Insanity. New Obama Strategy Refuses to Blame Islamists as Root of Terror
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, May 3, 2010, 10:02 PM
The insanity continues.
A wise man once said – If you can’t identify the problem, you can’t find the solution. Once again, our radical president shows that he is incapable problem solving and unable to break free from his Alinsky-Ayers-Wright-ACORN foundation.
And, once again, he puts America at risk.
The radical Obama Administration will soon release their first National Security Strategy (NSS) Report. The report will make clear that the US in not in a “War on Terror” and that Islamists are not the root of terror.
Abraham D. Sofaer at DoD Buzz reported, via Free Republic:
The Obama Administration will soon issue its first National Security Strategy (“NSS”). How will it compare with those issued in 2002 and 2006 by the Bush Administration?
The most fundamental US national security objectives are well established and bipartisan. The highest priority is always to keep America and its allies safe. This requires maintaining a strong military capacity; effective alliances; and policies that enhance economic and social well being at home and abroad. We encourage the spread of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law throughout the world. We strive to defeat terrorism and to stop the spread of WMD.
The Obama team will reconfirm all these objectives, but in different terms than those used by the Bush Administration.
• “Leader” not Hegemon. The 2002 Bush NSS proclaimed America’s “unparalleled” power, eager to use alliances but able if required to act alone. Obama’s NSS will promise America shall remain strong, but describe its role as “leader” of like-minded states and incapable of ensuring even its own security without the help of others.
• No more “War” on terror. The Bush strategy statements proclaim that the US is in a worldwide “war” against terror. The Obama NSS will avoid using the “war” word, pleasing those who believe terrorism should be treated as criminal activity. But it will call for “defeating terrorism” worldwide.
• Dropping the “Preventive Force” Doctrine. The most notorious aspect of the Bush strategy was the view that attacks of terrorist groups cannot be deterred and must be prevented, through force if necessary, and soon enough to stop threats before they are realized. The Obama NSS will drop this declaration and stress the need to prevent attacks through diplomacy and preparation. But it will continue to use force preventively when necessary to kill known enemies.
• Adopting a “Multilateralist” Tone. The Bush strategy promised to act through existing multilateral institutions, including the UN, when possible; but it stressed its willingness to “act alone” if required. Obama’s strategy will emphasize the importance of acting through the UN and alliances. But it will preserve the right to act alone, as NATO does, by affirming that the Security Council has “primary” (though not exclusive) responsibility for international security.
• “Islamic Fundamentalists” become “Violent Extremists.” The Bush Administration described the current terrorist threat as having been caused by Islamic Fundamentalists, while crediting Islam as one of the world’s great religions. Obama will describe all terrorists as “violent extremists,” or with some such religiously neutral phrase. But his targeted killings have all been of Muslims.
ADVERTISEMENT
-
Featured Story:
Republican Military Hero & First Female to Command Fighter Squadron Will Announce Run For Congress Today
Published February 8, 2012 at 8:42 pm - 105 Comments
Chris Vehr commented:
No surprise here. He is the ultimate appeaser.
nobama commented:
I’d say unbelievable but with this bunch it’s believable. Who will Obama blame when we are attacked by those “violent extremists” again? That’s right he will blame Bush.
wanumba commented:
Remember, when Rwandan Tutsis were being slaughtered, for the express Hutu extremists’ goal of “extermination,” solid information that was sent to the UN, BEFORE the attacks began, Bill Clinton didn’t want to be caught using the word “genocide” because it was the administrative trigger to activate the UN to intervene, and by that the USA to intervene.
Parsed and dodged and “examining the legalities” while 800,000 Rwandans were murdered, and then in contrite phoniness had the nerve to visit Rwanda, walk amongst the skeletons and then whimper, “We really had no idea, sitting in our offices” and “well, now that we know how awful it was, maybe we could have done things differently.”
Words have meanings, ESPECIALLY when they are associated with bureaucracies. Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco REFUSED to declare an EMERGENCY to shift all government functions, city and state to emergency operations, so people died who didn’t have to. CLinton refused to declare GENOCIDE so the UN sat, waiting for his leadership to nowhere and nearly a million Tutsis died in a matter of weeks.
How well did the Vietnam War go when the Democrats wouldn’t call it “war?”
This is how DEMOCRATS operate – avoiding the reality, dodging action, shirking duty, and people pay the price.
Now Obama and the DEMOCRATS AGAIN want to dodge “terrorism” for foggy rhetoric that will just keep governments from acting when they should act.
ADVERTISEMENT
down with dems commented:
Times Square bomber is Muslim… that’s just an unfortunate coincidence though, right Barry?
Opaobie commented:
wanumba #3, Clinton was singing “Hutu, Tutsi, Goodbye” on his way out of Rwanda.
…wonder what Obama’s new theme song will be, “We Are the World?”…or “We Are OWNED by the World”.
bg commented:
++
Opaobie @ 11:21 pm #6
re: Obama theme song..
i love this song (perhaps it would make for a great
Obama parody).. but aah, wouldn’t it be sweet..
