"In June 2016, Haney testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he alleged that the Obama-era DHS had ordered him to delete hundreds of files..."

"... about reputed associates of Islamic terrorist groups. Haney made the case that several attacks in the U.S. could have been prevented if some of the files had not been deleted....  [I]n February 2016, Haney claimed Obama had thrown the U.S. intelligence community 'under the bus' for failing to 'connect the dots' after a Nigerian Muslim terror suspect was linked to a failed terror plot on Christmas Day in 2009. 'Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused,' Haney wrote, referring to Obama. 'His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material — the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.'"

From "Philip Haney, DHS whistleblower during Obama era, found dead, police say" (Fox News) — wiped away by "a single, self-inflicted gunshot wound."

"The Islamic State’s so-called caliphate has been defeated, a U.S.-backed force said Saturday..."

WaPo reports in "The Islamic State’s caliphate has been defeated, U.S.-backed forces say."

I celebrate this victory, but please forgive me if I look immediately turn to WaPo's treatment of President Trump. The first mention of him is in paragraph 4, and it's negative:

The militants switched gears as territorial defeat loomed, seeding sleeper cells across former strongholds as they prepared a new phase of insurgency. U.S. military officials have also warned that President Trump’s planned troop withdrawal — the shape of which remains unclear — has the potential to create a security vacuum within which the Islamic State could regroup.

Next we see that the dramatic success of the "caliphate" occurred under Obama:

The U.S.-led military campaign began in September 2014 after the Islamist militants rampaged through Iraq, seizing a third of its territory in the space of a week. They described the land that they seized as an Islamic State, and it often bore the hallmarks of a real one. Bureaucrats dealt with household bills and garbage collection. The group even minted its own coins.

Notice that Obama is not mentioned. But the next sentence refers to the current president and just calls him "the president," which I found disorienting because I saw "2014" and thought about Obama:

For the president, victory against the Islamic State marks the fulfillment of a campaign promise and as the battle ground toward its conclusion, Trump had repeatedly declared the group defeated.

So the horrible events that happened under Obama's watch are never tied to his name, and then Trump is not named next to the word "victory" — "For the president, victory" — but he is named later in the sentence where it's more negative — Trump "repeatedly declared" something that sounds wrong, that the group was "defeated" when that didn't happen until just now.

"The Terrible Cost of Obama's Failure in Syria/The atrocities keep coming."

By Kathy Gilsinana in The Atlantic. (Yes, The Atlantic, which recently fired its newly hired conservative, Kevin D. Williamson, is highlighting Obama's failure as Syria gas-attacks its way onto the news front-burner this week.)

“We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out,” declared then-Secretary of State John Kerry on Meet the Press in 2014. ... But there were two important and deadly loopholes. The first was that Assad did not declare everything—a reality that Kerry acknowledged publicly, including in a farewell memo to staff, in which he wrote that “unfortunately other undeclared chemical weapons continue to be used ruthlessly against the Syrian people.” The second was that chlorine gas, which has legitimate civilian uses, was not part of the deal....

But, despite that surprising headline, the article doesn't accept Trump's blaming of Obama:

President Trump has labeled the [recent gassing] “an atrocity,” blaming the Obama administration for declining to enforce its declared “red line” against chemical weapons use in 2013. But if anything, until this morning it looked like the Trump administration was more interested in extricating itself from Syria entirely. The attacks follow a strange few days in Washington, as the president stated his desire to get out of Syria “very soon;” his advisers insisted the U.S. was staying to finish the job of defeating the Islamic State; and the White House tried to resolve the contradiction by insisting that American troops would stay in Syria until ISIS was gone, an outcome that was rapidly coming to pass.

The article doesn't say what should be done, and of course, I don't know. I'll just say that if Assad had civilians gassed just as Trump was saying let's get out of Syria soon and his advisers were contradicting him and saying we need to finish the job, Assad seems to be weighing in on the side of the advisers and saying Bring it on. Now, why would he do that?

"The main characteristic of any American or Western Head of State is that he must be a Machiavellian president and a professional, accomplished liar."

"He must... be an expert in deceiving his audience and the entire nation. In the democratic system, the first station to test his reprehensible talent (lying and deceiving) is the election campaign. If he succeeds in this, then he will practice it during his presidency in the Oval Office and around the world."

From the January 2015 letter from Khalid Sheik Mohammed to "the head of the snake," Barack Obama.

Here's a PDF of the whole letter.

Obama said he was "really good at killing people," and now Trump has the drone power.

"Suspected US drone strikes have killed three alleged al-Qaida operatives in Yemen’s south-western Bayda province, security and tribal officials said, the first such killings reported in the country since Donald Trump assumed the presidency on Friday."

(Here's a source for the Obama quote.)

WaPo's Fact Checker looks back on "Obama’s biggest whoppers."

"The Fact Checker started during the 2008 campaign and then went on hiatus for the first two years of President Obama’s presidency before becoming a permanent Washington Post feature in 2011..."

Was the hiatus because you didn't want to fact-check Obama?

We get to see 10 4-Pinocchio statements by Obama, in chronological order, but only beginning after the first 2 years.

The most-remembered one is: "If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it."

The one that relates to the tricking of Mitt Romney was: "The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism." What Obama had said the day after "Benghazi happened" was: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for."

That vague "no acts of terror" must have been carefully chosen, because he said it again, twice, the next day (with "act" instead of "acts"),  "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world," and "no act of terror will go unpunished." That states a general proposition without saying that Benghazi was an act of terror. And there is a distinction between "terror" and "terrorism" that Glenn Kessler (the Fact Checker) finds important. 

"President Obama on Tuesday commuted the sentence of a man convicted for his role in a Puerto Rican nationalist group linked to more than 100 bombings in New York and other cities in the 1970s and 1980s."

The NYT reports:

The man, Oscar Lopez Rivera, was serving a 70-year sentence after being convicted of numerous charges, including seditious conspiracy, a charge used for those plotting to overthrow the United States government.

He was linked to the radical group known as the F.A.L.N., the Spanish acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation, and was one of more than a dozen group members convicted in the 1980s....

The pressure on Obama to pardon Bowe Bergdahl and put him out of reach of the President-elect who has him “a no-good traitor who should have been executed.”

Obama gave up 5 Taliban detainees to get Bergdahl back, and now Bergdahl, who faces trial for desertion and misbehavior, is pushing for a pardon.

At rallies, Mr. Trump repeatedly brought up the prisoner exchange as a bad deal. At a town hall-style meeting in August 2015, for example, he called Sergeant Bergdahl a “dirty, rotten traitor” and pantomimed shooting him. Mr. Trump also falsely claimed that Americans were killed searching for Sergeant Bergdahl and that the five Taliban ex-detainees were back on the battlefield.....

The administration transferred the Taliban detainees without obeying a statute requiring it to notify Congress 30 days before the transfers.... In addition, former soldiers came forward to describe the circumstances of his capture, accusing him of desertion. That fueled Republican complaints that sending the Taliban detainees to Qatar had been too steep a price....

The argument for a pardon seems to be that a Trump administration cannot give Bergdahl a fair trial.

Don't you see that the new war in Somalia is the same old war Congress authorized 15 years ago?

In 2001, Congress authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Although a separate authorization was acquired in 2002 to go to war against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, it is the 2001 authorization that President Obama has relied on whenever he's felt a need to say that Congress has authorized the war with ISIS, and Congress hasn't pushed back.

Now, we learn that President Obama is interpreting the 2001 authorization to support a war against he Shabab in Somalia! The NYT reports:

The executive branch’s stretching of the 2001 war authorization against the original Al Qaeda to cover other Islamist groups in countries far from Afghanistan — even ones, like the Shabab, that did not exist at the time — has prompted recurring objections from some legal and foreign policy experts....

“It’s crazy that a piece of legislation that was grounded specifically in the experience of 9/11 is now being repurposed for close air support for regional security forces in Somalia,” said Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations....

In Somalia, the United States had long taken the position that a handful of Shabab leaders, as individuals, had sufficient ties to Al Qaeda to make them wartime targets. But it has debated internally for years whether the Shabab as a whole, including their thousands of foot soldiers, can or should be declared part of the enemy....

But as American partners have been going after the Shabab in general more often without any particular focus on individuals linked to Al Qaeda, it has been harder to point to any congressional authorization for such airstrikes that would satisfy the War Powers Resolution.

As the election neared, the administration decided it would be irresponsible to hand off Somali counterterrorism operations to Mr. Obama’s successor with that growing tension unresolved. Now, as Mr. Zenko pointed out, “this administration leaves the Trump administration with tremendously expanded capabilities and authorities.”

If the GOP Congress didn't stand up to Obama and balance his exercise of war power, it's hard to see how it will interfere with President Trump. Any Democrats (and other nonTrumpists) who cry out about an overpowerful President acting without express support from Congress will have to answer for why they did not make this argument when Obama was building the power of the presidency.

IN THE COMMENTS: MadisonMan takes issue with my last sentence: "Answer to whom? The non-questioning press who will only harp on Trump?"

"Syrian and Russian warplanes launched a ferocious assault against rebel-held Aleppo on Friday, burying any hopes that a U.S.-backed cease-fire could be salvaged..."

"... and calling into question whether the deal would ever have worked. Waves upon waves of planes relentlessly struck neighborhoods in the rebel-held east of the city on the first day of a new offensive announced by the government.... Instead, the launch of the offensive called into question the entire premise of the agreement painstakingly negotiated by Kerry and [Russian Foreign Minister Sergei ] Lavrov over the past eight months: that Russia shares the Obama administration’s view that there is no military solution to the conflict. On that basis, U.S. officials have explained, Moscow would be willing to pursue a negotiated settlement in return for a cease-fire and the prestige of eventually conducting joint military operations in Syria alongside the United States against terrorist groups.... The attack puzzled many in Moscow who thought that Russia wanted the deal, said Vladimir Frolov, a foreign affairs columnist for the Moscow Times. But, he said, it now appears that Russia is 'leaning towards the view that this war is winnable. Realistic people realize that this is not possible, but some people are unrealistic,' he added...."

From "A ferocious assault on Aleppo suggests the U.S. may be wrong on Syria" in The Washington Post.

"We're not going to be... rebroadcasting his pledges of allegiance. We're trying not to revictimize those who went through that horror."

Loretta Lynch, speaking this morning on ABC's "This Week," where the moderator, John Karl, is very much helping her keep the focus on gun control and off ISIS and Islamic extremism.

Why is the government not going to be rebroadcasting Mateen's pledges of allegiance to ISIS?

Because they do not want to revictimize those who went through that horror.

Because they want to keep the focus off ISIS/Islam and on gun control.

Both.

Neither.

 

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: Lynch also appeared on "Meet the Press," where she said that the government will be releasing partial transcripts of Mateen's negotiations with law enforcement. Asked what's being left out — why only partial transcripts? — Lynch said: "What we're not going to do is further proclaim this individual's allegiance to terrorist groups and further his propaganda."

AND: When questioned about gun control, Lynch spoke of adhering to "due process and the current workings of law." The current workings of the law... what a phrase! What does it mean? I, a law professor, think it means: We'll meet the standards the courts impose, but we're part of the process of defining those standards, and if we can get a bill through Congress, we expect the courts to interpret the Due Process and the Second Amendment in a suitably responsive manner. 

"The 2010s, in contrast [to the 1950s], are a terrible time to not be brainy."

"Those who consider themselves bright openly mock others for being less so. Even in this age of rampant concern over microaggressions and victimization, we maintain open season on the nonsmart. People who’d swerve off a cliff rather than use a pejorative for race, religion, physical appearance, or disability are all too happy to drop the s‑bomb: Indeed, degrading others for being 'stupid' has become nearly automatic in all forms of disagreement."

From an article in The Atlantic by David H. Freedman titled "The War on Stupid People/American society increasingly mistakes intelligence for human worth."

