President Obama’s Oval Office Address on Terrorism

Posted on December 7, 2015 by rikyrah

ICYMI President Obama addresses the nation on terrorism after the San Bernardino killings. Leading up to this address the media and GOP have been relentless in their FEARMONGERING/WARMONGERING, even going so far as to INVADE the home of the couple who killed 14 Americans last Wednesday.

untitled

Love all the family photos.

Meanwhile, the GOP, with the help of the media continue beating the GROUND WAR DRUMS.

obamamatrix1

For factual information on President Obama’s work on Isis check out this Twitter timeline.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Democracy, Domestic Terrorism, Gun control, Gun Violence, Media, POTUS, President Obama and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to President Obama’s Oval Office Address on Terrorism

  4. SouthernGirl2 says:
    December 7, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    It pains me to see the US media be complicit in pushing Trump’s offensive racist behavior by airing his vile hate. It’s so disturbing.

    Reply
  13. rikyrah says:
    December 7, 2015 at 11:11 am

    I am so glad that Barack Obama is our President right now.

    Reply
  14. rikyrah says:
    December 7, 2015 at 11:10 am

    This is the kind of thinking that essentially aided Shrub in lying us into 2 wars.

    Is More Required?

    ByJOSH MARSHALL
    PublishedDECEMBER 7, 2015, 1:09 AM EST

    I wanted to share with you TPM Reader BF’s take on my weekend post (“The Condundrum”) and the President’s speech. I want to do so not only because I think he makes good points that are worth considering but also because he captures a viewpoint I have heard from a number of people in recent days. In so many words, they agree with President Obama on the policy merits. But they do not believe his rhetoric and his policies are connecting with the public in a visceral way or reassuring them that he takes the threat seriously, appreciates their fears or has a plan on a scale to address the threat.

    I’d like to propose that there is another conundrum to consider. That is, in short, whether it may make sense to “over-react” in order to prevent something even worse down the line.
    The president’s speech was just what I expected. Serious, reasonable, thoughtful. But will it do anything to cut into support for someone like Trump? Will it actually reassure anyone who is genuinely frightened of Muslims becoming radicalized and launching attacks in their backyard? I don’t think so. Obama’s speech, as sound as it was on policy grounds, won’t do any of the things he hopes in terms of convincing the skeptical public that he is doing enough or all that is possible.

    So this gets me to the conundrum. Is it really responsible to be so responsible that it does nothing to check demagogic and Islamophobic responses?
    It is one thing to note that the biggest threat posed by ISIS is that we’ll react stupidly and play into their strategy. It is another to take steps that might actually prevent us from reacting stupidly. I would propose that at this point, it may be necessary to act a little stupid to prevent, hopefully, a worse response down the line.

    I don’t really know that this possible, but I do think that the public now wants something more than a call for calm and some weak sauce gun control measures, and if Obama isn’t willing to give it to them, the risk is that they will vote for someone like Trump or Cruz who will.

    What might a response that reassures the public look like? I don’t know. A six month moratorium on Syrian refugees, maybe. Perhaps, an increase in surveillance of Muslims in the U.S. through some sort of increased community engagement program. A new public initiative to combat “Islamist Terror” — yes, using that language, despite its costs, to signal commitment.

    None of these make a lot of sense as policy. But I worry that if Obama doesn’t do something like this, then when the next attack occurs (not if, but when), the political consequences and ultimate response might be a lot worse.

    Truman had to oversell the communist menace in order to head off truly reactionary responses. This led to all sort of pathologies in Cold War strategy. And yet, if you look at the strategic debates from the late 1940s and early 1950s, it is clear that our response could have been much more extreme and dangerous — preventive nuclear war wasn’t off the table until the mid-1950s, for instance. Now part of that was also to rouse the quasi-isolationists into action, but part of it was to vent at least some of the steam, lest the pressure built uncontrollably.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/is-more-required

    Reply

Leave a Reply