What is behind the mainstream media's effort to label the Boston Marathon bombings as a "lone wolf" attack? These are major media outlets--NYT, WP, Politico, The Atlantic, and more--that are bending over backwards to dismiss the bombers motives as quickly as possible.
The mainstream media's hope of the bomber being a "white American" didn't happen--David Sirota wrote a piece in Salon before the terrorists' identities were known saying that if the bomber were a white American he would be dismissed as a lone wolf. There would be no introspection, no calls for wider action or a public discussion. Now we're seeing the media trying to use the "lone wolf" defense in order to seek dismissal of the broader issue of radical Islam and its pernicious impact on Americans. Will it work?
The mainstream media is doing its level best to see that it does, working hand in hand with the administration--an administration that refuses to call obvious examples of terrorism and radical Islam just that: Benghazi was a spontaneous uprising, the Fort Hood massacre was workplace violence. It's political correctness run amok. With disastrous consequences.
Both the Administration and the media know that if the bombings are tied to radical Islam, and the only way you can say they weren't is to ignore the mounting evidence, that will open up a broader discussion in this country about the increasing threat here from those who have been radicalized--how it's happening, who is doing it, and who is financing it. That's actually a discussion that needs to happen, yet the media and the administration seem determined not to let it.
Why? Ah, that is the rub. It makes no sense. Why is this Administration protecting radical Islam from examination and censure? Surely the ideology of the leftists in the White House is at odds with that of Muslims who seek to deny the most basic human rights to women, gays, Christians, and Jews.
For some reason, though, that would-be clash of ideology doesn't materialize. There is sympathy among some on the left with the radical Muslim's assertion that America is an imperialist nation, and we deserve what we get. There is also some sympathy with radical Islam's hatred of America as the land of freedom, individual choice--where people decide what they will do, wear and say, and what God, if any, they will worship. Leftists here believe not that Islam is the way, but increasingly, that government is, and that government knows best what individuals should do, say, believe, think, earn. Freedom of thought and speech are endangered. Doubt me? Go visit a university campus and experience their speech codes, reeducation classes and sensitivity training.
I don't know the answer for why American liberals, our President included, feel the need to protect radical Islam from a national discourse. But by trying, yet again, to stifle the discussion--by suggesting anyone who engages in it is an Islamophobe, or is jumping to premature conclusions because of closed-mindedness, does a grave disservice to the safety of Americans as well as to peaceful Muslims, many of whom want a discussion about what they see as a perversion of their faith. A public discussion gives them a voice, but it also allows us to examine how this happened, and God willing, keep it from happening again. The truth is not pretty here, but we can't be afraid of it.
