From last night’s Fox News All-Stars.
On President Obama’s speech at Fort Hood:
It was a very sober speech. It was respectful to the fallen, and he did have that reference that we saw to the element of jihadism in this attack.
BRET BAIER: Well, he didn’t use that word.
KRAUTHAMMER: He never uses the word. [According to the Obama administration] the war on terror is over…But there is no escaping it [the jihadist element]. It seems he didn’t jump to a conclusion, but he has reached a conclusion or two — that if someone yells “Allahu Akbar” as he shoots up a room, there might be an element of jihadism involved.
…I thought the statement he made today, although it was indirect, about murdering in the name of God indicated that. It is pretty obvious. You really have to be obtuse to deny it, and he didn’t want to be obtuse.
I will tell you who was. General Casey’s speech had one reference to the actual attack. He spoke of it as “unimaginable.”
Well, he ought to imagine it. It has already happened!
And except for that single reference to violence that is unimaginable, he could have been speaking about a bus accident, which it wasn’t. It wasn’t a tragedy. It was a murder, a mass murder.
On the Stupak-Pitts amendment:
The liberal interpretation of the Stupak [amendment] is correct. It is Hyde squared. It is stronger and goes way beyond Hyde.
In the end, I think it [the Stupak amendment] will stay in a modified form because the threats on the left — the 40 members of the House who said they will oppose the bill — is not a credible threat.
They are within reach of a historic, once-in-a-century attempt to take over a sixth of the American economy. A liberal is not going to sacrifice it because of the Hyde amendment or Stupak.
I suspect a version of this will end up — Stupak or Hyde or something in between — in the [final] bill, and the House liberals will swallow it because taking over a sixth of the economy was much more important.