Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bryan Preston

Bio

April 16, 2013 - 8:16 am

During his first statement on the Boston bombing Monday, President Obama deliberately avoided using the word “terrorism” to describe the attack. Instead, he used the word “tragedy.”

Appearing on MSNBC, Obama adviser David Axelrod speculated on the president’s use of language.

“The word has taken on a different meaning since 9/11,” Axelrod said of the phrase “terrorist attack.”

“You use those words and it means something very specific in people’s mind. And I’m sure what was going through the president’s mind is — we really don’t know who did this — it was tax day. Was it someone who was pro–you know, you just don’t know. And so I think his attitude is, let’s not put any inference into this, let’s just make clear that we’re going to get the people responsible.”

It’s not hard to figure out where Axelrod’s mind was going. He was doing his best to avoid directly blaming the Tea Party outright, but that’s where his mind was.

If that’s where the president’s mind is…

The fact is, the Boston bombing was an act of terrorism regardless of who turns out to be behind it. It bears similarities to the 2010 New York Times Square bombing attempt, in that it was an attack on a high-profile public place. That turned out to be Islamic terrorism. The underwear bomber was an Islamic terrorist. The fact that the Boston bombs were packed with ball bearings hints that they were similar to improvised explosive devices of the type commonly used by terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. They were even described as IEDs Monday afternoon.

President Obama won’t even describe the Ft. Hood massacre as terrorism, which it clearly was. He has pledged to bring the terrorists who killed four Americans at Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, to justice, yet so far no one has been detained for very long in connection with that attack and the US has struck at no terrorist base or camp months after the attack. On Monday Obama pledged that the government would “get to the bottom of” the Boston “tragedy.”

More: Obama Proclamation on ‘Senseless Acts of Violence’

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
As opposed to "sensible" acts of violence, presumably.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (10)
All Comments   (10)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
This man has demonstrable mental issues, and should be pink-slipped.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"And I’m sure what was going through the president’s mind is — we really don’t know who did this — it was tax day. "

It was also the 101st anniversary of Kim Il Sung's birthday in North Korea, a date that the North Koreans like to commemorate with threatening acts against the world, like last year's attempted launch of a rocket on the very same day. Given all the threats Kim Jung Un has been making in recent weeks, his dictatorship should certainly be considered as a possible suspect.

But no, Obama and his minions want it to be "right wing extremists" so they will push that possibility as long as they possibly can. I just hope the real bad guys don't get away while the authorities are going over every handy right-winger to find someone to pin it on.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Axelrod acts like the prime suspect; He'd conspire with former known terrorists (Dorn, Ayers, Boudin, etc.) to have someone pull off this atrocity just so he could say, "See! I told you those right wing TEA Party'ers were radical terrorists."
And we'll soon have a New Black Panther connection that will cease all prosecution of this case by Holder.
Hasn't Obama discovered the movie "The Croods" has an embedded message that mocks Allah?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Is not "Terrorism" using a violent attack against civilian, or military targets to affect political change?

Islam is asking for submission (complete surrender). Is that not the definition of war?

Because someone is fighting dirty, sharing tactics with known past terrorists does not make it terrorism. I say we are in a war.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What inference? What reverberations all over the world? But I do give Axelrod a little credit. He shows just a little inside spin on how they create propaganda inside the White House.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Did I just hear Steny Hoyer is now blaming this terrorist attack on the sequester or the "downsizing" results of the sequester?

I repeat: never let a good crisis go to waste.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Small minds come up with smaller answers. Typical. Mr. Axelrod, shut up, crawl back into the gutter and put your tinfoil hat back on.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As opposed to "sensible" acts of violence, presumably.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Atta boy, Axelrod. You're doing your job well.

Axelrod is now a "former" advisor which means he can be an attack dog free of any blowback to his former boss. It doesn't matter if he's correct, he's pinning the concepts of "terrorism" and "Right wing" together in the minds of the low-information voters. That's his role now.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's curious how these events function as a sort of Rorschach (ink blot) test, allowing people to report what the blot looks like to them for explaining why something bad happened. For the Bummer in Benghazi, Obama saw a year old B grade movie trailer denigrating Mohammed to explain the reason for the event. For Axelrod, it's the last day to file federal income taxes, so those damn Tea Party republicans in Boston must have done it. I think someone took a dump and forgot to flush Axelrod's skull, unless, of course, he's reporting what the President thinks.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All