I AM…I SAID
==
bg commented:
++
Refuses to Blame Islamists as Root of Terror
uh,
uh,
er,
uh,
hmmm..
(as most of you already know, that was just a sample)
==
rabidfox commented:
The problem with Zero is that he views Teaparty protestor as more threatening (to himself) than the islamic extremists.
Opus #6 commented:
Appeasers always hope that the crocodile will eat them last.
Andreas K. commented:
“Islamists” and “islamism” is an invention by islam apologizers. There is no such thing.
Leaders of the mohammedan world have said in the past, repeatedly, that there is no radical islam and there is no moderate islam. Islam is islam.
There are moderate mohammedans, yes, but that’s it. Islam in itself is not moderate.
It is also true that not all mohammedans are terrorists.
However all terrorists are mohammedans.
Obama is following the pat of the EU at faster-than-light speed.
The only thing he needs to do now, to be on the level of Brown or Merkel, is to either stand in a conference and say “Islam is peace” or record a CD with a known “good” mohammedan (“good mohammedan” refers to mohammedans who take the koran as the 100% accurate and true word of god, which, according to many mohammedan “scholars” the koran actually is.)
bill-tb commented:
Obama, LIAR since DAY ONE.
John Fembup commented:
“A wise man once said . . .”
Rilly?
That wasn’t a wise Latina woman?
squeaky commented:
“The report will make clear that the US in not in a “War on Terror” and that Islamists are not the root of terror…” but referencing every other christian denomination is still acceptable along with the jewish faith, etc. if it’s not a “war” on terror how about an excercise on
correcting naughty behavior?
Auntie Em commented:
We are NOT safe.
Ebayer commented:
“it will call for “defeating terrorism” worldwide.”
Really?
When is he going to start?
#1.They don’t even use the word terrorist.
#2 The DHS is more concerned with finding or creating domestic terrorists,i.e.militia members or Tea Party protestors,than Islamic terrorists.
Jacob commented:
Well there is no doubt about.Barrack Obama’s hard copy birth certificate must be revealed to establish once and for all that he does meet the requirements to serve as the president of our country.
Sorry no online documents please they do not even have any legal validity in law.
Only persons of standing have a right to demand his valid hard copy birth certificate? Where does it say that in the constitution?
Any U.S. citizen is a “person of standing” because the constitution was written by and for the citizens to protect our nation.
No natural born or legal immigrant citizen that I am aware of is ashamed to show his or her hard copy birth certificate.
No one that I am aware of is willing to spend over a million dollars in legal fees to prevent the viewing of their legal hard copy birth certificate.So what is Barrack Obama ashamed or afraid of?
The time has come to follow Ronald Reagan’s advice VERIFY…VERIFY…VERIFY.
Sandy commented:
Hey -errorists we love you. If you stop trying to bomb our country we will give you tons of money and all our jobs and I will bow to each and every one of you. Love Always Barrack Hussein Obama.
vinny commented:
vinny – next attack we will likely not be so lucky.
—————
All4theTeaParty – Yes, especially as the all-seeing Obama admin just ordered the DoD to stop making any references to the key identifiers of about 999 of the last 1,000 ter-ror atta-cks.
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/insanity-new-obama-strategy-refuses-to-blame-islamists-as-root-of-terror/
—————-
as a liberal democrat, i was heartened by the early TeaParty movement which came out to criticize Bush’s domestic and foreign policies. there were a lot of libertarians in the mix saying things which a liberal democrat (who balance liberty and equality issues) could agree with… i thought just maybe a liberal movement was afoot… that just maybe progressive and conservative liberals might ally themselves to defend our Bill of Rights and Ourselves from a military industrial complex and banking cabal that has corrupted our government with wealth and power…
reading your link, however, demonstrated to me how co-opted the tea party actually is… it’s basically a compare and contrast between Bush’s neocon policies and Obama’s neocon policies as if there are real differences between the two…
i believe you guys have lost your original impetus, co-opted by big ‘lamestream’ corporate media into thinking R neocon policies are better than D neocon policies…
its too bad…
Sandy commented:
Down With Dems — The Times Square Bomber is also a Democrat but never mind — The Pakistani Govt says they will help us with our search for further -errorists. Like For Sure!
Sandy commented:
nobama — Obama can always blame The Health Insurance Companies or the State of Arizona. Maybe British Petroleum is responsible for the Times Square Bomber. In the 15 months Obama’s been in office everyone’s to blame except the real enemies of this country.
ProLifer commented:
With a Muslim president, what do you expect???
RR commented:
Neville Chamberlain promised “peace in our time” and that Britain would remain “vigilant”, too. Anybody remember how that worked out?
Valerie commented:
Eric Cantor has a better idea.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/04/cantor-obama-should-show-muslims-that-islamist-terrorists-—-not-americans-—-are-their-enemies/
The people who are being killed and maimed by these irhabists are nearly always Muslim.
bg commented:
++
vinny @ 8:53 am #20
a-duh, you should have stopped at ‘as a liberal
democrat’, while you were still an iota ahead..
==
Lorna Andoscia commented:
OK Everybody, You’re missing the most important (and kind of scary) point to the quotes from Obama’s NSS report!
Don’t forget to always watch the other hand. While the citizens of this country are busy arguing over the term handed to us with one hand, “violent extremist”, the other hand is turning over the very sovereignty of our country. That means YOUR sovereignty! Sovereignty is what you call the power of Kings. Here in America, we are ALL Kings. Rather than choose to be ruled by a Sovereign, Emperor or Dictator; our Government was formed in a manner that gave us Sovereignty over our own homes.
You are Kings and Queens of your own castle. And when you are not in your castle you have to have some kind of agreement as to what goes on around you, so you have laws that YOU vote on; or should be if you’re paying attention! You vote for the guy whom you trust enough to vote the mind of his constituents; and who is trustworthy enough to hold on to YOUR sovereignty; as long as his none of his constituents, or anyone else, gets YOUR Sovereignty.
Without a Sovereign Nation, we are not a Sovereign People. The “primary” purpose of the government that we elect is to maintain our Sovereignty, above all else. We have not, nor has any loyal citizen of this country, chosen to turn the defense of our sovereignty to a foreign entity. It is not, never has been and never will be under the authority of anyone but those who hold sovereignty (that’s us) to surrender the “primary” defense of our nation to those to whom we have NOT put in charge of the protection of our Nation. There is no Nation if we are not Sovereign. There is no protection if we are not a Sovereign Nation. There is no protection without holding “primary” security of our Sovereignty.
President Obama, I know you will most likely be reading this. I know that there are people out there scouring the blogs for words like: Terrorist, Islam and Jihad. Did I get anyone’s attention yet? How about Tea Party, right wing radical, angry mob? There, that should get your attention.
Dear President Obama,
There comes a time when it is not up to Congress to declare war. That may seem strange coming from someone who recognizes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land; but when war is declared upon our country we are at war, like it or not. It is true that, barring a declaration of war by Congress, it is not an official war; but I really don’t think that those who declared war on America are going to recognize that fact. If we choose to defend ourselves we have no choice but to be at war.
Our Nation has been a Nation at war since war was declared on America, nearly two decades ago. Call it a “conflict” or “defeating terrorism”; it is still war in the eyes of those who have declared war upon us.
When war was declared upon America, there was a bit of a quandary as to how to declare war upon those that are not a nation. At first we ignored the problem. But as anyone with any wit within his brain can tell you, ignoring a problem will not make it go away. Then we declared a “war on terror”, a vague yet politically correct term that was far too ambiguous to be effective. It is neither terrorism that we must defeat nor terrorism that we are at war with. We are at war with those who have declared war on us, plain and simple. Anyone who acts against America, as an answer to that declaration of war, is an enemy of our Nation and our adversary in the war that has been declared against us. Whether a rogue combatant or a connected combatant, affiliated with a particular group; if the combatant is answering the call to war, they are an enemy of this Nation that is in a state of war. Call them what you wish and be as diplomatic as possible, the fact remains; they are our enemies. Join them? You are our enemy. Assist them? You are our enemy.
If you are a citizen of this country and you join or assist them, they are our enemy and you are guilty of treason. That’s it. No questions, no quandary; they declared war and we are just following through.
If we are to be the leader of like-minded states, we must ensure that those states are like-minded. Do they believe that when war is declared upon a nation, no matter who declares that war, that nation has the right and responsibility to its citizens to respond to attacks upon them as they would in any declared war? Do they believe that the safety of their citizen’s is the paramount concern and that, without a rescinding of the declaration of war that enemies have put forth, safety cannot be guaranteed through negotiations. As long as anyone who is intent on destroying a nation will not waiver from their intents, there can be no negotiations and there can be no peace. If other countries do not believe this, then we should not, dare I say cannot, be their leader; for a leader’s responsibility lies first and foremost in the safety of those who are led.
If we are to align ourselves as equals with other nations and submit ourselves to a foreign authority as our “primary” means of defense, should not we ensure that those nations recognize that we are at war and that our Sovereign defense against any and all combatants of war (declared by either party) is the first concern regarding the safety of our citizens? Should not those whose safety is at risk make the decision to supersede the established form of government in favor of foreign control of our Nation’s defense? Should that decision be made at all? Treaties are meant to maintain peace between Sovereign Nations, not to attempt to achieve peace by submitting to foreign control. Is not a treaty, that moves beyond the reach of a government of a Sovereign People, neither authorized by that People nor in line with the very idea of a Sovereign Nation? Does not such a treaty, in effect, destroy the Nation itself?
President Obama, there should be no need to tell you this, but the United States were founded in order for the several states and the various Sovereign citizens to decide the course of their lives and to be protected in their travels along that course. To turn the defense of this nation to any entity that is not elected by the Sovereign citizens is to disavow our very Nation itself; for our Nation is a Nation of a People who lead through leadership, chosen by those People. To submit our “primary” defense to others is to act in disregard of those who ARE this Nation.