Remember when Ted Cruz said that he would “utterly destroy” the Islamic State and “carpet bomb them into oblivion.” Well, President Obama did and in his SOTU speech, he took a major, and I mean maaaajor, cheap shot at the senator. Albeit not by name, because that would require something commonly referred to as "testicles." How did Obama do it?  By saying (and I quote) that defeating the Islamic State requires more than just “tough talk or calls to carpet bomb civilians.” Yes, he actually said that.

Ted Cruz was not amused.

“Well listen, I will apologize to nobody for my commitment to kill the terrorists. And in this speech President Obama once again refused to even say the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ — much less demonstrate any clarity, any vision, any plan to destroy them.”

“He diminished the threat of ISIS. I mean, let’s just think about it. In this speech, he didn’t say a word about the Paris attacks, he didn’t say a word about San Bernardino, he didn’t say a word about the Philadelphia police officer who was shot 13 times by a terrorist pledging allegiance to ISIS, ” Cruz continued. “And I think the American people are tired of having a president who will not even acknowledge the evil that we are facing — much less do anything serious to stop it.”

“I think Americans do not understand why President Obama and Hillary Clinton put their heads in the stand Ostriches rather than acknowledging the threat of jihadists who want to murder us."

This particular comment is also emblematic of everything that was wrong with Obama's SOTU last night. He slandered, belittled and insulted all political opposition without restraint for over an hour, then wrapped it up with a five minute call for "political civility."

Listen, it's one thing to disagree with Ted Cruz on policy. It's even one thing to disagree with him on strategy regarding ISIS. That much is already clear. One believes that Islamic terrorism is a threat, the other thinks it's merely a figment of your imagination. I get it. It is an entirely different thing however, to insinuate accuse your political opposition of wanting to intentionally bomb civilians. A statement like that is designed to ascribe an evil motive to your political opposition. Plain and simple.

Let me give you an example: let's say you have an intruder in your house. In order to defend your family, you shoot said intruder. Now, you also have a neighbor. This neighbor happens to be anti-gun and doesn't like that you shot the intruder. Fair enough, he's entitled to his own opinion, right? You can be civil.

But let's change that. Your neighbor instead tells the cops that you deliberately shot an innocent bystander on your lawn. A civilian, as it were. After slandering your good name, your neighbor turns to you and says, "Hey, let's be civil about this. We cool, bro?" Now, how, oh how, do you think you'd react?

That's what I thought. Now onto the macro-picture.

Time and time again the President has come off as clueless or indifferent when it comes to fighting Islamic terrorists (see DUMBASS: Before SOTU, Obama Says ‘America Doesn’t Face any Existential Threats’ and NEW POLL: Americans Think We’re Losing to ISIS. Guess Who Obama Blames…). Honestly, some tough talk would be a nice change of pace.

Send your hate-tweets to @SCrowder and I'll be sure to not care.