David Frum wrote a penetrating article here in The Atlantic in Feb 2015 highlighting the administration's refusal to acknowledge the obvious-to-a-blind-man problem of Islamic terrorism in an article entitled "Why Obama Won't Talk About Islamic Terrorism".
The president didn't label the Paris attacks "random" because he wished to avoid identifying the victims, but rather, because he wished to avoid identifying the motives of their perpetrators.
... Take a closer look for example at another much-discussed recent statement by President Obama about terrorism, his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast. The president’s claim that “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ” ignited a major ruckus. The fuss obscured something more remarkable in the speech, which is that there was no bookend reference to “terrible deeds in the name of Islam.” Instead, in every place where the word “Islam” might have been expected, the word “religion” was substituted.
... When mention of the Islamic inspirations of terrorists becomes truly inescapable, administration spokespersons will emphatically insist that their actions do not represent the true Islam. At times, the president has baldly claimed that “ISIL is not Islamic.” That locution soon collapsed of its own ludicrousness.
... the refusal to accept any Islamic content to Islamic terrorism can collapse into comedy.
... The refusal to acknowledge the aims and direction of Islamic terrorism is central to the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism policy. They don’t often defend that refusal, but they systematically and self-consciously practice it. They generally conceal its purposes and consequences in phrases that sound unexceptionable to those who, like most of us, listen only casually.