From Jonathan S. Tobin at Commentary:
President Obama’s condemnation of the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office today in Paris rightly referred to the perpetrators as “terrorists” and expressed solidarity with France even if it did come in a tone expressed with his usual lack of emotion. The official statement issued later also properly labeled it an act of terrorism. But the problem isn’t whether the administration is ready, as it was initially reluctant to do after Benghazi, to speak of terrorism, as it is the president’s refusal to discuss the motivation of the attackers and readiness to speak of it as the “senseless violence of the few.” This wasn’t senseless, Mr. President. Indeed, based on the administration’s past lukewarm defense of freedom of speech against Islamist attacks, it made a great deal of sense for terrorists to think they could get away with this atrocity.
Events have proven of course that he’s nowhere near the super-genius of his own fetid imagination, but Mr. Obama seems like a reasonably smart fellow. I bet he could make sense of the attackers’ motives — if he actually wanted to.
Related: “Pentagon: We have halted ISIS’s momentum.” Just in time — their front-line was starting to overrun Paris…
Here’s a clue, Sherlock. MT @KatiePavlich WH: attack was act of terror, but waiting on what the motivation was. pic.twitter.com/nQIq2JtS0j
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) January 7, 2015