by Robert Spencer
After four years of pretending there is no jihad against the free world, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blurted out the truth during her testimony on the Benghazi jihad massacre Wednesday: “We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” she said, adding: “We have to recognize this is a global movement.”
We do? Yet the Obama administration has for years steadfastly and repeatedly denied both that there was a jihadist threat at all and that it was a global movement. So far has the Obama administration been from acknowledging that there was a jihad threat that less than two months into Obama’s first term, on March 16, 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted proudly that in her first testimony to Congress, “I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”
Even “terrorism,” absent a modifier, was a politically correct euphemism for jihad violence that demonstrated an unwillingness to examine the beliefs of the jihadists, for to have done so would have led straight into Islam. Those who described those dedicated to destroying the United States simply as “terrorists” generally did not want to admit that Islam had anything to do with that war. George W. Bush had started this ball rolling when he proclaimed Islam a “religion of peace” shortly after 9/11; however, Bush officials could and did explore the Islamic texts and teachings that illuminated jihadist motives and goals. Under Obama, it became official U.S. policy not to do so.
On May 13, 2010, Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he was questioned repeatedly by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) about whether the Fort Hood jihad mass murders, the attempted jihad car bombing in Times Square, and the Christmas underwear jihad bomber over Detroit could be attributed to “radical Islam.” Holder repeatedly refused to agree to this, going only so far as to say: “There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious.”
Noted Smith: “I don’t know why the administration has such difficulty acknowledging the obvious, which is that radical Islam might have incited these individuals. If you can’t name the enemy, then you’re going to have a hard time trying to respond to them.”
Indeed. Nonetheless, Obama’s nominee for CIA director, John Brennan, who is the current Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, echoed Holder’s reluctance to say that Islam had anything to do with jihad terrorism on May 26, 2010, during a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He declared: “Nor do we describe our enemies as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam meaning to purify oneself or one’s community.” Brennan has repeated this many times, and has defined the enemy not as a global movement, but as a “small fringe of fanatics” consisting of al-Qaeda and “its terrorist affiliates.”
It was no surprise, then, that Brennan readily agreed in October 2011 to demands from Islamic supremacist groups with links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, to purge all training materials for law enforcement and intelligence agents of all mention of Islam or jihad. Dwight C. Holton, former U.S. Attorney for the District of Oregon, emphasized that training materials for the FBI would be purged of everything politically incorrect: “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
In December 2011, when Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) asked Paul Stockton, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, whether “we are at war with violent Islamist extremism,” Stockton did his best to dodge the question and finally answered: “I don’t believe it’s helpful to frame our adversary as Islamic with any set of qualifiers that we might add, because we are not at war with Islam.”
This created numerous absurd situations, since Islamic jihadists so often spoke of Islam and jihad in explaining and justifying their actions, but the Obama administration plowed ahead anyway. Most notoriously, it characterized the November 2009 Fort Hood jihad massacre, when Major Nidal Hasan, a self-described “soldier of Allah” who had given numerous indications of his jihadist proclivities and was shouting “Allahu akbar” as he murdered thirteen Americans, not as Islamic jihad or even terrorism, but as “workplace violence.”
And now, after years of politically correct obfuscation, Hillary Clinton describes our enemies as “jihadists.” Will Brennan rebuke her? Will Obama? Probably not, since they can be sure that an ever-compliant mainstream media won’t ever ask the uncomfortable questions that should be asked at this point: Does this signify a departure from administration policy? Is the Obama administration going to reevaluate its refusal to examine the role that Islam plays in motivating those who identify themselves as mujehedin, jihadists, warriors of jihad and Islam? Doesn’t Hillary’s statement undercut everything the administration has stood for all along – and, incidentally, demonstrate the cynicism and dishonesty of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations campaign to make Americans think that jihad is just getting in your exercise or taking the kids to school?
Robert Spencer
Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/hillary-lets-the-jihadist-cat-out-of-bag/
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment