Is the Obama Administration incapable of effectively fighting Islamic extremism because it continues to view it as a lesser threat, when compared to its harsh view of Americans who merely oppose its policies?
In 2014, after ISIS captured Fallujah and clearly become the most powerful terrorist organization in existence, President Obama likened the organization to a “JV” team in a discussion with New Yorker editor David Remnick. His views were supported by his prior Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, in a 2015 discussion with the Council on Foreign Relations, as being appropriate “from the perspective of what they had accomplished at the time.” Even at the time of Obama’s statement, however, ISIS had accomplished far more than any prior terrorist organization ever had.
The refusal to acknowledge the reality of Islamic extremism and its growing threat has been evident in numerous actions the Administration engaged in, and the policies that followed. The President still has not adequately explained why he supported “Arab Spring” movements which were dominated by extremists, in their bid to overthrow regimes which opposed terrorist organizations such as the Moslem Brotherhood, ISIS, and al Qaeda.
Key questions about the President’s actions in Iraq, Egypt and Libya remain unanswered.
Whatever one’s views of the Iraq war were, the reality was that in its aftermath, Iraq, despite extensive challenges and unrest, was becoming more democratic, thanks to the stabilizing influence of U.S. troops based there. The President’s withdrawal of American forces allowed ISIS to fill the vacuum and literally tore the nation apart.
Another unexplained move was made in Egypt. Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was a trusted U.S. ally, and followed the path begun by his predecessor Anwar Sadat in promoting regional peace. He generally supported American policies in the Middle East. However, with little regard to this, President Obama supported his overthrow by a Moslem Brotherhood movement. When the new regime, led by Mohamed Morsi, increased repression of Egypt’s Christian minority, centralized power, opposed U.S. policies, and acted in a manner that threatened peace in the area, the Obama Administration turned a blind eye. However, when the descent into extremism was halted by Morsi’s overthrow, the Obama Administration opposed the move.
This can lead to erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation and http://downtownsault.org/silver-lining-antiques/ levitra sale erectile dysfunction. Natural emollients added to a health creme can also work to keep the skin smooth, supple and blemish free cheapest viagra for sale for a healthier looking and feeling great. A lot of men utilize the drug thirty minutes or one prior hour a sex. cialis pill from india levitra discounts Enhanced levels of testosterone improve libido, sensation in genitals and rejuvenate reproductive organs.
Libya proved to be another disaster for the U.S. that was attributable in part to Mr. Obama’s actions. Muammar Gaddafi had a despicable past, including acts of terror and a budding nuclear program. However, he had abandoned both efforts, and now sided with the West against ISIS, al Qaeda, and the Moslem Brotherhood. Despite this reformation, Obama actively aided in his oerthrow. The result, similar to his Iraq action, was chaos and the dramatic growth in inflience of terrorist forces in the nation. When those forces attacked the U.S. facility in Benghazi and killed a U.S. Ambassador and other Americans, the President and then-Secretary of State Clinton blatantly lied to the U.S. public, the families of the fallen, and the United Nations by blaming a video that played no role in the attack. The U.S. military was not allowed to respond either during the attack or in its aftermath.
While both the President and Ms. Clinton have been extremely reluctant to even use the phrase “Islamic extremism,” they have been particularly harsh in their descriptions of fellow Americans who merely have differing views.
In 2009, President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security stunningly called returning U.S. veterans a threat to national security. In the aftermath of the San Bernardino shootings, rather than cite the extremist philosophy and terrorist ties of the perpetrators, Mr. Obama lectured the nation on American gun ownership and what he described—without any substantial supporting evidence–as bias against Moslems in the U.S.
The distrust and evident dislike of the President towards his own constituents can also be seen in the words and actions of his appointees. Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson, despite the horrors of Orlando, San Bernardino and Fort Hood (which the Administration strangely labelled “workplace violence”) remains more concerned over what he terms “right wing extremism” than the attacks by Islamic forces, and wants to use DHS to enforce anti-gun ownership provisions.
The Administration continues its opposition to appropriate funding for the U.S. military, continues to fight for legislation limiting the Second Amendment, and continues its rhetoric casting Republicans and Conservatives as the enemy.
There are legitimate concerns about whom President Obama considers the true threat: Islamic extremists, or his own constituents who merely have differing views.