What Was Obama Thinking? A Plausible Answer

[Valin]

Power Line:

John Hinderaker

January 12, 2015

 

We wrote here about President Obama’s seemingly bizarre decision to stay away from the anti-terrorism rally in Paris, which was attended by more than a million people and led by more than 40 heads of state [or other high-ranking dignitaries]. This morning White House spokesman Josh Earnest fell on his sword, admitting to reporters that the administration erred by not attending the Paris unity march: “I think it’s fair to say we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” But the question remains, why did the White House commit such an apparent blunder?

 

Byron York offers the best explanation I have seen. It wasn’t a public relations gaffe or a matter of appearances, Byron argues. Rather, skipping the Paris rally was consistent with Obama’s consistent objective of minimizing the importance of terrorism as an issue:

 

 

The administration no-shows were not a failure of optics, or a diplomatic misstep, but were instead the logical result of the president’s years-long effort to downgrade the threat of terrorism and move on to other things.

 

(Snip)

 

Meanwhile, the White House from nearly the beginning of the president’s term made clear it did not want to refer to Islamic jihad as either Islamic or jihad. …

 

Obama’s supporters, weary of Bush’s focus on terrorism and eager to tackle a variety of domestic issues, cheered the president on. After the Defense University speech, the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson wrote, “President Obama wisely avoided the phrase ‘mission accomplished’ in his major speech last week about the ‘war on terror,’ but columnists aren’t obliged to be so circumspect: It is time to declare victory and get on with our lives.”

 

 

I think that is correct. Marching with a million Parisians and the leaders of most European nations, not to mention the Prime Minister of Israel, would have elevated terrorism as an issue–something Obama is determined not to do. That attitude may seem odd, but it is common on the left. Left-wing commentators of the sort Obama probably reads often tabulate the deaths due to terrorist attacks, and point out that statistically speaking, one’s risk of being killed by a terrorist is very low. Indeed, Obama’s attitude toward terrorism is more or less identical to that expressed by John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign: “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.”

 

(Snip)

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

1. I agree with this, but IMO John, Byron & others don't take it far enough. It's not just terrorism, but foreign policy/affairs in general that Obama and many parts of The Left in general don't care about.....unless it comes to turning America into a European socialist state....that's their model.

 

 

2. Also from John A Pack, Not a Lone Wolf