I was interested to see that — linked by Instapundit — because just a couple days ago I got taunted by the NYU professor, Mark Kleiman, who wrote, "Ann Althouse teaches law at the University of Wisconsin, which implies that her IQ must be above room temperature." I said:

I was surprised to see that, because, as you know, Donald Trump has been accused of mocking the disabled, and the phrase "IQ... above room temperature" is a reference to the mentally challenged, genuinely disabled people who are not properly the subject of humor. Moreover, IQ is a touchy subject in America, as a professor of public policy should know, and I thought decent people refrained from using IQ as their go-to basis of trashing other people. Ah, well, ironically, I'm supposed to join the Trump-hating crowd because of all the indecent things he's supposedly said.

Sorry for the sudden intrusion of Trump into the subject, but Trump was the subject of Kleiman's attack on me. But notice how many Trump-haters attack his supporters — and his non-haters like me — as lacking intelligence. And consider Trump's own "I love the poorly educated!" — though to be poorly educated is not to be stupid. For example, you have to be reasonably smart to get into a school like NYU, but you might be poorly educated by a professor who devotes his class to political indoctrination and not to deep study and clear thinking.

IN THE COMMENTS: MayBee said:

There is almost nothing funnier than your NY Prof complaining about room temperature IQ while also saying there's no evidence Obama exhibited bad judgement.

Perfect example of the Agree With Me = Smart mentality.

That's right. As the commenters on this earlier post noticed, Kleiman wrote — talking about our efforts to help the "rebels" in Syria and conceding that everyone knows that we were helping ISIS and al Qaeda — "Just to be clear: there’s no evidence whatsoever that Clinton and Obama had bad judgement, didn’t know what they were doing, 'or worse.'" '

AND: Why did Kleiman say "everyone knows"? To my ear, it sounds like Hillary's "What difference, at this point, does it make?" That is, it's a "shut up" delivered in the guise of impugning the questioner for dwelling on things that are no longer important instead of moving on to what supposedly matters now.

"After weeks of fighting, Iraqi forces entered central areas of Falluja on Friday, facing little resistance by the Islamic State...."

"The rapid, and unexpected, gains suggested a shift in tactics by the Sunni extremists of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, or perhaps a sign of their weakness, as they abandoned their dug-in positions and regrouped in western neighborhoods. That allowed thousands of civilians, which aid groups had said were being held as human shields, to flee across two bridges over the Euphrates River beginning on Thursday.... Tens of thousands of civilians have now fled Falluja since an offensive began late last month, and most have reached bare-bones camps that are running low on supplies.... The latest exodus of civilians has not only added to the grave humanitarian crisis that has been unfolding for weeks in Anbar Province, but it has also presented a serious security challenge to the Iraqi government’s ability to carry out security screenings of civilians so Islamic State militants are not able to escape by blending in with civilians.... But with so many people fleeing in recent days, the ability of the security forces to carry out adequate screening has been strained, raising concerns that militants are also escaping amid the flow of the civilian population...."

I added boldface to that text, which I selected from a NYT article titled "Iraqi Forces Enter Falluja, Encountering Little Fight From ISIS."

"I like senators who don't get captured... by their own political correctness."

Said Meade in the comments to last night's post about John McCain saying something Trumpish about Obama and terrorism and then half-retracting it.

You know, McCain is getting primaried, and he's got a personal political interest in saying enough to ward off Kelli Ward without losing stature as a venerable, dignified, established Republican.

But if he can't do the calibration off-stage and deliver a message he'll stand by, it's going to be Mitt-Romney-in-the-second-debate humiliating. 

"Barack Obama is directly responsible for [the Orlando massacre] because when he pulled everybody out of Iraq, al Qaeda went to Syria, became ISIS."

"And ISIS became what it is today thanks to Barack Obama’s failures, utter failures, by pulling everybody out of Iraq, thinking that conflicts end just because we leave. So the responsibility for it lies with President Barack Obama and his failed policies. Directly responsible because he pulled everybody out of Iraq. I predicted at the time that ISIS would go unchecked and there would be attacks on the United States of America. It’s a matter of record. So he is directly responsible."

