When I saw shots of the captured Jordanian pilot burned alive in a cage last week, I had to look away. This was no fiction, fantasy, nor ad for the seventeenth sequel in pop culture’s latest horror series; this was real life. My response was clear… I was shocked, then grieved, and then outraged. How dare these men — obviously motivated by evil — brutally kill the innocent. How dare these terrorists get away with murder!
Most likely more outraged than any of us was Jordan’s leader, King Abdullah II, a former commander of Jordan’s special forces. King Abdullah met with members of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee not long after the news broke. Members said he was furious. The king was quoted as saying, “The only problem we’re going to have is running out of fuel and bullets.” The terrorists were the clear focus of his fury.
Contrast that with Pres. Obama’s response. Wait… Let’s each first do one thing; let’s remove any partisan hats. That means all the Obama-lovers and haters — those friends among us who have a tendency to lose all objectivity at the mere sound of his voice — need to be a little more intentional in removing the hat, so-to-speak. Yes, those enamored seem blind to Obama’s weaknesses; those loathing seem blind to his strengths. I’d like an honest conversation regarding Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism.
While the White House made some at least rhetorical miscalculations in its initial description of ISIS, Obama has been clear that we need to fight this extremist group. I believe their heinous deeds are clearly unacceptable to him. What is not clear, however, is who he thinks they are.
The terrorists claim to be motivated by Islam. Obama continues to claim they are not. Hence, the White House will not refer to Islam when describing this group. On first learning of the Jordanian pilot’s savage death, Obama calmly referred to the terrorists as adhering to “whatever ideology they are operating of.” There was no outrage nearing that of King Abdullah’s — and there was no specificity in regard to the terrorists.
Obama did express specificity a single day later, when he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual Christ-centered gathering of 3,500 plus people. He said he wanted to touch on “the degree to which we’ve seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. “ Excellent. Let’s talk specifically about the evil. But again, there was a complete omission of Islam. Instead he was specific only in mentioning the centuries-old sins of those who “committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” He did not mention killing in the name of Allah — even though that is the current crisis. Of course, some (still probably with hats on) quickly amen-ed the President’s boldness… it’s about time Christians wrestled with those historical atrocities!… The only challenge with that argument is the lack of boldness Obama utilizes in response to Islam — and the lack of current application.
Unlike the Intramuralist, the President seems to dance around the topic. He will call out Christianity but not Islam. I get that he does not believe they are Muslims — even though they say they are. I also get that there exist religious adherents who distort the tenets of every religion and re-craft religion based upon how they feel; we all sometimes do that. But what I don’t get is why the President avoids the topic…
Nidal Hassan murdered 13 soldiers at Fort Hood while praising Allah, and the administration called it “workplace violence.” When the Charlie Hebdo attacks occurred in Paris, the White House Press Sec. would not initially say “Islamic” or “terrorism.” And last week the Deputy Press Sec. insisted the Taliban was “an armed insurgency” — not a terrorist group. Even left-leaning “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart now questions the White House “tip-toeing” around the terminology. What’s the motive?
Why will the White House not call this what it is? Why are they willing to be harsh on Christianity — sins that are 800 years old — but meek on any mention of Islam? What’s the motivation? I believe there exists something we don’t know.
By specifically calling out old Christian abuses while simultaneously being vague about current Islamic violence, significant questions about Obama’s leadership in response to terrorism are increasing. What’s motivating him that we don’t know? And why can’t he express the outrage and clarity like King Abdullah?
Respectfully…
AR
What’s motivating him? The same thing that always does – political gain. This is clearly lining up to be a failed presidency. The economy is in ruins, strangled with $9 trillion in new debt, and anyone objective recognizes that his landmark “achievement” in Obamacare is horrific policy. The voters repudiated his party, so the only hope left for a legacy is something with foreign policy, so he’s trying like mad for an historic agreement with Iran, giving away virtually everything at the negotiating table. He shuns our friends and kisses up to our enemies, desperate for a legacy that is doomed for failure.
So, what does this President choose to do? Walk into a room filled with America’s spiritual leaders and offer a comparison no less offensive than raising his middle finger to them. The reaction was predictable – calling him Muslim and un-American – exactly the reaction he wanted. The more he is personally attacked, the more he can rally people to his support. This was not a foolish, spontaneous remark. It was premeditated, cold, and calculated.
History will not look kindly upon the trash heap he leaves behind. My only question is whether going bankrupt or an Iranian nuke will get us first.