Militant Islam Monitor > Articles > Obama's Statements On Terrorism Betrays A Doctrinally Bound Stupidity
Obama's Statements On Terrorism Betrays A Doctrinally Bound Stupidity
June 19, 2008
Obama's Statements On Terrorism Betrays A Doctrinally Bound Stupidity
Obama's Statements On Terrorism Betrays A Doctrinally Bound Stupidity
By WILLIAM MAYER
June 18, 2008 - San Francisco, CA - PipeLineNews.org - In comments made yesterday, the freshman Senator offered another unsettling glimpse into the Democrat narrative vis-à-vis Islamic terrorism.
"Let's think about this: these are the same guys who helped engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9-11...What they're trying to do us what they've done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as a club to make the American people afraid."
There are two foundational elements on display in this statement regarding Obama's world view on the matter; one, he is inferring that Islamic jihadism doesn't exist since he is proffering al-Qaeda as the sole threat, and two, he believes that al-Qaeda is best dealt with as if this were a police issue [apprehend the bad guys and bring them to trial, with full constitutional rights in American courts] aping the Clinton's failed policy on the issue.
Further demonstrating his fealty to that law enforcement model, is Obama's applauding the unprecedented 5-4 Supreme Court decision to award al-Qaeda habeas corpus rights in American courts.
"...Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values....Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy..."
If that is "change," then language has lost its meaning.
What we wrote in, Clinton Foreign Policy Team Adopts CAIRs Twisted Ideology, applies equally to Mr. Obama:
It's not difficult to understand the logic behind that stance. Since opposition to the war in Iraq is an integral, perhaps central component of their foreign policy, it's necessary to reject and/or ignore the existence of an ideology based upon an interpretation of Islam, which looms as a major challenge to national security, because acceptance thereof would constitute a contradiction of embarrassing proportions.
Therefore, acknowledging the existence of such a movement, sworn to destroy the West is more than an inconvenience to the Democrat world view, it's anathema. Adoption of this head-in-the-sand approach allows Democrats to oppose as unnecessarily confrontational and inappropriate, the hot war offensive against practitioners of Islamic terror.
Though it's troubling to believe that...the Democrats are as ignorant on the subject as their public pronouncements seem to indicate, if we are to take them at their word, the people and organizations which have sworn our destruction are just bad players, freebooters who operate independently, with no larger unifying ideology. It stands to reason then that the proper response to this - adjudged, non-ideologically driven - terrorism should be pursued in what amounts to police actions, with all the attending complexities of building legal cases against the perpetrators and prosecuting them in judicial settings, not on battlefields...""...The Congressional Democrat leadership, not to mention the party's hopefuls in the 2008 presidential campaign, are all assiduously avoiding any public mention of what have become the politically loaded terms, radical Islam, jihadism, the Islamist threat or...perish the thought, Islamofascism.
Why would the Democrats paint themselves into such a corner on a topic of this relevance?
The explanation is easier than one might think.
Since the Democrat party and their MoveOn supporters have been fueled with a pathological rage directed against Mr. Bush, first for "stealing" the 2000 election then trouncing the overly nuanced gigolo Junior Senator from Massachusetts in 2004 and for the temerity to defend the United States militarily, in their pique, they have in a phobic reaction, rejected the basic justification for the administration's war on terror; that there actually is an ideologically based Islamist enemy, bent on subjugating the West, which can trace its roots back at least as far as Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab - the 18th century Arabian founder of Wahhabism, and Sayyid Qutb, the dominating intellectual of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is this denial which constrains the Democrat vocabulary, to the point that Islamism can never be a part of their lexicon and hence they are forced to deal with the issue in a manner which has already proven disastrous.
Since Obama is perhaps even more beholden to the Democrat party's most extremist elements, he is inseparably wedded - perhaps welded is a better term - into accepting this self-defeating dialectic. This makes his candidacy almost pathetically vulnerable to a public dissection, an opportunity which seems rife with potential for Mr. McCain. http://www.pipelinenews.org/index.cfm?page=obamaid=61808%2Ehtm
Printer-friendly version 
Email this item to a friend