When President Obama used the word “counterterrorism” instead of “war” last Wednesday, he made repeated use of the shorter word in self-defense Wednesday evening. Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked by a reporter to explain what would “cohort” a win “in the war/non-war against the ruthless Islamic State.”
Earnest responded that he didn’t carry his dictionary on him on Thursday and asked, “What did that mean?”
Pardon, but “what did that mean?” What did your phrasing mean within that parameter? What did you mean by using that phrasing? It seems pretty plain from here that you meant gaining a win against the Islamic State, didn’t it? It actually seemed to mean that the U.S. wasn’t engaged in war-like efforts but didn’t state that at the White House:
“Scratch that. We are ‘at war with ISIS After All,'”
…placed solidly much above and beyond and well outside the Obama administration’s spoken lines.
In alliance, the remuneration in the presidential lines, Obama let us all know that the outlined lines did let us know that the verbiage was aligned with the president’s spoken lines and that the administration didn’t have its messaging property “in sync.”
Rear Admiral John Kirby spewed yesterday, “We know that we are at war with ISIL, in the same way we are at war, and continue to be at war, with Al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
Following the proverbial tidbit, Earnest quoted him,
“I think what you can conclude from this is that the United States is at war with ISIL, in the same way that we are at war with Al Qaeda and its Al Qaeda affiliates all around the globe.”
Is he pulling mustard seed from the pulled gleam or not?