Wingnut: Obama Refuses to Say What He’s Already Said

How many times have we seen this exact scenario play out? Fox News claims that President Obama refuses to say (fill in the blank) when, in reality, he’s said it multiple times. The latest iteration is the claim that Obama won’t call ISIL/ISIS a terrorist organization.

EARHARDT: As a Christian, I would want to stand up for Jesus Christ and what he died on the cross for. If I were Muslim I would stand up for what the Koran says, teaching and civility and love one another. But the Koran does not teach this. Moderates need to come forward and talk about this — This is a president, Andrea you have to remember,won’t even call them terrorist. This barbaric it is evil, there is evil in the world and every religion will teach that. It is evil, it is barbaric and it is so hard to watch. And this is burning a human being, a child of God’s, alive. Someone needs to stand up and say something. If our president doesn’t want to call this terrorism, I don’t know what is.

Except, you know, when he has. Like in his very first news conference about the group:

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand in its way.

The claim that they’re aren’t Islamic is stupid and false, of course, though I understand why he, like Bush, feels the need to say it publicly. But the last part shows that Fox News is lying. And the administration has referred to it as a terrorist group many other times as well. But they’ll keep telling this lie, safe in the knowledge that Fox News viewers will neither know nor care that it’s a lie.

"" I think maybe what you are getting at with your statements about the Koran ..."

Yes, the Bible Does Say to ..."
"A young man I know explained his estrangement from his father by sharing his paternal ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"We’re into the Smart justifications-Maxwell Smart, that is.Would you believe he chased teenage girls because ..."

Pastor: Moore Liked Young Girls Because ..."
"Studying her linguistic patterns, I think Crokin tipped her hand on this one. She said ..."

Crokin: Hillary Clinton Sex Tape Will ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • rationalinks

    No religion condones the killing of innocents.

    Uh…how about Christianity for one…

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    This barbaric it is evil, there is evil in the world and every religion will teach that. It is evil, it is barbaric and it is so hard to watch. And this is burning a human being, a child of God’s, alive. Someone needs to stand up and say something.

    Because no Christian, ever, would burn a human being alive.

  • Trebuchet

    @2: If that was supposed to be a link, it isn’t working. Giordano Bruno, perhaps?

  • arakasi

    @3: You don’t have to go nearly that far back. See for one of far too many

    (trigger alert – photo of horribly burned man with some despicable excuse for a human grinning behind him)

  • Loqi


    Ah, now I understand the motivation behind an idea like original sin. If nobody is innocent, they can torture and kill all they want without killing innocents. Or until they achieve orgasm. Which probably happens pretty quickly, based on the extasy they express when describing how much they want to see people like me burn eternally.

  • Modusoperandi

    Sure, but facts aside, Obama still hasn’t called them terrorists.

  • wreck

    “And this is burning a human being, a child of God’s, alive”

    And the punishment for not believing in this god is? For all eternity! They don’t actually listen to themselves, do they?

  • cptdoom

    Of course the President said ISIL is a terrorist organization, but he didn’t say that all Islamic adherents are terrorists, and that’s what Fox is pissed about.

  • Hercules Grytpype-Thynne

    Apologies for the bad link in #2. Intended this link: Wikipedia.

  • Dr X

    Yes Fox lied, and yes, claiming that ISIL isn’t Islamic is stupid. And there’s this, too: “No religion condones the killing of innocents.”

    Of course, different religions and religious people have very different ideas about what constitutes guilt and innocence.

  • abb3w

    I’d disagree with Obama’s assessment that it’s not a state. It’s not recognized as such; however, ISIS (by whatever name) appears to control a territory wherein they have de jure supreme ability to legislatively prescribe, adjudicate, and enforce within, with the capacity only contested by other states. The prime argument against this would seem in terms of external relations — they do not recognize the legitimate existence of peers, nor of such peers having comparably exclusive territories of authority, nor (in part because of this) do any states yet recognize them in turn (so far as I know).

    However, I would argue that this merely indicates they’re a rogue state — even more so that North Korea. I would argue that at present, ISIS is an independent state, having arisen as a product of domestic insurrection, currently maintaining coercive sovereignty internally, with a foreign diplomatic policy bellum contra omnes, and with a leadership hostis humani generis.

    Which is inconvenient to those used to diplomacy more distinguishable from ultima ratio regnum. It’s much easier from a framework of international law to pretend that they aren’t a state, and thus there’s no need to treat them as other than a pack of criminals.