The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Neither “Misguided” nor “Flawed”

Nothing sits
in my craw worse than someone using woozy words and terms to discuss evil.

I submitted this comment on an IPT article from November 17th on Obama
and ISIS:, “Jihadists
Crippling the West from Within.

This is a revolting
statement: “Let’s state the obvious. The administration has operated under
the misguided belief that jihadists can be contained. If we just treat them
nicely and don’t identify them for what they are, they’ll leave us alone.”
Again, I ask: Why do you think the Obama administration is operating
“under the misguided belief that jihadists can be contained”? Perhaps
the administration doesn’t want the jihadists “contained,” let alone
destroyed. Have you ever entertained that possibility? Why can’t you take that
last important step and concede that Obama would not mind seeing this country
crippled and maimed by another Islamic attack? Don’t all his actions, in his
domestic and foreign policies, over the last eight years point to that
conclusion? You’ve done a superb and heroic job of documenting that evidence.
Why are you so hesitant to call Obama evil?
I previously
commented in a similar vein to IPT’s “Someone
Tell the President We Can’t Fight Radical Islam by Being Politically Correct
,”
also from November 17th, but I won’t discuss that edition (both columns
origianlly appeared on American Thinker). Mr. Emerson has published both of my
comments. This column is not intended to criticize Steve Emerson or The
Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). Emerson has a standing fatwa against
his life, he has almost single-handedly pioneered delving into the roots and consequences
of Islamic jihad against Europe, America and the West, and has tirelessly
increased our knowledge of what Islam means and doesn’t mean. His is more or
less a thankless task, especially when he has testified in Congress about CAIR
and other Muslim Brotherhood-sired “civilizational jihad” organizations in the
U.S., only to see his truths fall on deaf ears and bounce off of closed minds.
But here are a
few more what I’d call “soft ball” estimates of Obama’s motives and ends from IPT’s
second column. Referring to the November 13th Islamic attack on Paris, IPT
wrote:
The highly coordinated attack
on the French was an attack on the Dutch, British, Germans, Swedes, and the
U.S. It was an attack on all Western liberal democracies based upon basic
Judeo-Christian values.
It is the tragic result of a naïve
misreading
of the world by the current administration. The resulting
chaos created by U.S. foreign policy represents a diplomatic and national
security failure of unfathomable and horrific proportions. [Bold
italics
mine.]
I don’t believe
Obama is either naïve about the ends and means of ISIS or of any other
terrorist group, or is misreading anything.
In policies reflecting deeply
flawed thinking
, Obama and his advisers believed from the very
beginning that it should support Islamists represented by the Muslim
Brotherhood, which created nearly all of the existing jihadi groups. The
administration believed that the Arab Spring represented an opportunity to
depose despots and replace them with democratic regimes. [Bold italics mine.]
Given that
Hillary Clinton retained the “services” of Huma Abedin, whose family has close
connections with the Brotherhood, and all of Obama’s friends in the
Brotherhood, I doubt very much his thinking was flawed, deeply or otherwise. The
Brotherhood’s designs on the U.S., outlined in its Explanatory
Memorandum,
which IPT has published as well as the Center for Security
Policy, are too well known to our intelligence agencies and to the Brotherhood’s
friends.
The alternative
conclusion is that Obama is thoroughly clueless about what the Brotherhood is
all about and chooses to remain ignorant. In which case, he should not be
occupying the office of President.
…The administration has operated under the misguided
belief
that jihadists can be contained. If we just treat them nicely
and don’t identify them for what they are, they’ll leave us alone.
[Bold italics mine.]
Finally,
For nearly two full weeks the
administration blamed an innocent U.S. filmmaker as the cause of the murder of
four Americans 7,000 miles away in Benghazi in 2012. They were dead wrong, and they
knew it.
Clinton documented the lie for posterity in her emails.
[Bold
italics
mine.]
And they knew
it

Hillary Clinton, Obama, Susan Rice, and that whole crew knew it. If that doesn’t
indicate a grave, serious, and unforgivable character flaw in Obama, I can’t imagine
what else would.
One may as
well claim that Hannibal Lector’s cannibalism is a naïve, misguided, flawed
notion of social relationships. I am not endorsing the idea of an evil genius. Such
a creature merely possesses a feral, predatory intelligence that simply senses
and takes advantage of an opponent’s weaknesses.
Obama is evil.
That’s the long and short of it. I see no reason to pull any moral punches.

Previous

The Jihadi in the White House

Next

After Paris: The Perils of Pacifism

3 Comments

  1. Ilene Skeen

    Obama's actions are 100% consistent with his beliefs. As Mr. Cline has noted, Obama's actions are evil. Anyone who thinks that his actions are good is either misguided or flawed themselves or are also evil. There are no other possibilities.

    Thank you, Edward Cline, for never pulling punches.

  2. Ilene Skeen

    Obama's actions are 100% consistent with his beliefs. As Mr. Cline has noted, Obama's actions are evil. Anyone who thinks that his actions are good is either misguided or flawed themselves or are also evil. There are no other possibilities.

    Thank you, Edward Cline, for never pulling punches.

  3. Edward Cline

    Ilene: Thank you. And you ought to see me in a physical fight. I'm Dirty Harry reincarnated.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén