Why Is General Mattis Nominating the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’s Stooge’?
 |
| Like Iran: Choosing Fundamentalists over Freedom |
General Mattis is a great patriot but this makes me think he doesn't really have a grasp on the situation we're in. It's kind of sweet, really, that General Mattis thinks we're all on the same team. That hasn't been true for a long time, sadly. There is a front line in Raqqa...but there is a front line in Washington. D.C., too.
I don't pretend to know a fraction of a fraction of what he knows about military matters. But I do know something about this. This woman sided with Islamist extremists over the modern reformers in Egypt, and is hated there accordingly. She would be an Obama informant at the very least.
I don't pretend to know a fraction of a fraction of what he knows about military matters. But I do know something about this. This woman sided with Islamist extremists over the modern reformers in Egypt, and is hated there accordingly. She would be an Obama informant at the very least.
It's not just boilerplate. There's a reason the oath says "All enemies, foreign and domestic'.
No More Morsi-UPDATE: The Secretary does indeed grasp the issues as evidenced by his 2015 Heritage Foundation speech here.
The Federalist: Mattis:“Is political Islam in the best interest of the United States? I suggest the answer is no, but we need to have the discussion. If we won’t even ask the question then how do we even get to the point of recognizing which is our side in the fight? And if we don’t take our own side in this fight, we’re leaving others adrift.” [Not to mention ourselves.-ed.]
"Mattis also points out that ISIS is counting on Americans not having a debate on whether political Islam is good for America. If we don’t examine this question, we can’t create a cohesive strategy, and our fight against ISIS’s self-proclaimed Caliphate (or other groups like them) will ultimately fail.
This is the opposite of what some Islamist apologists and those on the left insist, which is that ISIS wants us to talk about the connections between Islam and violence, in order to make Muslims feel like the West is at war with their entire religion. Then, so the thinking goes, Muslims will turn on the West.".......
He seems to agree with King Abdullah's take that there is a civil war within Islam, and not the Obama view of "What civil war?", a glorified head-fake that only empowers Islamists. Mattis speaks of the bewilderment and anger of educated Egyptians that an educated man like Obama would side with 7th-Century fundamentalists and their unavoidable conclusion that Obama must be an Islamist himself.
(Mattis also relates the story of a captured bomber who asks if he can immigrate to America after he gets out of Abu Gharib, echoing P.J. O'Rourke's observation "Each American embassy comes with two permanent features - a giant anti-American demonstration and a giant line for American visas. Most demonstrators spend half their time burning Old Glory and the other half waiting for green cards." Too bad about P. J., but that's another story.)
So all this makes the proposed nomination even more baffling. Congress should listen to the Trumpian wisdom of Mick and Keith:
"You can't always get what you want."
 |
| ...and not just in Egypt. |
The Federalist: Mattis:“Is political Islam in the best interest of the United States? I suggest the answer is no, but we need to have the discussion. If we won’t even ask the question then how do we even get to the point of recognizing which is our side in the fight? And if we don’t take our own side in this fight, we’re leaving others adrift.” [Not to mention ourselves.-ed.]
"Mattis also points out that ISIS is counting on Americans not having a debate on whether political Islam is good for America. If we don’t examine this question, we can’t create a cohesive strategy, and our fight against ISIS’s self-proclaimed Caliphate (or other groups like them) will ultimately fail.
This is the opposite of what some Islamist apologists and those on the left insist, which is that ISIS wants us to talk about the connections between Islam and violence, in order to make Muslims feel like the West is at war with their entire religion. Then, so the thinking goes, Muslims will turn on the West.".......
He seems to agree with King Abdullah's take that there is a civil war within Islam, and not the Obama view of "What civil war?", a glorified head-fake that only empowers Islamists. Mattis speaks of the bewilderment and anger of educated Egyptians that an educated man like Obama would side with 7th-Century fundamentalists and their unavoidable conclusion that Obama must be an Islamist himself.
(Mattis also relates the story of a captured bomber who asks if he can immigrate to America after he gets out of Abu Gharib, echoing P.J. O'Rourke's observation "Each American embassy comes with two permanent features - a giant anti-American demonstration and a giant line for American visas. Most demonstrators spend half their time burning Old Glory and the other half waiting for green cards." Too bad about P. J., but that's another story.)
So all this makes the proposed nomination even more baffling. Congress should listen to the Trumpian wisdom of Mick and Keith:
"You can't always get what you want."
 |
| Qanta A. Ahmed: "Terrorism is so much more than the final act. It is the cultivation, material support and protection of all the actors. In the propagation of terrorism, the Muslim Brotherhood has no equal and no competitor." And no greater collaborators than Barack Obama and Anne Patterson. |
No comments:
Post a Comment