Credit where credit is due. The messaging from the White House about why they haven’t called the terrorist attacks “Islamic Terrorism” must have been a top priority in the past 48 hours. As noted in this shift expressed by Josh Earnest. The question was posed:

“The leader of France, your ally in this effort, has put a name on this ideology, which he calls radical Islam,” noted NPR’s Mara Liasson. “You have bent over backwards to not ever say that. There must be a reason.”

Josh Earnest Responds: “The first is accuracy. We want to describe exactly what happened. These are individuals who carried out an act of terrorism and they later tried to justify that act of terrorism by invoking the religion of Islam and their own deviant view of it.

The second is, this was an act that was roundly condemned by Muslim leaders. Again, I am describing to you the reasons why we have not chosen to use that label, because it does not seem to accurately describe what happened.

We also don’t want to be in a situation where we are legitimizing what we consider to be a completely illegitimate justification for this violence, this act of terrorism.

Again, I’m not going to criticize anybody who uses that label. I’m talking about the way we are talking about this. And what we are trying to be as specific an accurate as possible in describing what exactly occurred”.

Deflecting away from the reality of action, which would support an opinion of short-sightedness, the White House new message is quite brilliant.
Their excuse is essentially that moderate Muslim voices are speaking out against the terror activity, therefore it would undercut the valiant efforts of the moderates if the U.S. administration was to call out the larger congregation of Islam as terrorists, or Islamic extremists.
While the message shift is subtle, it will, more than likely, be effective. Watch as the MSM Pretorian Guard now defend the non-use of “Islamic Terrorism” as an adjective, becomes advocated as the better course of action.
They’ll probably settle on the term “violent extremism”, which will allow the Democrats to challenge all acts of violence, including the mythical Tea Party spitting violence, as extremist…  they will then define “violent” – as we saw in Ferguson where arson, looting and riots were redefined as not technically violent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB9df1963xw