[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1984-1985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ISIL ATTACKS AND THE AUMF

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I want to comment on an interview that was 
published yesterday, quoting the President. In an interview published 
yesterday, the President spoke about a number of issues facing the 
United States. During that interview he had commentary on terrorism and 
he referenced the January attacks in Paris, France, in what I would 
describe as a very concerning way. The President addressed the attacks 
in Paris as ``randomly shooting a bunch of folks in a deli.''
  The President's stated perception of the hostage taking and murder of 
four Jews in a kosher supermarket in that way--we ought to all be 
concerned. When asked to clarify the President's comments today, the 
White House stated that the Jewish victims of this attack were ``killed 
not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly 
happened to be.''
  The White House today suggested that because there were non-Jews in 
the kosher supermarket named Super Kosher, the attack did not 
specifically target Jews.
  The State Department restated this explanation today, refusing to say 
that

[[Page 1985]]

an attack on a kosher supermarket that killed four Jews could be 
Jewish. The absurdity of this logic is apparent. Let me give you a 
hypothetical. If an attack occurs in a synagogue or in a church or in 
the American Embassy, are we really to accept the idea that on the 
chance that there were diverse people there, that that somehow 
disqualifies the possibility that members of the group who would 
predominantly frequent that place might be targeted? In other words, if 
somebody who happened to work in an American embassy but is not an 
American is killed in an attack, would we reach the conclusion that the 
attack on the embassy is not an attack on America?
  The Obama administration's logic doesn't make sense and it is 
difficult to understand what they are trying to convey. It is also 
contrary to the open source media reports about the attack. Reuters 
reported that the perpetrator of the attack called a French television 
station to declare his allegiance to the Islamic State and stated his 
intentions to target Jews. Given this information, the Obama 
administration's now repeated comments that chalked this up to 
randomness--that is just amazing to me, that it is just random, this 
attack in Paris. The fact that four Jews were killed at a kosher 
supermarket, it is just random.
  It is dangerous for our government leaders to reach such a conclusion 
and for us to be operating as we make a determination of how to proceed 
next in the war on terror to reach the kind of conclusions the 
President, his spokespersons, and the State Department are reaching.
  The Islamic State, the organization the perpetrators of the Paris 
attack claim allegiance to, has made a point to persecute various 
ethnic and religious minorities. The denial of anti-minority or anti-
Semitic motivations in this case gives me hesitation about whether the 
President understands the true nature of the threat we now face. This 
comes in the context of a report that the administration is soon to 
present to Congress for approval an authorization for the use of 
military force against Islamic State fighters.
  Authorizing a war is a decision that should be made with the fullest 
of information and the most complete understanding possible. The Obama 
administration should be doing everything it can to clearly describe 
the threat our country faces--in fact, that people around the globe 
face--and a strategy that will be employed under this potential 
authorization to use force. If we don't know who we are fighting, how 
can we have a strategy to prevent the death and destruction those 
enemies will cause? The stakes are way too high to operate under 
anything but a clear understanding of the significant challenges our 
country faces. It makes no sense to describe something different than 
reality.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.


  

                          ____________________