I agree with probably 90% of what President Joe Biden says in his speeches. But his recent speech about the attack of Hamas on Israel is one that I strongly oppose. Here are some of his statements that I find objectionable:

You know, there are moments in this life — and I mean this literally — when the pure, unadulterated evil is unleashed on this world.
 
The people of Israel lived through one such moment this weekend.  The bloody hands of the terrorist organization Hamas — a group whose stated purpose for being is to kill Jews. 
 
This was an act of sheer evil. 
 
More than 1,000 civilians slaughtered — not just killed, slaughtered — in Israel.  Among them, at least 14 American citizens killed.

[…]

The brutality of Hamas — this bloodthirstiness — brings to mind the worst — the worst rampages of ISIS.
 
This is terrorism.

[,,,]

We reject — we reject — what we reject is terrorism.  We condemn the indiscriminate evil, just as we’ve always done.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/10/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-terrorist-attacks-in-israel-2/

I do NOT object to the attack by Hamas being labeled as “terrorism”, because the attack FITS a simple and clear definition of “terrorism”, such as the one found in Wikipedia:

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Hamas intentionally used violence and fear (in an attempt) to achieve political or ideological aims.

But the USA ALSO frequently uses violence and fear in an attempt to achieve political or ideological aims:

• When President George W. Bush initiated the bombing of Taliban forces in Afganistan, that was an intentional use of violence and fear in an attempt to achieve political or ideological aims.
• When President George W. Bush initiated a war against Iraq, that was an intentional use of violence and fear in an attempt to achieve political or ideological aims.
• When President Barack Obama President Barack Obama announced plans to send seventeen thousand more troops to the war zone in Afghanistan, that was an intentional use of violence and fear in an attempt to achieve political or ideological aims.
• When President Barack Obama commanded our military to track down and kill Osama bin Laden, that was an intentional use of violence and fear in an attempt to achieve political or ideological aims.
• Right now the Ukrainians, with support from the USA, are intentionally using violence and fear in order to achieve political or ideological aims, namely forcing the Russian military out of their country and asserting their national sovereignty.

So, the USA is ALSO practicing TERRORISM, according to the simple and clear definition given by Wikipedia.

But Biden has never said that the war against Iraq was “pure unadulterated evil” or “terrorism” committed by the USA. Biden never said that Obama sending thousands more US troops to the war zone in Afganistan was “pure unadulterated evil” nor that this was an act of “terrorism” by the USA. Biden has never said that the command to track down and kill Osama bin Laden was “pure unadulterated evil” or “terrorism”. Biden has never said that the use of violence by the Ukrainians to repel the invasion by Russia is “pure unadulterated evil” or “terrorism”. So, Biden appears to be HYPOCRITICAL and to be using a DOUBLE STANDARD here. One strict standard for Palestinians and Hamas, and a completely different and looser standard for Americans and Ukranians.

Someone might object, however, that Biden is not using the term “terrorism” in accordance with the simple and clear definition mentioned in the Wikipedia article. He is using “terrorism” in a more specific sense. OK. That might be the case. But if that is the case, then it is VERY IMPORTANT that we understand what Biden means by “terrorism”, so that we can avoid the obvious HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE STANDARD that would be involved in using the word “terrorism” in accordance with the simple and clear definition found in Wikipedia.

Biden does make a comment in this speech that suggests a more specific understanding of the term “terrorism”:

Terrorists purpo- — purposefully target civilians, kill them.  We uphold the laws of war — the law of war.  It matters.  There’s a difference.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2023/10/10/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-terrorist-attacks-in-israel-2/

Terrorists “target civilians” and kill civilians, and violate “the laws of war”, according to Biden. So, we can add these conditions to the simple and clear definition of “terrorism” to produce a more specific definition:

Terrorism is the use of intentional violence and fear against civilians and in violation of the laws of war to achieve political or ideological aims.

This definition applies to the Hamas attack on Israel. Also, this might exclude the example of Obama commanding our military to track down and kill Osama bin Laden, because bin Laden was not a “civilian”, (although I’m not sure if killing bin Laden was in keeping with “the laws of war”).

Although the primary targets of the Iraq war were soldiers and military leaders, many Iraqi civilians were killed by the US military and by mercenaries hired by the US government, so one could argue that the war against Iraq was an example of terrorism even by this more specific definition. I suspect (but don’t know) that the Ukranians have also targeted and killed civilians in Russia. If so, then our support of the Ukrainians would constitute support for terrorism.

In any case, the way the US conducted the war in Vietnam fits this more specific definition. We intentionally used violence and fear against Vietnamese civilians, and we violated the laws of war, so the Vietnam war was an example of terrorism, in this more specific sense. Furthermore, the fire-bombing of cities in Germany and in Japan during WWII were acts of terrorism, according to this more specific definition. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism by the USA, even in terms of the more specific definition.

I have never heard Biden say that the Vietnam war was an example of “terrorism” by the USA, nor that the Vietnam war was “pure unadulterated evil” carried out by the USA. I have never heard Biden say that the fire-bombing of cities in Germany and Japan during WWII were acts of “terrorism” nor that these bombings were “pure unadulterated evil”. I have never heard Biden say that dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of “pure unadulterated evil” by the USA, nor that these were acts of “terrorism”.

Also, I think that the word “terrorism” has been used by US officials concerning attacks on military installations and on our soldiers, so US officials do not seem to restrict the term “terrorism” strictly to attacks on civilians.

CONCLUSION

If by “terrorism” Biden has in mind the simple and clear definition referenced in Wikipedia, then his speech about the Hamas attack on Israel is clearly HYPOCRITICAL and employs a blatant DOUBLE STANDARD.

If by “terrorism” Biden has in mind a more specific definition of “terrorism”, one that requires the targeting of civilians and the violation of laws of war, then that would avoid SOME potential examples of HYPOCRISY and DOUBLE STANDARDS but would still leave a number of examples where the USA has engaged in terrorism, but where Joe Biden and many other US officials FAIL to acknowledge this sad fact.

NOTE:

I realize that if Joe Biden were to categorize any past military actions of the USA as examples of “terrorism”, he would have ZERO chance of being re-elected as president. So, he has a strong incentive to avoid speaking such unpleasant truths. But leaning on the characterization of Hamas as engaging in “pure, unadulterated evil” and “terrorism” to justify military support for Israel involves the sacrifice of his moral integrity for the sake of political expedience.