Today, Pres. Obama finally explained why he won’t utter the words “radical Islam” – but does his logic justify wiping French Pres. Hollande’s “Islamist terrorism” comment from the official White House video?
In a speech Tuesday regarding a Muslim terrorist’s attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida over the weekend, Obama claimed that identifying the threat of terrorism as being a “radical Muslim” threat would accomplish nothing:
“For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me or not using the phrase radical Islam. That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.
“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.”
Indeed, refusing to attribute the terror threat to “radical Islam” does not make the threat go away – but does that justify editing out the audio of French Pres. Francois Hollande calling the root of terrorism “Islamist terrorism”?
In April, when Pres. Hollande referred to “Islamist terrorism” in a press event with Pres. Obama, the official White House video was pulled – and, when it was reposted, the audio of both Hollande and his translator saying “Islamist terrorism” was missing.
When MRCTV reported the censorship, the White House eventually re-posted the video with the full audio of Hollande’s comment, in both English and French.
In today’s defense of his refusal to use the words “radical Islam,” Obama went on to make the false claim that people who refer to “RADICAL Islam,” somehow, are accusing ALL Muslims of being terrorists:
“And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush and imply that we are at war with an entire religion then we are doing the terrorists work for them. I've been told up until this point that this argument about labels is mostly partisan rhetoric. And sadly, we've all become accustomed to that kind of partisanship, even when it involves the fight against these extremist groups.”
That would be like claiming that people who oppose “ILLEGAL immigration” oppose ALL immigration.