He wasn’t at The Pulse, but President Obama’s got his victim thing going, due to the whole “radical Islam” label.
Furious and frustrated, he turned a post-national security briefing into a rant about people wanting him to call the enemy by their name, and a pretty staunch anti-Trump campaign speech. Except he’s not running against Trump.
In seriousness, he and Mrs. Clinton are asking aloud: why use the “M-word”? Here’s my two-cents:
Our Muslim partners abroad, and law-abiding Muslim-Americans here, know full-well that the enemy is radical Islamists. This is an existential challenge for them, and it’s patronizing to think we make life easier for them by pretending otherwise.
If my neighbor’s dog bites my kid, I don’t meander over to him and say “there’s a dog around here someplace biting people.” We confront his responsibility, which, if he takes it, allows us to continue to be good neighbors.
This is naming the dog.
Moreover, because the president knows this, I think he’s being disingenous. What’s REALLY going on is that the world as he defines it (ISIS is J.V., in retreat, etc. etc.) is constantly being beaten up by the world as it is. So we had to watch a 50-something man pout, sulk and grouse about the “yappin'” of his critics. Cry me a Euphrates River.
One more note: former President Bush used “radical Islam” and “Islamist”. Lately, many Democrats including their presumptive nominee have singled him out for how reasonable and moderate he was compared to Trump/GOP today.
If it was good enough for voice-of-reason GWB, why is it not good enough for Obama and Clinton?