White House says it is not convinced ISIS ethnic cleansing we’ve seen is “genocide”.
The reporter asked Earnest, “But you’re not prepared to use the word ‘genocide’ yet in this situation?”
“The — my understanding is the use of that word involves a very specific legal determination that has, at this point, not been reached. But we’ve been quite candid and direct, exactly, about how — how ISIL’s tactics are worthy of the kind of international, robust response that the international community is leading. And those tactics include a willingness to target religious minorities, including Christians.”
Well, what number triggers that word, or definition? What kind of atrocity does it have to be? He can parse all he wants. People know a program when they see one. And what he qualified as the beginning at Mount Sinjar was not the beginning of the atrocities. So that is to admit that they had ignored it pretty much until that situation.
Funny though that they can toss around and use the word “torture” so loosely to suit, whenever they want to make a case of it. “Worthy” but not of using the ‘g’- word.
We fell off the cliff on the meaning of words when Bill couldn’t define what is is – They still refuse to define ISIS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Always clever, Gene. Now we have 2 “is”s battling for competing definitions. But then we can’t define the traitor in the WH either. Webster has failed us, Gene. I’ll go back to being offended, hmmmph!
You know, it’s probably just as well they can’t settle on a definition because Democrats will always say “there is no there” anyway. I’m still looking for that definition.