engage in a political counterattack during yesterday’s ISIS briefing. CNN’s Jake Tapper had a rather damning observation: the president has zero confidence that the inauthentic, scandal-plagued, pre-packaged Hillary Clinton isn’t able to deliver knockout blows against Trump and the GOP.
The only value the left has is absolute control in the name of the father of all lies.
Someone please call Captain Obvious!!
It’s not the fact that he doesn’t say the words, it’s the reason WHY he doesn’t say the words.
He is one of them.
“... a twisted interpretation of one of the world’s great religions.”
Yes, he actually said that!
Exactly, Obama reflects the sympathies in his heart for Islamo-fascism.
That arrogant pos is one of those idiots.
Muslim barbarism and butchery is the historical norm. It's "peaceful" or "moderate" Islam that is the rarity.
Islam is all lies as it came from the mouth of this lunatic.
We need another Crusade and ban Muslims. Go Trump!
Radical Islam has it roots in the Koran, and its tenets are totally congruent with the present terror inflicted on the non muslim nations and people. There are many muslims that do not share these radical tenets of the Koran. However until they stand up and fight against this they are not sheep but part of the problem.
The Koran as written is a battle plan against all non believers. The Koran is not just a belief but is a total guide to government, and religion and thus one and the same. All power must come from the Koran
Until those beliefs are changed from within the muslim faith will by doctrine be an enemy. They will commit file acts of terror and believe it is totally and 100 percent acts of good.
Until we can confront this and understand this, we will be victims of their faith.
I lived and worked in the Middle East for several years. I worked with Muslims and most were very good people that only wanted to provide for their families and have a decent life. They were in abject fear of the Muslim Radicals. They said nothing because of fear and their fear was well founded.
PS
My best man at my wedding was a Palestinian Muslim. I would trust him with my life!
Not mentioning Islamic terrorism helps when they miss direct the response against normal Americans. It was terrorism caused by hate extremists. Just like those rebel flag flying Bible thumpers. Obviously he is using Islamic Terrorism that he helped to develop by protecting it, as a tool against regular Americans whom he hates. Thus his main response from the Orlando attack has been to attack Trump and the weapons that normal Americans possess.
Very interesting post and badly needed.
What “radical Islam” or “extremist Islam” really are, are the purest form of the religion of Islam, followed to the word with all its atrocities and genocide as policies.
In order to compare ISIS/ISIL, Al Qaeda, Boko Harum, Al Shahab, etc to something, we must look at Hitler’s National Socialism/Nazism, Stalin’s “NKVD/KGB” led by Beria and his “Great Terror” slaughter, the rule of the Maoist Khmer Rouge in decimating Cambodia (where I was as a short-term journalist), Ho Chi Minh’s wiping out his own people in No. Vietnam in the 50’s, Mao’s greatest mass murder in history of the Chinese people between 1949 and 1969, and No.Korea’s institutionalized Marxist insanity and it’s first family of genocide.
Other than that, ISIS are pretty good guys, according to Obama (JV) and Ernest (the greatest White House spokesliar in US history).
PS: Ernest. The Russians carried out more air strikes against targets in Syria in a few days (122 or so), than the US carried out in several months (12 in 5 days).
Oh yes, our fearless leader is leading the way in the fight against ISIS (aka “Islamic extremism”, but, as the song went “Only in your dreams”.
There is no “radical” Islam.
It’s just Islam.
Killing infidels is what they are supposed to do.
It’s in their book.
Slavery and misogeny are facts of life in muslim society.
It’s in their book.
There must be perpetual war against all unbelievers until there are no unbelievers.
It’s in their book.
There may be peaceful muslims, but they are not following the example of their prophet or his instructions in their book.
The closer they follow that example, the more dangerous they are to unbelievers.
Islam has been at war with everyone else since 622 A.D. and must remain so until there is only Islam according to their book.
Mad Mo made it so.
I did not realize CNN had any values, I suppose they are not American values. Hillary has less scruples than Al Capone or his like. Hillary grabs for the most convenient lie and makes another up if she gets caught.
This administration is going to hire 200 new ATF officers to decide who gets a Second Amendment and who does not? Is Lois Lerner going to be one of the two hundred?
No, she’s just trying to cover her hairy fat butt.
Only Muslims use the term “ISIL”, so Joshie must be a Mitt-licking Muslim POS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.