Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Neither “Misguided” nor “Flawed”

Nothing sits in my craw worse than someone using woozy words and terms to discuss evil.

I submitted this comment on an IPT article from November 17th on Obama and ISIS:, “Jihadists Crippling the West from Within.

This is a revolting statement: "Let's state the obvious. The administration has operated under the misguided belief that jihadists can be contained. If we just treat them nicely and don't identify them for what they are, they'll leave us alone." Again, I ask: Why do you think the Obama administration is operating "under the misguided belief that jihadists can be contained"? Perhaps the administration doesn't want the jihadists "contained," let alone destroyed. Have you ever entertained that possibility? Why can't you take that last important step and concede that Obama would not mind seeing this country crippled and maimed by another Islamic attack? Don't all his actions, in his domestic and foreign policies, over the last eight years point to that conclusion? You've done a superb and heroic job of documenting that evidence. Why are you so hesitant to call Obama evil?

I previously commented in a similar vein to IPT’s “Someone Tell the President We Can't Fight Radical Islam by Being Politically Correct,” also from November 17th, but I won't discuss that edition (both columns origianlly appeared on American Thinker). Mr. Emerson has published both of my comments. This column is not intended to criticize Steve Emerson or The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). Emerson has a standing fatwa against his life, he has almost single-handedly pioneered delving into the roots and consequences of Islamic jihad against Europe, America and the West, and has tirelessly increased our knowledge of what Islam means and doesn’t mean. His is more or less a thankless task, especially when he has testified in Congress about CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood-sired “civilizational jihad” organizations in the U.S., only to see his truths fall on deaf ears and bounce off of closed minds.

But here are a few more what I’d call “soft ball” estimates of Obama’s motives and ends from IPT’s second column. Referring to the November 13th Islamic attack on Paris, IPT wrote:

The highly coordinated attack on the French was an attack on the Dutch, British, Germans, Swedes, and the U.S. It was an attack on all Western liberal democracies based upon basic Judeo-Christian values.

It is the tragic result of a naïve misreading of the world by the current administration. The resulting chaos created by U.S. foreign policy represents a diplomatic and national security failure of unfathomable and horrific proportions. [Bold italics mine.]

I don’t believe Obama is either naïve about the ends and means of ISIS or of any other terrorist group, or is misreading anything.

In policies reflecting deeply flawed thinking, Obama and his advisers believed from the very beginning that it should support Islamists represented by the Muslim Brotherhood, which created nearly all of the existing jihadi groups. The administration believed that the Arab Spring represented an opportunity to depose despots and replace them with democratic regimes. [Bold italics mine.]

Given that Hillary Clinton retained the “services” of Huma Abedin, whose family has close connections with the Brotherhood, and all of Obama’s friends in the Brotherhood, I doubt very much his thinking was flawed, deeply or otherwise. The Brotherhood’s designs on the U.S., outlined in its Explanatory Memorandum, which IPT has published as well as the Center for Security Policy, are too well known to our intelligence agencies and to the Brotherhood’s friends.

The alternative conclusion is that Obama is thoroughly clueless about what the Brotherhood is all about and chooses to remain ignorant. In which case, he should not be occupying the office of President.

…The administration has operated under the misguided belief that jihadists can be contained. If we just treat them nicely and don't identify them for what they are, they'll leave us alone. [Bold italics mine.]

Finally,

For nearly two full weeks the administration blamed an innocent U.S. filmmaker as the cause of the murder of four Americans 7,000 miles away in Benghazi in 2012. They were dead wrong, and they knew it. Clinton documented the lie for posterity in her emails. [Bold italics mine.]

And they knew it – Hillary Clinton, Obama, Susan Rice, and that whole crew knew it. If that doesn’t indicate a grave, serious, and unforgivable character flaw in Obama, I can't imagine what else would.

One may as well claim that Hannibal Lector’s cannibalism is a naïve, misguided, flawed notion of social relationships. I am not endorsing the idea of an evil genius. Such a creature merely possesses a feral, predatory intelligence that simply senses and takes advantage of an opponent’s weaknesses.

Obama is evil. That’s the long and short of it. I see no reason to pull any moral punches.

3 comments:

Ilene Skeen said...

Obama's actions are 100% consistent with his beliefs. As Mr. Cline has noted, Obama's actions are evil. Anyone who thinks that his actions are good is either misguided or flawed themselves or are also evil. There are no other possibilities.

Thank you, Edward Cline, for never pulling punches.

Ilene Skeen said...

Obama's actions are 100% consistent with his beliefs. As Mr. Cline has noted, Obama's actions are evil. Anyone who thinks that his actions are good is either misguided or flawed themselves or are also evil. There are no other possibilities.

Thank you, Edward Cline, for never pulling punches.

Edward Cline said...

Ilene: Thank you. And you ought to see me in a physical fight. I'm Dirty Harry reincarnated.