Friday, December 23, 2011

Dr. Rubin and Obama's Capitulation to Radical Islam, Continued


Image Hosted by

Dr. Rubin writes:

"It (the Obama administration - editor's note) has also sided with the enemies of the PA, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. It has sided with the enemies of democratic forces in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Lebanon. Indeed, the U.S. government is working to empower the most dangerous enemies of democracy in the Middle East.

What’s especially remarkable is that this strategy is based on no evidence. All Clinton can cite is a single case—Turkey—that proves the exact opposite of what the Obama Administration claims.

Here are five examples on the other side:

–The Oslo peace process was based on the belief that the radical nationalist PLO would be moderated by being given power, guns, and money. Has the result been peace and moderation?

–The U.S. government favored the participation of Hamas in the Palestinian election. It won and then staged a coup. Today Gaza is ruled by a radical regime that foments war on Israel and openly proclaims its intention to commit genocide on Jews.

–Hizballah participated in the Lebanese elections, won, and while it cannot institute a Shia Islamist regime in a country where 70 percent aren’t Shia Muslims and its opponents are armed, it is doing all it can to make that country a dictatorship that will attack Israel when it thinks the timing is right.

–In Egypt, we have seen the descent into anarchy and violence; the persecution of Christians, the unleashing of fanaticism. Where is the debate in the Muslim Brotherhood to indicate moderation? Where is the renunciation of past extremism? Where is the reinterpretation of Islamic texts to justify a totally different worldview? These things don’t exist.

–Turkey, the great role model, is seeing democracy wane as the Islamists arrest their enemies, take over the media, and adopt an anti-Western foreign policy that backs radical Islamists elsewhere.

March of folly indeed. This is a sprint."


The problem here is not that the Obama administration should be expected to dictate the outcomes of the various riots and uprisings that comprise the Islamist Spring, but the very least we should expect from the President of the United States is some recognition that what is currently going on throughout the Arab world is something other than the Civil Rights Movement in the US circa the 1950s.

It is beyond obvious that Obama was ridiculously wrong when he suggested that the revolt in Tunisia was in any way comparable either to the Revolution of '76 or to Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement. It's fairly mind-boggling that he made that suggestion because anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew to wait before making any proclamations about the nature of these movements.

At the time, I did not know that the "Arab Spring" would actually be the "Islamist Spring," but I certainly knew enough to withhold judgment until things began to pan out. What I do not understand is why Barack Obama, who they tell us is a pretty bright guy, did not have the basic commonsense to wait before declaring the rise of the Jihad to be a good thing and he still has not corrected himself.

The first thing that needs to be done now is simply to acknowledge the error and begin to figure out how we, the United States and the west, intends to deal with the fact that the entire Arab Middle East seems to be going for the Jihad. That it is happening is beyond doubt, but what, if anything to do about it is a question that is being entirely ignored, particularly on the progressive-left and seemingly within the Obama administration, as well.

Noticing this development is neither right-wing nor left-wing, neither conservative nor liberal, but strictly commonsensical.

There are, by the way, reasons why the political left has stuck its head in the sand viz-a-viz the Jihad. Part of it has to do with social pressure and political correctness and part of it has to do with the Bush administration using its trademarked War on Terror to bolster its own political fortunes and to move funds in various directions for the purposes of corporate enrichment.

But, again, if George W. Bush says that it's raining, this does not mean that small children and ponies are prancing in the sunshine.

If some on the political right, such as, for example, Pamela Geller, are too strident in ringing the fire bell on this issue, the progressive-left is essentially a corpse. Neither the movement, nor the President of the United States, is on this issue, which is a shame considering that it is, in fact, the foremost foreign policy question facing the world today.

Yet they choose to keep their eyes, mouths, and ears almost entirely shut.

And that being the case, it should be fairly obvious that this president is not serving the country very well... and this, too, must be acknowledged.



  1. Here's my question though:

    What CAN Obama say about these new regimes? He can't just tell them to fuck off, because they are going to be governments and we're going to have to work with them to the extent that we can.

    Would the outcome have been any different if Obama's rhetoric was any different?  If, at the beginning of the uprisings, he had said 'nah, this is just going to lead to Islamists taking over' ?

  2. I would recommend that Obama speak the truth, if he recognizes it and understands it, which seems doubtful.

    He needs to acknowledge that the US is not in favor of genocidal movements of any sort, including those that just happen to be against us, and that the west will not allow Iran to get nuclear weaponry.

  3. Obama should have thought about what to say BEFORE it all went to Hell. He chose the lollipop agenda. The Brotherhood kept their eye on the ball.