Obama's 9/11 lesson

Like many of you, I've watched Obama this week attempt to take the 9/11 anniversary and turn it into a National Day of Service (led by ACORN, no doubt). Generally, I'm not one to immediately read cynical things into these kinds of efforts, but it really got me thinking: what does 9/11 really mean to our Commander in Chief? What does he take away from it? Is it a day for mourning the loss of innocent lives? For deep reflection? For a renewal of resolve to stamp out the forces of evil? For Obama, apparently it is a day to recognize (among other things) Ted Kennedy. As his press release on this shows:

In April I was proud to sign the bipartisan Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which recognizes September 11 as a National Day of Service and Remembrance. Originated by the family members of those who lost loved ones on 9/11, the National Day of Service and Remembrance is an opportunity to salute the heroes of 9/11, recapture the spirit of unity and compassion that inspired our Nation following the attacks, and rededicate ourselves to sustained service to our communities. I'm not sure how many family members of 9/11 victims actually organized this, but it strikes me as a bit odd: what does Ted Kennedy have to do with September 11 and how does he fit into this?

What exactly is the message being sent here?

Clearly, it isn't about terrorism (sorry -- Obama doesn't use that word. "Man caused disasters") or it would  have been named for the "George W. Bush Serve America Act" -- for Bush 43 did more to destroy Al Qaeda and its radical brethren than all the other public servants in our history combined.  Instead, we get another honor for Ted Kennedy's 46 years of (self) service in the U.S. Senate, and a lot of drivel about "unity", "compassion" and "community". Is it all surprising that the Community Organizer in Chief sees 9/11 as an opportunity to community organize?

He goes on in his press release:

Throughout the summer, people of all ages and backgrounds came together to lend a helping hand in their communities through United We Serve. As this summer of service draws to an end, we renew the call to engage in meaningful service activities and stay engaged with those projects throughout the year. Working together, we can usher in a new era in which volunteering and service is a way of life for all Americans. Deriving strength from tragedy, we can write the next great chapter in our Nation's history and ensure that future generations continue to enjoy the promise of America.

Obama has taken the anniversary of an evil act of terror and watered it down to a national day of volunteering. How offensive! I cannot believe that we have turned 9/11 into a sound-bite for community activism. It further reinforces the fact that our president is completely out of touch with the reality of the world we live in -- and of the true meaning of September 11, 2001.

But of course this is no surprise. Obama, like many on the left, refuses to believe that evil exists. There is always a causal reason for such bad behavior. It is truly a victims view of the world. In this world view, America is part of the problem, and the terrorists are poor, oppressed lads from the third world who have never had a chance at life. Ergo, they want to commit mass murder.

Such reasoning allows liberals to sleep at night, because it gives them a false sense of certainty that if they keep working hard they can actually change the dynamic that creates a 9/11.

Barack Obama wrote an Op-ed in the Hyde Park Herald on September 19, 2001 -- just a week after the attack. It said this:

Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we as a nation draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy. Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must reexamine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks. And we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction. We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent, is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion, or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, and may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics. Most often, though, it grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. We will have to make sure, despite our rage, that any U.S. military action takes into account the lives of innocent civilians abroad. We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe—children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores. This tells you really all you need to know about how Barack Obama views 9/11 and the threats we face. Its a matter of poverty, helplessness and despair, right? Wrong. The attackers on 9/11 -- as were the attackers in London on 7/7/2005 were middle class Arabs. They were well educated. They were not ignorant poor Muslims. Now, it is clear that when Obama wrote this he did not know the exact backgrounds of the 9/11 terrorists. But this kind of supposition is de rigeur on the left: terrorism is bred by hopelessness and exploitation. If we can just "raise their hopes and prospects" they will surely come to love us.

This kind of thinking represents a fundamental misreading of the threat we face. It is beyond scary that our Commander in Chief holds this kind of view, for it masks the real root of terrorism: the radical ideology of Islam. The problem with the terrorists is the very belief system they are taught from the time they can read and write. The Wahhabi sect of Islam and its radical offshoots are the root of the issue -- and it can be found in the Arab world within all social strata. We are not fighting an enemy that can be eradicated through "hope" and "change". It can only be eradicated by its utter and complete defeat.  That is the lesson of 9/11. Our enemies prey on our weakness and respect only strength. And right now we have never been weaker.

