” What the president didn’t say speaks volumes. Delivering his lines coldly from a script, Obama made the following self-contradictory statement:
Obviously, tonight there are still many unanswered questions. Among them, why did young men who grew up and studied here, as part of our communities and our country, resort to such violence? How did they plan and carry out these attacks, and did they receive any help? The families of those killed so senselessly deserve answers.
This dastardly act was not ‘senseless’ — it appears to be motivated by the anti-American agenda of apparently sane, well-to-do jihadists from Chechnya. It is a vicious attack, yes. It is a tragedy, fine. But more importantly, it is another jihad-inspired terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
This narrative is inconvenient for the administration and runs directly counter to left-wing explanations for terrorism. Third world terrorists are supposed to be motivated by ‘relative deprivation’ or ‘class disparity.’ Obviously, that’s not the case for these upper class bombing suspects.
Foreign terrorists who strike the nation are supposed to be upset about America attacking their countries and wronging their peoples. Again, these men of Chechen ancestry would more logically attack Russia, rather than the U.S. — which never invaded Chechnya.
Like we saw with the Benghazi terrorist siege, the president is restrained when calling actual terrorism — “terrorism”; meanwhile, ‘terrorism’ language is reflexively invoked to describe those Republicans who want a balanced budget and tea party activists who want to limit our national debt. Tea party ‘terrorists,’ and ‘hostage’-takers are epithets sputtered out by Democrats without thinking or blinking.”