Yesterday, a NY Times article titled, ‘On Terror, Gentle Hand or Iron Fist’, pointed out that Obama’s three-day summit included representatives from some of the ‘world’s least democratic and most repressive countries’.
The challenge for Mr. Obama, the article states, is his having to work with these regimes.
One might be lulled into thinking the NY Times is going into honest reporting but a subtle message about Egypt seemed to at least be a side goal among several.
The Times used Egypt as an example of one of the repressive regimes. Their reasoning was that ‘Egypt’s leaders…have moved to stifle the Muslim Brotherhood, the opposition group they deem too radical.’
The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization not an ‘opposition group they deem too radical.’ The people of Egypt rose up against the Brotherhood when Mohammed Morsi turned the presidency into a dictatorship. The people of Egypt didn’t want the Brotherhood, an organization currently causing strife and unrest in Egypt. They were so opposed to the Brotherhood that they chose a military dictatorship over them.
The Brotherhood is not a political organization as Obama seems to believe, they are terrorists.
Members of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood were recently invited to the White House for a meeting meant to be ‘secret’. After the meeting, these same leaders went back to Egypt and called for ‘radical jihad.’
Ben Rhodes’ believes Egypt is painting terrorism with a broad brush which unfairly includes the Muslim Brotherhood.
“It’s a perennial challenge of the U.S. government that some of our partners are much more aggressive than others in how they define their domestic terrorist challenge,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser to Mr. Obama. That dynamic is “most obvious in Egypt, where essentially there’s been a very broad brush in terms of who represents a terrorist threat.”
The administration wants us to believe that the Muslim Brotherhood is not a terrorist organization. He wants to see ‘tolerance of political opponents.’
The administration recently tried to pressure the U.A.E. into removing the Muslim Brotherhood from their terrorist list.
It is not surprising that the NY Times singled Egypt out as a repressive nation. The Times is a tool of the president’s.
Egypt is a nation that sincerely wants to fight radical Islamic terrorism but that’s not what Obama wants.
It’s no longer al-Assad who is the enemy, it’s el-Sisi. Tomorrow, it might be someone else.
The Times article slightly mentioned other nations as ‘repressive nations’, but Egypt stood alone for rebuke as an enemy of the Brotherhood.
During the summit, Obama described ISIS and al Qaeda as ‘groups’ and as ‘organizations that needed to be vanquished’. No religion is responsible for terrorism, Obama insisted.
The jihadists beg to differ.
In a Newsday article posted Friday, Anushay Hossain, a Bangladeshi-born journalist in D.C. explained that we just don’t ‘get his approach’.
We’re so stupid.
We just don’t like his ‘word choice and miss his smart strategy to build support’. ‘Language is everything,’ she wrote.
Does that mean we work with terrorists and devalue honesty?
The terrorists have ‘legitimate’ grievances, Obama said. Therefore, one might conclude that the best thing we can do is retreat.
Obama may build support with radical Islamists but he’s alienated allies in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Israel and made friends with two of the most dangerous sponsors of terrorism in the region and in the world – Iran and Qatar. He has aligned us with Turkey. President Erdogan is a Muslim Brotherhood dictator who is eroding the freedoms of the people of Turkey and establishing an Islamic state. They are undermining Israel and are assisting Hamas.
Obama won’t intervene in Ukraine because he wants Russia to help him with his faux deal with Iran. That deal is what he wants above all else at any expense.
Obama repeatedly says we are not at war with Islam but we know that and he knows we know.
George Bush also didn’t want a war with 1.6 billion Islamists but he was honest about who we were fighting and he was able to develop a strategy. Barack Obama won’t even admit what this war is about and has no strategy.
Obama isn’t as unaware as he pretends to be. He clearly doesn’t want to fight radical Islam but wants to keep that from the American public.
He wants to negotiate with the Taliban. If ISIS comes to the table, he’ll negotiate with them too.
He’s not so much an advocate for peace as a staunch opponent of war.
Obama doesn’t want a foreign policy, he wants to team up with the Muslim Brotherhood. His language of not recognizing the existence of radical Islam is that of the Muslim Brotherhood.
He doesn’t care what Russia does, but he does want to befriend communists in Cuba.
Every group should be allowed to exist without interference from the imperialistic United States. What the terrorists need is good governance and to be out-tweeted.
As long as the Taliban forms a government and al Qaeda doesn’t make him look bad, Obama is fine with not having a foreign policy. His only foreign policy is an exercise in make-believe.
Egypt is in his sights because they are interfering with his plan. His plan is for his ‘moderate’ Muslim Brotherhood to control the region along with Iran. We’re certainly not in the picture. The United States is to be relegated to a cog in the machine.
Barack Obama believes in the right of Islamists – terrorists or not – to rule unhampered by an evil, meddling United States.
If I were going to support radical Islam, I couldn’t do much better than Barack Obama.
Branco cartoon via Comically Incorrect