The Obama move to change 9/11 into a service day is indicative of his true feelings about 9/11 -- that it is stain on our history that can be somehow moderated by our good deeds.

It is tragic that our president views the world this way. We should all be very embarrassed -- and very scared.

Concept of "radical Islam" goes down the memory hole

Sympathy and warmth toward US Muslims is up in the past two years, while concern for Islam's tendency to violence is down, according to a Pew survey reported in USA Today on this, the eighth anniversary of 9/11. Bush's "religion of peace" mantra, combined with his refusal to speak bluntly about jihad or radical Islam, set the stage for Obama's truly Orwellian purge of America's vocabulary for thinking about those sworn to destroy us. And voila, today's poll findings are the result. Here is part of the USA Today story: According to the Pew survey, belief among Americans that Islam encourages violence has fluctuated since the Sept. 11 attacks, and was at its lowest level — a quarter of those surveyed — in March after the terror strikes.

By 2007, 45% of Americans believed Islam was more likely than other faiths to encourage violence. This year, that number fell to 38%. The group most likely to say Islam encourages violence this year was conservative Republicans, at 55%. But that dropped 13% from two years ago, making them the group with the biggest change of opinion since 2007.

The survey, conducted by telephone, also indicated that Americans have grown steadily more knowledgeable about Islam: 41% knew that the Muslim name for God is Allah and the Quran is the Islamic sacred text, compared to 33% in March 2002.

The "small and gradual, but noticeable" change has an affect, Smith said. Those most familiar with Islam were least likely to link the religion with violence. Fifty-seven percent of people who knew the names Muslims use to refer to God and their sacred text, and were also acquainted with a Muslim, said Islam did not encourage violence more than other faiths.

The same percentage of that group said their overall opinion of Muslims was favorable and 70% of that group said there's discrimination against Muslims.

Iran's election shows Obama is a lot like Bush

Barack Obama apparently has more in common with his reviled predecessor, George W. Bush, than anyone on the left would like to believe. We've seen, of course, some grounding in Obama's national security policy since the election that has prompted him -- and other Democrats -- to maintain many of the Bush era's tactical policies in the war on terror (oops -- I meant "the fight against man-made disasters".) And while it true that he has recently sidled left on many issues -- releasing Gitmo detainees to Bermuda and Palau so that they can bask in the sun, for example -- the Obama administration has not gone nearly as far in rolling back the Bush national security regime than the left-wing base of the party has wanted. But the Obama administration's response to the Iranian elections shows a different kind of "Bushism", one that is less about policy and more about temperament and judgment. It seems that Obama's tepid response to the protests and the obvious fraud in the results may be a response to the president's simple inability to adjust his strategy to new information on the ground. As Robert Kagan writes in the Washington Post today, Obama has a plan for dealing with Iran, and it is based on having a stable leadership in place:

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration's approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers' legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran's rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush's habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders' heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed "to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran."

This approach had always been a key element of a "grand bargain" with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government's opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a "realist" departure from the Bush administration's quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn't...Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government's efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition's efforts to prolong the crisis.

So it appears that the tail (Obama's original strategy of engaging Iran's hard-line government in diplomacy) is now wagging the dog -- namely the unprecedented grass-roots democratic movement that is collectively risking life and limb on the streets of Tehran. The goal of the U.S. government should be to encourage and empower true democracy in Iran -- not to legitimize the totalitarian Islamic regime that is in power. By the luck of the Iranian regime's sheer arrogance, that opportunity now exists. But Obama is too vested in his original course of action to change, and can't seem to see that a new approach might now be warranted. He's following a strategy that is almost certain to fail; most people can clearly see that the prospects of real progress with the theocracy in Iran is poor at best. It's a double down on a bad hand.

The parallels with Bush in Iraq in 2005-2006 are striking. During the height of the insurgency and the sectarian strife that followed, Bush stuck far too long with the failed "attrition" strategy of Gens. Abizaid and Casey, preferring to double down on a bad hand of his own. The tactics of the American military in Iraq were clearly not working; month-after-month the evidence was coming in that things were getting worse and not better. Bush knew that his strategy in Iraq was failing, and yet seemed paralyzed to make the kind of strong, decisive decision to change that he was known for. Not until early 2007 did the surge take root with real changes in tactics, strategy and personnel.  For far too long, Bush didn't have the judgment and temperament to look closely at the results of his previous policies.  The result was that the successful surge of 2007-2008 could have likely been done earlier,  in 2004-2005, with much better results for both America and Iraq.

