Yesterday, when speaking to the ladies of The View, President Obama refused to call the attack that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans working with the State Department an act of terrorism. TheWashington Free Beacon reported on the exchange:
BARBARA WALTERS: Was the Libya attack terrorism?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: There’s no doubt that the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn’t just a mob action. What’s clear is that, around the world, there are still a lot of threats out there.
"The fact that President Obama refuses to use the term terrorism comes as no surprise to astute White House watchers," notes the Beacon. "The Obama administration’s efforts to eliminate the phrase date back to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s 2009 use of the term 'man-caused disaster' to describe acts of radical Islamic terrorism in order to “move away from the politics of fear."
It's perhaps even less surprising than that. Today, when speaking at the United Nations, Obama strayed from calling the recent attack on American diplomats "terrorism." As the Washington Times reports, "Although his administration in recent days acknowledged that the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were caused by a terrorist act on Sept. 11, Mr. Obama didn’t mention terrorism as the likely cause in front of the international audience."
And on October 2, 2001, shortly after 9/11, in a TV appearance, Barack Obama asked, but what is terrorism really?