Obama Says Trump’s “Yapping” Helps Terrorists Succeed

[bemildred]

In a speech, he blasted “politicians who tweet and appear on cable news shows” for being obsessed with the term “radical Islam.”

His anger barely contained, President Barack Obama tore into Republicans and their presidential nominee, Donald Trump, for their obsession with the phrase “radical Islam,” two words that Obama said accomplishes nothing in the war on terror.

Just days after the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, perpetrated by what Obama called an “angry, disturbed, [and] unstable” man, the president took the opportunity to slam his Republican opponents during a speech Tuesday defending his administration’s approach to combatting Islamic extremism.

The G.O.P., he said, was stymieing efforts to fight terrorism by refusing to confirm his nominee to work in Homeland Security and by blocking Democratic efforts to strengthen gun-control laws that would ban assault weapons and prevent terror suspects from buying weapons. (“People with possible ties to terrorism who aren’t allowed on a plane, shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun!”) But most of all, Obama focused his ire on the undiplomatic phrase “radical Islam,” which conservatives have criticized him for not using.

“What exactly would using this label accomplish?” Obama asked, frustration creeping into his voice. “What exactly will it change? Will it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is best served by this?

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/obama-radical-islam-orlando

[bemildred]

1. President Obama Denounces ‘Yapping’ in Trump’s Response to Orlando

President Barack Obama for months has taken presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump to task for his proposed policies toward Muslims. On Tuesday, he broadened his criticism of Trump’s plans to the entire GOP.

Speaking at the Treasury Department days after Omar Mateen killed 49 at a gay nightclub in Orlando, the president said banning Muslims from entering the country, or targeting Muslim communities in the United States, “betrays the very values America stands for.” His comments came a day after Trump again accused Muslim communities in the United States of being complicit in attacks, and suggested Obama has a secret agenda that keeps him from targeting Islamic terrorists.

Obama didn’t cite Trump by name, though he dismissed the Republican’s rhetoric as “yapping” and appeared visibly irritated as he asked: “Where does this stop?”

“The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer, they were all U.S. citizens,” Obama said. “Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently?”

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/14/president-obama-denounces-yapping-in-trumps-response-to-orlando/

[Xipe Totec]

2. When you're a carnival barker, you bark. That's what you do.

[bemildred]

3. Obama v Trump: The gloves are off

The political battle between President Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is now fully joined.

Just a day after Mr Trump gave a speech on immigration and national security that included sweeping condemnations of Mr Obama's policies, the president responded with some of his harshest criticisms to date.

"Where does this stop?" Mr Obama asked. "The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer - they were all US citizens. Are we going to start treating all Muslim-Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start to discriminate [against] them, because of their faith?"

---

As the Obama-Trump clash heats up, here are three things to keep in mind.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36534957

[MisterP]

4. so did your shenanigans in Iraq, Libya, and Syria

[Nitram]

5. Yapping! I love it.

[bemildred]

6. It is the word that comes to my mind.

The President has a real way with words at times.

This one here really nails him too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027917216

[Nitram]

7. We need to instill the fear of Trump into the electorate so it doesn't get complacent

and fail to vote.

[bemildred]

8. I'm not sure what I think about that.

Although I think fear is his game, and we should not play on his terms, if we go there. He is pretty good at instilling fear all by himself.

We need to suck the oxygen out of his room, not let him control the narrative, keep him off balance. I'm not the guy to figure that out, I haven't really studied him. Get him talking about his penis again.

[Nitram]

9. I think Trump is truly dangerous and sbhould be feared as a presidential candidate.

Complacency is not an option.

[bemildred]

10. No question about that. nt

[bemildred]

11. Trump’s fear doesn’t sell: ...

Digby is a bit worked up, but this is good analysis.

It distasteful to launch back into writing about polls and political strategies even as scores of people are still in the hospital recovering from injuries sustained in Sunday’s terrorist attack but there’s no help for it. The atrocity in Orlando has offered up such a stark choice between the two presumptive presidential candidates and their respective parties that the subject cannot be avoided. The political fallout from this event (and God forbid any similar events between now and November) may very well affect the outcome and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

I have long suspected that barring any intervening economic catastrophes, this would end up being a national security election. The reason for this was two-fold. First, the Republicans believed this would be the more fertile ground for them once again now that there was some distance from the Bush administration’s Iraq debacle and they clearly planned to run the campaign on those issues. And secondly, a woman was likely running for president for the first time and despite everyone’s assumption that she is some kind of bloodthirsty Boudica, the fact is that there were some good reasons to worry that Americans would turn to the traditional party and the traditional (male) candidate if national security came front and center. It was entirely predictable that the Republicans would play “the man card” if they could find an opening.

The two primaries unfolded on separate tracks with the Democrats staging their debate on the economic field and the Republicans staging theirs on the Donald Trump white nationalist field. There were three frightening terrorist attacks during that period, in Paris, Brussels and San Bernardino which all the GOP contenders used to portray the president and Clinton as feckless weaklings at best and terrorist conspirators at worst. But Donald Trump to it to another level by calling for the banning of all Muslims coming to the US and the deportation of Syrian refugees who are already here. As he went on to win the nomination, polls showed that a vast majority of Republicans agreed with Trump on those policies. The question since then has been whether or not the general public would respond to his primitive chest beating and whether they would reject Clinton as being too weak to keep the nation safe.

Since the Orlando massacre, there have been a number of journalists making the assumption that the attack would inevitably benefit Donald Trump. A Politico piece from yesterday, for instance, conveys the conventional wisdom, with the headline “Clinton braces for fight on Trump’s terrain:”

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/15/trumps_fear_doesnt_sell_his_horrible_response_to_the_orlando_massacre_will_rightfully_turn_more_voters_to_hillary/