They’ll explore every angle except the obvious one.

◼ Think Progress: You Know, We Really Ought to Check the Dead Boston Bomber for Brain Damage - Bryan Preston/PJM

Leftists blamed Tucson on Sarah Palin’s map, Aurora on Batman movies and briefly, the Tea Party, and blamed Newtown on the guns that the killer stole. Michael Moore blamed Columbine on defense contractors. Mass murder leads to wishcasting.

But when a true and obviously ideologically-based terrorist attack happens, as at Ft. Hood in 2009 or in Boston on April 15, no one on the left blames the gun or the bomb or the pressure cooker used to build it. They don’t even blame the ideology, at least not until forced to. They leap for any excuse to get away from the fact that Islamic jihadists who want to kill us because of who we are have once again launched a successful attack.

◼ Chris Matthews suddenly doesn't care about Boston bombers' motives. "What Difference Does It Make Why They Did It?" - Real Clear Politics

◼ Liberal Pundits Still Looking for the Real Killer - /Washington Free Beacon

◼ O’Reilly And Krauthammer Blast Obama For Not Denouncing Radical Islam In Wake Of Boston Bombings - Mediaite

Bill O’Reilly opened his show tonight with a big question: why does President Obama refuse to call out radical Islam for being a major threat to the United States. He highlighted Obama asking people not to draw conclusions based on the motivations of the Boston bombing suspects, and, along with Charles Krauthammer, slammed the president for actively avoiding any mention of radical Islam in public. Krauthammer remarked that Obama’s language avoidance is “weird” and even “embarrassing.”

Krauthammer found it remarkable that Obama is going to such “comical” and “embarrassing” lengths to avoid telling people the truth, noting that Obama avoids using words like “jihad” and “Islamist.” He brought up how Obama once warned against the rise of “non-secular parties” in Egypt. Krauthammer found this to be a “weird word to use” and a clear sign that Obama is actively avoiding more honest language.

◼ Excusing Jihad In Boston - Robert Spencer/Front Page

...But of course, the bombers weren’t Christians; they were Muslims, acting explicitly in the name of Islam. Media analysts, when they have deigned to take notice of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s statement at all, have scratched their heads in puzzlement over how he and his brother could have gotten the idea that murdering innocent people at a sporting event could possibly constitute any kind of defense of Islam. However, they wouldn’t be so puzzled if they knew that the Qur’an exhorts Muslims to use the “steeds of war” to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60) – and that al-Qaeda has recently recommended bombing sporting events as a nicely effective way to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.

The mainstream media has no interest in how the Qur’an may incite those who believe it is the word of Allah to commit acts of violence against those who do not so believe. And so it was that the Atlantic Wire’s story was actually about why it scarcely mattered that the bombers were Muslim, and Chris Matthews was declaring that the bombers’ inspirations and motivations made no difference, and Martin Bashir was praising the virtues of the Qur’an, and it was Sean O’Malley, the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, who cautioned against taking revenge and decried the “perversion” of Islam that led to the bombings.

◼ WHY DO LIBERALS REFUSE TO BE CRITICAL OF ISLAM? - Benjamin Wiker/Human Events