In Obama's first announcement to the media after the Boston Marathon bombing, he didn't use the word terrorism. The next day he described it an "act of terrorism" even though nothing had changed over night. Krauthammer disagrees with Obama's statement that any bombing targeted at civilians is terrorist attack and states that the attack "must have a political purpose." Krauthammer argues that because the motive that was behind the attack is still unknown, there is no evidence to support that the bomber was a terrorist .
Krauthammer suggests that reason the President was afraid to use the word "terrorism" in connection with the Boston attacks is because of the mishandled situation in Benghazi. This attack on the American consulate killed a U.S. Ambassador and three other Americans. Krauthammer believes that the our administration tried to call the attack a spontaneous demonstration gone wild in order to avoid any blame. He feels that were dodging questions about "warnings ignored, inadequate security and absence of contingency plans.".
Krauthammer's main problem of the president's nonuse of the word "terrorism" is that he believes that Obama and his administration will go to great lengths to avoid putting the world Islam and terrorist in the same sentence. He argues that Obama called the jihadists "violent extremists" and classified the Fort Hood murders when the shooter yelled "Allahu Akbar" as "work place violence." Krauthammer believes that these omissions are deliberate and significant. He believes that the Boston Marathon attack was political, and therefore terrorism and wonders what words or phrases Obama will use to describe the Boston bomber.
I agree with Krauthammer in the fact that Obama was tentative to use the word terrorism because of the scrutiny that his administration has been receiving about the September 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi.