Opinion: Obama's idea of national security is music to Jihad enthusiasts' ears

There’s just no other way to say it—Barack Obama’s foreign policy thus far has to please the blood-thirsty army of Jihad enthusiasts. (Disclaimer: Islam is a religion of peace. That is there are folks in Islam who are peaceful. Many of them, however, are “Muslim” in the sense that many Catholics are “Catholic” in that they don’t really attend religious services except on high holidays and don’t really know or agree with the majority of their religion’s teaching.) Unfortunately for Islam, right now the most passionate Muslims are those anxious to spill the blood of infidels, like madman Jihadist Major Hasan from Fort Hood.

Yet in the face of this reality, Mr. Obama continually shows a propensity for risking further American lives and America’s standing in the world rather than offending Muslims. In this sense, his Freudian slip with George Stephanopoulos on ABC during last year’s campaign where he referred to his “Muslim faith” before being corrected by Stephanopoulos is quite a prelude to his disastrous national security record thus far.

His continual praising of Islam and down-putting of America and her very clear foundation in Christianity and Judaism is also quite telling. In his speech in Cairo, Obama lauded such accomplishments of Muslims as their blackmailing of the Adams’ administration in 1796, while downplaying our Christian heritage. Boldly declaring time and time again that America is not a Christian nation, Mr. Obama has also gone so far as to proclaim us to be “in a sense” one of the “largest Muslim nations” in one of his many American Apology speeches around the globe. Mr. Obama ditched the annual National Day of Prayer and has downplayed Christianity at every turn with the sole exception of trying to rally Christians into believing that God wants them to help pass Obamacare. He did, however, make time for a lovely state dinner to commemorate the ending of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. He also quotes frequently from the Koran and reminisces fondly of his childhood Islamic upbringing. This is not some backhanded way of suggesting that Mr. Obama is secretly a Muslim, but rather, the lengths to which he will go to make Muslims feel that he is “one of them,” a rather ill-conceived policy to pursue in a world of blood-thirsty Muslim terrorists.

With this preening to the Islamic community and shunning of the traditional Judeo-Christian heritage of the nation, Mr. Obama continues to place America and her allies in a very dangerous place. Doubt that? Those pesky Muslim pirates that Obama oh-so-bravely faced down during the spring (after several days of dithering about it) are back this week and attacking American shipping interests off the coast of African again. To be fair, given the fact that these Muslim pirates live in Africa, they may have been at Obama’s Cairo speech, and may have been understandably confused about his intentions regarding their enterprise. They may have reasonably surmised that as Obama was praising Islam for its contribution to America of Muslim piracy, kidnapping, blackmailing and slave-trading that he would applaud their efforts to revive this praise-worthy endeavor.

This is politically correct nonsense—and it has led to the loss of American life. Nowhere is this more clear than in the blatant terrorist act committed by radical Muslim nutbag Major Hasan at Fort Hood.

In the case of the Fort Hood incident, there are now numerous reports that the Obama administration has, at best, been dragging their feet, and perhaps even attempting to stonewall any serious investigation into the politically correct breakdown in the intelligence and military communities that led to this senseless Jihadic bloodbath.

The Obama administration has “refused” to allow any secret service, CIA or military personnel to testify to a Senate committee investigating the Fort Hood Jihad massacre. In an attempt to cover up their non-compliance, the White House has been briefing the Senate on the issue, but only through White House staffers and not any actual hands on intelligence community folks. A proverbial thorn in Obama’s side, Senator Joe Lieberman has expressed disappointment in the White House’s unwillingness to cooperate with the senate investigation. Perhaps this is just another example of Anita Dunn’s Maoist approach to media in which they “control the message” and very rarely “communicated” anything through the press that they “didn’t absolutely control.” 

Now, to their credit, the White House does claim to be conducting an investigation in the executive branch on this very issue. Perhaps they will actually conduct an honest investigation into the matter and not white wash their findings.

It is interesting however, that once again the “most transparent” administration in history would rather not share information with the legislative branch or the public at large. In addition, the investigation being conducted by the executive branch is being handled by the same folks who allowed politically correct insanity to ignore a real “clear and present (and glaringly obvious) danger” to the United States from a homegrown terrorist.

In other national security news that would please Osama bin Laden, the freak-show that is the 9/11 terrorist trial in New York, is admittedly not going to be about guilt or innocence. KSM and his Jihadist buddies have been quite clear—this trial will be about trashing America from their newly Obama-and-Holder-supplied soapbox.

