Monday, May 17, 2010

What's The President's Agenda?

The President is determined not to use the words "radical" and "terrorist" in the same paragraph as "Islamic". As pointed out by several commentators, Attorney General Eric Holder had no issues making critical comments about America and Americans, calling America "a national of cowards". I could certainly see how the country that had lead the world in defense of freedom around the world for the past 100 years could be seen as "cowards".

Similar dignitaries have advanced similar theories. The Christmas underwear bomber, Barack Obama initially said, was an otherwise unspecified "isolated extremist." Fort Hood killer Nidal Hasan, we were told by journalists, may have been a victim of post-traumatic stress disorder -- although he never saw combat. Back in the George W. Bush years, we were told that the gunman who started shooting at the El Al counter at LAX had just chosen his target at random, and The New York Times found nothing significant when the Mumbai killers targeted a Jewish community center.

Why the reluctance to state the obvious truth, that we are under attack from terrorists motivated by a radical form of Islam?

Good question. What do we gain by side stepping the facts on what appears to be the common factor in attacks on Americans? Are there political reasons or advantages for stirring the Islamic pot? What is the President's agenda here, and where is it taking us?

A leading international Arab newspaper has hailed U.S. President Barack Obama for officially removing the description “Muslim terrorist” as part of his campaign “to reach out to the Muslim world.” The op-ed did not note the radical Muslim bacgkround of the terrorists and reasoned they are equal to other terrorists whose religion is not connected with their acts.

Osman Mirghani, the deputy editor-in-chief of 'Al-Sharq Al-Awsat,' which is owned by a Saudi Arabian company and published in London, wrote an op-ed last week under the headline "Why Didn't Obama Mention Islam?." The Obama administration has broken from the Bush government’s policy of using the term “Islamic terrorism” in official documents and "no longer [is] responding to extremist voices" that call for targeting home countries of terrorists, he explained.

Are we forming our Foreign Policy around not offending the general Muslim population? That somehow if we don't mention that these people who plan and attempt terrorist attacks on our country are Muslims, they will ignore that we have troops on the ground in the Middle East and that our drones are hitting targets in their countries? We are creating a situation where all parties are feeding the giant elephant in the room, but refuse to see it? I don't understand how this policy is in the best interest of America.

No comments: