By Ted Belman
As we know the Obama administration protected the Muslim Brotherhood and attacked al Qaeda. One of he tools it has used is to outlaw the use of words like Islamist and Jihad from government discourse. But is this can be problematic. Obama himself broke ranks with his policy, after releasing a Saudi citizen under questionable circumstances, by calling the bombings of the Boston Marathon, terrorism.
Andrew C McCarthy sets the record straight:
- That last attribute of terrorism is the cause of the Obama administration’s paralyzing misgivings about the T-word. The president is mulishly determined to cultivate Islamic-supremacist governments and movements like the Muslim Brotherhood. The stubborn problem is that al Qaeda – the only Muslim outfit the administration seems willing to hang the “terrorist” label on – is also Islamic-supremacist. That is, al Qaeda is adherent to the same ideology – based on sharia, Islam’s legal code and societal framework – as the groups the administration considers “allies” and “moderates.”
- Organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have tactical disagreements with al Qaeda about what situations call for the use of violence to advance the supremacist agenda and how quickly sharia should be imposed. At bottom, though, they are in agreement with al Qaeda about the imperatives of imposing sharia, eradicating Israel, destroying the West, and eliminating Western influences from Islamic countries. Islamic supremacism is a mainstream Islamic ideology – held by tens of millions of Muslims, not just a few thousand al Qaeda members and collaborators. Thus, if the administration were to admit that this ideology and agenda catalyze terrorism, they would logically have to admit the problem is much bigger than al Qaeda.
Unfortunately the Republican establishment plays the same game.