Said John McCain.

It sounds like something Trump might say, but I don't think Trump would have backed down when there was criticism. Obviously, there would be criticism — outraged, furious criticism. You had to know that. But McCain, upon hearing the criticism claims he "misspoke." He puts out a written statement:

"I misspoke... I did not mean to imply that the President was personally responsible. I was referring to President Obama’s national security decisions, not the President himself."

Is the President not responsible for his decisions? Or is he responsible for his decisions, and his decisions are responsible, and he is not his decisions? You'd think when putting out a written statement to set things right, you'd be careful about your words and try to make sense.

The reaction is what you'd expect. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said:

"I have a lot of respect for John McCain, he's an American war hero. But frankly that statement sounded a lot more like Donald Trump than John McCain and I wish he would just retract it in its entirety."

That's why Trump doesn't retract at all. Everyone's going to be tempted to talk like Trump, but I don't see how you do it, stir up the excitement, and then put out an "I misspoke" statement that tries to say the same thing in a softer, gentler fashion. You'll just be pushed until you take it back altogether.

"Trump tweets story claiming 'secret memo' shows Obama supports ISIS."

Headline at The Hill. Excerpt:

The story, from the conservative Breitbart website, says the State Department received a memo from an intelligence agent who claimed al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that splintered off to form ISIS, was one of the "major forces driving the insurgency in Syria."

Based on the memo, the article claims that the Obama administration backed ISIS by setting up a program to train Syrian rebels fighting against President Bashar Assad. The Syrian opposition comprises dozens of different factions, and the Obama administration has struggled at times to find reliable allies not tied to extremists. The Pentagon had focused on vetting the rebels who took part in its "train and equip" program, but it stalled after the Pentagon was only able to train 150 rebels, far short of its goal of 3,000.

Here's Trump's tweet:

An: Media fell all over themselves criticizing what DonaldTrump "may have insinuated about @POTUS." But he's right: https://t.co/bIIdYtvZYw

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2016

I don't trust Breitbart (and I passed on that story when I saw it), but I think we've long understood this problem of who the "rebels" in Syria were and whether it made sense to help them. So why haven't other media been pursuing this story? Trump has been critical of the disarray caused by Obama/Hillary policy in Syria (and Libya). What is Hillary's side of this? It's ridiculous that the media that support Hillary merely attack Trump for pointing at stories that suggest that Hillary/Obama had bad judgment, didn't know what they were doing, or worse. The media have left the opening for Trump to take these easy shots, and now, when he does, they seem to think it's enough to say Trump isn't nice or Trump throws out inconclusive evidence and invites us to think for ourselves and ask questions.

President Obama's Sermon of 2 Perversions.

President Obama addressed the Orlando massacre in a 25-minute speech today. I'll just focus on what he said about calling ISIS "radical Islamists":

For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical Islam." That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.

What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer, is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.

So there's no value to using this phrase, he says, but I'll note the obvious: If it's only a "political distraction," you could make the distraction go away by using the term. So the key is that there's value in not saying it. That's where he goes next. The familiar idea, as you can see below, is that he wants to convey the message that the form of Islam used by the terrorists is an incorrect interpretation of Islam.

This puts the President of the United States in the position of saying what is orthodox in religion. (I'm reminded — and this is Flag Day — of the Supreme Court's Pledge of Allegiance case with the great line: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion...".) But that's his approach and he's sticking to it. Here's how he repeated his iffy religious pronouncement:

Why didn't the FBI stop Omar Mateen?

That's my question, as I'm trying to read the NYT article with the infuriating headline, "Omar Mateen: From Early Promise to F.B.I. Surveillance." As if the FBI's investigation skewed him from a path to a successful American life!

He earned an associate degree in criminal justice technology in 2006. A year later, he was hired by one of the world’s premier private security companies, G4S. And then, in 2009, he got married and bought a home.

As if these things might not be chosen by someone with evil plans.

Soon, though, signs of troubles emerged. His wife, an immigrant from Uzbekistan, divorced him in 2011, after he abused her.

