On June 4th, 2009 President Obama delivered his "Cairo speech" in Egypt. Here is how that speech was critiqued by Politico writer, Josh Gernstein....
"(Obama) managed never to utter the one word that comes to mind most often when many Americans think about Islam: terrorism."
Fox anchor Brett Baier, reporting that day on Obama's Cairo speech ...
"(the speech) lasted a little over 55 minutes" and "was 6,000 words." He added: "Words that you did not hear in the speech -- terror, terrorist, or terrorism -- although the president did talk about the 9-11 attacks and a lot of other topics." Baier did not discuss or report possible reasons for Obama's word choice.
CNN correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, the evening of Obama's Cairo speech....
"I don't know what goes on in his (Obama's) head. But I certainly know what the people in the Islamic world say. In all those countries which I visited, where there are wars or not, they are fed up with being completely and monolithically associated with terror. Perhaps that was what was going through the president's mind when he chose not to use that word."
I have concluded that the real problem Republicans and anti-Obama-ites have over the Benghazi, Libya extremist attack of 9-11-12 that killed 4 Americans is not the deaths themselves, not the violence itself....but instead, the language used, or in this case, not used, by Susan Rice and others to later describe the event.
Whether you examine Mitt Romney's totally embarrassing moment at the 2nd presidential debate when the former governor openly mocked the President's claim that he used the phrase "act of terror" the day after the Benghazi violence to describe the event.....or the recent Darrell Issa-led hearings on the Benghazi event.....or the more recent 19th nervous breakdowns by John McCain and Lindsey Graham over the potential nomination of Susan Rice as Hillary Clinton's replacement at the State Department.....the message being sent is the same.
To many on the hawkish right, talking belligerently about Muslims is a vital part of fighting the "war on terror."
This is where I remind readers that there has never been, and there is not now, a "war on terror." Terrorizing others through horrific or spectacular acts of violence....is a tactic, not an enemy we can declare war against.
That said, those on the American right clearly believe that Islamic extremism cannot be successfully combated unless American leaders repeat the words terrorist, terrorism and war on terror....on a daily basis. And if a U.S. President doesn't choose to insult all Muslims everywhere by calling out the magic terror words often enough, then that president is not only weak, but is probably on the side of the Islamic extremists.....as described by these Foxians after the Obama Cairo speech...
KELLY: All right, so, getting back to President Obama. So he goes out -- this is a big speech, 3,000 people in attendance, but millions, if not more, watching around the world, and not one mention of terror, the war on terror, or terrorism.
KELLY: What do you make of it?
SAMMON: Well, I make of it that he has taken us off a war footing as a nation. And it's now clear -- when you give a 6,000-plus word speech to the Muslim world and you don't mention terror, terrorist, or terrorism, you know, that's not an accident.
So, when you hear all the bluster about Susan Rice, and how she didn't call the event of the killings of 4 Americans in Libya a TERRORIST ATTACK when everybody just KNEW it was a TERRORIST ATTACK......remember what the complaint is really all about. Rice...and Obama...are not belligerent enough in openly castigating Muslims for the "terrorists" that they are. It's that simple.
The "walk softly but carry a big stick" advice of a former GOP president has been turned on its head by a modern Republican Party that prefers routine word bullying, non-stop saber rattling and Codpiece parades over carefully calculated solutions to complex world problems.
About This Blog