So, some people think that President Obama is less than stalwart against terrorism? Now, what could give anyone that idea?
The seed might have been planted when Obama’s first secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, in 2009 eschewed the word “terrorism” and instead urged the phrase “man-caused disasters.” White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs explained back then that the administration is using “different words and phrases in order to denote a reaching out to many moderate parts of the world...”
And how did that work out?
Just recently, Obama Atty. Gen. Loretta Lynch, after attempting to whitewash 911 calls by redacting the words “ISIS,” “Islam” and “Allah,” stated “our most effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, it’s unity, and it’s love.” Lesson not learned.
But wait, there’s more. A 2015 report by the Homeland Security Advisory Council stressed the “importance of combating extremism by avoiding terms that might offend Muslims.”
And State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf’s 2015 declaration (following another mass beheading) that “job opportunities” would dissuade overseas terrorists didn’t exactly strike fear in the hearts of jihadis.
Then we have former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonishing us in 2014 to “respect” terrorists and “as psychologically possible empathize with their perspective and point of view.”
Obama for five weeks dodged the truth that Benghazi was a terror attack, and two years after the Boston Marathon bombing summed it up as “two brothers and a crock pot.”
In 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan — while shouting “Allahu Akbar” — killed 13 fellow service members and wounded 30 more at Fort Hood, Texas.
And Obama chose not to label Hasan’s horrific act as terrorism, but instead to file it under “workplace violence.”
Is it any wonder people are asking where the leaders against terrorism are?
Edward C. Fennell