Some things that come out of President Obama’s mouth make me wonder if they’re just off the cuff, or off the teleprompter. Case in point, “let me be clear, ISIS is not Islamic.” Sorry folks, but if that was actually a statement on a teleprompter, then we are truly sucking wind — as we used to say in the Army during a long run.Or how about “the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet Muhammad” — well, it seems that is exactly the case because militant Islamists get their knickers up the arse and show their definition of tolerance.
So I am once again shocked at what I hope was a slip of the tongue – but something tells me it was not.As reported by Fox News, “President Obama, joined by British Prime Minister David Cameron, sharply warned Congress Friday not to pursue new sanctions on Iran — saying they could derail the effort to strike a deal barring the country from getting a nuclear weapon.”
“Obama confirmed he has even warned congressional Democrats, some of whom support a new sanctions bill, that he would veto that legislation. “Congress needs to show patience,” Obama said. If new sanctions are approved while the Iran talks are ongoing, the president warned, “The likelihood of the entire negotiations collapsing is very high.”
Humor me for a moment, what message does that send to the mad mullahs running Iran, an Islamic theocracy? It makes me wonder what Barack Obama has promised Iran that has him so concerned about upsetting the Ayatollahs?What then are the ramifications for bad behavior on behalf of the country that is the largest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism? And to think British Prime Minister David Cameron was contacting our elected representatives in an attempt to influence our foreign policy is VERY disconcerting — what does Obama have on him?
Fox reports, “Cameron, too, said he has been contacting U.S. senators to convey a similar view — that Britain believes further sanctions could hurt the talks and “fracture international unity.” “We should not impose further sanctions now,” Cameron said. Are you kidding me, fracture international unity — with Iran? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must be beside himself.
The U.S. Senate is assessing the worse case scenario of Iranian belligerence — which is well founded — and preparing to bring back the pain that had originally brought Iran to the table. Right now the Iranians must be feeling they’ve attained the moral high ground as they watch a U.S. president berate our legislative body, publicly.Here is the situation, according to Fox, “Tennessee GOP Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Thursday at a Republican retreat that lawmakers would present legislation in a matter of weeks on Iran. Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., also are working on the legislation.”
“The New York Times reported that Menendez got into a sharp exchange with Obama at a Democratic summit on Thursday on the issue — an account Democratic sources confirmed to Fox News. Sources said Menendez warned the president that if Congress waited – as Obama wants – sanctions could not be imposed quickly if the talks collapse. But Obama claimed he would come to Congress, if talks fail, to “tighten the screws” against Iran. He said pursuing sanctions now could “undermine” international unity against the country. He suggested Iran would then be able to blame the U.S. for blowing up the deal, and other countries would see it that way as well.”
So once again, it’s blame America first — just like we need to release GITMO detainees to stop Islamic jihadists from being mad at us. We need to be patient and “play nice” with the Iranians or else the talks — which to this point have failed — will fail. Really?The centrifuges in Iran — some 10,000 — continue to spin and the uranium continues to be enriched and what do? We keep… talking. We keep talking, and Obama, as well as Cameron apparently, want to keep talking. These two supposed “leaders” fail to realize that talk is not respected by Islamic terrorists and the states who sponsor their actions. They only comprehend strength and might. And those who would rise up against the iron rule of Islamic totalitarianism remain silent because they see no support. Remember it was Obama who turned his back on the Green Movement in Iran — mainly young people — who wanted to rise up against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
It makes me think Obama, who is reticent to face ISIS, has made a deal with the Iranians to handle the Sunni Islamic State. But what happens when something horrible happens in the form of a nuclear device detonated by a terrorist in Israel, Europe, or even in America? Then all bets are off. Even Obama has conceded that the chances of a diplomatic deal are “probably less than 50-50.”
I will at least give this accolade to British PM Cameron — he referred to these assailants as a “very serious Islamist extremist terrorist threat,” while Obama stumbled along continuing to describe the enemy as “violent extremism” and “violent terrorism” — even “nihilism.”
President Barack Hussein Obama just cannot bring himself to call out the enemy — continually showing sympathy, or as Hillary Clinton stated, an empathy, for the enemy:
“We both recognize that intelligence and military force alone is not going to solve this problem, so we’re also going to keep working together on strategies to counter violent extremism that radicalizes recruits and mobilizes people, especially young people, to engage in terrorism. We also look forward to welcoming our British friends to our summit next month on countering violent terrorism, because whether in Europe or in America, a critical weapon against terrorism is our adherence to our freedoms and values at home, including the pluralism and the respect and tolerance that defines us as diverse and democratic societies.”
“This phenomenon of violent extremism, the ideology, the networks, the capacity to recruit young people, this has metastasized and it is widespread, and it has penetrated communities around the world. I do not consider it an existential threat. As David said, this is one that we will solve. We are stronger. We are representing values that the vast majority of Muslims believe in — in tolerance and in working together to build, rather than to destroy.”
Just ask yourself as you read these words, do they reflect a Churchillian resolve or a Chamberlain-esque acquiescence? Then ask yourself, if you are al-Qaida, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs, Ansar al-Sharia, Al Nusra Front, Abu Sayyaff, and I could go on — what do they see reflected in those words?
The militant Islamists will press on the attack.