Since President Obama didn’t jump up and shout “radical Islamic terrorism!” the moment he learned of the Orlando mass shooting – and is, instead, waiting for the results of the investigation before making a pronouncement – that means we should all be afraid, very afraid, according to Fox News.

Before President Obama spoke about the Orlando shooting, Fox’s “objective” Bret Baier prodded a Republican congressman to attack Obama on the Fox chestnut about the importance of those three magical words: “radical Islamic terrorism.” After President Obama spoke, Baier’s totally fair and balanced panel of three Obama-bashers continued the effort.

Before fully exploring the ways to attack Obama on the “radical Islamic terrorism” front, Baier suggested that Obama was too focused on guns and not enough on Muslims in his comments about the shooting. Apparently, in Fox’s world, there's nothing to worry about if you’re slaughtered by a red-blooded (pun intended) American with an assault rifle.

BAIER: [Obama] went on to say that [the Orlando shooter] did get access to guns and raised again the question about how easy it is to get a weapon in America. There was no mention of Islam or radical Islam or, for that matter, terrorist striking the U.S., even though his FBI investigators tell Fox News that this particular shooter pledged allegiance to the leader of ISIS in the moments before the shooting began and the investigation is heading down that road.

Not mentioned here was what Obama is doing, i.e. investigating. On Fox News, words speak louder than actions.

James Woolsey, former CIA director (it was not mentioned that he resigned under pressure during the Clinton administration over his mishandling of the Aldrich Ames spy case) found “two salient things” from Obama’s statement.

WOOLSEY: [Obama] yet again, did not pass up the opportunity to say that guns are the problem.

And, yet again, he passed up the opportunity even to allude to the fact that there might be some motivation from some branch of Islam or Islamist terrorism or jihadi thinking behind what was taking place in spite of the fact that the killer was shouting “Allahu Akbar.” I just – facts don’t seem to matter to this administration on this issue.

Fact check: Obama cited guns as part of the problem. He specifically said that the investigation is ongoing and facts about the shooter and his motivation(s) are not yet known.

Woolsey was suggesting that Obama should (again, pardon the puns) jump the gun on a full investigation and go off half-cocked. So who really doesn’t care about the facts?

Sebastian Gorka, of Breitbart.com (aka Trumpbart) piled on:

GORKA: This is pablum. This is an exercise in disconnecting the dots about the threat to Americans. He mentioned the word “hatred” maybe four times. Did we talk about hatred when we were facing the Nazis? Did we talk about hatred when we faced the Soviet Union? No. This is about ideology. This is about a global threat that wishes to see America destroyed, along with our allies. The fact that he didn’t mention the motivations, that it’s not identifiable. Of course, it’s identifiable.

Catherine Herridge, Fox’s Chief Intelligence correspondent, feigned a stab at objectivity as she said, “Perhaps what the president said was not enough for some people. But to me, he went much further than he has in the past in identifying it as a terrorist act. …From my experience, it’s never really black and white as to someone’s motivation or the events that precipitated the attack itself.”

But then she blatantly paintd President Obama’s approach as “dangerous.”

HERRIDGE: But the data set that we have already certainly points in one direction only, which is an allegiance with ISIS and also acting on behalf of a foreign terrorist organization. 

[…]

In this particular case, what concerns me is sort of the defining down of what terrorism is. Is it only terrorism when it’s directed by a group overseas when in fact, whether it’s directed, and as my colleagues have said, whether it’s motivated by, it has the same results. So when you sort of move to more narrowly define what is terrorism, I think that’s a very dangerous road to go down because it is about an ideology and it is a new flavor going for individuals, small cells and soft targets.

Of course, nobody on the panel challenged that inflammatory suggestion.

Watch it below, from the June 12 coverage of the Orlando shooting.