The desire to sympathize with this man is — for some insane reason — so strong that an abused woman is made the active party. She divorced him. He experienced "troubles."

Two years after that, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was called in after reports from Mr. Mateen’s co-workers that he, the American-born son of Afghan immigrants, had suggested he may have had terrorist ties. The F.B.I. interviewed him twice, but after surveillance, records checks and witness interviews, agents were unable to verify any terrorist links and closed their investigation.

That's all very blandly put, but I want more! Why did the FBI fail? What were the reports and what other reports of other terrorist sleepers are processed bureaucratically and left to continue undisturbed until the day they decide to wake up and open fire in a crowded nightclub?

Then, in 2014, the F.B.I. discovered a possible tie between Mr. Mateen and Moner Mohammad Abusalha, who had grown up in nearby Vero Beach and then became the first American suicide bomber in Syria, where he fought with the Nusra Front, a Qaeda-aligned militant group. Again, the F.B.I. closed its inquiry after finding “minimal” contact between the two men. After the terrorist investigations cleared Mr. Mateen, he maintained both his Florida security-officer license and his job....

A second investigation! And still nothing! Again, it is amazing — maddening — to think of all the Omar Mateens out there and known to the FBI and nothing is being done to stop them.

ADDED: "LINGO ... 'known wolf': a lone wolf who has been on the radar of law enforcement (apparently including Omar Mateen)."

"In his remarks today, President Obama disgracefully refused to even say the words 'Radical Islam'. For that reason alone, he should step down."

"If Hillary Clinton, after this attack, still cannot say the two words 'Radical Islam' she should get out of this race for the Presidency. If we do not get tough and smart real fast, we are not going to have a country anymore. Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen – and it is only going to get worse. I am trying to save lives and prevent the next terrorist attack. We can't afford to be politically correct anymore."

From Trump's statement on the Orlando massacre.

"We know enough to say this was an act of terror and an act of hate."

"The FBI is appropriately investigating this as an act of terror. We will go wherever the facts lead us... What is clear is he was a person filled with hatred."

Said President Barack Obama.



The President talks about the need to find out all the facts and to be careful about what we say before all we know we can, but notably, he called it an "act of terror": We know enough to say this was an act of terror....

It's also notable that in the second half of his statement, he merged the Orlando incident with the general problem of gun violence. We're asked to think about how easy it is to have and use a gun: "And we have to decide if that's the kind of country we want to be." He didn't state which policy he favors. He leaves it to democracy. There's no mention of the looming presidential election, perhaps because he doesn't even know yet how Hillary Clinton will choose to respond. As I've said (in the previous post), I don't think Clinton will go the gun-control route, so I think Obama is satisfying the gun-control crowd by mentioning the subject, but getting out of the way.

ADDED: Hillary weighed in on Facebook. She structures her statement very much like Obama's, with the act of terror/act of hate combination and then gun control thrown in at the end:

This was an act of terror.... For now, we can say for certain that we need to redouble our efforts to defend our country from threats at home and abroad... It also means refusing to be intimidated and staying true to our values.

This was also an act of hate.... We will keep fighting for [the right of LGBT people] to live freely, openly and without fear. Hate has absolutely no place in America.

Finally, we need to keep guns like the ones used last night out of the hands of terrorists or other violent criminals. This is the deadliest mass shooting in the history of the United States and it reminds us once more that weapons of war have no place on our streets.

Unlike Obama, she does embrace a policy position on guns, complete with a statement that the guns this person used should be classified as "weapons of war" and completely banned.

And Trump has 4 more tweets:

Horrific incident in FL. Praying for all the victims & their families. When will this stop? When will we get tough, smart & vigilant?

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!

Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism? If he doesn't he should immediately resign in disgrace!

Reporting that Orlando killer shouted "Allah hu Akbar!" as he slaughtered clubgoers. 2nd man arrested in LA with rifles near Gay parade.

AND: I relistened to Obama's presentation, and he did refrain from saying "radical Islamic terrorism" or making any reference to the murderer's religion.