The Deliberate Choice to Label a Terror Attack as ‘Random’

Today on NRO

PATRICK BRENNAN: The feds and the media don't always tell the real story about unemployment — because they can't. There's No Such Thing as the 'Real Unemployment Rate'.

KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON: Arbitrary power in the guise of the rule of law. The Search for a 'Reasonable Man'.

RICH LOWRY: UC students want vote to divest from their own country. California's Divestment Disgrace.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: No one — least of all the American people — is exempt from our president's snark. Snarker-in-Chief.

SLIDESHOW: Hillary Clinton: #GrandmothersKnowBest.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

February 10, 2015

The Deliberate Choice to Label a Terror Attack as 'Random'

Unbelievable:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: My first job is to protect the American people. It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you've got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.

This fits with the administration's "workplace violence" classification for the Fort Hood shooting, as well as Obama's passionless public statement after the Paris attacks and his skipping Paris and D.C. anti-terror rallies to watch football.

In his mind, there is no broad threat, just a series of random events:

BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT: The current [Senate Intelligence] Chairman Senator Burr on Special Report last week said in all his times on that committee, he's not seen a terror-threat matrix like this right now. So, why does the president say this? Why does he say the media is overhyping this and that that's the issue?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Because he believes it and that's what is the scariest of all. If he was just being cynical as a way to dismiss this because of the failure of his own policies, that would be one thing. I think he believes this. At the end of his presidency he is now liberated to actually say what he believes.

We complain he doesn't have a strategy in the war on radical Islam. The reason he doesn't have a strategy is because he thinks there is no need for a strategy because it is random violence. People shoot up delis, people go around in other places and do stuff. They attach an ideology afterwards as a way to make it look legitimate.

He thinks, and he says it openly, this is like the fighting of crime in a city. There is no unifying ideology in the criminals of a city. You go after one after another, you use a drone on one, you arrest another, you shoot a third. But you don't have to have a strategy. You don't have to understand who they are because it's one thing after another.

And that has been the reason why Obama has no strategy. He thinks I kill a few people here with a drone. I tamp it down, it will go away. Or people will ignore it, especially if the press would not hype it. This is what is so terrifying about the man who is commander-in-chief of a country, essentially a civilization, under attack.

Jonah:

The more novel problem is his disgusting description of the deliberate targeting of Jews as a random shooting. It's as infuriating as his administration's insistence that the Fort Hood shooting was just "workplace violence," though more hypocritical. When a theologically inspired Jew-hating terrorist runs across Paris to hold a Kosher market hostage, and then executes Jews in accordance with his ideological and religious dogma, it is not random violence or street crime. Period.

There was nothing random about it, at all. There are about 310,000 Jews in the greater Paris area. Out of close to 12 million inhabitants. The odds of killing four Jews randomly are pretty daunting. But, thankfully, you don't have to do the math because Amedy Coulibaly said openly and proudly that he was targeting Jews. No one disputes this, except for Barack Obama.

There are quite a few folks in our world of conservatives who contend President Obama is an anti-Semite. That's not quite what we're witnessing here, but we're getting close when he's insisting that that the Paris attack was random, either oblivious or in denial of the fact that the perpetrator openly stated that he aimed to kill Jews.

This is in perfect contrast to Obama's recent statement that American Christians have to get off their high horse because of crimes committed during the Crusades. All of us must act with humility because of centuries-old brutality while the president effectively argues with a terrorist about what his true motive is.

Forget the Departures; Hillary's Not Ready for Tough Interviews

David Brock leaves the orbit of the nascent Hillary Clinton campaign? That's addition by subtraction, right?

David Brock on Monday abruptly resigned from the board of the super PAC Priorities USA Action, revealing rifts that threaten the big-money juggernaut being built to support Hillary Clinton's expected presidential campaign.

In a resignation letter obtained by POLITICO, Brock, a close Clinton ally, accused Priorities officials of planting "an orchestrated political hit job" against his own pro-Clinton groups, American Bridge and Media Matters.

Quick, when's the last time you remember Hillary Clinton agreeing to sit down for a tough interview?

Been a while, right? Maybe the interview with Greta Van Susteren and Brett Baier during last summer's book tour? That was in June.

And even in the not-so-hostile interviews, she has her problems, like when she told Diane Sawyer that she and Bill were "dead broke" when they left the White House.

I got to shoot a question or two at Bobby Jindal yesterday. Mike Huckabee does interviews regularly. A governor can't hide from his state's press corps forever. Most senators -- particularly those with presidential ambitions -- have busy media schedules, and reporters can find them by staking out their offices.

Rand Paul didn't look great when he put his finger to his lips and made that shushing noise to the CNBC anchor. But notice that he's there doing the interview.

An interview doesn't have to be hostile to generate something of interest, of course. You might argue that when Obama settles in with a particularly friendly interviewer, that's when he gets too comfortable and reveals what he really thinks, causing headaches: Obama's "random"-Paris-attack comment came from Vox; his ISIS-is-the-jayvee-team comment came from an interview with The New Yorker.

