Search the Lounge


« Andrew Guzman Named Dean Of USC Law | Main | LSAC Data and Predicting Number of Applicants for Fall 2015, Part 3 »

January 07, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

John Steele

According to news accounts, Obama has called it "terrorism."


Yes, I would say it's official. While on camera (so far as I can tell) Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have been careful to say "extremists", here below is the written text of the official WH statement from Mr. Obama, which states directly that it was a terrorist attack and that the people committing the attack are terrorists.

"I strongly condemn the horrific shooting at the offices of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris that has reportedly killed 12 people. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this terrorist attack and the people of France at this difficult time. France is America's oldest ally, and has stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the fight against terrorists who threaten our shared security and the world. Time and again, the French people have stood up for the universal values that generations of our people have defended. France, and the great city of Paris where this outrageous attack took place, offer the world a timeless example that will endure well beyond the hateful vision of these killers. We are in touch with French officials and I have directed my Administration to provide any assistance needed to help bring these terrorists to justice."

Calvin Massey

Better late than never.

Dec LSAT Volume

off topic but -- Dec. LSATs are actually up --0.8 percent

My $.02

I mean, it's not like commenting on an apparent terrorist attack before all of the details became known has ever come back to bite the Obama administration.


Did you mean to post this to red state or free republic?

Cent Rieker

President Obama was quicker to call this terrorism than Bush was to respond to the memo "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Within US."


I'm surprised you saw fit to publish this. Let's assume, with you, that the leaders of the three countries have equal access to the facts, and an equal basis for the conclusion that this is terrorism. Let's overlook, with you, the difference between the liberty of an official appearing on morning talk shows and declarations by the leaders themselves. Let's overlook, with you, the apparent differences among the statements you seem to like, and ignore the fact that PM Cameron joins France "in opposition to all forms of terrorism" . . . a statement that takes no position on the facts at hand. Let's assume, that is, that this is a fair measure of how quickly the three leaders react to a situation that appears to be terrorism by characterizing it as such, and the United States finished third.

So what?

You allow that "It's good to reserve judgment until the facts are certain, but one might think the motive for this murderous assault is pretty clear" . . . and think the facts here are certain. Perhaps the lesson you drew from our recent experience in Benghazi is that we immediately know the cause of events, and our only fault lies in not swiftly calling them what they turn out to be, but another plausible lesson is to hesitate before we rely on first assessments. Maybe that same lesson came across from the Oklahoma bombing. Or from the Maine.

Regardless, by all means, our objective should be to maximize the speed with which the White House condemns with a sufficient degree of detail an attack we know it condemns, such that it associates the attack with a class of activity we also know it condemns. Hearings are plainly in order.

Enrique Guerra Pujol

Auto correct Correction: "Je suis Charlie"

Enrique Guerra Pujol

I have tried posting a link to the offending pictures, but you keep deleting my links ... Cowards ... All talk


Well, Enrique, you could always substitute something on the order of one thousand words.

No links required.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad