The President and his supporters first defended his/their absence by claiming there was such short notice for the parade (just 36 hours); or that there were security concerns (not an illegitimate worry – but over 40 other world leaders, including those from France, the UK, Germany, and Israel, were not put off by such concerns). The President also let it be known that he didn’t want it to be “all about him.” After all, had he gone, he, and not the victims from Charlie Hebdo, would have been the center of attention – and we all know how humble the President is and how much the President avoids the limelight. Curious that by not going he called at least as much attention to himself as if he had gone.
He and his court kept up the pretense for a day or so but finally stopped trying to explain it, and admitted, “Yes, we should have sent someone of higher rank. Now, let’s put this all behind us.” Of course, they don’t know who made the decision “not to send the President,” but they know who didn’t – that is, they claim that the “White House” told the “President” not to go.
Not so easy to put it behind us, because Mr. Obama campaigned on his understanding of Europe, and assured us he was in tune with the international mindset, and claimed that his deft touch and world-experience was just what was needed to restore our place in the world. No more would the American President hit sour notes in the international symphony. The world ate it up, and the President believed it – so how could such an adept citizen of the world louse up a golden opportunity to do the thing he does best?
The answer, we think, is that his absence was not a mistake or a blunder or a failure to comprehend the symbolic importance of the Presidential presence at that march. No, this was a deliberate and conscious decision, and we agree with some who say that the President did not want to associate with anything that would blame “radical Islam” for the attacks. We offer the following:
In 2012, President Obama’s administration publicly admonished Charlie Hebdo for running depictions of “The Prophet Muhammad.” (yes, the President objected to the very magazine whose editors the Jihadis murdered.) Also in 2012, the Administration went to extreme lengths to disassociate itself from a YouTube video that was very negative toward Islam – blaming it for the Benghazi attacks and jailing the man who produced the film. On Monday of this week, here is what his Press Secretary said: “We will not be shy about expressing a view or taking the steps that are necessary to try to advocate for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform.” What patriotic American could disagree with that? Except – we will translate for those of you who do not speak Administration language: “We will discourage the publication of anything that might upset Muslims.” Mustn’t offend them. So much for the freedom of speech and various other Constitutional guarantees. And it is equally hard to suppose that he would sit by silently if a Republican president tried to “pre-censor” or stifle some idea from being printed.
Here is something else that Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, on Tuesday of this week: “[The White House] has chosen not to use [the term radical Islam] because it doesn’t seem to accurately describe what happened.” Now we should point out that it’s not only Rush Limbaugh types who say that radical Muslims perpetrated these attacks (and thousands of others); even the Socialist, leftist President of France has used the term ‘radical Islam’ to describe the Paris killers. Even the (Muslim) President of Egypt has warned against the radical jihadi path and the tendency of mainstream Muslims to countenance it. But not the President of the United States. He, his Attorney General, Secretary of State, and others such as Howard Dean forswear the use of such terminology because they believe these killers are not Muslims but instead have co-opted the faith and have perverted its ideals. It doesn’t matter if ISIS waves the black flag of Jihad or if millions of Muslims march in support of Jihad – in the President’s eyes they are not “true Muslims,” so therefore he cannot describe them as Muslims even though that is how they describe themselves.
As long as the President refuses to know what the problem is he will not understand what the problem is, he therefore will have no idea of how to deal with it - except "If we don't give them an excuse to dislike us, they will love us." His inability properly to identify and characterize the origins, the motives, the culture, the beliefs and the purpose of the world’s Jihadi terrorists, whether they misinterpret the Koran or not, sends the message that the US government does not agree that "Radical Islam" is a problem.