Why No Politician Can Fully Harness the Politics of Envy

Ramesh, writing in the New York Times:

REPUBLICANS think they have found a new weapon to use against President Obama: the charge that income inequality has risen on his watch. In recent weeks that criticism has been lodged by the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell; Speaker of the House John A. Boehner; Representative Paul D. Ryan; and the former governors Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush. Three other potential presidential candidates, Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, used inequality to indict the Democrats in a January forum.

But Republicans are likely to find that this weapon will be a dud. Inequality does not appear to be an issue that moves voters, and even if it did, Republicans would not be able to come up with an agenda that does much to reduce it.

I'd argue that the politics of envy are a weapon too unstable, unpredictable, and dangerous to really be useful to the one who wields it. Because ultimately, just about everybody in elected office lives a life that appears luxurious to the average American.

Andrew Ferguson, writing over in The Weekly Standard:

[The article] itemized the [Governor Christie's] taste for luxury, especially when it is paid for by someone else, usually wealthy political allies: elaborate family vacations disguised as trade missions, gilded hotel rooms at $30,000 a night, first-class tickets to concerts and sporting events, and a preference for private jets that feature "exotic wood interiors and a Rolls Royce engine."

The governor's high life isn't illegal, as even the Times admitted, and it isn't unusual. A seldom-remarked fact of American politics is that people in positions of government authority -- senators, cabinet officers, governors, ranking members of the House of Representatives, Republicans and Democrats alike -- live a life utterly removed from that of the people they rule, with cars and drivers and private jets on call, sumptuous meals and skyboxes stocked with excellent liquor, all for free. They will tell you it's to make the people's business run more smoothly, but they also think it's fitting compensation. Why else would they put up with the rest of us?

Sometimes you don't even need to be elected to any office or appointed to any key position to enjoy these little perks; witness Valerie Jarrett's personal security detail.

There's been a lot of discussion about Sarah Palin in these parts. Let's take a moment to observe that for whatever flaws she has, Palin lived the most "normal" and "middle class" life of any figure on a major party ticket in decades. The reason she ran into that brouhaha about the RNC buying her clothes is that she didn't already have a campaigning-across-the-country wardrobe. Think about it, by the time anybody becomes a member of Congress, they already have a closet with at least a week's worth of suits, shirts, ties, blouses, shoes, etc. for campaigning and looking professional. The Democrats rode to victory in 2012 by demonizing Mitt Romney's wealth but compared to the average American, they're all wealthy.

Sure, Barack Obama had his credit card rejected as recently as 2000, but he became a multimillionaire from a January 2005 book deal and book sales shortly after his 2004 Democratic National Convention address. Vice President Joe Biden claims to be "the poorest man in Congress" -- and he probably comes close to qualifying, although that's not as significant as it sounds -- but he still has a net worth estimated from $39,000 to $800,000.

A presidential campaign that somehow utilized "the politics of envy" would slam into the fact that the candidate -- just about any serious candidate -- makes more money, has a bigger net worth, and lives a more lavish lifestyle than almost all of the voters they're attempting to win over. It's going to be comical and delicious to see Hillary railing against the same Wall Street bankers who she just charged $200,000 per speech.

And she will; she won't be able to help herself. The Democratic base will command it. And she already dabbled in bashing those other rich people, back in 2012:

There are rich people everywhere, and yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries.

Jazz Shaw rapped me on the knuckles for writing about Mike Huckabee's lavish lifestyle, contending that even the wealthiest person can enjoy the simple pleasures of life. Sure. But when a guy who rides on private jets starts claiming that "status is a Ford 150 truck; luxury is crawfish étouffée and slaw on your pulled-pork sandwich" a certain segment of the electorate is going to roll their eyes at what they deem as inauthenticity.

ADDENDA: Probably ought to start thinking about that Valentine's Day gift.

I'm not even going to try to claim The Weed Agency makes a good Valentine's Day gift. Maybe if you're trying to get dumped.

If Valentine's Day is approaching, I really ought to get those last Christmas lights down off the roof, huh?

www.NationalReview.com

Sail with National Review

Join your favorite writers for National Review's 2015 cruise to Alaska — a once in a lifetime opportunity for you and your family. Learn more here.

What National Review is reading — order your copy today!

Withering Slights: The Bent Pin Collection, 2007 to 2012
By Florence King and from National Review

Love National Review online? Save 75% off the newsstand price and subscribe to National Review magazine — print or digital versions available!

Looking for the perfect gift for that special conservative in your life? Give the gift of National Review or shop the NR store!

To manage your National Review e-mail preferences or unsubscribe, click here, or to read our privacy policy, click here.

This e-mail was sent by:
National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

Search This Blog

Diogenes-Light

The Deliberate Choice to Label a Terror Attack as ‘Random’

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Megyn Kelly -> Pete Hegseth responds to 2017 rape accusation. 🔥

FOLLOW THE MONEY - Billionaire tied to Epstein scandal funneled large donations to Ramaswamy & Democrats

Readworthy: This month’s best biographies & memoirs