Obama is in the midst of a similar paralysis; he needs a "surge" on Iran, but he is afraid to tear up his script. His policy of "negotiating without preconditions" with Iran is a cornerstone of his foreign policy plan, and his deep belief in the power of his own diplomatic skills in getting some trans formative change from Iran is dominant. Its where hubris meets naivete -- and its a dangerous place for America to be.

Focus on jihadists, not DC gunman

The real danger of the shooting in DC will be the moral equivalence struck by the media between this lone nut and Islamic terrorists. This incident will be used to validate the recent statement by Janet Napolitano on the “Threat of Right-Wing Extremism”. For CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN, it will be six of one, half a dozen of the other. Thus, to serve one's country is to be put on a suspicion list by the DHS. After all, the man arrested in Washington DC was "another of those veterans" -- having served in World War II over 60 years ago! The key feature that’s intentionally glossed over is the magnitude of the subversion by the Islamists in the United States in comparison with the “white supremacy” groups. Documents outlining the vast scope of the Saudi funded Islamist efforts are basically ignored! As if one elderly 88 year old is equivalent to a quarter of a million black prison converts to Islam, many voicing hatred of America and white people!

As was said before, the “shooter” in Washington DC is 88 years old. The question one has to ask is this: what can be done to an 88 year old man? Life imprisonment? The death penalty? The man has already exceeded the average life expectancy! In either case, he will leap into his grave laughing!

Obama is no friend of Israel

Last year I wrote a piece that examined the stark dichotomy in political views between American and Israeli Jews. American Jews vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and see liberal policies -- both domestic and foreign -- as largely consistent with their world view. Indeed, in the 2008 election, 78% of American Jews voted for Obama -- an outcome that was a full 10 points better than most of the pre-election polling. Contrasted with the pre-election polling of Israeli Jews, which preferred John McCain by better than 2:1, and it is clear that their is a wide gulf between the reflexive idealism of American Jews and the sober realism of their Israeli counterparts. Today we have proof that Israeli Jews understood Obama better than those in America. In a widely anticipated speech today in Cairo, Obama gave his version of Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, pandering to Muslims by showing that he "feels their pain", apologizing for a litany of American sins, while drawing a stark moral relativism between Israeli and Palestinian violence. Indeed, Obama has now made clear that he sees Israel as just as much to blame for the continuing violence in the West Bank and Gaza, and has openly called for a "two state" solution to be the stated policy of the United States. Before he left on his trip to the Middle East -- where he pointedly chose not to visit Israel -- Obama called for a freeze on settlements in the West Bank -- a message he conveyed directly to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last month.

For anyone paying attention, Obama's statements toward Israel are chilling -- and reflect the generally accepted belief among the left that the Palestinians are the victims and the Israelis are the aggressors.  Obama is quickly proving that old adage: with friends like these, who needs enemies?

There was much to dislike about Obama's message in Cairo, where he attempted to draw linkages between our Judeo-Christian history and Islam. It was pandering at its finest. Further, he gave this speech in Egypt -- one of the most repressive regimes in the Middle East, and spent a good portion of the speech trying to explain away our efforts to bring democracy to millions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was yet another example of the leader of our nation taking great pains to minimize the good and noble sacrifices we have made in the name of freedom, while attempting to curry favor with regimes that continue to repress their people.

To American Jews I can only say this: you've been hoodwinked. Though you say overwhelmingly that the security of Israel is important to you, you have voted for a man who actively supports the appeasement of your terrorist enemies. By voting for Barack Obama, you have actually created a new existential threat -- that of an American administration focused on Palestinian rights and grievances, and committed to diplomacy with Iran and Syria. In one presidential election, you have done great damage to Israel -- a nation that you claim to love and cherish.

One can only hope that Benjamin Netanyahu has the moral courage to defy Obama and his appeasers; to remain steadfast in facing down the threats from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. It is Israel's only real hope for survival.