Writing in The American Thinker about the “Coming Jihadi Trial Disaster” columnist J.R. Dunn argues that it is the liberal Obama administration’s obsession with victimhood (as so brilliantly pointed out in Ann Coulter’s excellent book “Guilty”) and celebration of the “underdog” that will undermine the entire trial. This is not about justice, this is about helping the helpless, and as such, Dunn argues that the end result will be tragic:

“By redefining Islamist terrorists as ‘criminals,’ liberals have automatically retrofitted them with ‘victim’ status, endowing them with all the rights and privileges granted to American street hoodlums. If the record is any indication, this is going to end far worse than anyone can foresee.”

Ironic also in this glorious telling of the Jihadi cause from the ensuing 24 hour a day coverage of this trial, is the setting: New York City. While the site of the 9/11 disaster, New York also represents proof positive that the liberal approach to criminal justice fails miserably. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani turned away from the liberal approach of “celebrating victimhood” by being soft on crime by taking a new hard-nosed approach to crime when he took office in the 1990s. Dunn notes that this approach was used in major cities:

“…until the early '90s, when New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and police chief William Bratton adapted George Keller's and James Q. Wilson's ’Broken Windows’ thesis -- coming down hard on such crimes as squeegeeing, jaywalking, and graffiti on the premise that creating an impression of public order leads to more public order. Broken Windows has brought down crime wherever it has been applied. Where it has not been applied, as in towns like Detroit and Newark, crime continues as rampant as ever.”

Obama’s administration, however, looks at the facts and sees the opposite. Despite a reduction of crime and the increased safety of their citizens, the Obama administration sees hatred and oppression of the oppressors and seeks to celebrate the victimhood of our Jihadist assailants. Dunn notes that, “It is this paradigm, with those results, that is being invoked in the case of the jihadis. Never let it be said that liberals ever learn a lesson, or fail to fumble the opportunity to apply one.”

Even evil conservative mastermind and former Vice President Dick Cheney has accused Attorney General Eric Holder (kept man of the Black Panthers and CAIR) of wanting a “show trial” for the 9/11 mastermind and his buddies. They can kill two birds with one stone with the trial by undermining the concept of the War on Terror being an actual war, with the side benefit of defaming the Bush administration. Commenting on the decision to treat terrorism as a criminal act Cheney observed that, "We had 3,000 dead Americans that day. That is not a law enforcement problem. That's an act of war. And you need to treat it as an act of war."

Best-selling novelist summed up the lunacy of the left in this kinder and gentler approach, when he commented on Glenn Beck’s television program that these same folks who have such a moral problem with making a man who planned the mass murder of 3,000 Americans think that he is drowning but have no such sentiment towards the procedure of sticking a spike into the head of an unborn child and sucking it’s brains out.

On that matter, not only do they not oppose it, they often go to great lengths to promote it.

Sadly, it is not just at home that Obama’s national security agenda pleases Mohammed so. Abroad, his “dithering” about Afghanistan continues as U.S. soldiers continue to die and Afghani allies lose confidence that we are really there to help.

Obama met once again with his war council to discuss his options and once again moved the deadline to one week from today. If initial reports are to be believed, it is likely that Obama will order some type of surge, but fall short of the actual requests made by his hand-picked General McChrystal back in March.

This sort of cowardice and indecision regarding the war is only emboldening our enemy. Mr. Obama campaigned over and over again on the need to win the war in Afghanistan and boasted repeatedly throughout the nearly two year campaign of his call for more troops. His general requested said troops in March, and since then Mr. Obama has been weighing the advice of his generals versus the wisdom of Code Pink and Moveon.org. It appears that the wise one may in fact be attempting a Solomon-like decision by ordering a surge, but reducing the number of troops to be sent.

This is madness. If you want to win the war, liberate the Afghanis from the oppressive regime of the Taliban and stop al Qaeda then you probably would be best served by listening to the advice of your military generals and not Hollywood. If you don’t think victory is the goal, as Mr. Obama has opined frequently, and don’t find terrorism anything more than a criminal justice problem, then withdraw all of your troops immediately. It demeans the sacrifices that our troops are making by causing more of them to lose their lives for something that our Commander-in-Chief has no intention of finishing.

This decision, if true, is cowardice plain and simple. As president, Obama should have the courage to stand up for what he believes in. If that is withdrawal and surrender, then pull out immediately and leave our allies to their horrific fate at the hands of the brutal Taliban. If, however, national security and protecting our allies is important, then send the needed resources to get the job done.

Obama’s domestic national security and foreign policy agenda is one that should continue to tickle the fancy of the crazed blood-thirsty Muslim terrorists. Until this president decides that protecting America is more important than winning “Mr. Congeniality” in the Muslim and rabid anti-American world, our Commander-in-Chief continues to leave us open to a bloody Jihad indeed.